| Gun should be kept legal in the US. The fact we have at least 80 million people in the US owning over 310 million guns is a good deterrent against a tyrannical government and ensures other countries will not be invading the US anytime soon.This is what our founders intended with the second amendment. Our founders saw government as a necessary evil and treated it as such in the constitution and bill of rights. Hunting and protection against criminals are a secondary benefit to the peoples right to keep and bear arms. |
ezikialrageMay 12, 2013 6:13 AM
ezikialrage said: Gun should be kept legal in the US. The fact we have at least 80 million people in the US owning over 310 million guns is a good deterrent against a tyrannical government and ensures other countries will not be invading the US anytime soon.Hunting and protection against criminals are a secondary benefit. The US navy and the Atlantic Ocean ensures that other countries wont invade USA anytime soon. Armed citizenry is secondary. |
| The Art of Eight |
Decee said: Get rid of them. Don't take the risk. Screw guns. gun are what is protecting your country |
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
| Let's just be perfectly honest: If the government really wanted to kill you, your friends, and/or your family, you and your pistol or semiautomatic rifle won't stop the U.S. and it's fully automatic weapons, complete body armor, bombs, and nukes that can kill you from miles away without risking even a single soldier's life. So that argument is invalid. Sure, you may be able to take out some soldiers here and there, but once the air force sends its supersonic jets from 10 miles above to bomb you, you're shit out of luck. However, having served in the military at one time myself, there is no soldier in the U.S. military that would actually take up arms against its own country if they were ordered to. If my CO told me that our next mission was to do harm against this country, my entire brigade would have defected at that moment and taken up arms against everyone stupid enough to even try to pass such orders down to us. Soldiers are people too, silly chuunibyous. Even if the government did try to fuck you over, they'd have to do it by way of the military. And I can assure you that a very large majority of the military is quite in favor of not attacking its own country. However, back to guns, I don't think they should be outlawed. I think that background checks should be expanded just a bit to include those undocumented mentally ill folks and whatnot, but they shouldn't be outlawed completely. That's because, at this point in time, there are already too many guns on the streets. Even if they were made illegal today, no one would actually follow the new laws except for law abiding citizens. Meaning that only criminals would have guns and a fuckload of trouble would come about then. However, regardless of what people try to convince you, acquiring a gun illegally is more difficult than people make it seem. Sure, it isn't difficult to find them, but getting them is another matter. Unless you've been around the kinds of people who deal with that type of shit, you don't know how hard and dangerous it can really be. Therefore, even if only law abiding citizens would be affected by expanded background checks, they would still reduce the number of people who shouldn't have guns from getting them because lots of people wouldn't be willing to go to the extreme lengths of getting a gun illegally unless they really have something sinister planned, which no one can stop them from doing. There will always be crazy people who will find different means of killing people. I'm a gun advocate (I'm not active or anything, but I believe in guns as a mode of protection), but neither I, nor anyone else, can deny that guns are a tool only meant for killing. If guns didn't exist, folks would kill with knives and bricks and hangers and anything else they can find. But no one can deny that a gun makes it 1000 times easier to kill someone since you literally have to simply squeeze your finger and BAM! Life over. At least with a knife, you must feel the knife entering the skin and see the writing pain you're putting your victim through. It adds a human element to the mix as opposed to simply flicking your finger and altering lives just like that. I should know. If my brother hadn't had a gun, he would've had to think more seriously about the decision to pull the trigger on his own head as opposed to simply flicking his finger in a fit of depression and altering the lives of those who cared about him forever and irreparably ending his own. |
AndyRayyMay 12, 2013 9:13 AM
 |
AndyRayy said: Let's just be perfectly honest: If the government really wanted to kill you, your friends, and/or your family, you and your pistol or semiautomatic rifle won't stop the U.S. and it's fully automatic weapons, complete body armor, bombs, and nukes that can kill you from miles away without risking even a single soldier's life. So that argument is invalid. Sure, you may be able to take out some soldiers here and there, but once the air force sends its supersonic jets from 10 miles above to bomb you, you're shit out of luck. However, having served in the military at one time myself, there is no soldier in the U.S. military that would actually take up arms against its own country if they were ordered to. If my CO told me that our next mission was to do harm against this country, my entire brigade would have defected at that moment and taken up arms against everyone stupid enough to even try to pass such orders down to us. Soldiers are people too, silly chuunibyous. Even if the government did try to fuck you over, they'd have to do it by way of the military. And I can assure you that a very large majority of the military is quite in favor of not attacking its own country. However, back to guns, I don't think they should be outlawed. I think that background checks should be expanded just a bit to include those undocumented mentally ill folks and whatnot, but they shouldn't be outlawed completely. That's because, at this point in time, there are already too many guns on the streets. Even if they were made illegal today, no one would actually follow the new laws except for law abiding citizens. Meaning that only criminals would have guns and a fuckload of trouble would about then. However, regardless of what people try to convince you, acquiring a gun illegally is more difficult than people make it seem. Sure, it isn't difficult to find them, but getting them is another matter. Unless you've been around the kinds of people who deal with that type of shit, you don't know how hard and dangerous it can really be. Therefore, even if only law abiding citizens would be affected by expanded background checks, they would still reduce the number of people who shouldn't have guns from getting them because lots of people wouldn't be willing to go to the extreme lengths of getting a gun illegal unless they really have something sinister planned, which no one can stop them from doing. There will always be crazy people who will find different means of killing people. I'm a gun advocate (I'm not active or anything, but I believe in guns as a mode of protection), but I, nor can anyone else, deny that guns are a tool only meant for killing. If guns didn't exist, folks would kill with knives and bricks and hangers and anything else they can find. But no one can deny that a gun makes it 1000 times easier to kill someone since you literally have to simply squeeze your finger and BAM! Life over. At least with a knife, you must feel the knife entering the skin and see the writing pain you're putting your victim through. It adds a human element to the mix as opposed to simply flicking your finger and altering lives just like that. I should know. If my brother hadn't had a gun, he would've had to think more seriously about the decision to pull the trigger on his own head as opposed to simply flicking his finger in a fit of depression and altering the lives of those who cared about him forever and irreparably ending his own. great post |
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
| Great post but I disagree with the bit about soldiers, soldiers are human beings and when told to attack their own people one would hope that most of them would disobey orders (and face a court-martial by the way) but there will always be those who follow them regardless, it's very rare for a whole army to mutiny it usually happens in small bits and pieces - just look at the Syrian conflict, now if the US armed forces were ordered to attack their own country I'm not saying everyone would go along with - but certain people might, and since it doesn't take a great deal of people to level a city by bombing it, there's a good chance that even if those who remained loyal were few in number they would still cause major damage. The bit about Supersonic jets coming after US citizens is silly, while supersonic jets and drones can go and kill indiscriminately in other countries i.e. Kill Terrorist X and any civilians that happen to be around Terrorist X at the time Within the US that would be completely impossible, because a) there would be a potential mutiny from within the ranks i.e. "I'm not going to risk killing these innocents" and b) it would completely deny the government any legitimacy because its supposed to protect the people's interests, it would likely start a civil war. So if the US govt wanted to kill you, they couldn't bomb you or use artillery or missiles against you, they would have to send people after you and therefore risk people's lives (even if they are all very well equipped). |
AndyRayy said: However, regardless of what people try to convince you, acquiring a gun illegally is more difficult than people make it seem. It is extremely easy, the US is a big country and it is not the same every where but I live in a western European country and I can go downtown to get a gun without exiting my car like I'm at a drive-thru. |
apatch3 said: Great post but I disagree with the bit about soldiers, soldiers are human beings and when told to attack their own people one would hope that most of them would disobey orders (and face a court-martial by the way) but there will always be those who follow them regardless, This is a tricky subject, because the military and normal civilians follow a different set of laws. Military members follow what's known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which are the usual civilian laws as well as many military specific ones. I can't remember exactly where it states this, but every soldier has the authority to disobey any unlawful order. In fact, not only is it allowed, it is expected. If you commit a crime during a time of peace and/or war, you will be tried as an individual who committed an illegal act on your own, whether you were commanded to or not. The "I was following orders" edict does not apply at all in this regard. Some think the military law on this is a bit fuzzy, but I'd be inclined to think that killing non-combatant civilians would be considered illegal (as per the law of the land) regardless of whether a country is in a time of peace or war. it's very rare for a whole army to mutiny it usually happens in small bits and pieces - just look at the Syrian conflict, now if the US armed forces were ordered to attack their own country I'm not saying everyone would go along with - but certain people might, and since it doesn't take a great deal of people to level a city by bombing it, there's a good chance that even if those who remained loyal were few in number they would still cause major damage. You're completely right in that such a scenario is unlikely, but just as you stated, it's already happening in Syria and has happened many times in recent history. But as far as those who may remain loyal, I don't think it'd be possible for just a single person to manage to take a jet and bomb on his/her own. Something as simply as a fighter taking off requires the combined effort and time of many people. I'd be inclined to believe that enough people would be on the side of good and justice to not allow such a deadly series of actions to actually take place. But again, this is all just optimistic thinking on my part. I really don't think people are stupid enough to follow the command to kill his own people. Every service member swears to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States of America. Killing innocent people is clearly violating that oath. The bit about Supersonic jets coming after US citizens is silly, while supersonic jets and drones can go and kill indiscriminately in other countries i.e. Kill Terrorist X and any civilians that happen to be around Terrorist X at the time Within the US that would be completely impossible, because a) there would be a potential mutiny from within the ranks i.e. "I'm not going to risk killing these innocents" and b) it would completely deny the government any legitimacy because its supposed to protect the people's interests, it would likely start a civil war. That's exactly what I meant in what I just responded to above! Only a select minority would follow such gratuitous orders, so at the very least, an ousting of any persons within the military ranks who support such acts would occur and worst case scenario, an all out divisive war within the country. So if the US govt wanted to kill you, they couldn't bomb you or use artillery or missiles against you, they would have to send people after you and therefore risk people's lives (even if they are all very well equipped). This seems to be of the assumption that the government is targeting a single person (I may be misinterpreting). In any case, we have to remember that soldiers are extremely well trained. As a normal civilian, you would have no idea if soldiers equipped with night vision, radar systems, thermal imaging systems, and whatnot were standing right outside of your house ready to kill you in the dark of night. So even if the government did have to resort to such means, the technical superiority would give them a huge advantage. I'd hate to find a fire team from SEAL Team 6 at my door... Either way, the whole situation is not only unlikely, but almost paradoxical. You could never amount a large enough majority, at least in this country, to follow such an illegal order, yet even a minority could inflict huge damages. So in that light, yes, guns will give the normal folk a larger advantage than being equipped with machetes and the raging flames of the Dark Flame Master, but as this situation is virtually impossible, the gun argument should focus on more realistic terms such as personal protection from the petty criminal and hunting/sports purposes, etc. At least, that's how I feel about the matter. |
|
| My pops wants military guns banned from the public. |
| "I hate all of you." - Squidward |
ezikialrage said: Gun should be kept legal in the US. The fact we have at least 80 million people in the US owning over 310 million guns is a good deterrent against a tyrannical government and ensures other countries will not be invading the US anytime soon. The fact that people believe this nonsense is hilarious. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
AndyRayy said: apatch3 said: Great post but I disagree with the bit about soldiers, soldiers are human beings and when told to attack their own people one would hope that most of them would disobey orders (and face a court-martial by the way) but there will always be those who follow them regardless, This is a tricky subject, because the military and normal civilians follow a different set of laws. Military members follow what's known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which are the usual civilian laws as well as many military specific ones. I can't remember exactly where it states this, but every soldier has the authority to disobey any unlawful order. In fact, not only is it allowed, it is expected. If you commit a crime during a time of peace and/or war, you will be tried as an individual who committed an illegal act on your own, whether you were commanded to or not. The "I was following orders" edict does not apply at all in this regard. Some think the military law on this is a bit fuzzy, but I'd be inclined to think that killing non-combatant civilians would be considered illegal (as per the law of the land) regardless of whether a country is in a time of peace or war. it's very rare for a whole army to mutiny it usually happens in small bits and pieces - just look at the Syrian conflict, now if the US armed forces were ordered to attack their own country I'm not saying everyone would go along with - but certain people might, and since it doesn't take a great deal of people to level a city by bombing it, there's a good chance that even if those who remained loyal were few in number they would still cause major damage. You're completely right in that such a scenario is unlikely, but just as you stated, it's already happening in Syria and has happened many times in recent history. But as far as those who may remain loyal, I don't think it'd be possible for just a single person to manage to take a jet and bomb on his/her own. Something as simply as a fighter taking off requires the combined effort and time of many people. I'd be inclined to believe that enough people would be on the side of good and justice to not allow such a deadly series of actions to actually take place. But again, this is all just optimistic thinking on my part. I really don't think people are stupid enough to follow the command to kill his own people. Every service member swears to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States of America. Killing innocent people is clearly violating that oath. The bit about Supersonic jets coming after US citizens is silly, while supersonic jets and drones can go and kill indiscriminately in other countries i.e. Kill Terrorist X and any civilians that happen to be around Terrorist X at the time Within the US that would be completely impossible, because a) there would be a potential mutiny from within the ranks i.e. "I'm not going to risk killing these innocents" and b) it would completely deny the government any legitimacy because its supposed to protect the people's interests, it would likely start a civil war. That's exactly what I meant in what I just responded to above! Only a select minority would follow such gratuitous orders, so at the very least, an ousting of any persons within the military ranks who support such acts would occur and worst case scenario, an all out divisive war within the country. So if the US govt wanted to kill you, they couldn't bomb you or use artillery or missiles against you, they would have to send people after you and therefore risk people's lives (even if they are all very well equipped). This seems to be of the assumption that the government is targeting a single person (I may be misinterpreting). In any case, we have to remember that soldiers are extremely well trained. As a normal civilian, you would have no idea if soldiers equipped with night vision, radar systems, thermal imaging systems, and whatnot were standing right outside of your house ready to kill you in the dark of night. So even if the government did have to resort to such means, the technical superiority would give them a huge advantage. I'd hate to find a fire team from SEAL Team 6 at my door... Either way, the whole situation is not only unlikely, but almost paradoxical. You could never amount a large enough majority, at least in this country, to follow such an illegal order, yet even a minority could inflict huge damages. So in that light, yes, guns will give the normal folk a larger advantage than being equipped with machetes and the raging flames of the Dark Flame Master, but as this situation is virtually impossible, the gun argument should focus on more realistic terms such as personal protection from the petty criminal and hunting/sports purposes, etc. At least, that's how I feel about the matter. I'm actually a law student, but we don't study Military Law and it's something that hardly anybody takes even as an elective, the presumption is you're trained in it upon your signing up as a legal officer (if you join the military). What I will say is that if the government decides that it has to kill a certain group of individuals i.e. a civil war then that would be considered a war-time scenario where the common law would not apply. You say soldiers have the ability to disobey orders that they feel are unlawful, but there's never a straight answer about what is or isn't unlawful (that's why lawyers have jobs) I mean clearly Bradley Manning (and a number of similar people throughout history) thought that they were involved in an unlawful enterprise when they blew their whistles on the military. The fact is that most of the time, people who disobey orders because they "think" they're unlawful will be court-martialed and punished for it, the military does not tolerate dissent when it comes to orders being handed down. You say that you need loads of people to launch an aircraft and bomb somebody? I don't think so, in today's world a small group of people can do a great deal of damage, and as History has taught us mutinies don't happen "all at once" usually small groups mutiny and then the movement either catches on or fails but in any event there is a period where the military ends up committing some level of atrocity against its people - Libya/Syria etc. I.e. if the US govt were to turn on its people, a simple mutiny would not be enough to turn the tide instantly. It would take time for the mutineers to take control and it's likely that innocents would die in the interim. Guns will definitely give people some level of advantage because it's possible for normal people to train themselves as well as any soldier is trained (minus the battlefield experience of course although normal people may just be retired soldiers themselves) and although they will be under-equipped they can certainly put up some form of resistance. I don't think the gun debate should be restricted to the idea of dealing with criminals because the government response to that is "you don't need guns WE'LL protect you from criminals" as is the case here in Britain. The fact that it is extremely unlikely that a government will ever turn on its people shouldn't restrict the debate, because however unlikely it will remain a possibility. Citizens have to retain some level of autonomy because the government exists to serve their interests (not the other way around as government's seem to think simply because of its large concentration of power). The whole Kennedy line - ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for country is a very statist presumption, it should be the other way around from a principled perspective, if you believe the social contract is entered into for the benefit of its signatories. |
apatch3May 12, 2013 11:52 AM
Nicole said: ezikialrage said: Gun should be kept legal in the US. The fact we have at least 80 million people in the US owning over 310 million guns is a good deterrent against a tyrannical government and ensures other countries will not be invading the US anytime soon. The fact that people believe this nonsense is hilarious. I like how you ignored the rest of his post. You're a fool if you think that the only reason nobody has tried to invade the US since the 1800s is because we're all a bunch of swell individuals. While our economic value (what little there is left of it) plays a part, the primary things that keep the US sovereign is an armed population and sheer military might. It's the same for most countries...either the strong help the weak....or try to crush them and take over. Your only real deterrent against an overzealous opponent is your enemy's fear of retaliation. If you don't have the power to fight back, you're that much more likely to become just another statistic. |
NTADMay 12, 2013 12:15 PM
That's extremely interesting insight, especially coming from a law student. I understand what you're saying about the case of Bradley Manning, but as illogical and unarguable as it is to say, that's a different story. Any soldier in the U.S. Army who's ever been deployed overseas knows that you are never ordered to kill someone. You are given an objective to accomplish and are given the ability to defend yourself. Never will an officer, NCO, or anyone tell you "See that guy over there? Shoot him in the head." Such an order cannot be given. Sure, there are such missions where killing is implied or expected, but never expressly ordered (it's a different story when the air force gets involved, but that's a different story). As such, I personally don't feel the occupation of Iraq is particularly against the established law of the land (that being American law), as the objective, regardless of what liberals and people who have never served in the military say, is to try and make Iraq a safer place in the end. True, some oil might be taken in the process, etc, etc. but that doesn't change the overall mission. As such, Bradley Manning may have felt his actions to be lawful against unlawful occupation, but as far as I'm concerned (and apparently the military courts as well), he disobeyed his oath to the clearance he attained and thus broke the law. That's one of the biggest issues though, because what's lawful and unlawful is not defined in the UCMJ, it's simply up to the discretion of the soldier himself/herself, which leads to many complications. However, I think people would be more inclined to think that a government killing its own people would be an act of tyranny, and the American Constitution states that any tyrannical government shall be overturned by the people governed. And soldier or not, you are still a citizen of the United States (not you in particular, but in general). But again, this is completely gray area. It may have intentionally been omitted from the UCMJ for this very purpose...who knows? As far as the bomber and people needed is concerned, I didn't mean that it takes like 30 people to launch a place. But it does take more than one or two people. As in, you need access to the hangars themselves as well as weapons stockpiles, and then you need to have clear airspace (i.e. no one trying to shoot you down)to actually attack, land safely, and set yourself up to rinse and repeat. For things to go that smoothly, you'd have to have virtually all air units on the side of evil, which I highly doubt, especially considering my firsthand experience with some of the men and women who make up that particular service. And I agree 100% that the government exists for the interest of the people. The American Constitution states almost those exact words, but I believe that deeper questions about the role of the government as well as the people's implied social contract (as well as how much of our freedom should we allow to be encroached before we fight back) should be considered, as sometimes what seems to be a one sided governmental farce may actually be for the greater good. It's all dependent on so much. //At this point, I feel like I'm completely incoherent as I planned to sleep hours ago for work later on tonight. If you raise any more questions or point out fallacies in my own argument, I'd be happy to respond to them later on. |
|
| I think your perspective on Iraq is rather naive, and perhaps willfully blinkered but that't an argument for another time. Questions about the extent of the social contract make for great debate and it's nice to see that we're both arguing with civility. You guys have it easy, interpreting everything with reference to your constitution. We have no constitution in Britain, they say that an unwritten constitution exists but that's debatable, a constitutional document is probably a great way to hold your government to account, over here the reason we don't have one is because the unwritten constitution declares that there must be parliamentary sovereignty, i.e. parliament must be free to do whatever the hell it likes in whatever situation because it has been elected by the people and represents the people, whose will is unconstrained, it's a bit tautological I know XD. There are real problems distinguishing between when the rules of war apply and when the matter is simply one of policing, especially in the modern world in relation to terrorism the US has repeatedly tried to turn the issue into one of war when classically terrorism has always been an issue of law enforcement, many of the atrocities that the US commits today are justified by this distinction. Always a pleasure! |
apatch3May 12, 2013 12:48 PM
Ntad said: You're a fool if you think that the only reason nobody has tried to invade the US since the 1800s is because we're all a bunch of swell individuals. Except that I don't think that, because well the US certainly isn't a "bunch of swell individuals" (warmongering leaders and criminal bankers), but if you think ANY Military (especially modern day) gives even the slightest care about an untrained population with guns, then you're an idiot. |
NicoleMay 12, 2013 1:40 PM
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
| I'm not sure if they should be illegal, but there should certainly be much more control over them, and more restrictions on who should be allowed to buy them. Unfortunately though, the gun culture is pretty entrenched in the US. The people there think having guns actually protects them. |
Nicole said: Ntad said: You're a fool if you think that the only reason nobody has tried to invade the US since the 1800s is because we're all a bunch of swell individuals. Except that I don't think that, because well the US certainly isn't a "bunch of swell individuals" (warmongering leaders and criminal bankers), but if you think ANY Military (especially modern day) gives even the slightest care about an untrained population with guns, then you're an idiot. Well.. actually a lot of countries outside the US give a lot of care to the amount of guns should be circulating in their countries, eg. most autocratic governments. |
 |
SlothNamakemono said: Well.. actually a lot of countries outside the US give a lot of care to the amount of guns should be circulating in their countries, eg. most autocratic governments. Okay? This has something to do with what we were discussing I assume? Since we weren't talking about other countries. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
Nicole said: SlothNamakemono said: Well.. actually a lot of countries outside the US give a lot of care to the amount of guns should be circulating in their countries, eg. most autocratic governments. Okay? This has something to do with what we were discussing I assume? Since we weren't talking about other countries. Yes you said "but if you think ANY Military (especially modern day) gives even the slightest care about an untrained population with guns, then you're an idiot." You went off topic. |
|
| The reason noone has ever attacked America is not because the citizens have guns, it's because the US is the largest military power in the world. The gun toting locals are completely irrelevant. |
SlothNamakemono said: Yes you said "but if you think ANY Military (especially modern day) gives even the slightest care about an untrained population with guns, then you're an idiot." You went off topic. Yes, I can see how him saying that the reason people haven't attacked America before is the guns the civilians have and me saying any military doesn't care about that, is completely not related to his point. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
Nicole said: SlothNamakemono said: Yes you said "but if you think ANY Military (especially modern day) gives even the slightest care about an untrained population with guns, then you're an idiot." You went off topic. Yes, I can see how him saying that the reason people haven't attacked America before is the guns the civilians have and me saying any military doesn't care about that, is completely not related to his point. Ok, so you're saying my irrelevant comment upon your irrelevant comment upon his relevant comment is irrelevant. My mistake. |
|
| Yes, again I can see how my post being relevant to his post, was irrelevant, do you have a point here or something? |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
Nicole said: Yes, again I can see how my post being relevant to his post, was irrelevant, do you have a point here or something? I give up. I don't have the strength. Just forget it. |
|
| the military is tough and they have the technology but i doubt they can stand up to 100+ million armed citizens not to mention some of their technology is made by the citizens. also their the chance of ruining out of ammo while gunning down citizens. Not all the citizens have just a pistol. Some have big guns. The police is pretty much an army for the states too and they got big guns. Only way military would be able to stop that many people would be to drop the A-bomb. So yes i believe the 2nd amendment was made to allow citizens to form a militia if our government became tyrant. I am happy this amendment was made and wouldnt want the government to take away our guns |
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
SOExclusive said: the military is tough and they have the technology but i doubt they can stand up to 100+ million armed citizens not to mention some of their technology is made by the citizens. also their the chance of ruining out of ammo while gunning down citizens. Not all the citizens have just a pistol. Some have big guns. The police is pretty much an army for the states too and they got big guns. Only way military would be able to stop that many people would be to drop the A-bomb. So yes i believe the 2nd amendment was made to allow citizens to form a militia if our government became tyrant. I am happy this amendment was made and wouldnt want the government to take away our guns The difference between trained soldiers and random people with guns is rather big. The soldiers would be better equipped as well, and a tank isn't going to worry too much about being shot at with the guns the American people can get their hands on. |
| Also, I have literally no idea why people think that if a government wanted to take over, they'd be marching troops into people's homes, there are much much easier ways to take over a country then doing that. Just take a look at all the Rights that US Citizens have lost in the past 30-40 years, especially since 9/11. If the reason the 2nd Amendment was put into the US Constitution was to stop things like your rights being taken away, it failed. |
NicoleMay 12, 2013 2:34 PM
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
InfiniteRufus said: The reason noone has ever attacked America is not because the citizens have guns, it's because the US is the largest military power in the world. The gun toting locals are completely irrelevant. I swear, trying to make a point in this thread is so....pointless. And it's starting to drift way off topic. You people completely ignored the other half of my post about the military being "the other reason." Not just the population. Unless you have any inkling of military tactics and know-how, please stop, you're embarrassing yourselves. For starters, the US has some of the most advanced technology, but China has the largest active military, and North Korea has the largest military, period. They number in the upper millions. So if we're playing a numbers game, unless you count the American people-at-large, we've already lost. And leave that nonsense about nukes and shit at the door. Your nonsensical argument of Man vs. Tank is staggering in it's ridiculousness. I was a tank crewman when I was in the Army and I assure you, they're not invincible, even against civilians. At the risk of incurring Ms. Nicole's wrath by talking about "other countries," those "other countries" are a testament to the feasibility of your so-called untrained populations. Vietnam, the middle-east, major conflicts where armed civilians actually posed one of the greatest threats to our servicemen and women. And even on the other end of the spectrum, there were conflicts (specifically WWII) where many armed civilians were crucial in AIDING our military. Completely discounting the American people as an untrained populace and posing no threat whatsoever once again proves how ignorant you guys are. If anything, the American people are a greater threat (especially to themselves) even if they are just an untrained mass, as that makes them less predictable. However, I do not believe the entire population of the country to be completely untrained in the way of the gun seeing as how a good portion of our citizens are military and law enforcement veterans. This- IN PART -is one of the factors that other military leaders around the world (including our own) have probably considered. And it is this consideration- IN PART -which I believe helps keep our enemies from rolling up on our shores. |
NTADMay 12, 2013 2:52 PM
| No. Look into John Lott. Guns help protect people. Said in an older thread Also, media is a funny tool. "Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study" http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story Edit: Typo |
MadScientistMay 12, 2013 3:07 PM
NEETs (No Employment Education Training) are the least desirable people anybody would want to hire and yet they are the first choice to become moderators/admins around the internet. They have yet to have established a sense of responsibility or role in society and many are plain leeches (with minor exceptions). They are given "authority" to police sections of the internet with the powers of The Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Isn't that weird? -Migrating to another site- Update 11/9/2016 - Inactive Over a Year. Logged in to laugh at elections. |
| regardless u want this o that to happen dsnt matter @ this point. it has already been written in stone. wut is going to happen is there will be stricter laws on who can and cant have one based on each persons backgrounds, mental stability, and reason for owning 1 |
| "I hate all of you." - Squidward |
| here is my argument, ill post it again RandomChampion said: Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Here is an expert analysis on the Second Amendment that takes into account both the diction and the intent: The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.” (Roy Cupperud) Basically, the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right (like you mentioned, arms of every description can fall into that category). The Founding Fathers upheld this natural right for the sole purpose of maintaining the sovereignty of the individual. This maintenance of sovereignty can be in the form of personal defense during a crime, or in the form of defending against suppressive entities (ex – foreign invasion, rogue domestic government). “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Thomas Jefferson) “And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Thomas Jefferson) So, although arms of any description is implied in the Second Amendment, natural rights come into play when it comes to the types of arms one can posses. The principles of the Constitution were drawn from Locke’s ideas of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Here comes into play the rights of sef-defense and being unmolested. If one has the right to own, then one also has the right to assert ownership (aka protect) over that which is yours. The right of self-defense derives from this right. If one has the right to self-defense, then one has the right to have the effective tools and ability to exercise that right (to self-defense). The right to be umolested stems from the fact that liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others. One has the right of quiet enjoyment of his/her property as so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. This means that one cannot disturb/molest another. These two rights combine to dictate that: One has the right to self-defense (and, naturally, the effective tools/means to exercise that right), and one may not disturb those who are not infringing on your right to be unmolested first. Therefore, any arms kept or borne must be able to discriminate between those who are infringing upon your rights and those who are innocent and have nothing to do with the exchange. Basically, the arms must be capable of being directed against the attacker without jeopardizing the rights of the innocent (no RPGs and such) TL;DR Here is a summary of what I am trying to say lol: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) Ownership of being creates a responsibility for its general welfare. 3) Self-defense is a rational pursuit of securing one's general welfare. 4) Efficient self-defense most capably sees to one's general welfare. 5) Firearms represent an efficient tool for self-defense. Following from that: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) By recognizing one's self-ownership one must also recognize right of others to self-ownership. 3) Coercion subverts the self-ownership of others, and is therefore immoral. 4) Coercion can be met with self-defense. 4) A moral means of self-defense must not violate the self-ownership of innocents or their property. 5) Means of self-defense that have disregard for collateral damage do not qualify as moral. Try to refute that. Basically, it is completely unConstitutional (in word and spirit of the Law) to ban guns (i'm talking about in America of course). Any American who thinks otherwise can leave, or something, if they don't agree with it. The Constitution is not meant to be arbitrarily ignored at will. Without the Constitution, the Law of the land, we are nothing. |
RandomChampionMay 12, 2013 3:17 PM
InfiniteRufus said: SOExclusive said: the military is tough and they have the technology but i doubt they can stand up to 100+ million armed citizens not to mention some of their technology is made by the citizens. also their the chance of ruining out of ammo while gunning down citizens. Not all the citizens have just a pistol. Some have big guns. The police is pretty much an army for the states too and they got big guns. Only way military would be able to stop that many people would be to drop the A-bomb. So yes i believe the 2nd amendment was made to allow citizens to form a militia if our government became tyrant. I am happy this amendment was made and wouldnt want the government to take away our guns The difference between trained soldiers and random people with guns is rather big. The soldiers would be better equipped as well, and a tank isn't going to worry too much about being shot at with the guns the American people can get their hands on. did you miss the point about not all citizens have PISTOLS!! i know quite a few people that got machine guns and even rocket launchers. why they have it, i have no clue some armed citizens have been vets the police are trained officers. they get a hefty amount of weapons, just not as much as army It dont matter how much training you got 100+ million vs 300,000 not likely to win |
SOExclusiveMay 12, 2013 3:24 PM
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
Nicole said: Also, I have literally no idea why people think that if a government wanted to take over, they'd be marching troops into people's homes, there are much much easier ways to take over a country then doing that. Just take a look at all the Rights that US Citizens have lost in the past 30-40 years, especially since 9/11. If the reason the 2nd Amendment was put into the US Constitution was to stop things like your rights being taken away, it failed. dont try to compare airplane rules from 9/11 to an amendment part of the bill of rights |
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
SOExclusive said: dont try to compare airplane rules from 9/11 to an amendment part of the bill of rights You think "Airplane rules" are the only rights that US Citizens have lost in the past 40 years lol? |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
Nicole said: Also, I have literally no idea why people think that if a government wanted to take over, they'd be marching troops into people's homes, there are much much easier ways to take over a country then doing that. Just take a look at all the Rights that US Citizens have lost in the past 30-40 years, especially since 9/11. If the reason the 2nd Amendment was put into the US Constitution was to stop things like your rights being taken away, it failed. let's say for an instant that your post is 100% accurate regarding post-9/11 government. Even if we did lose all of our rights, it is up to the people to take action should a government turn to tyranny. The 2nd Amendment will never fail since it, by itself, doesnt directly do anything. The whole premise behind America is that it is up to the people do anything and everything. The idea is that there is only liberty when the people, who are assumed to be autonomous, themselves are willing to act to preserve it. So many Americans are turning into soft ass mofos nowadays, unfortunately. They are willing to do less and less as long as they can get cheap food, 1000 HD channels on their television, and "stay connected" on their smartphones all day. That's why there are so may people who are now open to the idea of banning guns. They think their autonomy can be handed to them by some "authority". |
RandomChampionMay 12, 2013 3:29 PM
RandomChampion said: here is my argument, ill post it again RandomChampion said: Second Amendment: Basically, it is completely unConstitutional (in word and spirit of the Law) to ban guns (i'm talking about in America of course). Any American who thinks otherwise can leave, or something, if they don't agree with it. The Constitution is not meant to be arbitrarily ignored at will. Without the Constitution, the Law of the land, we are nothing. I love this post. That is all. |
Nicole said: SOExclusive said: dont try to compare airplane rules from 9/11 to an amendment part of the bill of rights You think "Airplane rules" are the only rights that US Citizens have lost in the past 40 years lol? In all honesty, i have no clue what rights the US citizens lose. Could you please inform me of what rights were taken away like seriously not saying you are wrong, just lost on this one lol |
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
Ntad said: RandomChampion said: here is my argument, ill post it again RandomChampion said: Second Amendment: Basically, it is completely unConstitutional (in word and spirit of the Law) to ban guns (i'm talking about in America of course). Any American who thinks otherwise can leave, or something, if they don't agree with it. The Constitution is not meant to be arbitrarily ignored at will. Without the Constitution, the Law of the land, we are nothing. I love this post. That is all. and yet, nobody who thinks that guns should be banned in the US responds to it or tries to properly refute it. I wrote it a couple of times in this topic, then gave up becase it's so hard to reason with some of these guys lol. but then, i saw you guys are still trying to get through to them, so i decided to post some backup |
| I've never heard of anything in the constitution mentioning airplanes. The TSA can do whatever they want, so long as they aren't violating fundamental civil rights. Also, not sure if anyone under 18 realizes this, but in the eyes of the law and general public, you don't have any rights to lose except the right to live, remain silent, have an attorney present and get a fair trial. Other than that, everything else is granted to you. |
NTADMay 12, 2013 3:38 PM
SOExclusive said: In all honesty, i have no clue what rights the US citizens lose. Could you please inform me of what rights were taken away like seriously not saying you are wrong, just lost on this one lol http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-02-21/scorecard-how-many-rights-have-americans-really-lost To put simply, there are only like 2 Amendments in the US Constitution which is still actually upheld. The founders of the US were smart people, however they were not sears, they couldn't see into the future, they would not of wanted a country where 300m+ extremely powerful and lethal weapons were in the hands of ignorant and stupid people. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
Nicole said: SOExclusive said: In all honesty, i have no clue what rights the US citizens lose. Could you please inform me of what rights were taken away like seriously not saying you are wrong, just lost on this one lol http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-02-21/scorecard-how-many-rights-have-americans-really-lost To put simply, there are only like 2 Amendments in the US Constitution which is still actually upheld. The founders of the US were smart people, however they were not sears, they couldn't see into the future, they would not of wanted a country where 300m+ extremely powerful and lethal weapons were in the hands of ignorant and stupid people. The founders also warned about the dangers of "Democracy" because they knew what it could mean for the people AND the Constitution. They intended for the country to become a Republic for a reason. Look it up if you don't understand. Also, you just described the better portion of the world's population...and they've got guns, too. Ignorance and stupidity are not unique to the US...though there seems to be plenty of both in this thread. |
NTADMay 12, 2013 3:48 PM
Nicole said: SOExclusive said: In all honesty, i have no clue what rights the US citizens lose. Could you please inform me of what rights were taken away like seriously not saying you are wrong, just lost on this one lol http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-02-21/scorecard-how-many-rights-have-americans-really-lost To put simply, there are only like 2 Amendments in the US Constitution which is still actually upheld. The founders of the US were smart people, however they were not sears, they couldn't see into the future, they would not of wanted a country where 300m+ extremely powerful and lethal weapons were in the hands of ignorant and stupid people. Seems like most of that was indeed from the 9/11 situation and the US government is mostly spying. I dont believe the 4th amendment has been striped from us. That guy in the article argued about sentencing. I believe the 8th amendment argued out again physical and mental abuse. Sentencing someone to prison is not physical abuse or mental abuse. The 4th amendment is meh. I understand what they doing it for. I cannot arguing against the government on spying. The 6th amendment is FUCKED UP FO SHO! The 1st amendment, thats mostly stereotypes and cultural assumptions that was pointed out. The government is not making people shut up. The government is stopping us from dressing the way we want. |
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
InfiniteRufus said: SOExclusive said: the military is tough and they have the technology but i doubt they can stand up to 100+ million armed citizens not to mention some of their technology is made by the citizens. also their the chance of ruining out of ammo while gunning down citizens. Not all the citizens have just a pistol. Some have big guns. The police is pretty much an army for the states too and they got big guns. Only way military would be able to stop that many people would be to drop the A-bomb. So yes i believe the 2nd amendment was made to allow citizens to form a militia if our government became tyrant. I am happy this amendment was made and wouldnt want the government to take away our guns The difference between trained soldiers and random people with guns is rather big. The soldiers would be better equipped as well, and a tank isn't going to worry too much about being shot at with the guns the American people can get their hands on. Obviously you must believe every marine and soldier is proficiently trained in firearms and infantry tactics.Yes every soldier and marine is trained how to shoot a rifle.But they are not as proficient as most firearm owners are when it comes to shooting. Nor do they have infantry and special forces skills. Most soldiers and marines are support.They are paper pushers, supply clerks, cooks, finance, mechanics, and other noncombat troops. Infantry only make up a small portion of Soldiers and Marines. |
RandomChampion said: Basically, it is completely unConstitutional (in word and spirit of the Law) to ban guns (i'm talking about in America of course). Any American who thinks otherwise can leave, or something, if they don't agree with it. The Constitution is not meant to be arbitrarily ignored at will. Without the Constitution, the Law of the land, we are nothing. You realise if they want to ban guns they can simply add an amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment right? |
Sakura_jp said: RandomChampion said: Basically, it is completely unConstitutional (in word and spirit of the Law) to ban guns (i'm talking about in America of course). Any American who thinks otherwise can leave, or something, if they don't agree with it. The Constitution is not meant to be arbitrarily ignored at will. Without the Constitution, the Law of the land, we are nothing. You realise if they want to ban guns they can simply add an amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment right? read my entire argument |
Sakura_jp said: RandomChampion said: Basically, it is completely unConstitutional (in word and spirit of the Law) to ban guns (i'm talking about in America of course). Any American who thinks otherwise can leave, or something, if they don't agree with it. The Constitution is not meant to be arbitrarily ignored at will. Without the Constitution, the Law of the land, we are nothing. You realise if they want to ban guns they can simply add an amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment right? /Facepalm...Big fuckin' /Facepalm Actually, let me make it really obvious... /FACEPALM |
NTADMay 12, 2013 6:24 PM
RandomChampion said: Sakura_jp said: RandomChampion said: Basically, it is completely unConstitutional (in word and spirit of the Law) to ban guns (i'm talking about in America of course). Any American who thinks otherwise can leave, or something, if they don't agree with it. The Constitution is not meant to be arbitrarily ignored at will. Without the Constitution, the Law of the land, we are nothing. You realise if they want to ban guns they can simply add an amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment right? read my entire argument I did. It doesn't really prove anything. The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Therefore, if the Second Amendment is repealed, then the right to bear and keep arms can be infringed. If they could not be infringed even without the Second Amendment, then the Second Amendment would never have been necessary in the first place. |
More topics from this board
» Asmongold vs Joey SwollZakuF_ - Yesterday |
5 |
by KayKimii
»»
41 minutes ago |
|
» Do you know the elements of the Periodic Table?AMBITZZ - 10 hours ago |
16 |
by logopolis
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» How to cope with being single forever? ( 1 2 )CrimsonMidnight - Jun 24 |
50 |
by Zarutaku
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Would you sit on a chair made out of Katana's?ZakuF_ - 11 hours ago |
10 |
by Mayahuel
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Wrong to marry/have kids with second cousin? ( 1 2 )ZakuF_ - Jun 25 |
95 |
by Zarutaku
»»
2 hours ago |