Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Titoist

US Man kills Tenants over Snow Shovelling

178 posts in this topic

I like how you ignore my posts when you don't have an argument against it.

If the Second Amendment was to be taken seriously then civilians should have access to the same weapons that the government does, tanks, jets, submarines, missiles, nuclear weapons.

Do you think a civilian militia should have access to these?

Err..well..in the US civilians can own tanks and bombers and such. So that kinda tosses that entire argument out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err..well..in the US civilians can own tanks and bombers and such. So that kinda tosses that entire argument out the window.

And you can in many other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again your missing the point. Its not just rifles against the military the rifle is a tool used to gain access to other weapons..

And we're the ones missing the point? :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I am back from vacation. I went Gator hunting down in Florida. Man that was fun. Anyways, this thread seemed to go into a rollercoaster concerning gun control, mentality of the shooter and even into anti-government anarchy. I just wanted to say that as a gun owner... legal, qualified, sane and educated gun owners CAN snap. This was already mentioned by someone here concerning chemical signals in the brain.

Several Factors that can change someone (may be the case why this guy shot and killed his tenants).

- Heart Attacks (Can shut off or turn on parts of the brain changing behaviour)

- Age (Older people tend to forget or go on random rampages. My grandfather, who passed away in 2012, was a chemistry teacher. At 75, he tried to kill the doctor because he believed the medication he was given was the doctor trying to kill him).

- Life events (Divorce is a big one and is the #1 reason here in Canada for gun violence. Also known as Domestic Gun Violence, which has increased 7% since the removal of the Gun Registry)

- Bi-polar Disorder (This is not a mental health issue and is very treatable. However, when changing medication, the person who is a normal sane person, can start acting irrational. 41.5% of North Americans have some form of bi-polar disorder).

- Many others which I am not gonna list.

I also do not believe that someone's ideology has anything to do with guns or gun control. Listening to American media, it seems that the "Leftists" are to blame. From what I recall, "leftists" have created the best weapons in use today (AK-47, Remington 700 - also called a Zastava Z5 produced in "Socialist Yugoslavia" - to name a couple).

Now I also DO NOT BELIEVE that Gun Control is about limiting use or the purchase of weapons. For me, Gun Control is several factors;

- Storage of weapons (The use of lockers and trigger locks)

- Training in weapons

- Competency Testing

- Limiting knowledge of weapons to people who may have access to your stash (preventing break-ins), or increasing knowledge if these people will have active access to stash (immediate family)

- Use of weapons that require palm or finger prints to work (yes, they are available)

- Self-Control. This for me is the biggest issue because for everyone around you, they should be able to trust your judgement. Waving a gun and yelling "home defence" or "shoot first ask questions later" demonstrates to me that you are or possibly can be an unstable gun owner. Even ignorant of local and federal laws.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans do not care about their constitution either. They allowed the right to bear arms to mean every redneck, psychopath, and non-militia can bear arms.

They also allowed such ludicrous rulings such as Citizens United. Additionally, need I remind you, the US constitution does not mention access to fundamental social services such as healthcare?

The Constitution and more accurately the Bill of Rights is not a guideline for what kind of entitlement programs the government should run for the general population, its a framework for the rights that the individual has, and a restriction on government to not be able to restrict or remove these basic rights. It LIMITS government. So "reminding him" that the constitution doesn't talk about healthcare is analogous to pointing out that the TV guide doesn't have a list of whats for dinner tonight.

Firstly, the US Constitution is open to interpretation. Secondly, it can be amended. Either way law restricting guns are not unconstitutional, which means you can't choose whether you want to comply with such a law.

It is only open to interpretation until SCOTUS rules on it, and it has, laws restricting firearms not in common use, are likely NOT unconstitutional, but since the AR-15 is in VERY common use, (even the military uses a varient) its very likely that any law restricting the sale and availability at this time, would be challenged and quashed in court if it were to pass house and senate then signed by the CINC.

You are also correct that the Constitution can be amended, there is even a mechanism written on how this can occur. You need both houses of congress to pass an amendment with 2/3 majority, then you need each of the states to Ratify the new amendment with a 75% majority. This mechanism was put in place to prevent making emotionally driven changes, and changes championed by power hungry politicians, the framers realized both that the public is fickle and easily manipulated, and politicians thirst for power is second to none, thats why they were written to make changes difficult, and to ensure that a real national will was behind a change that would affect millions of Americans for no good reason.

As a Country the US can barely get over 50% of the people to agree on who will be the next president, I cant see striking the 2nd amendment from the BOR as being something that will ever pass, the phrase "snowballs chance in hell" comes to mind.

Laws change to fit the times they are in, the second amendment doesn't make much sense in this day and age when you have police and the armed forces.

It very much makes sense to have the ability to call on a civilian militia to call on in times of dire need.

Britain had both police AND an armed forces in World war II, but still felt the need to activate its own civilian militia post Dunkirk (Home Guard) but because of draconian gun legislation, all the Home Guard had to fight with were clubs, pitchforks and the occasional hunting shotgun.

In fact, in its final days during WWII, Germany did something similar with its civilian militia, and they too had a massive army and police force.

So your argument of "You have an army and police, you dont need a militia" in fact holds no water.

I like how you ignore my posts when you don't have an argument against it.

If the Second Amendment was to be taken seriously then civilians should have access to the same weapons that the government does, tanks, jets, submarines, missiles, nuclear weapons.

Do you think a civilian militia should have access to these?

When the constitution and BOR were ratified, civilians owned everything from rifles to artillery, to warships, that has not actually changed.

Civilians can indeed have access to any of those items, the main limiting factor is cost, sometimes there are contracts in place that restrict sale to the US government only by the manufacturer, and that some components are illegal to own without special licenses, enriched uranium for example needs special licenses from DOE. Even though you were using nuclear weapons as ridiculous hyperbole, I will also answer that: SCOTUS seems ok with limiting access to weapons not in common use, restrictions on building and owning atomic bombs are not unconstitutional.

yes you are correct that all kinds of silly laws exist. According to some, YOUR right to bear arms is a silly law that was written for a different purpose than what its being used for now. The point is laws change and can change if the people want it.

His right to keep and bear arms is not a law, its a right guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the BOR is a restriction on government, what they can and cannot remove from individuals.

Can that change? Sure, see my explanation above as to the mechanism.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kids should have had guns as well, what kind of world do we live in if we don't have guns, oh nooooooooo!

at least 1 armed policeman / women in every house would be a better idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its a right guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the BOR is a restriction on government, what they can and cannot remove from individuals.

Can that change?

rights change by interpretation. glad you can agree to that. If you go read them, all of them have a broad sense of interpretation that the law adapts to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It very much makes sense to have the ability to call on a civilian militia to call on in times of dire need.

Britain had both police AND an armed forces in World war II, but still felt the need to activate its own civilian militia post Dunkirk (Home Guard) but because of draconian gun legislation, all the Home Guard had to fight with were clubs, pitchforks and the occasional hunting shotgun.

In fact, in its final days during WWII, Germany did something similar with its civilian militia, and they too had a massive army and police force.

So your argument of "You have an army and police, you dont need a militia" in fact holds no water.

Yeah, not really accurate when the Home Guard was deployed they did many things from manning anti-aircraft batteries, rockets and coastal artillery and priority was given to the regular army in terms of weaponry but they were supplied with some US and Canadian weapons and were given any surplus which the Army no longer required with the likes of the Sten machine gun being used by the Home Guard.

Certainly in the early days there were using pitchforks but this was really down to a production problem with Germany's U-Boats sinking tons of cargo which was vital for resupplies. This lack of equipment was also down to a change in the role the Home Guard or LDV were supposed to fulfil during the war.

The Home Guard was also never called up in a time of "dire need", it was 1940 and were deployed in-case of invasion which was an early possibility but soon became apparent that wasn't the case and took up different roles.

Even by late 1940 there were close to a million rifles, and something like 50,000 shotguns and machine guns, people were still without a weapon but not even close to the "clubs, pitchforks and the occasional hunting shotgun" picture you're painting.

Even the NRA donated private guns to be used which were, rightfully collected after the war and destroyed :)

"draconian gun legislation,"
Puh-lease. :rofl:

The Germans had less strict gun legislation at the time and they certainly were called in at dire time in the last days of WW2 and as last ditch attempt in the Battle for Berlin but had little impact, and resulted in around 20,000-40,000 military and civilian deaths.

The facts certainly don't line-up with the simplistic view you have of the Home Guard nor the Volkssturm. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Bi-polar Disorder (This is not a mental health issue

Yes, it is a mental health issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, not really accurate when the Home Guard was deployed they did many things from manning anti-aircraft batteries, rockets and coastal artillery and priority was given to the regular army in terms of weaponry but they were supplied with some US and Canadian weapons and were given any surplus which the Army no longer required with the likes of the Sten machine gun being used by the Home Guard.

Certainly in the early days there were using pitchforks but this was really down to a production problem with Germany's U-Boats sinking tons of cargo which was vital for resupplies. This lack of equipment was also down to a change in the role the Home Guard or LDV were supposed to fulfil during the war.

The Home Guard was also never called up in a time of "dire need", it was 1940 and were deployed in-case of invasion which was an early possibility but soon became apparent that wasn't the case and took up different roles.

Even by late 1940 there were close to a million rifles, and something like 50,000 shotguns and machine guns, people were still without a weapon but not even close to the "clubs, pitchforks and the occasional hunting shotgun" picture you're painting.

Even the NRA donated private guns to be used which were, rightfully collected after the war and destroyed :)

Puh-lease. :rofl:

The Germans had less strict gun legislation at the time and they certainly were called in at dire time in the last days of WW2 and as last ditch attempt in the Battle for Berlin but had little impact, and resulted in around 20,000-40,000 military and civilian deaths.

The facts certainly don't line-up with the simplistic view you have of the Home Guard nor the Volkssturm. :)

So because I didn't feel like writing a book detailing everything the home guard did I'm wrong? Looks like the point flew WAY over your head son.

I highlighted the relevant points; they were called up, they were armed far too lightly to do the job they were going to be tasked with doing (defending Britain in case of invasion), yes later they mostly did other jobs once it was clearer there would be no invasion, but that was not until the blitz was long over. In most cases during the blitz these militia were tasked with hunting down and capturing downed enemy pilots, who even with sidearms were better armed than those hunting them down.

Points about having more rifles after the invasion threat was over, and that it was "production and resupply" problems are moot. When the guard was called, they had effectively nothing, you even agree with that fact. Truth is, the second amendment guarantees that a civilian militia would already be armed if called on, and would not be in the disastrous, scrambling mess that the Home Guard was in when activated.

Trying to play off imminent invasion by hostile forces as not demonstrating "dire need" only shows how foolish you really are.

As a side note, while Volkssturm effectiveness is debated and often times rated mediocre overall, its been found that the units used in the east were far more effective than those in the west, usually attributed to the idea that the ideology of "racial survival" was a clear and evident threat from the Russians, and the units deployed in defense of their own homes are also considered to have fought far more effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So because I didn't feel like writing a book detailing everything the home guard did I'm wrong? Looks like the point flew WAY over your head son.

I highlighted the relevant points; they were called up, they were armed far too lightly to do the job they were going to be tasked with doing (defending Britain in case of invasion), yes later they mostly did other jobs once it was clearer there would be no invasion, but that was not until the blitz was long over. In most cases during the blitz these militia were tasked with hunting down and capturing downed enemy pilots, who even with sidearms were better armed than those hunting them down.

Points about having more rifles after the invasion threat was over, and that it was "production and resupply" problems are moot. When the guard was called, they had effectively nothing, you even agree with that fact. Truth is, the second amendment guarantees that a civilian militia would already be armed if called on, and would not be in the disastrous, scrambling mess that the Home Guard was in when activated.

Trying to play off imminent invasion by hostile forces as not demonstrating "dire need" only shows how foolish you really are.

As a side note, while Volkssturm effectiveness is debated and often times rated mediocre overall, its been found that the units used in the east were far more effective than those in the west, usually attributed to the idea that the ideology of "racial survival" was a clear and evident threat from the Russians, and the units deployed in defense of their own homes are also considered to have fought far more effectively.

Sorry, Son but the main role behind the Home Guard wasn't to defend Britain at first and it certainly wasn't a "scrambling mess", and I also never said they didn't have any weapons, but nice try there.

Hitler even said that the Volkssturm fighting in the East had shown that they offer "little fighting value" when left to themselves and can be quickly destroy, and they needed to be integrated into the regular forces.

I've already pointed out why you're wrong about the Home Guard & Volkssturm and somehow trying to tie your 2nd amendment into these scenarios and somehow show how it would've saved the day is a little bit far fetched and desperate on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Moved here]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is a mental health issue.

You are correct, however medical professionals state that bi-polarism is so treatable that the person is considered stable and mentally sane as long as they are on the medication OR stay away from de-polarizing sources that cause the person to become unstable. (One of my friends is bi-polar. If he is not taking medication he literally becomes a logic troll. Thus, as long as you agree with him, he will be stable. Disagree with him only when he is on medication.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct, however medical professionals state that bi-polarism is so treatable that the person is considered stable and mentally sane as long as they are on the medication OR stay away from de-polarizing sources that cause the person to become unstable. (One of my friends is bi-polar. If he is not taking medication he literally becomes a logic troll. Thus, as long as you agree with him, he will be stable. Disagree with him only when he is on medication.)

Can't argue with that. My mum is bi-polar as is my fiance?'s mum. Both lead normal lives. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Son but the main role behind the Home Guard wasn't to defend Britain at first and it certainly wasn't a "scrambling mess", and I also never said they didn't have any weapons, but nice try there.

Hitler even said that the Volkssturm fighting in the East had shown that they offer "little fighting value" when left to themselves and can be quickly destroy, and they needed to be integrated into the regular forces.

I've already pointed out why you're wrong about the Home Guard & Volkssturm and somehow trying to tie your 2nd amendment into these scenarios and somehow show how it would've saved the day is a little bit far fetched and desperate on your part.

Calling me "son" in a misguided attempt to discredit me is pretty telling, Ive proven you wrong already. You demonstrated a clear lack of understanding why eiyher Home Guard or Volksstrum were activated. On top of it all, you make an incredibly weak attempt to justify your misinformation by taking military evaluations from Hitler, a man who estimated that the Russians would be defeated before winter during Barbarossa. Single handedly presided over the demise of the 6th army at Stalingrad, and in the closing months of the war was creating non-existant armies to defend Germany from his imagination.

So yea, lets go with his assessment since he OBVIOUSLY knew how to plan ans assess his opponent.

You are arguing way out of your depth and it shows, trying to argue that home guard was just fine when they were called up to do ANY job, much less assist in fighting for the very existence of Btitian shows how little you really understand about what happened. You should get back the money you paid for your social studies textbook bud.

This topic has strayed pretty far off the rails at this point, but my point of a citizen militia stands, no matter what kind of uninformed distractions you attempt to post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling me "son" in a misguided attempt to discredit me is pretty telling

that's what i thought too when you originally posted it. lol, you even used the word "bud" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

murderers believe this exact thing too. Scary huh? See a connection?

 

Self-defensive individuals believe this. Murderers believe this too.

 

Hence it follows that not all who believe this are murderers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threadromancy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its primary use it to make fire which destroys things it comes in contact with, fire can kill. You could burn down someones house in the middle of the night with them inside. Lighters can/could cause a lot of harm.

Bro, you need to stop posting.  From you're not-so-clever avatar against the President, your cheesy quote about how your rifle is going to help you when 911 won't (how will a rifle help you if you need an ambulance to take someone in your family to the emergency room? will you shoot someone?), and you're from Knoxville, Tennessee and you call yourself KingCracker, with a picture of your 'American Made' piece of junk Chevrolet car in your signature.  Most people are just figuring you're a redneck who loves guns and shooting things.  I know, I was raised in Kentucky, right above you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro, you need to stop posting.  From you're not-so-clever avatar against the President, your cheesy quote about how your rifle is going to help you when 911 won't (how will a rifle help you if you need an ambulance to take someone in your family to the emergency room? will you shoot someone?), and you're from Knoxville, Tennessee and you call yourself KingCracker, with a picture of your 'American Made' piece of junk Chevrolet car in your signature.  Most people are just figuring you're a redneck who loves guns and shooting things.  I know, I was raised in Kentucky, right above you.

Tell me how you really feel. LOL,i'm not going to stop posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Violence is bad, we're going to show you how bad by being violent to you if you're violent to us"

Yes, that is actually how pro death penalty folks sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Violence is bad, we're going to show you how bad by being violent to you if you're violent to us"

Yes, that is actually how pro death penalty folks sound.

I'm pro death penalty and I think if someone murdered someone they should be put to death, I think they should feel it though. Putting them to death by injection is to easy way to go for such a scumb bag of a human being. I think they need to feel pain, because obviously they felt nothing when they killed that innocent human being.

Anyway there are a lot of people on death row and have been for YEARS so I doubt some will even be put to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're OK with sending the message that "We are going to show you that violence is bad by being violent". The death penalty isn't and never has been about justice. It doesn't lower crime rates, it doesn't stop criminals. It's about retribution, pure and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're OK with sending the message that "We are going to show you that violence is bad by being violent". The death penalty isn't and never has been about justice. It doesn't lower crime rates, it doesn't stop criminals. It's about retribution, pure and simple.

Our whole justice system is screwed up, nothing about it works. But if someone is going to kill someone with no remorse then I have no remorse for them being put to death. Id rather them suffer for it too. Hell yeah its about retribution. Get what's coming to you. Murdering an innocent person is wrong so they need to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I guess I'm glad I live in a place where people stopped pretending that retribution is a valuable way to keep society safe. Fact is, you're not better than those you claim to hate if you act exactly the same as them, enjoying the taking of life is a common thread all killers share, the only thing that differs is their rationalisation for doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.