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.
Yeah, you know, you do make a pretty good point. A lot of my argument for keeping the 2A is based on what if's, but I would prefer not to be on the losing side of that "what if" provided it goes down that way. It's a gamble, and I would prefer not to make that bet. It's like deciding whether or not to spend money on smoke detectors. Sure, I may never need them. After all, a house fire is probably less likely now than ever before. Oil lamps as a primary source of lighting have been replaced, candles are pretty much a novelty item, the majority no longer have woodstoves in their homes for heating and cooking anymore. However, I don't want to be on the losing end of that bet either, so I spent the money and equipped my home with smoke detectors.
Not advocating for the banning of firearms or eliminating for the umpteenth time.
Quote:
FBI data says that crime is at a 30 year low. Perhaps coincidentally, there are more guns in private hands than ever before.
So we are abandoning the Daily Caller article, got it.
Find a study that correlates those two things.
Quote:
Old? Are you implying I'm old? LOL, the misconception that only the elderly are conservatives and are a dying out breed will be your downfall... For your information, I'm in my twenties. And here I bet you thought all millenials were drinking the liberal cool-aid...
Well stereotypes exist for a reason.... plus I thought you were using that username ironically.
I have quite a few non-liberal kool-aid drinking millenial buddies, y'all aren't all bad folk.
Quote:
And by the way, I do read from different sources. This isn't the first time I've been presented with a "think progress" article and I already know they are biased beyond any amount of credibility.
Pot calling kettle black?
Quote:
Actually, no, I'm not. I despise Conservatism as much as I do Liberalism. Both are despicable and neither support real individual liberty, they only support liberty as long as they agree with it.. I consider myself a libertarian.
Still on the same coin. Don't prescribed to any "-ism" but pragmatism. You just end up sounding like a conservative or libertarian or liberal otherwise.
You stumble and bumble around this topic while tossing out fantastical nonsense all the time. You parrot whatever gun lobby 'insert pro gun BS du jour' crap there is.
What the Hell is that? "Surrounded by people that want to 'beheaded' you"? Dude- Stop buying ammo, start going to school. Sheesh. You make every gun owner look bad. Just stop already.
What are you inferring? You engage and become overcome by a verbal discussion 'on the web' so you prefer a belt fed suppressed select fire weapon? Newsflash- the 2nd amendment offers you no protection, expressed or implied, to defend yourself on the losing end of an argument with a belt fed, suppressed, select fire weapon.
Where? Tell me, point it out.. I mean if those so oblivious a fudd like you can see it, please point it out.
Maybe you watch what happened to Danny Pearl..
Hey my voice to text software[That I made by the way] has a few bugs..
It gives me the right to use them in self defense, not in a argument..
Make the case on why law abiding persons should not be able to own Post May 19th 1986 select fire firearms..
Oh, good. So you acknowledge that the world changes. I guess that means that you can see how all the "progress" we've made in the last 200+ years could go down the toilet.
Yeah, it's a conservative article he posted but the finding are based on data from the FBI..... are saying the FBI is conservatively biased? What is the info in your article based on? You'll have to tell me as I wouldn't bother wasting time reading anything with the words "progress" "change" "forward" etc in it's name. It's bound to be a liberal rag.
Guess that depends on how you define "progress"...... I think society is spiraling out of control with every passing year.
Well, the thought process of those 200 yr old dead guys formed the most powerful country in the world, so they couldn't have been all that barbaric.
As an aside, this is why I despise Liberals, Democrats, and anyone from the left. They hate America. They can't stand it. They want to "fundamentally transform" it. They hate our gun rights, they hate freedom of speech, they hate individuality, they hate individual liberty, etc.
It really isn't much a like at all. I have never once advocated for the banning of firearms or the elimination of the right to defend oneself. I can repeat that over and over but it seems y'all just copy and paste your arguments.
Not you, your side does how ever, so why do you stand with them if you do not believe what they shovel?
Quote:
Crime or evil will never be eliminated as long as free will exists so let's stop beating that dead horse. There's no ultimate solution. However, law enforcement, social services, abortions, and education (and prosperity) work far better than "an armed citizenry".
And how would you defend the fruits of your labor?
If you can not defend what you have, would you bother to work so hard knowing what little you have can be stolen by gangs of young, strong men for which you are powerless to stop?
Quote:
It's cute you think you need some writing on a piece of paper to protect yourself from the government or to overthrow the government. Talk about a sense of false security if that's what you think.
That piece of paper is the greatest document that was ever created and has done for the human race then any piece of collectivist crap that has, is, and will ever be printed...
And I think 300,000,000 firearms keep us very very safe..
This just proves how much leftist hate this nation, its culture, its values, its people, and the Constitution.
Quote:
My God! How does the rest of the world not tear itself to pieces every day without a 2nd amendment!
Seriously, not a big deal.
Tell that to the people being murdered, raped, robbed, or being assaulted the world over..
Say that to the 7,000,000 disarmed then starved to death in the Ukraine under Stalin.
Say that to 12,000,000 disarmed the murdered in Hilter`s Germany.
Say that to the 50,000,000 disarmed and murdered in Mao`s China..
To them their choice was a big deal, it was life and death, and sadly millions were murdered for it.
Quote:
The goal is to have a federal policy across all states that will close the loopholes that vary from state to state and have unified regulations and registration. This could be achieved without amending it but instead of writing laws on top of laws, lets make it concise. We can get rid of the silly language about militias as they serve no current function.
Yeah no, states rights are pretty clear on this issue..
So we are abandoning the Daily Caller article, got it.
You'll have to ask gunlover, he's the one who posted it.
Quote:
Find a study that correlates those two things.
Ah, but see, they don't have to correlate. The argument is that we need better gun control laws to curb crime, i.e. more guns = more crime. However, there are now more guns in private hands than ever before, and crime is at a 30 year low. So, while those two separate facts may not be related, they certainly show that more guns does NOT = more crime.
Quote:
I have quite a few non-liberal kool-aid drinking millenial buddies, y'all
aren't all bad folk.
Crime or evil will never be eliminated as long as free will exists so let's stop beating that dead horse. There's no ultimate solution. However, law enforcement, social services, abortions, and education (and prosperity) work far better than "an armed citizenry".
And until law enforcement, social services, abortions, education and prosperity work to make the chance of being the victim of a crime negligible, then disarming or reducing the ability of the citizenry is going to leave them more vulnerable to those people who are working outside the law. Whether that be elimination of people owning certain arms, carrying certain arms, or entirely removing them from public ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
It's cute you think you need some writing on a piece of paper to protect yourself from the government or to overthrow the government. Talk about a sense of false security if that's what you think.
I'm not trying to keep it to remind me. I'm trying to keep it to remind the government, I've already explained my position, and you agreed with it. However I think it's important that whenever someone reads the Constitution they see that amendment and understand that the population has the right to bear arms in defense of themselves, in defense of their families, in defense of their communities and in defense of their country, against any aggressor.
You see, there's an argument that's used, and I'm going to provide an analogy, the 2nd Amendment has never overthrown a tyrannical government. Which is true, now here's the analogy, since we've never had to use our nuclear stockpile, clearly nuclear weapons have no purpose, therefore we should unilaterally disarm, we've never had to launch a counterstrike, so why have them?
Now the reason I don't think I need some piece of paper telling me my rights is because my rights are natural rights, the Constitution does not grant me those rights, it merely recognizes that they exist and pre-date that document. Clearly not everyone sees it this way, which is why it's good that we have it, so that people can read it and see that every single amendment that's in the Bill of Rights does not grant anything to the people, but prevents government from transgressing on pre-existing rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
The goal is to have a federal policy across all states that will close the loopholes that vary from state to state and have unified regulations and registration. This could be achieved without amending it but instead of writing laws on top of laws, lets make it concise. We can get rid of the silly language about militias as they serve no current function.
That isn't a goal, it's a method. What is the purpose of having this federal policy, these unified regulations and registration?
Are you unclear about what I mean by the goal? What precisely are you trying to fix? Because it's not that having a federal policy is the goal we currently have a federal policy, so what is the goal? Either you don't understand the question, or you don't really have a goal, you just think this is a good idea, but how can you know it's a good idea unless there is some specific goal that will be achieved. It better be a good one too with specific evidence that your method will result in clear and measurable progress towards achieving, because, not only are you arguing of undermining the 2nd Amendment, but also the 10th Amendment. Until you present that goal, its really difficult to actually discuss this, because I don't entirely know what it is that you are trying to achieve, and how that implementation can be used to achieve it.
And until law enforcement, social services, abortions, education and prosperity work to make the chance of being the victim of a crime negligible, then disarming or reducing the ability of the citizenry is going to leave them more vulnerable to those people who are working outside the law. Whether that be elimination of people owning certain arms, carrying certain arms, or entirely removing them from public ownership.
That already happens. Crime still going down.
Quote:
You see, there's an argument that's used, and I'm going to provide an analogy, the 2nd Amendment has never overthrown a tyrannical government. Which is true, now here's the analogy, since we've never had to use our nuclear stockpile, clearly nuclear weapons have no purpose, therefore we should unilaterally disarm, we've never had to launch a counterstrike, so why have them?
Because we launched the first one which created an arms race....
Quote:
Now the reason I don't think I need some piece of paper telling me my rights is because my rights are natural rights, the Constitution does not grant me those rights, it merely recognizes that they exist and pre-date that document. Clearly not everyone sees it this way, which is why it's good that we have it, so that people can read it and see that every single amendment that's in the Bill of Rights does not grant anything to the people, but prevents government from transgressing on pre-existing rights.
K.
Quote:
That isn't a goal, it's a method. What is the purpose of having this federal policy, these unified regulations and registration?
Are you unclear about what I mean by the goal? What precisely are you trying to fix? Because it's not that having a federal policy is the goal we currently have a federal policy, so what is the goal? Either you don't understand the question, or you don't really have a goal, you just think this is a good idea, but how can you know it's a good idea unless there is some specific goal that will be achieved. It better be a good one too with specific evidence that your method will result in clear and measurable progress towards achieving, because, not only are you arguing of undermining the 2nd Amendment, but also the 10th Amendment. Until you present that goal, its really difficult to actually discuss this, because I don't entirely know what it is that you are trying to achieve, and how that implementation can be used to achieve it.
Why do you suppose that's the global standard from a public safety standpoint? I guess I was giving you too much credit for critical thinking. A federal system is far more efficient in regulating and of the registration of guns. There are quite a few loopholes that make the "strict laws" in one state weaker when next to a state with looser gun laws. Weapons and narcotics laws are things best left to the federal level instead of a patchwork of state laws.
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).
The rest of the world would not dare to impose sanctions or economic retribution against the US. That would cripple the global economy, if it isn't already in the ****er just because of this civil war we're having.
Very rarely are tank-only units deployed anymore. That's WWII thinking. Any deployment would be hundreds to thousands of tanks backed up by infantry whose purpose is to stop anybody from digging pits or laying mines. Air support, artillery, satellite recon would all be a factor. And the crew has a remote-operated .50 cal machine gun that would shred anybody nearby to bits. (until they ran out of ammo, I guess. But no one has that kind of patience.)
The rest of the world would not dare to impose sanctions or economic retribution against the US. That would cripple the global economy, if it isn't already in the ****er just because of this civil war we're having.
What did I miss?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRhockeyfan
Very rarely are tank-only units deployed anymore. That's WWII thinking. Any deployment would be hundreds to thousands of tanks backed up by infantry whose purpose is to stop anybody from digging pits or laying mines. Air support, artillery, satellite recon would all be a factor. And the crew has a remote-operated .50 cal machine gun that would shred anybody nearby to bits. (until they ran out of ammo, I guess. But no one has that kind of patience.)
In case of riots / uprising, think police, not military.
In case of riots / uprising, think police, not military.
Depends on the nature of the uprising. If it was a mass of people with signs, yes, it'd be police. But if they got violent with their guns that the 2A says they have the right to have, the military would treat them as domestic terrorists.
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.
