Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I've beaten this to death, but if the government wants to kill you badly, you won't stop them. A drone could fire a missile at your house from a mile away, and you would never know what happened. A tank could turn you into a crater from 2.5 miles away.
yes the government can do that and already has murdered dozens of their own citizens in the USA.
the big difference is, is that US government in modern time cannot and shall not be able to murder millions of their own citizens with nothing happening to them.
the cry of freedom and liberty would be so loud from the people that the government would have no choice but to stand down. I could also see politicians that have given that order to murder millions of other Americans be held in treason of their oath.
Wouldn't you be scared out of your mind if the city down the interstate to the west or east got blown to bits? Face it, you would. Individual Americans have little to no balls.
being scared and not being able to put that fear away in the face of danger is what makes the difference between a coward and a combat soldier.
I can tell you that as a former combat soldier, that I have been faced with that fear. I was scared out of my mind. but I pushed that fear down and continued on with the mission I had to do.
Furthermore, the notions that more guns are more safe is incorrect.
Oh, ok. Now all you have to do is prove that. Am I just supposed to take your word for it or what?
The FBI tends to disagree, as there are now more guns in private hands than ever in this country, and crime is at a 30 year low, so how can that possibly be?
Now, I'm not foolish enough to make the claim that crime is at all time lows BECAUSE there are more guns, but this fact certainly undermines the claim that more guns cause more crime.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 07-24-2014 at 02:04 PM..
Yes, but how often do firearms enable crimes? You can't rob a bank with a knife. You can't equip soldiers with knives and swords as their primary weapons. You can't kill dozens of kids in a school with a knife, because then someone will tackle you or throw something at you.
At least 33 people have been killed and more than 130 injured
in a mass stabbing at a Chinese train station.
The bloody assault at the Kunming railway station in south-western Yunnan
province was labelled a "violent terrorist" attack by Chinese president Xi
Jinping.
And in a country where guns are all but forbidden, no less.
Furthermore, the notions that more guns are more safe is incorrect.
great, now tell us how the great gun control laws in Chicago is lowering the murder rate.
also tell us how any city with massive gun control laws is lowering the murder rate.
please remember that criminals do not follow the law and do not give a rats ass about any law passed concerning firearms. all they care about gun control laws, is that it makes a criminals crime safer for them.
Yes, but how often do firearms enable crimes? You can't rob a bank with a knife. You can't equip soldiers with knives and swords as their primary weapons. You can't kill dozens of kids in a school with a knife, because then someone will tackle you or throw something at you.
I also want to make mention of the fact that people like yourself only seem to want to look at one side of the coin. Yes, we need to look at all the crimes that are enabled by a firearm, but in order to get a true picture, we must also look at all the crimes that are stopped or prevented with a firearm. People use firearms everyday in this country to defend themselves or their families from criminals. Do those instances somehow have less meaning? Are the lives that are saved with the use of a firearm less important?
Even the CDC study that Obama ordered after Sandy Hook confirmed that firearms are used at least as many times a year for defense as they are for criminal activities.
I've beaten this to death, but if the government wants to kill you badly, you won't stop them. A drone could fire a missile at your house from a mile away, and you would never know what happened. A tank could turn you into a crater from 2.5 miles away.
If the government wants to kill you, then they need not resort to drones, or tanks, or cruise missiles.
Send round some people looking like gang-bangers, break in at night, kill your family, they never were caught, the more vicious and brutal it is, the more that it looks like just a crime, if it's clean and surgical well that makes it look professional. Plant a bomb a small one so it doesn't injure the neighbors, bang you're dead, gas explosion. Plant a car bomb under your car, bang you're dead, was a vehicle fault that caused the gas tank to explode the manufacturer is investigating to see whether there needs to be a recall. Drop in some toxin to your coffee from the coffee shack you stop at every morning before work, you can chat with the new server while you're served, 20 minutes later, you're dead coroner rules you died of a heart attack. If any of those fail, well it's fine, because you'll be injured and in hospital, and people die of complications and adverse reactions to treatments in hospital all the time.
However that's all if you don't know they're coming. bin Laden survived from August 1998 to May 2011 while the US government was using drones, and aircraft, and ships, and tanks, and cruise missiles, and the US Intelligence agencies to find him. He was responsible for the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks during that time too and went on a veritable world tour from Albania to Kosovo, Macedonia, Sudan, Saudi, Afghanistan and Pakistan, that's less than two years per country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRhockeyfan
Yep, you can't just use the Founders' original intent to base all laws off. I'm sure they envisioned that arms technology would advance, but I doubt they envisioned nuclear bombs, stealth bombers, and main battle tanks that are basically invincible unless you have dedicated anti-tank missiles or mines.
Nukes, against their own territory, put down the crack pipe, the US would be finished if they used Nukes, or chemical weapons, or biological weapons. Even if they used excessive force and cause massive collateral damage, they're finished. The US doesn't operate in a vacuum, international response would be swift and severe, it may not be military action, but immediate import and export restrictions would be placed, and the US financial market suspended. The US doesn't have enough gold to resupply for very long, when half the population has either become part of the rebellion, or ran off to Canada, Mexico, any international flight before they were stopped, or the hills.
Tanks, tanks are great when they have mobility, without mobility they're targets which is why you hear the term Mobility Kill. You don't need fancy schmancy AT mines to take out their mobility, a well placed pipe bomb will do the trick, even more a well placed pit can do the trick. How is the crew going to repair the track or dig out if they're getting sniped? If they retreat into the tank, how will the effectively defend the tank, that big ol' 120mm cannon isn't much use at close range, and there's limited ammunition visibility and fields of fire? If someone can get to the tank you can start placing explosives with impunity (as long as you're careful).
Once again, we do understand how things have changed, and also believe that things are capable of continuing to change. The conditions of today are not static.
However, as I've told you before, if you believe the 2A has outlived it's purpose, Article V of the Constitution provides a way for you to amend it. Get right on that. Why is that sp hard for you to understand?
What about them? The thing about "modern" times is that they change constantly, but you know that already, don't you? How can you be so certain that our "modern times" will remain forever?
Again, if you believe that the "modern times" no longer warrant the 2A, then build a consensus and repeal it. We don't lose a Right simply because you, or even a majority of people, have decided we don't need it anymore. In fact, that is exactly why the founders elected to establish a Constitutional Republic, instead of a true Democracy.
And your argument relies on society taking a step back.... And your argument relies on what if, what if, what if.....And fear. Why are gun lovers so full of fear?
I'm a man with or without my gun, unlike many on here.
I really don't care about this issue enough outside of giving my opinion on here. Don't worry, you can stay afraid and cling to youre guns.
The 2nd amendment wasn't about protection from tyranny but protection in general.
Quote:
So you are saying that the government as it is today will remain static and will always have these capabilities? The world is not capable of change? You are certain that, 100 years from now, 500 years from now, the world and this country will be as it is today?
You, unsurprisingly, have missed the point. All your arguments are based on the past or events unforseen. We have the ability to modify, revise, or eliminate laws. You are acting like laws are static..... I want laws that reflect the need or issue in which they were written in.
If the government wants to kill you, then they need not resort to drones, or tanks, or cruise missiles.
Send round some people looking like gang-bangers, break in at night, kill your family, they never were caught, the more vicious and brutal it is, the more that it looks like just a crime, if it's clean and surgical well that makes it look professional. Plant a bomb a small one so it doesn't injure the neighbors, bang you're dead, gas explosion. Plant a car bomb under your car, bang you're dead, was a vehicle fault that caused the gas tank to explode the manufacturer is investigating to see whether there needs to be a recall. Drop in some toxin to your coffee from the coffee shack you stop at every morning before work, you can chat with the new server while you're served, 20 minutes later, you're dead coroner rules you died of a heart attack. If any of those fail, well it's fine, because you'll be injured and in hospital, and people die of complications and adverse reactions to treatments in hospital all the time.
However that's all if you don't know they're coming. bin Laden survived from August 1998 to May 2011 while the US government was using drones, and aircraft, and ships, and tanks, and cruise missiles, and the US Intelligence agencies to find him. He was responsible for the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks during that time too and went on a veritable world tour from Albania to Kosovo, Macedonia, Sudan, Saudi, Afghanistan and Pakistan, that's less than two years per country.
Nukes, against their own territory, put down the crack pipe, the US would be finished if they used Nukes, or chemical weapons, or biological weapons. Even if they used excessive force and cause massive collateral damage, they're finished. The US doesn't operate in a vacuum, international response would be swift and severe, it may not be military action, but immediate import and export restrictions would be placed, and the US financial market suspended. The US doesn't have enough gold to resupply for very long, when half the population has either become part of the rebellion, or ran off to Canada, Mexico, any international flight before they were stopped, or the hills.
Tanks, tanks are great when they have mobility, without mobility they're targets which is why you hear the term Mobility Kill. You don't need fancy schmancy AT mines to take out their mobility, a well placed pipe bomb will do the trick, even more a well placed pit can do the trick. How is the crew going to repair the track or dig out if they're getting sniped? If they retreat into the tank, how will the effectively defend the tank, that big ol' 120mm cannon isn't much use at close range, and there's limited ammunition visibility and fields of fire? If someone can get to the tank you can start placing explosives with impunity (as long as you're careful).
What's your point?
This country has enough guns per capita that an outside observer would guess we were repelling an invader or in a civil war. We have above average crime for a developed nation and the highest incarceration rate.
There will always be crime with free will, but somehow most of the developed world has less crime with less guns. What we are doing isn't working.
The 2nd amendment wasn't about protection from tyranny but protection in general.
Agreed, but tyranny is in the list, and tyranny and the quest to control has never been entirely eliminated.
I personally argue that the 2nd Amendment was confirmation of the intrinsic right of self defense against all aggressors. All aggressors may include a rogue government intending to do me harm. That does not permit me to take proactive action to eliminate potential aggressors, only those who have proven that they are indeed aggressors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
You, unsurprisingly, have missed the point. All your arguments are based on the past or events unforseen.
Which is something that has a rational basis. It's very common to examine prior situations both minor and major to fill in details of current events to provide a more accurate prediction. Using predicted future events to determine a possible outcome is called speculation at best, fantasy at worst.
Events unforeseen are a failure of the mechanisms we use to predict future events.
So your argument is, that the arguments used are using normal predictive methods, or the failure of those predictive methods to validate the thought process, which to me seems like a very logical mechanism to argue that change is not needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
We have the ability to modify, revise, or eliminate laws. You are acting like laws are static..... I want laws that reflect the need or issue in which they were written in.
So which need do you see that requires that the government be given the right to eliminate firearms? Give me the goal not the method, what is the overall goal? You're arguing support for the mechanism to achieve that goal, and not evaluating how the goal can be reached. The 2nd Amendment is a limitation on government (and all of the risks that entails), if you make a good enough case that the only way to achieve the goal is to remove that limitation, then you might even convince me.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
