With gun violence down, is America arming against an imagined threat?

[Mom]

Modern arms are quite nicely protected by the 2nd all of them single man portable and use items of offense or defense... such as them awful assault weapons of mass destruction complete with "assault clips" and sholder thingies which go up.. OH MY!! . But if you consider them "pea shooters" why do you wish to have them banned?



No problem, they have substantial advantages which you are too slow to understand. In military parlance they are called "force multipliers" and it is was allowed the Viet Cong to prevail in Vietnam and the afghan and iraqi resistance to give us fits. With respect to the US Army versus an insurgency supported by a substantial majority of the US population? The US Army would be defeated in a matter of weeks. You just are not smart enough to figure out why. Perhaps if you actually read Madison's Federalist #46, you might understand? Nope, not enough intellectual horsepower under your hood, never mind.

Where do you get "single man portable" weapons only? Are you basing that on DC v. Heller (2008)? Or did the framers do that? And if the framers didn't say that, then why are you letting someone restrict your 2nd amendment rights? Because you're a *****, or is it something else?

It's in Heller. You might do yourself and us a favor and go read the opinion before you sound like an idiot again.

So you're ok with someone taking away a right given to you by the framers? What rights will you not object to losing next?

 

[Spoonman]

Nonsense.

No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. And as with the rest of the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists only in the context of its case law. Current Second Amendment case law acknowledges that weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual may be subject to regulation. See: DC v. Heller (2008).

Moreover, the Framers did not speak with one voice, nor were they of one mind. Consequently, the opinions of a particular Framer must be viewed only in the context of other Framers’ opinions and with the facts, evidence, and case law associated with the regulatory policy under review.

i think the framers would disagree with you which is why they included words and phrases like shall not be infringed, congress shall make no law against. they were explicit that these rights were absolute. What is wrong is that congress has made laws against. rights have been infringed. and that is what you liberal boneheads are too blind to see. you tools run around screaming rights and freedoms and you are the first ones to try to take away someones rights and freedoms if you don't agree with it. Liberals are hypocrites. your posts, your points of views reek of that hypocriscy.

So then why are you such a ***** that you don't use your militia to overthrow the rights takers?

because they have already succeded in what they have been attempting to do, altering the balance of power. liberals allowed that to happen. we have the disfunctional government we have today because of liberals.

You tell me, wh controls who? do we control the government or do they control us?

 

[Spoonman]

The whole gun issue in America is a self-fulfilling prophecty - the more private guns made available to the general public, the greater the opportunities for criminals and "wingbuts" to obtain them!

The greater the opportunities for criminals and "wingbuts" to obtain guns, the greater the perceived need by the general public to own bigger and more powerful guns for their personal protection!

The greater the perceived need by the general public to own bigger and more guns for their personal protection .....

except that the more guns we have out there the less violence we seem to be having. go figure

 

[Unkotare]

FA Q2 -

The fact that it may be legal to build a bonfire in tor bathroom does not mean doing so is either a good thing, nor a hallmark of a sane society.

Who is Tor, and why would you want to build a bonfire in his bathroom?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Who is Tor?

The Norse God of Thunder for persons speaking with a lisp.

and why would you want to build a bonfire in his bathroom?

To pay homage to the Norse God of Thunder...

 

[legaleagle_45]

So basically you're saying that the framers wanted the militia to eventually have weapons that are obsolete against a real army. Got it. So you got fooled by the framers into thinking that you'd have a militia, when all you're left with is pea shooters and moonshine.

Nope, what the framers wanted was that individuals have in their possesion standard issue weapons given to the grunts so that they could become familiar with their use and have them for use in a well regulated militia. The other weapons (such as cannon and warships, etc) were not intended to be supplied or kept by individuals, but provided elsewhere. How many minutemen owned canon? How did the militia obtain cannon back in 1775? Let us take a sroll down memory lane..

In 1775 Fort Ticonderoga was a British fort on Lake Champlain and on the border of New York and Vermont which had several cannons.. Ethan Allen decided to stop making furniture for a bit so he could lead the Green Moutain Boys... now the Green Mountain boys, besides having pretty good coffee, were a militia... the members thereof being armed with rifles and muskets which they personally owned.. unfortunately they diod not own any cannon. Still following me?

Now them Green Mountain Boys (probably while drinking some Green Mountain Coffee) thought it would be a great idea if they did have some cannon and they also were aware that the Brits at Ticonderoga had some cannon. So on May 10, 1775 these dudes snuck up on the fort and surprised they Brits (they had figured out that the Brits probably would not want to give them the canon voluntarily) and captured the fort and the cannon. These cannons were subsequently transported to Dorchester Heights in Boston during the seige of Boston. When the Brits in Boston woke up and saw cannons staring them in the face, they decided that discretion is the better part of valor and they fled Boston. giving the Americans their first major victory of the War.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where do you get "single man portable" weapons only? Are you basing that on DC v. Heller (2008)? Or did the framers do that? And if the framers didn't say that, then why are you letting someone restrict your 2nd amendment rights? Because you're a *****, or is it something else?

It's in Heller. You might do yourself and us a favor and go read the opinion before you sound like an idiot again.

So you're ok with someone taking away a right given to you by the framers? What rights will you not object to losing next?

Hitting the smack a little early today?

 

[FA_Q2]

It is only common sense that the world would be a safer place if everyone had a tank at home.

There is no evidence to suggest that this would breach the civil rights of anyone else.

As it is perfectly legal to do so, you would be right though I believe that you are being smarmy at this time. I guess you didn’t bother to read the last pages were it has already been pointed out that people own tanks and can buy them if they want. There even has been some incidents BTW, though no one has dies. Beside disrupting things for a day, crushing some shit and providing many with some hilarity, nothing has come of those times.


Please point to where the second prohibits anything to be purchased or owned. You might be taken more seriously if you were not planting traps and then springing them on yourself with idiocy.

The second merely protects a right to a certain extent. Beyond that protection lays the ability for the government to effect some controls. That is the point.

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons? Somehow I ******* seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's ******* laughable.

An armed and determined populous cannot be cowed or controlled. You fail to realize that the end goal of a military operation is not to simply destroy everything. That makes the conquest a negative. You want to remove the resistance and then come in and take over the remaining infrastructure and people. If you cannot manage that, you leave.

You cannot take over an area where everything represents that resistance. With an armed population, that is exactly what you end up with.

during the revolution

only 3 percent of the population actively fought in the war

another 10 percent supported the effort

another 20 percent favored it but did little to support it

Your point?

The percentage of people that are on board will have a lot to do with how oppressed the people feel they are and how bad off they are.

 

[FA_Q2]

So owning a tank with all the appropriate munitions to protect your property is ok to you?

Not what I said but as you were trying to ‘trap’ people in what they say you continue to look like a fool. Try and actually discuss rather than trap.

So our conquest of Iraq, Afghanistan are negatives? And we should leave because we can't control the populace? Now THERE, I agree.
Btw, Israel should probably leave too then?

We should have never tried though attacking Afghanistan WAS the correct action. The whimsical things we did after is where the problem lies. Iraq is just a mess.

As far as Israel, apparently you have no clue. They should just leave? Where? That is there home, simple as that and they have nowhere to go. You can’t equivocate Israel’s conflicts with America going into Iraq. They are completely different actions.

If "You cannot take over an area where everything represents that resistance", then why did you let yourself be taken over by that African muslim, Barrack Obama, who protects muslims and their oil, instead of just taking it, like GW Bush in Iraq? Because you know deep down that your simple weapons can't take on the US army and you'd be likely killed early on?

Because I didn’t. We don’t have an African Muslim controlling anything. What we have is an American President (whose faith is irrelevant BTW) who runs just one single section of the government. Far be it from me to destroy your fantasies of crazy people opposing your asinine assertions because that is the only way you can justify your ignorance.

Further, I do not support armed insurrection not because of my fear of the military but because that would be asinine. We are not enslaved yet. We are not hungry yet. We are not being killed in the streets yet. War is ugly and insurrection far uglier. You have to be willing to accept that children and innocent are going to be brutally killed in horrific and painful ways. IOW, things need to be REALLY bad to cause such a reaction. We are not even in the ballpark of needing such a thing. The sad part that you are unable to realize is that NOW is the time to fight for our rights, all of them, because we need to prevent the need for armed insurrection for as long as possible. Hopefully (though history is disagrees) we never have to go through something like that. Hopefully.

 

[FA_Q2]

FA Q2 -

The fact that it may be legal to build a bonfire in tor bathroom does not mean doing so is either a good thing, nor a hallmark of a sane society.

You apparently missed the original point entirely. YOU may think it insane that such things are not outright illegal but our society is quite sane about it and we have no tank or sub problems. Further, as ownership of armed vehicles is NOT a protected right, it is well within the power of the government to regulate and outlaw such devices. I am not surprised that you cannot understand the relationship that this has with the second or what the second actually protects vs. outrageous claims about tanks and silly statements about societies sanity.

 

[Saigon]

FA Q2 -

Understanding your point does not mean that I agree with it. I do understand it. I do not agree with it.

We both know very, very few people will ever buy a tank, and thus they are unlikely to constitute a major problem. If they did, perhaps they would be banned. That is not insane.

What IS insane is that you not only accept but celebrate a homicide rate TEN TIMES that of similiar countries.

What IS insane is that you reject laws that have been proven to reduce suicides.

What IS most insane of all is that you celebrate a system that allows insane people to own weapons.

 

[Saigon]

except that the more guns we have out there the less violence we seem to be having. go figure

Did you mean that because the number of households owning weapons has dropped from 50% to 35%, the violence has dropped?

 

[FA_Q2]

FA Q2 -

Understanding your point does not mean that I agree with it. I do understand it. I do not agree with it.

We both know very, very few people will ever buy a tank, and thus they are unlikely to constitute a major problem. If they did, perhaps they would be banned. That is not insane.

What IS insane is that you not only accept but celebrate a homicide rate TEN TIMES that of similiar countries.

What IS insane is that you reject laws that have been proven to reduce suicides.

What IS most insane of all is that you celebrate a system that allows insane people to own weapons.

That would be insane. Too bad for you it is a complete lie.

We have gone over this. You have failed to prove anything that you demand I support.

You know what is insane: demanding that laws be passed to prevent something that they have been proven not to effect. Now THAT is insane and that is what you advocate for.

BTW: even your statement about what I believe as to the ownership of tanks is false. You don’t agree with something that I would not support.

 

[Saigon]

FAQ2 -

It amazes me how often on these threads posters are reduced to shrieking "You lie!" but somehow cannot quite explain why.

I made three points. Each is based on solid facts.

Which one do you need to see the facts for?

 

[FA_Q2]

FAQ2 -

It amazes me how often on these threads posters are reduced to shrieking "You lie!" but somehow cannot quite explain why.

I made three points. Each is based on solid facts.

Which one do you need to see the facts for?

No shrieking at all. Simple statements. You claim that I not only accept but celebrate a homicide rate TEN TIMES that of similar countries. That is a lie. I do not support that and certainly do not celebrate it. You claim that I reject laws that have been proven to reduce suicides. I have made no such claim and have not commented on anything here that relates to suicide (nor will I as it is trying to side step the main point here). Then you claim that you celebrate a system that allows insane people to own weapons which is a bald face lie.

No shrieking but there is the messed up bullshit of purposefully misrepresenting my positions to make yours look better. That does not help your positions nor does calling those that oppose you insane. Insults make your argument no better than a child’s. You know this so why are you reducing yourself to that level.

They are all lies as you are stating that they are my held beliefs. I have refuted the concepts that you brought up and then you failed to sufficiently defend them. The posts are here and you tend to always ignore them in the end. Changing gears as soon as I point out the fallacies. The last was comparing charts that had no relationship at all but then claiming that the end numbers displayed your point when, in fact, they did not.

 

[Saigon]

FA Q2 -

Insults make your argument no better than a child’s.

messed up bullshit

is a bald face lie.

That is a lie.

purposefully misrepresenting my positions

You know this so why are you reducing yourself to that level.

Insults make your argument no better than a child's.

 

[Saigon]

To get back to the topic, I believe that you, like many other posters here, celerate the US system and the 2nd Amendment. That is how it looks to me.

In doing so, you celebrate a system that costs ten times more every year than Germany's system does. I call that insane.

Based on your posts on this thread, I do not think that mistates or misrepresents your position.

 

[FA_Q2]

FA Q2 -

Insults make your argument no better than a child’s.

messed up bullshit

purposefully misrepresenting my positions

You know this so why are you reducing yourself to that level.

Insults make your argument no better than a child's.

Those are not insults sigon.

They were lies. When you directly state I support A and I don’t, than I am going to call that a lie. Notice I did not call YOU a liar, I said your statements were bald faced lies. Fact, not name calling.

Also, calling an argument bullshit is not a name calling either. I am getting very tired of this tripe.

 

[FA_Q2]

To get back to the topic, I believe that you, like many other posters here, celerate the US system and the 2nd Amendment. That is how it looks to me.

In doing so, you celebrate a system that costs ten times more every year than Germany's system does. I call that insane.

Based on your posts on this thread, I do not think that mistates or misrepresents your position.

Except that you have failed to prove anything. That is the point of debate after all. All you have done so far is state an opinion, post some facts and then ignore the challenges to your suppositions.

 

[Saigon]

My original claim:

What IS insane is that you not only accept but celebrate a homicide rate TEN TIMES that of similiar countries.

Gun-related homicide rates:

Germany 1.24

USA 10.3

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shall I go on?