U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 03-03-2009, 12:16 AM
 
Location: Way on the outskirts of LA LA land.
3,043 posts, read 7,576,201 times
Reputation: 1830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
FYI how can an opinion strip you of your right?
If the majority of the American citizens want a more strict gun control the American government has to obey.
Or do you also fear democracy?
Or is it more that you fear everything that doesn’t go your way?
I guess change is your greatest enemy.
An uninformed electorate is our greatest enemy. If you lived in the U.S., you would have failed your government class.

The 2nd Amendment is just that, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This great document can't be changed by a simple majority vote. What you fail to realize is that the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. There are provisions for changing the Constitution, but a simple majority vote is not how this is accomplished. The government does not simply have to obey the majority. The government has to obey the rule of law.

 
Old 03-03-2009, 12:19 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,532 posts, read 10,616,771 times
Reputation: 1540
Originally Posted by jdavid93225
Quote:
If you reread what I wrote, you will notice I said "usually." I did not say there were no exceptions.
The word 'usually' is irrelevant.
If ya expect that violence is the only option it will be the only option.
It pretty much is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Quote:
So? There is also such a thing as friendly fire from small arms.
There is nothing worse for a soldier as being killed by friendly fire; that the troops are being mowed down by their own army.

Quote:
If you reread the body of the original post, you will notice that the poster (who lists his location as within the U.S.) brought up the topic of the Constitution.
Are you implying that the US is the only country with a Constitution?

Quote:
Are you saying that WMDs and Machine guns can only be used in a preliminary strike?
No that's what you're saying.
I'm saying that there are Americans who believe that a preliminary strike is a defensive manoeuvre.
Like in American Football where they believe that the best defence is an offence.

Quote:
That's kind of like trying to reason with some folks on this forum that won't listen to the logic of those whose views oppose their own.
Ya mean like American logic?
Cause so far anything the American government has done abroad the majority of Americans only find logical, while the majority of the world finds it illogical.

Quote:
If you lived in the U.S., you would have failed your government class.
Of course I would since I'm not an American, nor do I have the desire to be one.
 
Old 03-03-2009, 12:33 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 24,573,673 times
Reputation: 4813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Of course I would since I'm not an American, nor do I have the desire to be one.
Let me assure you that "we" are very glad you don't want to be an American either.
 
Old 03-03-2009, 12:40 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,532 posts, read 10,616,771 times
Reputation: 1540
Originally Posted by jdavid93225
Quote:
Here is my proposal. I propose that those who are pro-gun do not force those who are anti-gun into firearms ownership. I likewise propose that those who are anti-gun do not force those who are pro-gun from firearms ownership.
I'm not forcing anything down on anyone, all I do is just state my opinion.

Originally Posted by Greatday
Quote:
Let me assure you that "we" are very glad you don't want to be an American either.
LoL, ya care about every little thing I post, even when you keep insisting that ya don't care at all.
 
Old 03-03-2009, 12:55 AM
 
Location: Way on the outskirts of LA LA land.
3,043 posts, read 7,576,201 times
Reputation: 1830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
The word 'usually' is irrelevant.
If ya expect that violence is the only option it will be the only option.
It pretty much is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Again, you failed to understand what I wrote. The word 'usually' is very relevant because it was part of my original comment. Reread it below. I did not say violence was the only option. You are the one who brought that up. This is what I wrote:
"The tyrannical government usually cannot be overthrown without the forceful use of arms."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
There is nothing worse for a soldier as being killed by friendly fire; that the troops are being mowed down by their own army.
I would venture to say that a soldier killed by friendly fire doesn't have much of an opinion about being killed by his own army. He doesn't have much of an opinion about anything at that point. Again, here is what I said: "There is also such a thing as friendly fire from small arms. War is a dangerous business. My point was that WMDs can be manufactured inexpensively." Apparently, you missed the point (the part of my quote in bold type).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Are you implying that the US is the only country with a Constitution?
No, that is not what I am implying. I simply said that since the OP referred to the Constitution, and the poster indicated that he lives in the U.S., it's only logical to make the connection that he was referring to the U.S. Constitution. If he didn't intend to refer to the U.S. Constitution, I believe he would have said so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
No that's what you're saying.
Okay, so that's why I asked for clarification. I still contend that WMDs and Machine Guns can be used defensively, as in my previous example (shown below).

Here's what you said:

"I simply will not, because Americans also believe that machineguns and WMDs can be used defensively which is not the case; machineguns and WMDs can only be used offensively. Next you'll claim that a preliminary strike is a defensive manoeuvre?"

Here is what I said:

"Am I reading this the way you meant it? Are you saying that WMDs and Machine guns can only be used in a preliminary strike? I believe that if the enemy makes the first strike, we will use whatever force is necessary to defend ourselves against that enemy. This may include use of WMDs and Machine Guns. The bombs dropped in WWII were used against an enemy that attacked the U.S., not in an offensive first strike."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
I'm saying that there are Americans who believe that a preliminary strike is a defensive manoeuvre.
Like in American Football where they believe that the best defence is an offence.
Not all Americans, myself included, hold the belief that a first strike is a defensive maneuver. It is however, a good defense, to have a good offense. In the case of individual firearms ownership, being properly armed provides an excellent defense against predatory attacks by the criminal element, because they don't want to be confronted by a potential victim that is armed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Ya mean like American logic?
Cause so far anything the American government has done abroad the majority of Americans only find logical, while the majority of the world finds it illogical.
Not all Americans agree with what the American Government has done abroad. In fact, I am sure that if you asked 10 Americans their opinion on this topic, you would get at least 10 different opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Of course I would since I'm not an American, nor do I have the desire to be one.
Well, there's something we can all be thankful for. At last we agree on something.
 
Old 03-03-2009, 12:59 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 7,012,771 times
Reputation: 3631
Wink "Out Of My Cold Dead Hands..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdavid93225 View Post

Here is my proposal. I propose that those who are pro-gun do not force those who are anti-gun into firearms ownership. I likewise propose that those who are anti-gun do not force those who are pro-gun from firearms ownership.
Nice peaceful and logical concept, jd, but here's "the rub"...

The leftist "We Know Best" crowd, also known, mostly, as DC liberals like Senators Schummer, Boxer, Feinstein, Dodd & Reid, plus many others, as well as our new Prez and his new Attorney General, all personally dislike (hate?) guns and gun owners. Why? IMHO, because they don't want a citizenry capable of actively resisting a tyrannical government.

We gun owners, users and enthusiasts would happily leave the anti-gunners alone. They us? Not so much. Not so fast, bunky!

They want to take them out of our hands. By force if necessary. Via, likely, Barama's proposed new Citizen's Militia. Why else does he want such an expensive and unnecessary new organization? Other than it circumvents "Posse comitatus". Read up on that if it's new to you: Google it.

But I adhere to the Heston Solution. All together now guys... (ana one, ana two...)

Nighty night all. I go to sleep with my Para .45 tucked, nice and warm, nearby.

Last edited by rifleman; 03-03-2009 at 01:00 AM.. Reason: typos
 
Old 03-03-2009, 01:01 AM
 
Location: vagabond
2,612 posts, read 3,479,537 times
Reputation: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdavid93225 View Post
The last part of this quote pretty much says it all. Since this is the debate forum, we are debating the topic of gun control. Having someone post a response that opposes yours is the whole idea behind a debate.

Since some people don't seem to really want a debate, I have a new suggestion (actually one taken from the above quote):

Live and let live.

Here is my proposal. I propose that those who are pro-gun do not force those who are anti-gun into firearms ownership. I likewise propose that those who are anti-gun do not force those who are pro-gun from firearms ownership.
that would be nice, but some people can't seem to stomach the idea of their neighbors owning weapons, no matter how educated or law-abiding those neighbors might be. they are not going to stop until you are disarmed, because it gives them a satisfaction not unlike picking on playground children.

also, you might as well put tricky on ignore (like all of the rest of you should be doing–hint, hint). he wouldn't concede to you that you have two eyes and two ears even if you were standing right in front of him (assuming of course that you actually have two eyes/ears). he is here, as tin said, merely to argue; facts don't matter.
 
Old 03-03-2009, 01:06 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 6,928,626 times
Reputation: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdavid93225 View Post
An uninformed electorate is our greatest enemy. If you lived in the U.S., you would have failed your government class.

The 2nd Amendment is just that, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This great document can't be changed by a simple majority vote. What you fail to realize is that the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. There are provisions for changing the Constitution, but a simple majority vote is not how this is accomplished. The government does not simply have to obey the majority. The government has to obey the rule of law.
The government was set up on purpose to move slowly and cautiously so to keep brash split second decisions from being made such as removing things from our great document. It requires a 3/4 vote by ALL states to change the Constitution. It was the last thing our constituional creators wanted is a government that sways and moves quickly due to the emotional state the governing body might be in that week.
 
Old 03-03-2009, 01:22 AM
 
Location: Way on the outskirts of LA LA land.
3,043 posts, read 7,576,201 times
Reputation: 1830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
The government was set up on purpose to move slowly and cautiously so to keep brash split second decisions from being made such as removing things from our great document. It requires a 3/4 vote by ALL states to change the Constitution. It was the last thing our constituional creators wanted is a government that sways and moves quickly due to the emotional state the governing body might be in that week.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. It takes "an act of congress" to change things in our government. In the case of a Constitutional Amendment, it also takes ratification by the states, as you said.
 
Old 03-03-2009, 01:32 AM
 
Location: Way on the outskirts of LA LA land.
3,043 posts, read 7,576,201 times
Reputation: 1830
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Nice peaceful and logical concept, jd, but here's "the rub"...

The leftist "We Know Best" crowd, also known, mostly, as DC liberals like Senators Schummer, Boxer, Feinstein, Dodd & Reid, plus many others, as well as our new Prez and his new Attorney General, all personally dislike (hate?) guns and gun owners. Why? IMHO, because they don't want a citizenry capable of actively resisting a tyrannical government.

We gun owners, users and enthusiasts would happily leave the anti-gunners alone. They us? Not so much. Not so fast, bunky!

They want to take them out of our hands. By force if necessary. Via, likely, Barama's proposed new Citizen's Militia. Why else does he want such an expensive and unnecessary new organization? Other than it circumvents "Posse comitatus". Read up on that if it's new to you: Google it.

But I adhere to the Heston Solution. All together now guys... (ana one, ana two...)

Nighty night all. I go to sleep with my Para .45 tucked, nice and warm, nearby.
Rifleman, I understand "the rub" completely. The "we know best" crowd wants to rule (as opposed to govern) the nation. They want to create a class of subjects, not citizens. I simply wanted to point out that it's the "antis" that are trying to force their position on everyone, whereas the "pros" are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
that would be nice, but some people can't seem to stomach the idea of their neighbors owning weapons, no matter how educated or law-abiding those neighbors might be. they are not going to stop until you are disarmed, because it gives them a satisfaction not unlike picking on playground children.
It's funny, isn't it? People seem to be fine with "the police" and "the military" having arms, but they can't let their "neighbor" have them... Who do they think the military and police are? Don't they also live among us? In this nation, where all citizens are supposed to have equality, why should the military and the police become first-class (privileged) citizens while the rest of us are relegated to second-class status? Why is it that people base someone's privilege to own a gun on their profession? That's like saying only baseball players can have bats, or chauffeurs can have cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
also, you might as well put tricky on ignore (like all of the rest of you should be doing–hint, hint). he wouldn't concede to you that you have two eyes and two ears even if you were standing right in front of him (assuming of course that you actually have two eyes/ears). he is here, as tin said, merely to argue; facts don't matter.
In case you can't tell, I've rather enjoyed the discussion. It's fun for me at the moment. I kept pretty quiet for the first 100 or so pages, but now, I'm having fun. When it ceases to be fun, I'll heed the recommendation, if necessary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top