|
FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, and i quit pot |
;fx's;gvhadsfksafd
That decision had better be due to either a girl making you quit or your Government job issuing UAs.
Nobody quits just because.
I'm not even going to pretend like I smoke regularly, because I don't. But quit? Good god, that's like going celibate. Or quitting beer or something equally as ridiculous. I don't even know what I'm getting at here.
But yeah, I do agree with you. ing deplorable how many people are inadvertently or unfortunately killed at the end of firearms in war-time situations, much less domestic occurrences. It's not a black/white subject, but I feel quite strongly about people preserving their ability to defend themselves as well as people taking a very objective viewpoint on just what is necessary in our so-called civilization. I am kind of ranting at this point. Hey, beer. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
fixed
Well, granted that's not really a goal of mine, but I am sitting on an acceptance from Harvard Law already. ;) |
So what? There are lawyers on both sides of this issue who have equally firm convictions.
Like I said before; The Courts so far have made it clear who "the people" are. Who do you think "the people" are? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| HI, I am DONNYBRASCO, and I like to EMPHASIZE some WORDS with CAPITAL LETTERS in order to STRESS that my point is very SERIOUS. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
;fx's;gvhadsfksafd
That decision had better be due to either a girl making you quit or your Government job issuing UAs.
Nobody quits just because.
I'm not even going to pretend like I smoke regularly, because I don't. But quit? Good god, that's like going celibate. Or quitting beer or something equally as ridiculous. I don't even know what I'm getting at here. |
:stongue:
Yeah though, seriously PKC, why'd you quit? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Was hurting his SupCom tactical skills imo
Made him just sit around and worry about how to set up his base so it looked like a perfect rectangle. Man, I ing do that in strat games even when I'm not high. :stongue: |
|
|
| TaylorR |
| you think eye scans would work if i'm rolling on E? :p |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Hey, this is a serious topic here, don't start talking about drugs, TayloR. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
About Gun Control? |
yes. and his arguments are much the same as yours. ooooh, evil government!
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
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. |
and what - you think your evil totalitarian nightmare government is going to behave in the same way as your duly elected one? cant have it both ways champ. there was IMMENSE restraint shown by the government officers, do you think your SS brigades will work the same way?
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
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. |
but where is the evidence that this "mass genocide" would ever occur? last time i checked, your evil government still had all those nukes. if they want a mass genocide, why bother with the army when they can just bomb your ass?
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
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. |
that's in a time of war when the germans had more pressing concerns. if WW2 had not occurred, there isnt a damned thing a poorly armed jewish militia could have done against the might of the nazi regime.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
And you STILL want to argue that SIX MILLION armed people couldn't have made a difference? :rolleyes: |
learn your history. 6 million jews werent all from germany from starters, many came from nations CONQUERED by germany. you tell me why you think a bunch of untrained jews would have faired better than france, poland or the USSR?
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
My point is that had the Tutsis all been armed with guns, MANY more would have lived. |
says who? these people were macheted to death. had the government come to the party with assault rifles, the results would have been much the same.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
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. |
and you keep pointing to 3rd world dictatorships to provide a comparison to the advanced liberal democracies (ie the US which started this whole conversation) and i do not think such a comparison is remotely valid.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
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! |
there is not a single reason to suggest the world's current advanced liberal democracies will fall into dictatorship, nor that average joe's holding guns will prevent it either.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
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? |
maybe i am kidding myself, but no, i dont see the lib decs ever going that way. especially not the US with all its other protections.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
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. |
yes, but like arbiter, i dont think the second amendment DOES say everyone can own a gun. i agree with his interpretation of the statute.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
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.? |
who said i respected the US constitution? for the most part, i really dont. we dont have one and we have a much freer society. i know youre all brought up to worship it, and perhaps in your nation it was necessary, but dont confuse it with being an infallible document. i find static laws that are hard to change can prove to be an immense roadblock to social and political evolution.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
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? ;) |
no. as above.
your founding fathers werent seers and i do not believe ANY of them would enjoy looking at the results of your gun-obsessed culture in 2008. the fathers were merely statesmen, and given how i feel about modern statesmen i find the worship with which americans give a bunch of politicians (albeit full of well-meaning rhetoric) to be mildly amusing.
the constitution and bill of rights, the courts, parliament etc etc etc all do a far greater job at limiting your government than the right to bear arms, and i find arguments to the contrary to be painfully stupid.
@ sushi & halcyon - when you have a problem its time to call it a day, at least for a little while. even if its just to prove you can stop. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
when you have a problem its time to call it a day, at least for a little while. even if its just to prove you can stop. |
Ah, fair enough.
What did you totally forget to pay rent a few times or something? :stongue:
I keed.
I understand. It's why I've not had a drop of alcohol in... uh, like 30 minutes or so. I have willpower. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Ah, fair enough.
What did you totally forget to pay rent a few times or something? :stongue: |
hahaha. nah, but everyday for 4+ years is a bit much.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I understand. It's why I've not had a drop of alcohol in... uh, like 30 minutes or so. I have willpower. |
thats the other problem. whenever i go on a self-imposed cold turkey, i start drinking more :D |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Like I said before; The Courts so far have made it clear who "the people" are. Who do you think "the people" are? |
I was not making an argument that "the people" were someone other than ordinary civilians.
The issue I raised there hinges upon two questions. First, is the clause "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" mere prefatory language with no logical implication for that which follows, or does it qualify the following text such that it does not apply unless the preceding condition is met? And second, if it is not mere prefatory language, then is a well-regulated militia necessary (or even contributory) to the security of a free state?
To my knowledge the courts has not given an opinion one way or the other on the first question, and thus a discussion of the second is not relevant (though I certainly hope it is not necessary, since we don't have one.) The attorney general's office issued an opinion a couple of years ago which suggested it was prefatory language, and I suspect that the court would rule similarly for to do otherwise would essentially invalidate the entire amendment. Though I am inclined to disagree with that interpretation, it is not strong disagreement and I am fine with that position. But I do think it is important to recognize that the realities of modern gun ownership do not reflect the founding fathers' vision of gun ownership in the form of an organized militia, and consequently these rights are lacking both in their ability to effectively defend the free state (if, indeed, they could at all) and are also responsible for significant unnecessary death and destruction in conflicts between citizens.
Overall, I believe the other issue I raised with the amendment (regarding the scope of the term "arms") poses a much greater challenge for anyone seeking to interpret it legitimately. In any case, I am generally not as anti-gun as many people around here. My main issue is with those who make unsound arguments against reasonable restrictions on the ownership of arms (particularly those with potential for causing "extraordinary" loss of life or property in the hands of a small group or single individual), whether those arguments are rooted in an exceedingly arbitrary interpretation of the constitution or other questionable logic.
If Dave the drug dealer wants to steal himself a pistol to make sure his supplier doesn't screw him, that's fine by me. Because, frankly, as far as I'm concerned they can both die in a shootout in some seedy part of town far removed from the likes of myself. But if Joe the mentally unstable anarchist and his gang of revolutionaries want to stockpile assault rifles, rocket launchers, and other miscellaneous explosives, then I do think we might want to intervene before things get out of hand. In general, I would say that domestic terrorism poses a more real danger than the spontaneous decision of our collective governing bodies to transform to totalitarianism, and I think our policies on the ownership of guns and other arms should reflect that reality.
And with that, I am going to grab my four hours of sleep before I get back to helping the U.S. government devise new and interesting ways to snuff out all resistance. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
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. |
The 2nd Am. isn't an OBLIGATION, it's a RIGHT! Just like the 1st Am. isn't an obligation. Just because it's not always used doesn't negate it from EVER being used!
The right to form that militia is and always should be there, as was intended when the Constitution was written.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
...i have a tremendous care for all decent people around the globe....
i want everybody to live in rainbows and sunshine with my little ponies...
|
Mmmm, and do you think that EVERYONE shares your myopic view of the world?
What shall the tree-huggers of the world do then, when those people who wish to enslave their vulnerable asses, chose to do so, as has happened time and again throughout history, and is still happening now?
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
But yeah, I do agree with you. ing deplorable how many people are inadvertently or unfortunately killed at the end of firearms in war-time situations, much less domestic occurrences. It's not a black/white subject, but I feel quite strongly about people preserving their ability to defend themselves as well as people taking a very objective viewpoint on just what is necessary in our so-called civilization. I am kind of ranting at this point. Hey, beer. |
Well, Raisin (and Arbitor) are conveniently ignoring the stats which point to the hundreds of thousands of people who may have saved their life in instances of crime, BECAUSE they had a gun.
But making the gun debate a "crime" debate is a favorite trick of the left. The 2nd Am. is not mainly or even solely about protecting yourself from common criminals. It's much, much bigger than that. And sometimes, you have to take some good with the bad in order to gain then larger advantages of not ever being in a position to be enslaved by your own Government.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
HI, I am DONNYBRASCO, and I like to EMPHASIZE some WORDS with CAPITAL LETTERS in order to STRESS that my point is very SERIOUS. |
You figured that out all on your own, did you?
Like I said in another thread; Weed makes people perpetually stupid.
| quote: | Originally posted by TaylorR
you think eye scans would work if i'm rolling on E? :p |
You may not want to pull away from the light show that the scanner will be putting out. :p |
|
|
|
|
