|
FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hahaha. nah, but everyday for 4+ years is a bit much. |
Yeah, I came to the same conclusion.
Your brain will seem remarkably clear, in a month from now. I was surprised, anyway, at how quickly my head cleared from the fuzziness.
In your case, this worries me slightly...
:p
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
thats the other problem. whenever i go on a self-imposed cold turkey, i start drinking more :D |
And I turned out just fine!
Drinking will make you more at gaming than a splif/cone will though. Been there lol. Talk about pwnd :/
Edit: Except for Tekken :D |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
...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? |
Who says it has to be "met"? As I've stated before, it's a "right", not an "obligation". Since when are our rights negated if they're not put to use regularly?
And COME ON! The two are linked and you know it! If they weren't, they'd be SEPARATE Amendments.
They were VERY judicious in their verbiage, the Founding Fathers. EVERY word was carefully considered. They were obviously saying that the right to bear arms is about individuals in Militias (formed ad hoc by the people) keeping arms in their private possession for such purposes, should they chose to do so.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Arbiter 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? |
Why is that necessary for YOU to decide? Or anyone? It's there. The Founders said it was "necessary". So leave it alone.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Arbiter ...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... |
There are PLENTY of greater legal minds than yours who DO NOT support that view. The validity of the 2nd Amend. is NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE!
Do you decide when Free Speech is no longer valid? No, you don't. Nor do you have a say as to when the rest of the Constitution is not valid to you.
So please explain to me how the concept of individual protection...whether from one's government, or from a common criminal...is an out-dated idea! That's absurd. ESPECIALLY when you (of all people) should know that by law, neither the Military nor the Police have ZERO legal obligation to save your life.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Arbiter 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. |
Nice try, but therein lies that slippery slope that I'm talking about when it comes to gun ownership; "Reasonable" restrictions. I'll stand my ground on the issue of the 2nd Amend. and not yield an inch, because all of our other rights are ultimately incumbent upon having this one as a last resort.
So we ALREADY have an avalanche of gun laws (restrictions) on the books. Just how far do you propose we go? Your implication is clear; First you attack the validity of the 2nd Amend., then you say you just want "reasonable" restrictions...based on what; Your faulty interpretation of the 2nd Amend.??
This is an old tactic on the part of the Gun Control Movement, and it has cost you guys elections even, because MOST people in this country aren't buying it.
God, be original at least if you're going to debate this topic.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Arbiter 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. |
One man's insane fellow citizen is another's brilliant leader.
These risks come with the territory, but you and I both know that the instances of insanity ruling and abusing the 2nd Amend. are MUCH lower than the instances of prevailing sanity which do not.
Again; It's a risk that comes with the territory. A price we pay for a much larger form of security and freedom.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Arbiter 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 what happens say 50 or 100 years or more from now, should a Dictatorship or Totalitarian Regime manage to take control of the country? Do you think that they will stand idly by and let the collective people change the Constitution back, so that they can over-throw them? Dumb. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
Jesus, Raisin! I wish you would go back to smoking weed, cuz I can't keep up with your posts, lol.
I'll answer your last long one in a bit... |
|
|
| Zharen |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, like we're gonna be implanted with chips.
you kids are idiots. |
You assume too much. Never did I say anything about being implanted with RFID chips. They'll be putting them in our driver's licenses. My state is already planning to be REAL ID compliant in 2009. Do you really think they would implant them in our hands? The religious right would be in a total uproar about that (666, Mark of the Beast and such), and considering that America is still a Christian dominated nation, the govt would be in a huge fight.
As I've said, there's a difference between having your SSN and fingerprints put in a database, but quite another when they have logs about you telling the time you took a , what you watched on primetime, and the density of your fartstank. Again, maybe I'd have stronger faith in my country if we weren't out starting wars and overthrowing governments. |
|
|
| Zharen |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
Australia doesn't have a similar program only because they don't have the technology to do it if they wanted to by mandate from the head kangaroo.
:toocool:
[[[smoke]]] |
:stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yes. and his arguments are much the same as yours. ooooh, evil government![/QUOTE}
I'm not saying the government is evil! Jesus, get that through your thick head already!
I'm saying the founding fathers put the 2nd Amend. in place (amongst other Amendments) because THEY didn't want us to trust our own government. They very intentionally put in place MANY checks and balances which ASSURED that the PEOPLE ran the government, not the other way around.
You're calling ME a paranoid based on a Constitution written by people didn't trust organized government. Brilliant.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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? |
Can't be any worse than being totally unarmed and served up on a platter to either system of government. ;)
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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? |
???
Since when do nukes have to be used exclusively to create mass genocide?
Look, I'm not saying it's anywhere NEAR happening now, or 10 years form now, in my lifetime, or if I had kids, in THEIR lifetime, or even in their children's lifetime!
But historically, genocide and oppression HAVE happened and will continue to happen throughout the world. And one of the things that truly makes our system of government so great is that it was created with the idea that everything that could be done, would be done to keep it's power from being used against it's own people. Why is this so abhorrent to you? You think freedom can be obtained simply by talking nice and playing nice all the time? Sometimes things may get ugly, and the Founders built in another "check" for that possibility just in case; The 2nd amendment.
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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. |
Oh really? How do you know this? Have you got a crystal ball that tells you how the world WOULD have turned out, had things been different?
Why...when I give you examples of how a small group of people with guns can keep whole armies at bay...do you just brush the facts under the carpet with sweeping generalities like; "It won't make a difference!"?? I just SHOWED you that it can, yet you won't admit to it. Lame.
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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? |
Umm, they were ALL unarmed Raisin! Germany saw to that once it occupied their countries. So what's your point? The Germans actually killed at least double this number of humans in total who were unarmed.
I'm out of time for the rest of your post...have to pick it up again tomorrow.
Goodnight Stoner! You should have quite years ago. Your mind had SO much potential...but now look where it ended up.
:stongue:
:p
;)
(You know I'm only ing with you) |
|
|
| Zharen |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Why...when I give you examples of how a small group of people with guns can keep whole armies at bay...do you just brush the facts under the carpet with sweeping generalities like; "It won't make a difference!"?? I just SHOWED you that it can, yet you won't admit to it. Lame.
|
TROOF.
Let us not forget Cinco de Mayo, the day when 4000 poorly armed Mexican farmers stood up against an 8,000 strong French army who had the finest equipment of the time. Small groups can lead to key victories against a larger, overly arrogant, and overconfident army.
Though I'm not saying a Jewish militia could flat out beat the Nazi's, but under the right leadership, and the right circumstances, it's possible. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Sorry, mis-read your post.
So why not fully automatic weapons? Too much firepower? |
Too much risk.
| quote: | | When the right to bear arms was guaranteed, flint-locks were the modern weapons of their day. The idea was to put the average citizen on an equal footing with anything a standing army might be able to throw at them (and actually, that included artillery, explosives, etc.) Now, we are no longer the equals of our standing army, not by a long shot. |
The fact is, as anti-individual ownership people love to point out, that citizens are not the equal of a standing army. They have neither the command structure nor the strategic training nor the weapons training to equal the military, nor will they ever. Why? Because most people don't make combat and combat-readiness their job as the men and women of the military do. It's simply not possible for ordinary citizens to equal that, so your whole line of argument here is a dead end.
The point of the right to bear arms is the effect on morale a resistant population would have on the soldiers of an oppressive army, not some ideal where the citizens would meet that army with "equal force," which has never even been possible since countries started raising regular military forces. Take a look at how urban and guerilla warfare has been able to demoralize and sometimes even defeat occupying armies, even when some of those armies have had far superior firepower and training.
| quote: | | So given that there are more and more calls for disarming the average citizen, wouldn't you say that you have, historically, already been in support of a "slippery slope" of eroding freedoms? |
No more than banning intoxicated driving is a "slippery slope" toward the wholesale banning of alcohol. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
People today love to break down the 2nd amendment into little parts and evaluate with rules of grammar what the "real" meaning of it is. What they should be doing instead is looking at the historical context in which the Bill of Rights was written. Our forefathers had just fought a revolutionary war to free themselves from an oppressive government. They clearly distrusted a powerful federal government and believed that arms should be in the hands of the people to keep their government in check.
The most common argument is that what they were really saying is that those people in a militia have the right to bear arms, not every ordinary citizen. This type of argument again ignores historical context. This idea would be totally foreign to the authors of the 2nd amendment, at the time the document was written there was nearly universal gun ownership among people. In order to defeat the British, George Washington made regular use of state militias and many people who were initially part of citizens militias entered the Continental Army. In our forefathers minds was this clear and fresh example of armed citizens banding together and working towards the defeat of an oppressive foreign power. The militia language in the amendment was used not to limit the use of arms to those in a militia but to insure that all citizens had the right to be armed and those citizens also had the right to form into a militia. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
[...] |
Yeah, to be honest it's pretty clear you're not even understanding the issue at all (not even close, frankly). There isn't much point trying to have a discussion when one party simply isn't on the intellectual level to even comprehend what the other is saying. :) |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
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. |
Sometimes I really think you must have fallen down and smacked your little head on the curb.
Do you HONESTLY believe that armed people will be massacred in EXACTLY the same proportions as unarmed people????
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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. |
Why? You think only educated people who are being repressed are worthy of consideration? The bottom line is; You just think the whole world should be subjugated by their governments and hope for the best.
Sad.
Narrow-minded.
...and DANGEROUS thinking.
Thinking like that is what sent millions to the gas chambers.
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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. |
Of course there is no evidence at this time. I for one am glad we're not even close to something like that occurring at this point in our history. But do you really believe that things ALWAYS stay as they are, for the rest of eternity? Has the history of mankind taught you anything? The point isn't that it WILL happen (it may very well never happen), but rather to keep our system of checks and balances in place so that it CAN'T happen. Get it?
In WW2, tens of thousands of lightly armed Partisans of many nations (Russia, France, Hungary, etc.) tied up hundreds of thousands of German troops behind the lines. There are PLENTY of examples of lightly armed citizen soldiers tying down whole armies throughout the history of the firearms era. There are examples of one man with a gun tying down whole Police forces (not saying that is good, just pointing out the logistical facts).
Yet you keep lying to yourself and to others, claiming that an armed citizen has ZERO impact on the powers of authority. I have PLENTY of examples on my side to prove you wrong, while you have nothing but a lot of conjecture.[/QUOTE]
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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. |
lol...why? Because he's a "Harvard Lawyer"? One of the most liberal schools in the country spits out another litigation-happy lawyer with skewed liberal viewpoints, and we're all supposed to fall at his feet and kiss his ass because HE thinks he knows how to interpret the 2nd Amend.? The man has just as many peers who disagree with him, so his supposed "pedigree" and position carries no more weight than any other aspiring attorney's in this debate.
The NRA has 4 million members officially. It has almost ten times that number of out-right supporters! Half the people in this country own at LEAST one firearm. We are PROUDLY an armed nation. It's what keeps us free and equal. This is not a movement of "extremists" or "conspiracy theorists". It's something a historically subjugated people (like yourself) can never understand. But what you espouse for us, is exactly that which you were historically brought up to be; A Royal "Subject". Lesser than those above you. Culturally, it still permeates your people's thinking. Don't you see that?
Liberal Politicians in this country in recent years have backed off the gun control issue more and more, because it has been costing them elections. I'm glad they're finally getting the message.
It's everything we fought the revolution for to escape from!
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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. |
Yet another weak-ass argument you make...
"Gun Obsessed"? It's interesting how they put it in the Constitution, how they all owned firearms, how they all saw the benefit of how an armed populace could overthrow a repressive Royalty, and yet YOU think they'd be against the people ever being able to do that again if they were alive today? There are numerous quotes from many of the Founding Fathers on WHY they put the 2nd Amend. in place. And as I've stated already, the concept of freedom to save one's self from repression and/or possible death, NEVER goes out of style.
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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. |
You really come off as a moron sometimes, you know that? Who ever said the 2nd Amend. was meant to be the ONLY check or balance? It's the check of last resort! Not the first!
Of course all of the other branches (judicial, legislative, etc.) work just fine to keep order and fairness in times of peace, it's supposed to be that way. It was never intended that every time there was a grievance between parties, there should be a duel on the Senate! Jesus, please stop making such DUMB assertions.
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The fact is, as anti-individual ownership people love to point out, that citizens are not the equal of a standing army. They have neither the command structure nor the strategic training nor the weapons training to equal the military, nor will they ever. Why? Because most people don't make combat and combat-readiness their job as the men and women of the military do. It's simply not possible for ordinary citizens to equal that, so your whole line of argument here is a dead end.
The point of the right to bear arms is the effect on morale a resistant population would have on the soldiers of an oppressive army, not some ideal where the citizens would meet that army with "equal force," which has never even been possible since countries started raising regular military forces. Take a look at how urban and guerilla warfare has been able to demoralize and sometimes even defeat occupying armies, even when some of those armies have had far superior firepower and training. |
We sort of agree here, but I will point out that when the 2nd Amend. was added, it never limited what kind of "arms" the average citizen could have. So it always was intended that they be the equal of their military counterparts. I don't think that they ever fooled themselves in to believing that they would be the equal of a trained, full-time enemy military, but the Founders certainly feared a standing military in THIS country FAR more than they feared an equally armed citizen militia. So the notion of being equally armed in the context of the times and in the context of history, bears fruit.
See, you've already caved to the notion of limiting the arms one can bare. I find that a lot more worrisome than this FBI I.D. system of exiting intel. I don't know why it doesn't worry you more, but that's your business.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Yeah, to be honest it's pretty clear you're not even understanding the issue at all (not even close, frankly). There isn't much point trying to have a discussion when one party simply isn't on the intellectual level to even comprehend what the other is saying. :) |
:haha: :haha: :haha:
I see unwarranted collegiate arrogance is alive and well and the Rich Snob School of Liberalism. ;)
Good luck with your career, you're going to need it, you narrow-minded ass. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| suck my dick donny, you middle-aged conservative halfwit. |
|
|
|
|
