34 replies to this topic

[shakey]

SupportGeek, on 20 December 2012 - 23:40, said:

Actually It wasnt JUST written because America had no army, that was one purpose, it was also to have a Militia available in case it was needed in event of a grave emergency. While the US has never had to call on the unorganized militia, in recent times, a country we all know and love has. In WWII after Dunkirk, under threat of invasion the UK called up ordinary citizens to form a "Home Guard" and at the time, the biggest problem for this group was a lack of weapons, most had nothing more than pitchforks and broomsticks. At the time, the army had absorbed the entire output of the weapons factories to re-equip an army that had lost everything in Europe. While not invaded, it often still fell to Home Guard to hunt down German Fighter pilots and capture them, who were often better equipped than they were.
Given this, its certainly not impossible that the US may need to call on the civillian militia.

As for the second part of your claim, *I* am not endangering lives, neither are any law abiding gun owners, your statement is nothing more than pure fantasy and fear mongering, I cant even give credit to it for attempting to paint me as an "evil" gun owner its so much nonsense.



Did I make that statement? He made the claim they wouldnt though.



Highly unlikely that was me, I dont believe in the Bible, it has some nice stories in it with interesting lessons, but its no different than any other morality story.
Are you saying that the Bible, something that has no force of law, and certainly not drawn up by the leaders of any country is equivelant to the founding documents of the country, which is backed by the executive and judicial branches at the very least? Apples to oranges bud.

You missed his point. He's saying that while you cling to say, "It's part of this paper that we can have guns", it is just as silly as those who say, " It says in the bible to hate gays.".
As times changes, those principles and values we held will change, and things will become necessary and redundant. We must be willing to adapt. To hold onto a document that was written in a time when EVERYONE had access to the same technology and type of weapons, and when there was very little in terms of population to worry about, is a bit like holding on to versus of the bible and saying they still apply.
While the constitution of america is a great thing.... times change, and so must we. We can not let a document hold us back from evolving as a nation.

No one knows what the original founding fathers would have said about baring arms if they knew how guns would have ended up, and how they would have been used in the future. Back then, it took you a good 3 to 5 minutes to fire 2 bullets. Now it takes you maybe 3 seconds to fire 20. Again, if you want to talk about apples and oranges, lets talk about the time period they wrote the line for and the technology around then, and what has changed drastically as we have progressed. And of course, the difference in life from then and now.... We don't have to worry about Indians or really invading armys. And our government is pretty well established to where I don't think our society will have to fear it.... for if we ever do have to fear our government, they will walk right over us with all their superior technology compared to what you have stored at home.

[Growled]

Not many would be brace enough to try something like that. Good man.

[SupportGeek]

shakey, on 20 December 2012 - 23:45, said:

You missed his point. He's saying that while you cling to say, "It's part of this paper that we can have guns", it is just as silly as those who say, " It says in the bible to hate gays.".
As times changes, those principles and values we held will change, and things will become necessary and redundant. We must be willing to adapt. To hold onto a document that was written in a time when EVERYONE had access to the same technology and type of weapons, and when there was very little in terms of population to worry about, is a bit like holding on to versus of the bible and saying they still apply.
While the constitution of america is a great thing.... times change, and so must we. We can not let a document hold us back from evolving as a nation.

No one knows what the original founding fathers would have said about baring arms if they knew how guns would have ended up, and how they would have been used in the future. Back then, it took you a good 3 to 5 minutes to fire 2 bullets. Now it takes you maybe 3 seconds to fire 20. Again, if you want to talk about apples and oranges, lets talk about the time period they wrote the line for and the technology around then, and what has changed drastically as we have progressed. And of course, the difference in life from then and now.... We don't have to worry about Indians or really invading armys. And our government is pretty well established to where I don't think our society will have to fear it.... for if we ever do have to fear our government, they will walk right over us with all their superior technology compared to what you have stored at home.

I didn't miss his point, his point is wrong.
One of the reasons the bill of rights is immutable, is because it is a bill of rights, these are things that are every human is born with, it is an affirmation that these rights cannot and should not be removed by any governing body, it serves as a limitation on government, This is not something that would "hold the nation back" by any means, its ensuring that you, me and everyone is allowed to criticize the government, it allows the news media to report whatever they like, instead of having to run everything past the government before publishing it, to be free from randomly having our homes trashed in a search to "keep us safe", many people (and I agree with them) feel that the 2nd amendment is one of the main lynch-pins that holds the other amendments in place, and prevents government power from stripping the remainder at their whim. It may never be used as a last resort, but if the threat is there, it is enough to keep power in check.

Would you abandon your freedom of speech or religion so easily? Would you allow police to enter your home and the homes of your friends and family at will whenever they so choose with no reason to do so? Are you ok with every word you say being monitored and scrutinized, everywhere you go on camera? Would it be ok by you if they took you to jail after a traffic stop, did not tell you why, did not allow you a phone call or counsel, and maybe waited 4 weeks or more before even putting you in front of a courtroom?
Every one of the articles is just important as the others.
I know, your next argument is going to be "but you cant kill someone with the first amendment freedoms!" Well, yes you can, but lets shelf that for the moment please, I already understand that's the corner you want to come out of. Dont take this as condecending, or inflammitory, I just would seriously like to know of you would as casually toss aside any of the other freedoms and rights enumerated in the BOR.
This is where most of the constitutionalists come from ideologically, that these rights are important in keeping every man equal, these rights are what many of the most important laws guiding the country are built on. So while the bible may say its ok to hate gays (It doesnt) it is not granted force of law, for good reason, not the least of which is that its a book of stories and morality plays, but it was not something agreed upon that all men have, regardless of government, race, or any other restriction.

As for the rest of what you said, your stats are a bit off, rate of fire was a lot faster than what you claim for flintlock, around 2-3 a minute, but thats minor.
Its unavoidable that the leaders of the time knew weapons technology would advance, things that appeared in the war like the kentucky long rifle made regular muskets look like a bow and arrow at the time. There is a long history of weapons evolving and becoming more and more powerful that they were well aware of, everyone is, and it would have been foolish to think the flintlock was the pinnacle of weapons tech, its pretty safe to assume even at that time that weapons would advance to make flintlocks look as effectives as clubs did to them at the time.
You cant seriously say that a government will walk all over its armed people while being aware of successful armed revolutions the world over, even recently like Libya for example. If the military were so effective, then why were they held down in Afghanistan and Iraq for over 10 years? Why didnt they just roll over them? Its not nearly as easy, or certain as you think it is.

On a side note, I seriously want to commend you on your post, it had very little venom or petty name calling that a lot of others have displayed in the past when on your side of the argument, and I wanted to respond in kind of I could, so please take the post in the spirit it was intended, mainly to inform, and allow you to see some things from at least a part of the other side maybe a little, so I urge you not to take offense at anything written, there was seriously zero intent to do so. Thanks!

[-Razorfold]

*RedBull*, on 20 December 2012 - 18:22, said:

People are the ones who kill. That lunatic in China stabbed 70 people at a school, killed more than 30 people. Someone with a gun could've put him down easily. Nice of you to take things out of context.

Um what? That guy stabbed about 22 people and all of them lived. Nobody died.

[shakey]

SupportGeek, on 21 December 2012 - 04:32, said:

I didn't miss his point, his point is wrong.
One of the reasons the bill of rights is immutable, is because it is a bill of rights, these are things that are every human is born with, it is an affirmation that these rights cannot and should not be removed by any governing body, it serves as a limitation on government, This is not something that would "hold the nation back" by any means, its ensuring that you, me and everyone is allowed to criticize the government, it allows the news media to report whatever they like, instead of having to run everything past the government before publishing it, to be free from randomly having our homes trashed in a search to "keep us safe", many people (and I agree with them) feel that the 2nd amendment is one of the main lynch-pins that holds the other amendments in place, and prevents government power from stripping the remainder at their whim. It may never be used as a last resort, but if the threat is there, it is enough to keep power in check.

Would you abandon your freedom of speech or religion so easily? Would you allow police to enter your home and the homes of your friends and family at will whenever they so choose with no reason to do so? Are you ok with every word you say being monitored and scrutinized, everywhere you go on camera? Would it be ok by you if they took you to jail after a traffic stop, did not tell you why, did not allow you a phone call or counsel, and maybe waited 4 weeks or more before even putting you in front of a courtroom?
Every one of the articles is just important as the others.
I know, your next argument is going to be "but you cant kill someone with the first amendment freedoms!" Well, yes you can, but lets shelf that for the moment please, I already understand that's the corner you want to come out of. Dont take this as condecending, or inflammitory, I just would seriously like to know of you would as casually toss aside any of the other freedoms and rights enumerated in the BOR.
This is where most of the constitutionalists come from ideologically, that these rights are important in keeping every man equal, these rights are what many of the most important laws guiding the country are built on. So while the bible may say its ok to hate gays (It doesnt) it is not granted force of law, for good reason, not the least of which is that its a book of stories and morality plays, but it was not something agreed upon that all men have, regardless of government, race, or any other restriction.

As for the rest of what you said, your stats are a bit off, rate of fire was a lot faster than what you claim for flintlock, around 2-3 a minute, but thats minor.
Its unavoidable that the leaders of the time knew weapons technology would advance, things that appeared in the war like the kentucky long rifle made regular muskets look like a bow and arrow at the time. There is a long history of weapons evolving and becoming more and more powerful that they were well aware of, everyone is, and it would have been foolish to think the flintlock was the pinnacle of weapons tech, its pretty safe to assume even at that time that weapons would advance to make flintlocks look as effectives as clubs did to them at the time.
You cant seriously say that a government will walk all over its armed people while being aware of successful armed revolutions the world over, even recently like Libya for example. If the military were so effective, then why were they held down in Afghanistan and Iraq for over 10 years? Why didnt they just roll over them? Its not nearly as easy, or certain as you think it is.

On a side note, I seriously want to commend you on your post, it had very little venom or petty name calling that a lot of others have displayed in the past when on your side of the argument, and I wanted to respond in kind of I could, so please take the post in the spirit it was intended, mainly to inform, and allow you to see some things from at least a part of the other side maybe a little, so I urge you not to take offense at anything written, there was seriously zero intent to do so. Thanks!

You missed his point, then went on to show how you are just holding on to archaic views as if they are some all powerful word of whatever that can never become wrong.

You seriously can not compare the Libia army to America's..... There are so many differences in terrain, power, technology, and just sociatal ranges of action.
That region has been in constant conflict, most of the people there have been born into a war. While their fight was a great one, it would be nothing compared to what America would have to endure.
And no, I wouldn't abandone freedom of speach or privacy, because none of those are actually killing people.... well freedom of speach is, but only because there are plenty who are weak of mind and will follow out orders, but that's something else you just couldn't stop But the other things you mentioned, dont end lives. You talk about Government taking over and spying, but that's not what Gun Regulations would bring. I think you are going toooooo extreme on this.
Can you answer me this with a straight face though...... Guns aren't banned, but swords are. Why? Why is a sword seen as something the population shouldn't have, but is banned. Can't carry those around in any form, and can only have them as collector items. We are talking about protection. You are fine with a weapon that can massively kill by a few clicks of a trigger that is open to almost all to buy, and a steel blade, that can't really be missed by most people via sight and would take a great amount of effort to massively kill - yet is banned from being used as protection.....
Sorry, the rest of your post was too long for me to read at the moment as I have not had my coffee and words hurt braiins!!!!