|
FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
what i find really amusing is someone like you that defends the bush admin's every move, or supports the FBI's database plans, then wants the populace to be armed to protect itself from these authorities. how do you reconcile that? |
lol...you know that's not true. I don't defend their every move. But I don't blame them for every problem out there either, as many of the more liberal element likes to do. I see them being forced in to certain situations that any Democratic Administration might not have been able to react any differently in, would it have happened on their watch.
But I guess part of the reason that I'm not too worried about "1984" is because as long as we have the 2nd Am. right, we'll never get to the point where we have to worry about these perceived Dictatorships or Totalitarianisms taking over in our country.
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ...i would like ANY of you blinded americans to give me an example of the right to bear arms protecting you from the state in the last 100 years... |
We've never had a Dictatorship try to take over in our country. Just because it hasn't happened "in the past 100 years" doesn't mean that we should throw out our one true protection against it EVER happening. That's REALLY a weak argument. |
|
|
| Elec |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
lol@you trying to associate me with the paranoid, Trancer. ;)
Anyway...
That HANDFUL of Jews held off HUNDREDS of Germans for quite awhile. So did the Branch Davidians, now that you mention them. Extremists they were, in my mind, but not in theirs. And to many Government Leaders in this country, what happened at Waco was one of the darkest travesties in our country's history, because it was NOT necessary to go in like that and try to disarm them to make a point...and it was perhaps even a prime example of why we have the right to bear arms; In order to keep the government from trying to squash our freedoms of expression (that's how the Davidian's saw it anyway).
You want examples of how lightly armed peoples can tie down the "world's largest military"? Just look at what's happening to us in Iraq right now. ;)
Are you aware that Switzerland REQUIRES every home to have an Assault Rifle in it? It's how they stay "neutral". It's the "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" adage, and it works! Who would want to invade a country where the populace is armed to the teeth?
Don't you think that if the Jews had all been armed in WW2, that many more of them might have had a different destiny, other than the one Hitler dictated for them...powerless at the hands of their oppressors? How about the defenseless Rwandans who were hacked to death and shot by the millions?
So your answer to your own government possibly one day becoming a Dictatorship and trying to enslave you (why not? It's happened to the best of modern countries throughout history), would be to ban together in a circle and sing songs of peace and love? Good luck with that!! LOL!!
Like I said; I don't care if you want to turn a blind eye to learning about the need for ALL citizens of the world to bear arms, because at least as far as this country goes, you have no voting rights, so converting you doesn't concern me. But you know me well enough to know that I DEPLORE conspiracy theorists, and to at least respect my positions on issues enough to not dismiss them so flippantly.
You are doing a dis-service to yourself, both ethically and morally, when you chose to debate like this. It's your loss, in more ways than one, when you do. |
Yes! pkc, basically what you are saying is "its hopeless to stand up to governments so just give and give in to whatever comes"
And I was about to mention Iraq too in this case. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
lol@you trying to associate me with the paranoid, Trancer. ;) |
well, ive had exactly the same argument with him.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
That HANDFUL of Jews held off HUNDREDS of Germans for quite awhile. |
again, in the midst of a global war, it is reasonably easy for a small band of people to prove problematic for a greater force. but, since we are talking about the US and the 2nd amendment, and the US is far from the third reich (despite what trancer might think) and is at peace in the homeland, i cant see how you think it is possible.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
So did the Branch Davidians, now that you mention them. |
that's just wrong. the branch davidians didnt "hold" anyone off. the ATF & FBI deliberately held off, no doubt for PR reasons, not to mention the number of children in the complex. they could've stormed that place with a riot tank anytime they wanted, but (shock horror!) the state often goes to incredible lengths NOT to harm its citizens.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Extremists they were, in my mind, but not in theirs. |
which is exactly the point. i dont trust your average moronic person with the latest technology for stealing life. im sorry, too many tards in the world, as evidenced by your MASSIVE firearm homicide rate each year.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
And to many Government Leaders in this country, what happened at Waco was one of the darkest travesties in our country's history, because it was NOT necessary to go in like that and try to disarm them to make a point...and it was perhaps even a prime example of why we have the right to bear arms; In order to keep the government from trying to squash our freedoms of expression (that's how the Davidian's saw it anyway). |
its all in the outcomes mate, the right to bear arms did exactly jack to prevent the government from making (rightly or wrongly) the choice to storm the building. so again, how exactly is the 2nd amendment proving safety from the government??
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
You want examples of how lightly armed peoples can tie down the "world's largest military"? Just look at what's happening to us in Iraq right now. ;) |
NO. that's NOT what i said donny, and you know it. i want to know how it can DEFEND against the state. as far as i know (and forgive me if im wrong) the US still occupies iraq, and israel still occupies the west bank. restraint exercised on behalf of the US state is not the same thing as the right to bear arms protecting you from the army, the ATF, the FBI, SWAT etc etc etc.
also, i think you'll find IEDs have had a far greater impact than snipers. do you support the right to bear explosives?
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Are you aware that Switzerland REQUIRES every home to have an Assault Rifle in it? It's how they stay "neutral". It's the "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" adage, and it works! Who would want to invade a country where the populace is armed to the teeth? |
yes, and switzerland has a comparatively high firearm homicide rate too. and last time i checked, 5.56 or 7.62 rounds dont do a helluva lot to tanks or aircraft ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Don't you think that if the Jews had all been armed in WW2, that many more of them might have had a different destiny, other than the one Hitler dictated for them...powerless at the hands of their oppressors? |
no, i think the suggestion is absurd, considering the might of the nazi military at the time. and anyway, for the parallel to be even remotely relevant, you would have to argue that the US today is similar to nazi germany. are you really going to try that? ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
How about the defenseless Rwandans who were hacked to death and shot by the millions? |
right. so the hutus, instead of butchering the tutsis with machetes, would have used AK47s instead. what's your point? and again, even if firearms could have made a POSITIVE difference, the US isnt ing rwanda for christ's sake. weren't you the one trumpeting the virtues of the american state re the judiciary etc?
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
So your answer to your own government possibly one day becoming a Dictatorship and trying to enslave you (why not? |
nope. would never ever happen. supporting the very real costs of civilian armament for some fanciful notion that is so far outside the bounds of possibility isnt particularly honest imo.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
It's happened to the best of modern countries throughout history), |
name a modern liberal democracy (like the US or Oz) that has done so. again, we're talking about the 2nd amendment, you need to use examples that you can relate to the US.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Like I said; I don't care if you want to turn a blind eye to learning about the need for ALL citizens of the world to bear arms, because at least as far as this country goes, you have no voting rights, so converting you doesn't concern me. But you know me well enough to know that I DEPLORE conspiracy theorists, and to at least respect my positions on issues enough to not dismiss them so flippantly. |
but you sound just like them! :p while i think your current administration is an absolute disgrace, i cannot, for the life of me,
1 - envisage the US becoming a totalitarian state
2 - believe your gang-bangers on street corners are going to trouble the mightiest military ever tot grace the face of the earth
3 - support putting such weapons in the hands of cockheads everywhere for some imagined enemy that could kill you all if it wanted to anyway. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter is the man. |
| quote: | quote:
...Not to mention the fact that, if the second amendment were intended to provide an unqualified right to bear arms, then the amendment itself would not have been qualified "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
I'd go so far as to say that anyone claiming that the second amendment grants US citizens the right to own guns is someone that I could never trust with the constitution, since they are either incapable of performing basic tasks of reading and drawing reasonable inferences from what they read, or they are willfully distorting its meaning for whatever nefarious purpose they have in mind. |
LOL! Well THANK GOD he's not sitting on the Supreme Court then!
Talk about "cherry-picking"! Court after Court has held that either way you slice it, the word "people", as in "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", refers to the average citizen. It's an individual right. As are ANY of the times when the Constitution refers to the rights of "the people".
"Well regulated", as the phrase was interpreted back then, meant "well organized"...it DIDN'T mean "regulated" by the government. My god, just what do you think we were fighting for in the Revolution; More oppression?!?
So we have the right to organize militias if we see fit, in order to over-throw our own government if we ever see fit, assuming that there are enough of us on the same page (which by default, would then put the just cause on the side of the majority).
This is basic stuff. Our Constitution over-all is more about protecting us from your own government than it is about anything. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
But I guess part of the reason that I'm not too worried about "1984" is because as long as we have the 2nd Am. right, we'll never get to the point where we have to worry about these perceived Dictatorships or Totalitarianisms taking over in our country. |
yeah. its not the rest of the constitution, nor the bill of rights that prevents that. nor the courts, nor the parliamentary system, nor MASSIVE power and influence of business. its the second amendment. right.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
We've never had a Dictatorship try to take over in our country. Just because it hasn't happened "in the past 100 years" doesn't mean that we should throw out our one true protection against it EVER happening. That's REALLY a weak argument. |
no, not at all. youre creating a fictitious (and incredibly unlikely) possibility to justify something. THAT's the weak argument.
| quote: | Originally posted by Elec
Yes! pkc, basically what you are saying is "its hopeless to stand up to governments so just give and give in to whatever comes" |
are you actually going to man-up and contribute here, or is empty rhetoric and ty (erroneous) analysis your idea of a proper discussion? get a clue and provide proper argument or shut the up with your nonsensical diatribes.
i bet youre a 911 troofer. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
LOL! Well THANK GOD he's not sitting on the Supreme Court then!
Talk about "cherry-picking"! Court after Court has held that either way you slice it, the word "people", as in "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", refers to the average citizen. It's an individual right. As are ANY of the times when the Constitution refers to the rights of "the people".
"Well regulated", as the phrase was interpreted back then, meant "well organized"...it DIDN'T mean "regulated" by the government. |
so, perhaps you could tell me how the gun ownership of average joe even comes close to "well regulated militia". it is obvious, at least to me, that this implies some form of organisation, which personal ownership obviously isnt. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Raistlin, you are both above and far, far away from this idiocy. why do you pursue it? Is it some sort of lurid fascination with that which is base - that which is lewd? Does arguing with the impaired over the internet count as community service in Australia? |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Does arguing with the impaired over the internet count as community service in Australia? |
Actually.... |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
LOL! Well THANK GOD he's not sitting on the Supreme Court yet! |
fixed
Well, granted that's not really a goal of mine, but I am sitting on an acceptance from Harvard Law already. ;)
And just for reference, you qualify as the former:
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
[...] they are either incapable of performing basic tasks of reading and drawing reasonable inferences from what they read, or they are willfully distorting its meaning for whatever nefarious purpose they have in mind. |
|
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I am sitting on an acceptance from Harvard Law already. ;) |
Most pleasing thing I have read in this thread. :)
...or foreboding.
:nervous:
Either way, congratulations are in order.
/kazoo |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Raistlin, you are both above and far, far away from this idiocy. why do you pursue it? Is it some sort of lurid fascination with that which is base - that which is lewd? Does arguing with the impaired over the internet count as community service in Australia? |
well, to be honest i like donny :) but...i dont know! i have this thing. its called not being able to keep my mouth shut. and despite what people might think, i have a tremendous care for all decent people around the globe. i care that thousands of americans are killed each year with firearms, and i just cant stand the illogical justification of the 2nd amendment (though, i do not support gun laws in the US, theyre too fvcked for it to make a difference).
i want everybody to live in rainbows and sunshine with my little ponies.
oh, and i quit pot, so now i need to find something to fill in the hours after work ;)
and hahahaha @ arbiter's "yet". if you ever DO make the bench mate you'll have to let us all know! i'd enjoy following your career :) |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, ive had exactly the same argument with him. |
About Gun Control?
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN again, in the midst of a global war, it is reasonably easy for a small band of people to prove problematic for a greater force. but, since we are talking about the US and the 2nd amendment, and the US is far from the third reich (despite what trancer might think) and is at peace in the homeland, i cant see how you think it is possible.[/QUOET]
pfft..it certainly does NOT look possible anytime in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean that it could NEVER happen, nor does it mean that protecting against it will NEVER be necessary.
The same great group of guys who brought us all of our other guaranteed freedoms...all bound together in a Constitution that has innumerable, mutually protective, checks and balances built in to it...are the same ones that saw fit to add the right to bear arms; The right to speak freely. To Vote. Freedom or religion. Freedom to address the government with grievances, etc. The concept of guaranteed freedom from oppression by one's government is no more out of date today, than it was back then.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that's just wrong. the branch davidians didnt "hold" anyone off. the ATF & FBI deliberately held off, no doubt for PR reasons, not to mention the number of children in the complex. they could've stormed that place with a riot tank anytime they wanted, but (shock horror!) the state often goes to incredible lengths NOT to harm its citizens. |
They shot several agents when they tried to storm in, then they backed off, negotiated for a month, then went back in with armored personnel carriers. I'd say they did a pretty damn well with just a few rifles on hand.
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN which is exactly the point. i dont trust your average moronic person with the latest technology for stealing life. im sorry, too many tards in the world, as evidenced by your MASSIVE firearm homicide rate each year. |
I'll take my chances at being the victim of a random gun crime (which by the way, is about 10 times lower than it is of dying in a car accident), as opposed to being a potential victim of mass genocide.
Historically, MILLIONS more people have died at the hands of their own out of control government, than have ever died at the hands of your run-of-the-mill criminal.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN NO. that's NOT what i said donny, and you know it. i want to know how it can DEFEND against the state....
also, i think you'll find IEDs have had a far greater impact than snipers. do you support the right to bear explosives? |
Well, as Arbitor partially correctly pointed out, the right to bear arms wasn't exactly meant to extend only to firearms. We can already buy gun powder in canisters over the counter here, so in a sense, we already have the right to bear explosives. But you don't see IED's going off constantly here, now do you? ;)
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, i think the suggestion is absurd, considering the might of the nazi military at the time... |
I already provided you with an example of how a few Jews with rifles not only held off a MUCH larger troop of German Soldiers, but they actually managed to kill a few of them too! We're talking about fewer than a dozen people here. And you STILL want to argue that SIX MILLION armed people couldn't have made a difference? :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN right. so the hutus, instead of butchering the tutsis with machetes, would have used AK47s instead. what's your point? and again, even if firearms could have made a POSITIVE difference, the US isnt ing rwanda for christ's sake. weren't you the one trumpeting the virtues of the american state re the judiciary etc?
|
My point is that had the Tutsis all been armed with guns, MANY more would have lived. It was yet another prime example of an out of control governmental perpetuating genocide on it's people....an occurance that YOU think is "outdated" and can't happen anymore in our "civilized" world anymore, so we should all be disarmed as a result.
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN name a modern liberal democracy (like the US or Oz) that has done so. again, we're talking about the 2nd amendment, you need to use examples that you can relate to the US. |
lol...why does it have to be a "liberal democracy" in order to have any merit? Not all countries that even start out this way (or are currently this way) or necessarily going to end up this way!
Look; it happened in Germany (Hitler's rise to power), it happened in Cambodia, in Rwanda, etc...the concept of Dictatorship is alive and well in humanity. You're kidding yourself if you think the danger of it never occurring again in certain countries...or all countries for that matter...is over. Don't you ever read a history book?
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no, not at all. youre creating a fictitious (and incredibly unlikely) possibility to justify something. THAT's the weak argument. |
Hey, I'M not the one who put the right to bear arms in the Constitution for the purpose of protecting the people from their own Government, the Founding Fathers did! I'm not making anything up or dreaming up any paranoid conspiracy theories...I'm just telling you who put it there and why.
You should ask yourself why it is that you find all of their other major contributions to the Constitution so worthy of respect, yet you are willing to all over the 2nd Am.? If they were brilliant enough to think up the concepts that they did, perhaps you should open up your mind a little more and consider that maybe they put just as much thought in to the 2nd Am. right as they did the rest of our rights...and therefor, maybe it has serious merit? ;) |
|
|
|
|
