|
Obama, for the win. (pg. 77)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tranceporter99
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
Thomas Jefferson
Several reasons. Not the least of which is mentioned in the above quote. Do you think the American Revolution would have been possible were it not for personal gun ownership? I am not saying a second American Revolution will happen, but its a possibility. The United States is special in the ease and peaceful transfer of power every 4-8 years, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way. Also, personal defense is an absolutely inalienable right for humanity. |
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: me people from Kentucky are funny.
Amazing how people are so concerned about the need to own guns so the government doesn't them over. Little do they realize we've been getting ed for years already. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Hold the phone, no one is saying that weapons will never be needed again. All anyone is saying is that it shouldn't be as easy as walking to the pawn shop down the street and purchasing a handgun with little or no background check - weapons are far too easy to procure in this country, which I actually think plays well with your last point. |
Bingo.
I'd respond to the Tranceporter, but really Ang and RJT took all my main points. For someone so concerned about context, it seems amusing that he'd bring up Iraq and then snipe a Thomas Jefferson quote from out of thin air.
Borrowed from another forum: "The irony of a well-armed militia as a natural counter-balance to a government gone awry is that the government has gone awry, lied to the people and manufactured consent for actions that have disempowered and impoverished the people, and this government was supported by the NRA crowd." |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
For someone so concerned about context, it seems amusing that he'd bring up Iraq and then snipe a Thomas Jefferson quote from out of thin air. |
Just shows how much people like that have actually thought about it. I.E. very little |
|
|
| Tranceporter99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
Ideally, no one would have a gun and we'd all be on the same playing field with baseball bats and knives. However, that's obviously not the way it would be. But if the government makes it a priority to crack down on illegal guns, we might see a day when cops are the only ones that have them.
Like I said, ideally. |
I thought about quitting my involvement in this thread. You clearly didn't understand, or really care, about anything I said. But you think its ideal for police to have guns but for us not too? Its honorable how much you trust the police and government, but don't you want independence? The ability to choose whether you have a gun or not? In every country that has gun laws, strict or not, that limit the availability of guns, all it does is take the ability for law abiding citizens to get them. Just like a "gun free zone" like a school, church, or bank stops criminals from bringing guns to those places.
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: me people from Kentucky are funny.
Amazing how people are so concerned about the need to own guns so the government doesn't them over. Little do they realize we've been getting ed for years already. |
I am glad you find us so amusing. Also, we are all like myself. Please group all Kentuckians together the next time you refer to anyone that lives here.
I agree, the patriot act and other legislation has gravely infringed on our rights but not to the point of an armed uprising and to be quite honest I don't know if I have it in me to do it anyway. I just want the ability should the time present itself. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tranceporter99
I am glad you find us so amusing. Also, we are all like myself. Please group all Kentuckians together the next time you refer to anyone that lives here.
I agree, the patriot act and other legislation has gravely infringed on our rights but not to the point of an armed uprising and to be quite honest I don't know if I have it in me to do it anyway. |
dude I was joking I have a bunch of friends from Kentucky. Who also think guns are the pillar of freedom. Not sure what they're teaching in schools over there but I'm glad they're consistent.
| quote: | | I just want the ability should the time present itself. |
Think about that real hard. You're gonna go down to the local gun store and get a shotgun and a glock to go up against the US Army? :stongue: We don't fight with muskets anymore man. |
|
|
| idoru |
| A tank will ing destroy whatever you purchase legally. Good luck with the "uprising." Moron. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Absolutely, but I fail to see exactly why allowing such widespread gun ownership is deterring either of those from occurring in a more efficient fashion than democratically decided legislature - there's a reason the U.S. is one of very few first world countries left with such liberal gun laws. |
The Constitution provided for both the right to bear arms and a democratically decided legislature, so obviously some people found it necessary to have both.
| quote: | | That first bit seems like little more than nitpicking. And as far as the motives changing, well I guess I'd just relate that to context as well - I don't particularly see how the threat the initial colonists faced from the English is at all relevant today. |
Things change quickly in 10 years, which was the point I was making with the Germany analogy. As far as relevant threats - what exactly has changed? We aren't a colony now, but then again, neither was France at roughly the same time, and they needed weapons to change their government.
| quote: | | That's certainly an extreme analogy if ever there was one, but perhaps it's apt. I'd like to hear how you think something like that is brewing right now, however - WW2 and the rise of the Nazi party had a lot more going on in it than just the disarming of a population - there are an almost infinite number of variables that led to the situation you described, not the least of which was the fact that the rest of the world effectively on Germany following the first world war, leaving them with little option beyond a totalitarian dictatorship. I'm not saying it was right, I am however saying I understand where it came from - and that I don't really see even remotely similar circumstances existing today. |
I'm not saying that something like that is brewing now. The problem is that once you disarm a population and cut gun manufacturers to the 2-3 companies that would produce for law enforcement, the damage is done.
I completely agree that the Nazi party was doing a lot more in the lead up to Hitler and WWII than disarming the populace. They were able to manipulate a great deal of the German population into agreeing with everything that they were doing. I will say, though, that rounding up the Jews, gays, and handicapped and putting them into concentration camps would have been a lot more difficult if guns hadn't been removed from the citizens.
The point was that a disarmed populace makes objectives like theirs quite easy to obtain. That hits back on the previous point about disarming a population and how it's not possible to return once you've shut down the factories and removed all the existing stock from circulation.
| quote: | | Hold the phone, no one is saying that weapons will never be needed again. All anyone is saying is that it shouldn't be as easy as walking to the pawn shop down the street and purchasing a handgun with little or no background check - weapons are far too easy to procure in this country, which I actually think plays well with your last point. |
Ang ' ela_ie wants to see a world where only cops have guns, which to me is worse than no one having weapons for the reasons mentioned above. It's a bad situation when power goes constantly unchallenged because people who are dangerous with power will find a way to obtain it.
As far as I'm aware, I thought that every state required a background check to purchase a handgun from a pawn shop. I could be wrong, as I'm not as up to date on current gun laws since I haven't needed to buy one lately. The gun show situation is another issue.
| quote: | | You're probably right - but isn't harm reduction in general part of the motivation for repealing the second amendment? How many "accidental" incidents occur with guns every year could be prevented without them? |
I've known countless people who own weapons throughout my life. I grew up shooting a BB gun when I was probably 7-8 and was shooting a .22 at targets when I was 10. My school was off for the first day of the 2 deer seasons each year so that kids could go hunting. I've never known anyone whose had a major accidental incident. The closest that I can think of is when my dad's 30-06 misfired and when he tried to eject the shell, it went off, blowing up the action of the rifle right next to his face. I've known more people who have been damaged by machinery malfunctions or accidents with meat grinders or power saws, than have been injured by guns.
One thing you tend to see with NRA people is that most of them have had significant mentoring on gun safety, whether from parents teaching or from gun safety classes. It's usually not the people who are active in the fight to protect gun rights that you read about in the papers.
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
A tank will ing destroy whatever you purchase legally. |
Not true. You can get a .50 caliber BMG legally in this country. They have been used to hit tanks, as they're quite accurate and the shell is about 6 inches long.
That said, it is getting to the point where we've allowed the government to own far superior weaponry than civilians. I don't really think that's a good thing, as it's erased much of the balance intended by the 2nd Amendment.
Also, it's not as though the colonists owned the cannons during the Revolutionary War. What guns allowed, though, was for civilians to capture those weapons so that they could be used. |
|
|
| Tranceporter99 |
Exactly, all of that was very well put, better than I could have anyway.
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Not true. You can get a .50 caliber BMG legally in this country. They have been used to hit tanks, as they're quite accurate and the shell is about 6 inches long.
That said, it is getting to the point where we've allowed the government to own far superior weaponry than civilians. I don't really think that's a good thing, as it's erased much of the balance intended by the 2nd Amendment.
Also, it's not as though the colonists owned the cannons during the Revolutionary War. What guns allowed, though, was for civilians to capture those weapons so that they could be used. |
I wouldn't by any means want a 2nd revolution or civil war, but if it were to happen, its plausible to say that a rebellion could be pretty successful if you take the insurgency in Iraq as an example. You add in the fact that any government wouldn't fire any sort of missiles on its own soil and the significant morale loss considering the troops will be shooting at Americans instead of foreign terrorists and you have a pretty even playing field.
Improbable hypothetical situations aside, to my original point. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both are huge threats to a central part of our constitution. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tranceporter99
I wouldn't by any means want a 2nd revolution or civil war, but if it were to happen, its plausible to say that a rebellion could be pretty successful if you take the insurgency in Iraq as an example. You add in the fact that any government wouldn't fire any sort of missiles on its own soil and the significant morale loss considering the troops will be shooting at Americans instead of foreign terrorists and you have a pretty even playing field. |
You're not helping. Americans are not going to side with you if you invoke Iraq as a model.
BTW, the government would fire missiles on it's own soil We did in 1865.
| quote: | | Improbable hypothetical situations aside, to my original point. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both are huge threats to a central part of our constitution. |
Pick which rights you'd like to lose first. Republicans are knocking away at more than just 1 of the amendments. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tranceporter99
I wouldn't by any means want a 2nd revolution or civil war, but if it were to happen, its plausible to say that a rebellion could be pretty successful if you take the insurgency in Iraq as an example. You add in the fact that any government wouldn't fire any sort of missiles on its own soil and the significant morale loss considering the troops will be shooting at Americans instead of foreign terrorists and you have a pretty even playing field. |
The insurgents in Iraq don't use guns. They use IED's and improvised explosives. That was my point when you brought Iraq into this conversation the first time.
| quote: | | Improbable hypothetical situations aside, to my original point. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both are huge threats to a central part of our constitution. |
So is the UN - it's coming to take your guns away from you!!!
Lol, anybody who thinks that the gun control debate in this country is about taking away the ability to own guns is missing the point comically. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Ideally, gun crimes should be punished more severely, acting as a deterrent. If you make the cost of committing a crime greater than the benefit, you'd wipe out a good deal of the problems. |
Exactly, this is where we need to go. Gun control only takes weapons out of the hands of people who obey laws. Strict penalties for using guns in the commission of crimes is the direction we need to go. This punishes the use of a gun for an illegal purpose. I personally feel that the penalties we have for the use of guns in crimes right now are far too lenient.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
The insurgents in Iraq don't use guns. They use IED's and improvised explosives. That was my point when you brought Iraq into this conversation the first time.
|
The point I think he is trying to make (albeit very poorly) by bringing up Iraq is that all the really fancy weapons the US military has like tanks, cruise missiles, satellite guided bombs, stealth aircraft, etc are most effective when fighting a conventional war against another standing army. History has shown time and time again that when a far less well armed force using guerilla tactics fights against a well equipped army with lots of fancy modern weapons most of the better equipped force's advantage is wiped out by the fact that in order to kill the guerillas they have to fight using their tactics. It doesn't much matter if you have fancy bombs or missiles if the other side doesn't have anything to bomb. It doesn't really matter if you have tanks or armored vehicles if you have to get out of them and search house to house on foot to look for insurgents. After what has happened in Iraq you can bet your ass that any future insurgency will use not only guns but some type of IEDs, no matter how crude they might be. They are not really that hard to construct. An insurgency isn't about winning battles and holding territory, it is about wearing the other side down and causing enough casulties to erode popular support for the war, forcing the occupying force to withdraw from the conflict. |
|
|
| Alex |
Ya, and believe it or not it has a lot to do with which country occupies the other.
The USA have never been all that great at being an occupation force since WWII, (IE: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq).
It's not their fault, it's an impossible situation given the USA considers human rights important and doesn't simply exterminate millions of people in order to take full control of a country, like many other nations on this earth would if it meant victory.
I can assure you that if China ever tried to occupy Taiwan for instance, and guerilla warfare broke out, there would be a nasty response from the chinese in the form of many thousands (millions?) of deaths of any "suspected" militants. Where as with the USA, if they just went in and started executing civilians in the street just because they THOUGHT they were rebels, en mass, there would be an uproar internationaly and the USA's reputation would be forever tarnished. |
|
|
|
|
