The right to bear arms
Offline I couldn't agree more. The 2nd Amendment must be changed to suit the times. Allow for a single bolt action rifle and a single shot revolver with a small amount of ammo. If you need more, then go to the armory to get the weapon and ammo so you can go hunting or fire at the shooting range. No more vast amounts of ammo and weapons. No more automatic weapons. If you are a collector, then weapons should be unable to fire and disabled. Finally, there should be laws against buying pieces of weapons individually and then putting the weapon together piece by piece.
- Login to post comments
Offline
I'm not the one getting all fanatical and paranoid that people are going to take my gun collection away.
New York governor Cuomo stated in a radio interview from Albany's WGDJ-AM that:
"Confiscation is an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option, keep your gun but permit it."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336373/cuomo-confiscation-could-be-an-option-eliana-johnson#
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/cuomos-plan-for-assault-weapons-ban-could-include-confiscation/article7081877/
Digital, last time I checked Andrew Cuomo is Governor of the State of New York ...which is in America.
Obvious you are filled with straw, man.
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
- Login to post comments
Offline digitalbeachbum wrote:
I'm not the one getting all fanatical and paranoid that people are going to take my gun collection away.
New York governor Cuomo stated in a radio interview from Albany's WGDJ-AM that:
"Confiscation is an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option, keep your gun but permit it."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336373/cuomo-confiscation-could-be-an-option-eliana-johnson#
Digital, last time I checked Andrew Cuomo is Governor of the State of New York ...which is in America.
digitalbeachbun wrote:Obvious you are filled with straw, man.
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Or you could have just quoted Digitals own OP back to him...
I couldn't agree more. The 2nd Amendment must be changed to suit the times. Allow for a single bolt action rifle and a single shot revolver with a small amount of ammo. If you need more, then go to the armory to get the weapon and ammo so you can go hunting or fire at the shooting range. No more vast amounts of ammo and weapons. No more automatic weapons. If you are a collector, then weapons should be unable to fire and disabled. Finally, there should be laws against buying pieces of weapons individually and then putting the weapon together piece by piece.
Sounds to me like Digital is proposing that we take away peoples gun collections or at least ban collecting more guns. Ironic that he proposes it in one post and then calls you paranoid for believing that is what people want to do inside the same thread.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Some interesting data there. I only had time to quickly scan it this morning so I may have missed some pertinent data but I noticed 20 something women hung for being witches, some guy who poked his wife's eyes out with a stick, infanticide being a problem among female colonialists, etc. I only read one instance of a firearm being specifically mentioned ( a musket ) to shoot someone.
So I wonder, was it gun control laws, mental health checks, waiting periods, gun-free zones, etc that produced this effect ?
Sorry I don't have time to look up a witty gif in reply. My apologies.
The point was that violent crimes back then are nothing compared to today. You don't have people walking in to a mall or a school in 1776 with a fully automated musket shooting 20 people.
The Freedom Group, the group which makes the Bushmaster, sold 1.2 million guns last year with over 2 billion rounds of ammo. WTF?
Where the fuck are all these guns going to? in ten years that 12 million guns and 20 billion rounds of ammo from ONE company. Do we even have that many deer and elk in the world to shoot? Where is all this shit going to?
LOL
You are a frustrating individual.
I don't want to take away your right to have guns. I believe you should have the right to have the privilege to own guns.
But you will never see my side of things. You are blinded by the propaganda that people like me want to take away your rights. It's the reason why people like this cause me to be an advocate for gun control.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html
These are the people we need to control.
I have researched personal websites of gun enthusiast and I'm not shocked at what I found. People who are fanatical about guns are literally willing to kill innocent people if gun control is enacted. WTF? Do you support this kind of view? Are you one of these crazy people who put guns and the right to own guns above human lives?
I consider myself in support of the Second Amendment, but open to reasonable solutions and regulation.
I'll take a whack at trying to explain the reasoning you’re seeing... or at least a potential line of reasoning.
In the USA there is an assumption made of the "natural rights" of an individual, these rights are defined as a means to support individualism, and the primary vehicle to resist oppression, not just at a physical level (The Government), but an ideological one. The thought being that the first line of defense against an oppressive government, in a democracy, is to propagate a philosophy that doesn't allow for the sacrifice of liberty. Meaning, we as a society will never face an oppressive government, if we do not allow a mindset that affords such a device, this device being a utilitarian adaption, to this ideology, where security and happiness out weight individualism and liberty, in this case.
An individual, who operates from this line of reasoning, placing individualism as inherit right, holds the potential to see a revocation of their right, to self-defense, as a revocation of all their rights. The thought being, what rights do you have if you can't defend them? The justification to kill being seen as a means to defend, one owns right to life, as well as all other rights associated to this ideology.
The question then becomes are you willing to take the guns and put all human lives in jeopardy?
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
I too am a supporter of the 2nd amendment, but their are flaws which need to be fixed. Also, not to forget mentioning the State of Florida which needs to have their rules and regulations improved.
I understand what you have said, but their must be a balance between the rights of the few and the rights of the many.
Yeah background checks sometimes come up with false positives and upon further investigation the problem is corrected. Obviously it doesn't do what it was meant to do. All us gun nuts told you how poorly it would work before it was passed. Hardened criminals don't buy guns from places that do background checks. Do you propose a law that would be more effective? So far everything I have heard would only effect law abiding citizens, just like Brady.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
There is a way to amend the Constitution, feel free to try. Who is preventing it? The majority of your fellow citizens.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Much the same was said of the British Empire in the 1700's. Certainly such a revolt would require much more than just Texas, and it would help if the country was already collapsing, say for example its debt exceeded gdp... Difficult is not impossible and no country can survive forever. Whether the collapse comes from revolt or other factors, it is better for law abiding citizens to be armed when police power fails.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Yes, so you can go all the way back to civil war. Because peaceful transitions of power are boring and you simply MUST be able to mow down a class of children with an automatic from 20 metres away.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It has never turned out well for any army to fight a guerilla war against civillian snipers. Having an armed populace is a deterrent.
The problem in the USA we have to worry about is the government going bankrupt, then they won't be able to pay the police and military to keep the peace. Then we'll have warlords trying to eliminate any populace that resists their attempt at control.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Delusions. This isn't the 1940's. Put civilian snipers up against a 1st world military and I'll show you a bunch of dead snipers, who got 1 shot off, if they were lucky and the military did absolutely no recon.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
What would be that median value? How many deaths are allowed per year, where guns are involved, before those opposed will settle? When would the many feel happy and secure?
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
The last few civilian snipers we had got off far more than one shot. For example, the Beltway Snipers managed to pull off 15 attacks, despite having them in the most protected area (and area with the most gun control) of our country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks
Anyone who has actually served in the military will tell you than dealing with an enemy who easily blends in with the civilian population is an absolute nightmare, no matter how advanced your intelligence service is. It is precisely why the US, with the most advanced military in the world, has struggled for so long against the backward country of Afghanistan.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Apples and oranges again. No comparison between 3rd world countries and first world countries. 15 attacks against civilian targets in hardly well defended areas with perfectly legal weapons where the military is not involved is not a revolution in the making. And wasn't very impressive.
You've struggled in afghanistan and other countries because you are stupid and think you can just walk into someone elses home and be welcomed. A vast majority passively resist you, and the remainder kick you as often as they can. That's their job when invaders are on the streets.
Never happen in a 1st world nation, unless the country was already collapsing, as I already laid out.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Here's a question I don't know the answer to:
Have there been successful Guerrilla uprisings that have not been supported with arms by an external nation?
Anyone know?
I don't believe there was any foreign assistance in the Boer Wars in South Africa (except for the assistance given to Britain). While the Boers lost the war, they did end up with favorable terms that gave them many of the things that led to the initial war. However, the modern political reality is that any war is going to gain the attention of global powers and they will support one side or the other (or both). It is hard to imagine that any kind of uprising in a first world country wouldn't lead to both sides getting significant support from foreign powers.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
And in a revolutionary example you have 14 million people actively killing the government soldiers(based on 4.5% of the population actively fighting, the same percentage that fought at any one time during our revolution) plus you have a much larger number of people who are offering passive resistance and supporting the revolutionaries directly or indirectly. That would be a serious threat to any first world military. Like I said, it would be difficult, but then you also have the reality that first world militaries are voluntary and many of the soldiers would refuse to attack citizens, especially using the strongarm tactics required to deal with that type of warfare. To claim that such a revolution would be "impossible" is extremely naive. If you have 20% of a population that has decided revolution is necessary, it is a threat to any government no matter how fancy their military is. There is no such thing as an unbeatable military.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Are you one of those crazy Marines who assassinates US Presidents ?"
Obvious straw man is obvious.
My point exactly. The fear some of these nutsacks project that "we need a stockpile of weapons in case the government turns in to a dictatorship" is a bullshit arguement.
You forgot world-wide-epidemic.
One person, infected with a really contagious virus, could wipe out 2/3rds of the world population in less than a week.
I was in high school when the Brady bill was passed. I didn't have a clue about gun control or anything else beyond getting laid and getting drunk at that age. Now I see what a fucked up bill it was because it didn't focus on the problem of "crazy people getting guns". Yeah, it worked some time but it was too narrow to really do any protection.
I still propose that gun owners get tested as often as I get tested for my real estate license, not this 7 years, pay a $65 fee and there ya go!
If I have to bust my ass to get my license renewed for my job, then people who are handling dangerous weapons need to be tested more often and more strenuously.
No.. the minority, the NRA, the lobbyists, the gun manufactures, the money.
So people who represent the minority should just bend over and take it in the ass ...to satisfy the majority ? Being in the majority does not sanctify one's point of view.
Mob rule is another way the majority manifests itself.
"Unrestrained democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat."
If the majority of American wanted to revert back to using blacks as slave labor would that make it right ?
Are you a doomsday prepper?
Yeah that "law abiding citizens" goes right out the window.. didn't you ever see "The Road"?
This seems more possible than all other scenarios. The "warlord" aspect is very typical in smaller, lesser countries. The rich form their own militias then rape, pillage, murder and steal from the weak. When do you see "warlords" build hospitals, schools and help the poor?
You are always going to have accidents, but I would like to see extremely strict laws punishing the people who commit crimes. The entire "gun control" story actually has other aspects which I don't hear the media talking about: 1) education - not just for handling weapons but for people who are young and deciding that selling drugs and being in a gang is better than going to college. 2) jobs - put people to work, idle hands and minds are killers 3) make automatic weapons illegal along with large capacity drums and magazines.
My question is, how many deaths will it take before people start to realize that the NRA and manufactures are in this for profit and not to protect the public.
I'm reading "Killing Pablo" about the Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar. He was a billionaire, possessed his own militias to murder his rivals and other enemies, and raped and stole ( and kidnapped ) with utter impunity.
He also built, soccer fields, hospitals, helped the poor peasants in Medellin and was basically worshiped by the Colombians as a folk hero. So, yeah the ultra corrupt sometimes engage in philanthropy.
The issue of one sniper (The Beltway Sniper) is similar but different than Afghanistan or Vietnam.
In cases where the military has had snipers in Afghanistan the snipers rarely get away. Air superiority rules.
The problem in Afghanistan is not snipers, its the same problem as Vietnam, which was not knowing who to shoot. The enemy was your friend by day and your enemy at night.
I'm all for drone strikes. They work and provided intel is stable then you avoid killing civilians. You need a smaller number of boots on the ground and thus save money and lives.
I'm not the one getting all fanatical and paranoid that people are going to take my gun collection away.
I'm not the one going around threatening to kill people if they try to take my gun away.
Obvious you are filled with straw, man.
Why do you think the NRA is the largest lobbying organization in DC in terms of sheer number of members? The NRA is so powerful precisely because of the number of people who support them and their endorsement (or lack thereof) has power.
Kind of but mostly by accident. I enjoy being self sufficient so I live a lifestyle where I would easily be able to provide for myself whatever happens to society. Mostly because I enjoy providing for myself rather than any real fear that everything is going to collapse.
No I haven't seen "The Road", perhaps you should rely on something other than movies to learn from. They usually don't reflect reality.
For example,
Virtually all warlords build hospitals, schools and provide other governmental services. Those who don't quickly lose power and are overthrown. Warlords are often viewed favorably by large portions of their population. Hitler is widely recognized for completely revolutionizing the idea of public works and recognized for building an incredible amount of infrastructure for Germany in a very short time frame. Don't believe everything you see in movies.
1 & 2, yes high crime is strongly correlated with low education and poverty/lack of jobs. Those are good areas to focus on for their own sake and reducing crime is certainly a bonus.
3. How many crimes are committed each year with automatic weapons and large capacity drums or magazines? Please provide evidence.
3a. How does banning an item that is virtually never used in crimes help lower the crime rate?
3b. Do you have any idea what the process is that you have to go through to legally purchase an automatic weapon? For all practical purposes they are banned for all but the most patient and ardent gun nuts.
Exactly my point, you have the exact same problem in the case of a revolution- how does the government differentiate between civilians and revolutionaries? Especially when in the case of any serious attempt at a revolution a certain number of people in the military will side with the revolutionaries, you don't know if the guy next to you is on your side or not. A nightmare for any soldier. And how does air superiority help? The fact is that drone strikes lead to a lot of civilian deaths- a lot more than boots on the ground.
In the case of a revolution against the US government I suspect that any significant use of drone strikes would cause many civilian deaths which would create more anger against the government and support for the revolution since the people themselves would face the prospect of being collateral damage personally. It is easy for you to sit on your ass behind a computer thousands of miles away and cheer for airstrikes. If that airstrike happened in your neighborhood to take out some revolutionary and some innocent neighbor that you knew or perhaps had kids that went to the same school as yours got caught in the blast I suspect you would be whistling a different tune.
Drone strikes have their place, but I believe when they are relied upon too much they can have a detrimental effect because it is impossible to conduct such strikes without accidentally killing civilians.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
New York governor Cuomo stated in a radio interview from Albany's WGDJ-AM that:
"Confiscation is an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option, keep your gun but permit it."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336373/cuomo-confiscation-could-be-an-option-eliana-johnson#
Digital, last time I checked Andrew Cuomo is Governor of the State of New York ...which is in America.
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.