The second amendment of the United States Constitution states: “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the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.†Obviously the need for a state militia has been replaced by the National Guard and Coast Guard whereby trained military personnel are entrusted with the defense of this country against domestic enemies. Their weapons are tightly controlled and safeguarded.
The only two reasons for a citizen to own a firearm are for hunting or defense of the household from intruders. In either case, ownership of a handgun, shotgun or rifle is more than adequate to satisfy these purposes. There is absolutely no need for any U.S. civilian to own any weapon more powerful or sophisticated than these.
Accordingly, all handguns, shotguns and rifles must be licensed and registered to the degree necessary to match weapon to owner at the click of a computer key. Furthermore, we must guarantee that the mentally ill do not gain access to them under any circumstances. Finally, if we had prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons several innocent victims would not have died or been harmed at shopping malls, college campuses, Congressional meetings, churches, and now concerts. We as a country must deal with this issue immediately lest our society fall back to the days when everyone carried a holster.
Good luck with that.
Until Americans give a shit about anyone other than themselves, or the majority have a family member or friend killed to senseless violence, nothing is going to change.
I think it was Churchill who put it best, that Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing... as soon as they have tried everything else.
While I agree in theory, Kent State fucked up the idea that our sons, as soldiers, would not kill our unarmed sisters and brothers(not to ignore Haymarket et al). This being proven wrong gives credence that the populace should be armed against the tyranny of the state. While the general populace in a given "area" could not compete against the military. Over all, the military "most likely" would not be able to kill the populace. I once wrote: "Tis easy to quell a dare in Tiannamen Square...but not in the land of Yosemite Sam." If a case could ever be made that the only reason a people remained free was that it was armed, then we would be that case. Unfortunately, plenty of countries exist where they do indeed have the same freedom and better security with less armored populace. Again,,using the word "unfortunately" with trump in office...I cannot at this date argue for the reduction of arms among the populace when we have a heavy rise in white nationalism that really worries me.
Quote from: joebialek on October 23, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
The second amendment of the United States Constitution states: “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.†Obviously the need for a state militia has been replaced by the National Guard and Coast Guard whereby trained military personnel are entrusted with the defense of this country against domestic enemies. Their weapons are tightly controlled and safeguarded.
The only two reasons for a citizen to own a firearm are for hunting or defense of the household from intruders. In either case, ownership of a handgun, shotgun or rifle is more than adequate to satisfy these purposes. There is absolutely no need for any U.S. civilian to own any weapon more powerful or sophisticated than these.
Accordingly, all handguns, shotguns and rifles must be licensed and registered to the degree necessary to match weapon to owner at the click of a computer key. Furthermore, we must guarantee that the mentally ill do not gain access to them under any circumstances. Finally, if we had prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons several innocent victims would not have died or been harmed at shopping malls, college campuses, Congressional meetings, churches, and now concerts. We as a country must deal with this issue immediately lest our society fall back to the days when everyone carried a holster.
It was never like that, just ask the Clantons at the OK Corral. They were guilty of gun violations in the city limits of Tombstone in 1882. The county marshal refused to enforce the law, the city cops (the Earps) insisted on enforcing the law. I would take the Old West any day. That was what freedom looked like (unless you were Native American of course). And lots of legalized prostitution ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRiWAxMMX5o
Real men. The Earps and Doc Holliday were tried for murder, but found innocent. Justifiable homicide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trgKeCFmi3M
Han Solo wasn't the first ...
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2017, 09:45:04 PM
While I agree in theory, Kent State fucked up the idea that our sons, as soldiers, would not kill our unarmed sisters and brothers(not to ignore Haymarket et al). This being proven wrong gives credence that the populace should be armed against the tyranny of the state. While the general populace in a given "area" could not compete against the military. Over all, the military "most likely" would not be able to kill the populace. I once wrote: "Tis easy to quell a dare in Tiannamen Square...but not in the land of Yosemite Sam." If a case could ever be made that the only reason a people remained free was that it was armed, then we would be that case. Unfortunately, plenty of countries exist where they do indeed have the same freedom and better security with less armored populace. Again,,using the word "unfortunately" with trump in office...I cannot at this date argue for the reduction of arms among the populace when we have a heavy rise in white nationalism that really worries me.
I disagree with you on the military part because, at the end of the day, what is a 9mm or even a 20-30 round 5.56 civilian AR going to do against people with tanks and drones? However I can see your point with the white nationalism and needing to defend yourself against them, at least now that the state has proven they won't be the ones to defend you.
I still disagree with guns being the answer and think we would be much better off taking them all away and melting them down, but that is one of the few arguments I have seen that actually makes me consider them having a valid use in our society.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 24, 2017, 12:34:43 AM
I disagree with you on the military part because, at the end of the day, what is a 9mm or even a 20-30 round 5.56 civilian AR going to do against people with tanks and drones? However I can see your point with the white nationalism and needing to defend yourself against them, at least now that the state has proven they won't be the ones to defend you.
I still disagree with guns being the answer and think we would be much better off taking them all away and melting them down, but that is one of the few arguments I have seen that actually makes me consider them having a valid use in our society.
Society is a shit, yet you trust society? Not that you or I want to be predators. And neither of us have self-defense fantasies. I would prefer for the cops (the Earps) to do their job, so I don't have to form my own posse. But the conspiracy theories and utopias ...
3% of Americans own half the country's 265 million guns (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/)
That's less than a million people owning 132.5 million guns.
Most Americans don't own guns. Must Americans who own guns have just one. The problem isn't with "Americans", it's with ~one in 33 Americans.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 24, 2017, 06:56:57 AM
3% of Americans own half the country's 265 million guns (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/)
That's less than a million people owning 132.5 million guns.
Most Americans don't own guns. Must Americans who own guns have just one. The problem isn't with "Americans", it's with ~one in 33 Americans.
Gun nuts are usually ... collection addicts or conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy theorists are the dangerous one IMHO.
The people who think all their problems are solved by Xi China or Putin Russia, need to move there.
Yo, Joe. You should make an introductory thread so we know who the hell you are.
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?board=2.0
Quote from: Shiranu on October 24, 2017, 12:34:43 AM
I disagree with you on the military part because, at the end of the day, what is a 9mm or even a 20-30 round 5.56 civilian AR going to do against people with tanks and drones? However I can see your point with the white nationalism and needing to defend yourself against them, at least now that the state has proven they won't be the ones to defend you.
I still disagree with guns being the answer and think we would be much better off taking them all away and melting them down, but that is one of the few arguments I have seen that actually makes me consider them having a valid use in our society.
The big "deal" breaker in todays world is our social media. I would think (hope) that with instant communication with mom and dad and sis and bro that our soldiers would be far more hesitant to open fire on a college crowd, but I will not take that test myself. I am assured that the military would open fire on a "mob" mentality but to go off and start hunting peeps in small towns? I think social media and pressure would put most soldiers at ease so to speak. But what do you guys think? Does anyone really think our sons and daughters would start invading towns and ransacking houses?
Quote from: aitm on October 24, 2017, 06:58:29 PM
The big "deal" breaker in todays world is our social media. I would think (hope) that with instant communication with mom and dad and sis and bro that our soldiers would be far more hesitant to open fire on a college crowd, but I will not take that test myself. I am assured that the military would open fire on a "mob" mentality but to go off and start hunting peeps in small towns? I think social media and pressure would put most soldiers at ease so to speak. But what do you guys think? Does anyone really think our sons and daughters would start invading towns and ransacking houses?
Not reliably. This is why all serious conspiracy theories involve blue helmet (UN) troops. They have been used elsewhere, why not in the US, to pacify a rogue country?
Quote from: aitm on October 24, 2017, 06:58:29 PM
The big "deal" breaker in todays world is our social media. I would think (hope) that with instant communication with mom and dad and sis and bro that our soldiers would be far more hesitant to open fire on a college crowd, but I will not take that test myself. I am assured that the military would open fire on a "mob" mentality but to go off and start hunting peeps in small towns? I think social media and pressure would put most soldiers at ease so to speak. But what do you guys think? Does anyone really think our sons and daughters would start invading towns and ransacking houses?
Remember that 3% of Americans own half the guns. That would be the revolting (sic) element, not the government. They don't have a military infrastructure, no national or even state command structure, no logistical support. The Army's job would be half done if they took those idiots out.
But that's not what any rational person wants. 97% of Americans own one gun or less. They're not worried about the "government coming for their guns". And the hard right makes more noise about "they're coming for our guns" than the left.
Quote from: aitm on October 24, 2017, 06:58:29 PM
The big "deal" breaker in todays world is our social media. I would think (hope) that with instant communication with mom and dad and sis and bro that our soldiers would be far more hesitant to open fire on a college crowd, but I will not take that test myself. I am assured that the military would open fire on a "mob" mentality but to go off and start hunting peeps in small towns? I think social media and pressure would put most soldiers at ease so to speak. But what do you guys think? Does anyone really think our sons and daughters would start invading towns and ransacking houses?
Get people scared and angry enough, and you can get them to do anything you like.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 24, 2017, 07:59:26 PM
Get people scared and angry enough, and you can get them to do anything you like.
Like fight tanks with F-350 Compensators?
The movie "Red Dawn" had my guys rolling in the aisles. High School kids wouldn't last five minutes against Spetznaz.
Quote from: aitm on October 23, 2017, 09:45:04 PMIf a case could ever be made that the only reason a people remained free was that it was armed, then we would be that case. Unfortunately, plenty of countries exist where they do indeed have the same freedom and better security with less armored populace.
Is this an argument for or against mass gun ownership? :headscratch:
Quote from: Shiranu on October 24, 2017, 07:59:26 PM
Get people scared and angry enough, and you can get them to do anything you like.
That is what the CIA is counting on.
Americans aren't free, and neither are people in other countries. With or without guns.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 24, 2017, 08:05:43 PM
Like fight tanks with F-350 Compensators?
The movie "Red Dawn" had my guys rolling in the aisles. High School kids wouldn't last five minutes against Spetznaz.
Red Dawn is a fantasy that takes itself too seriously and tries to pass as drama. As fantasy it could have some merit. An alliance with aliens from outer space would help take it out of the "stupid drama" category, and solidify it's place in legitimate fantasy. But this is tricky. It could also end up as a flop like Cowboys and Aliens. At any rate, it has no place in serious drama. Even with better direction and a different script, the premise is just a little too absurd.
Quote from: SGOS on October 26, 2017, 08:47:39 AM
Red Dawn is a fantasy that takes itself too seriously and tries to pass as drama. As fantasy it could have some merit. An alliance with aliens from outer space would help take it out of the "stupid drama" category, and solidify it's place in legitimate fantasy. But this is tricky. It could also end up as a flop like Cowboys and Aliens. At any rate, it has no place in serious drama. Even with better direction and a different script, the premise is just a little too absurd.
Not absurd! A REAL AMERICAN can take on any number of commies, faggots, or government stooges!
Embarrassingly, I was a member of the NRA once. I joined on the urging of a coworker, who wanted to win an NRA prize for recruitment, which isn't extraordinary in itself. Hell, the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts give out prizes for selling cookies and tickets to the Scout-O-Rama.
I am/was not a joiner, but I was a hunter with a mild interest in reloading, and I had seen the NRA publication, The American Rifleman, which was not that interesting, but did provide a lot of information on ballistics. As an alternative when joining, you could opt instead to receive The American Hunter, which centered around much more interesting stories of guys climbing around cliffs chasing mountain goats. Why you couldn't get both publications, I never understood.
Back then, there was nothing about the publications that seemed strange or cult like. I think the last page of each was devoted to short clips reminiscent of a small town paper's weekly arrests from the Sherriff's Office, it was centered around blowing away home intruders by a well armed citizenry; "Eighty year old lady kneecaps masked bandits sneaking around her porch; Earl Maynard shoots surprised assailant in head," but other than that, the rest of the publication was fairly responsible.
But once I became a dues paying member of the cult, I started receiving weird mail designed to prey upon the paranoia of the unarmed. None of it was helpful on how to bag this Fall's big buck, or where to find the best hunting grounds. It was basically about shooting people, a nation in chaos, and the only solution seemed to be an escalation of the paranoia and chaos. I was a hunter in a small town of hunters, people who looked out for each other, and only shot each other by accident. I was suddenly introduced to the truth that I lived in a savage society where I wasn't safe from my neighbors, and a bandit lurked behind every corner mailbox.
I decided the organization was aimed at crazy people, and was run by crazy people, and I quit, but kept receiving phone calls asking me to rejoin for years. "Not Interested," was not good enough for them. They could not accept that I didn't want to be a part of the cult. And they are a cult in my opinion. I was a hunter. I could understand lobbying to protect game habitat, and protect our access to public land, and to manage healthy game populations, but I was stunned to come to find out that the real reason to own a gun is so you could blast a guy when you had to.
The NRA wasn't deeply involved in politics until the mid 70's. It didn't really go hard right until after Reagan was elected in 80, and jumped off the cliff when Wayne LaPierre became CEO in 91.
I have a problem that gun ownership, at least in this state, requires fewer hoops to jump through than it takes to be my barber. Which one's going to do more permanent damage if they make a mistake, a gun owner or the stylist at Great Clips? There should be licensing and insurance requirements, just like for cars. And lifetime ownership bans for anyone convicted of a violent crime -- particularly DV.
Quote from: trdsf on October 26, 2017, 10:54:05 AM
I have a problem that gun ownership, at least in this state, requires fewer hoops to jump through than it takes to be my barber. Which one's going to do more permanent damage if they make a mistake, a gun owner or the stylist at Great Clips? There should be licensing and insurance requirements, just like for cars. And lifetime ownership bans for anyone convicted of a violent crime -- particularly DV.
The reply for the "ardent gunners" is that this is a slippery slope issue. Each piece of seemingly innocuous legislation is part of a pre-planned series of steps designed to "take our guns away!"
Yep, it's a conspiracy theory.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on October 26, 2017, 10:40:37 AM
The NRA wasn't deeply involved in politics until the mid 70's. It didn't really go hard right until after Reagan was elected in 80, and jumped off the cliff when Wayne LaPierre became CEO in 91.
That fits from my perspective. I joined back in the late 70s, so my limited knowledge of the organization was that it was just a group for gun owners, hunters, target shooters with an interest in competition, and those with an interest in guns as a recreation or hobby. And I'm guessing that is what it started out to be. Their main publication seemed to be directed at the highly technical aspects of marksmanship, bullet trajectories, and the relationships between bullet weight and powder loads. About that time in society at large, there was also some political interest in taking guns out of the hands of criminals, which seems like a sensible idea. I can't remember anyone in Montana being overly concerned about that kind of oversight.
For some reason, which I can only guess at, the NRA seized on the idea of gun control and used it to promote the fear that the government was coming to take our guns away, as if guys in black SUVs would be knocking on doors and storming your bedroom closets. Still, few of my hunting and gun collecting friends were worried about the absurdity of the jack booted thugs taking away our possessions, but it was a meme that eventually caught traction to fight what appears to me to be a boogieman. It became the central focus of the organization and a turning point in history where reason in a civilized society took a step backwards and turned into hysteria.
It reinforces my perception that freedom and democracy are fragile, and not a natural progression in the evolution of society. The population can be controlled and weakened by fear and propaganda, which is a bit different than power mad politicians wanting to dictate our behavior, something we should be aware of to be sure, but is not the most important issue in holding on to our freedom and security. The doubling down of the NRA wanting us to be armed in bars and schools seems extreme and contrary to my vision of freedom and peaceful coexistence in a sovereign state.
But it is what it is, and who knows where it will all lead? We can only play the hand we are dealt and hope for the best. But the hysteria is troublesome. It's not a good environment that nurtures reason.
Quote from: SGOS on October 26, 2017, 08:47:39 AM
Red Dawn is a fantasy that takes itself too seriously and tries to pass as drama. As fantasy it could have some merit. An alliance with aliens from outer space would help take it out of the "stupid drama" category, and solidify it's place in legitimate fantasy. But this is tricky. It could also end up as a flop like Cowboys and Aliens. At any rate, it has no place in serious drama. Even with better direction and a different script, the premise is just a little too absurd.
I liked Cowboys & Aliens ... reminded me of John Carter On Mars.
Quote from: trdsf on October 26, 2017, 10:54:05 AM
I have a problem that gun ownership, at least in this state, requires fewer hoops to jump through than it takes to be my barber. Which one's going to do more permanent damage if they make a mistake, a gun owner or the stylist at Great Clips? There should be licensing and insurance requirements, just like for cars. And lifetime ownership bans for anyone convicted of a violent crime -- particularly DV.
Sorry, not a fan of state regulation of anything. The state doing the regulating ... is idiots, same as the barbers and hairdressers. Next thing you will be telling me barbers can't do elective surgery ;-)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 26, 2017, 11:36:17 AM
The reply for the "ardent gunners" is that this is a slippery slope issue. Each piece of seemingly innocuous legislation is part of a pre-planned series of steps designed to "take our guns away!"
Yep, it's a conspiracy theory.
Holdover from the Civil War. The Oath is against all enemies, foreign and domestic (originally Dumbs, now Rethugs). The antigovernment folks have been out there since the George Washington admin. It was just particularly bad in 1861. It has gone up and down in intensity. Part of it is driven by paranoia, partly by criminality, partly by rebellion. Those will never go away.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 26, 2017, 11:36:17 AM
The reply for the "ardent gunners" is that this is a slippery slope issue. Each piece of seemingly innocuous legislation is part of a pre-planned series of steps designed to "take our guns away!"
It IS a slippery slope, and I know exactly where it started. It was when Montana hunting licenses started to require a course in hunter safety and education for 12 year olds to get their first license. That was 40 years ago, and now they require anyone born after 1985 to show a certificate of completion in hunter safety and education. Talk about the government breathing down our necks at every turn. Why back in 1776, a father would just take his 8 year old out in the woods and with an arm around his little shoulder, lovingly tell him not to shoot at movement in the bushes, unless he was 50% sure it wasn't uncle Jeb waking up with his jug of white lightening. And we made it through just fine, even those of us who didn't know what 50% meant.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 26, 2017, 11:36:17 AM
The reply for the "ardent gunners" is that this is a slippery slope issue. Each piece of seemingly innocuous legislation is part of a pre-planned series of steps designed to "take our guns away!"
Yep, it's a conspiracy theory.
Funny how they never have an answer when I ask them how many people have had their drivers' licenses taken away on a governmental whim. For DUI, vehicular manslaughter, getting into an accident while uninsured, yes. But those are reasons, not whims.
And also, yes, the government
can set limits on what's publicly available. The State of Ohio BMV is
not going to issue plates on an Indy car. By extension, I don't see a need to issue a gun license for an Uzi that's capable of firing.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 26, 2017, 11:36:17 AM
The reply for the "ardent gunners" is that this is a slippery slope issue. Each piece of seemingly innocuous legislation is part of a pre-planned series of steps designed to "take our guns away!"
Yep, it's a conspiracy theory.
It's not a conspiracy theory when you have Nancy Pelosi telling people that she certainly hopes a piece of proposed gun control legislation is the first step on a slippery slope.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on October 26, 2017, 03:14:58 PM
It's not a conspiracy theory when you have Nancy Pelosi telling people that she certainly hopes a piece of proposed gun control legislation is the first step on a slippery slope.
It is a conspiracy theory when they are double damn CERTAIN that's what's going to happen.
From Pelosi's perspective it's a policy statement.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on October 26, 2017, 03:39:27 PM
From Pelosi's perspective it's a policy statement.
Straining at gnats and swallowing camels again.
I think Pelosi represents an unusually liberal contingent of the Democratic Party. What she wishes for does not represent the reality of what Americans in general could live with. She may wish for a slippery slope, and she might even see it take a couple of steps beyond whatever specific legislation she is talking about, but she won't get to see guns banned. She's just talking to the 12th district and a select part of the ultra left. Actually, I doubt that she cares that much anyway.
I also wonder what the left actually wants. I'm left of left. Too far left to vote for a typical Democrat, but I am so because of environmental issues. Yes, I think gun regulation is entirely appropriate, but I have no interest in banning them. I dunno; I may not be typical, but I wonder about it.
Politics has become so divisive and partisan that many people end up taking an extreme position based on a knee jerk reaction to the opposite extreme, which often isn't necessarily rational. I believe there can be room for compromise that can benefit the good of a majority, but the extremes are set up to divide voters along party lines. We have learned to hate each other, and I believe this has been choreographed by politicians and special interests.
Three percent of Americans own half the 256,000,000 guns in the country. That's less that one million Americans owning 123,000,000 guns, over an hundred guns each on the average.
Most Americans don't own guns.
Discounting the 3%, Americans own less than one gun each on the average.
The lunatic fringe of gunownership is the problem here.
A policy statement does not translate directly into a slippery slope. A policy is a statement of purpose. In the case of any politician, government organization, or corporate boardroom a policy is at most bullshit. At the least, it's a malleable guide for consideration, and never followed to a Tee. Even if it's not bullshit for Pelosi, she doesn't represent a majority by any means. I can see why Pelosi scares the NRA and the right, but she is not in a position to slide America all the way down a slope, and she knows it. America in general is far too conservative to let her do it. I wouldn't judge or fear America by what Pelosi says she wants.
No REASONABLE person wants a total gun ban. It would take an act of Congress to revoke my licenses and the one like them. But when the gunners produce a Las Vegas-style event they're actually shooting themselves in the ass, er foot.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 26, 2017, 04:39:12 PM
No REASONABLE person wants a total gun ban. It would take an act of Congress to revoke my licenses and the one like them. But when the gunners produce a Las Vegas-style event they're actually shooting themselves in the ass, er foot.
A total gun ban is not Constitutionally possible anyway. It would require amendment, and is simply not even a remotely plausible goal on any time frame less than many,
many decades -- and isn't really plausible even then.
Quote from: trdsf on October 26, 2017, 04:52:30 PM
A total gun ban is not Constitutionally possible anyway. It would require amendment, and is simply not even a remotely plausible goal on any time frame less than many, many decades -- and isn't really plausible even then.
SCOTUS changed the amendment, they can change it again.
And giving up is not how problems get solved.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 26, 2017, 05:09:00 PM
SCOTUS changed the amendment, they can change it again.
And giving up is not how problems get solved.
Don't like people, then XXX people. ISIS understands this.
Quote from: SGOS on October 26, 2017, 03:59:37 PM
I think Pelosi represents an unusually liberal contingent of the Democratic Party. What she wishes for does not represent the reality of what Americans in general could live with. She may wish for a slippery slope, and she might even see it take a couple of steps beyond whatever specific legislation she is talking about, but she won't get to see guns banned. She's just talking to the 12th district and a select part of the ultra left. Actually, I doubt that she cares that much anyway.
I also wonder what the left actually wants. I'm left of left. Too far left to vote for a typical Democrat, but I am so because of environmental issues. Yes, I think gun regulation is entirely appropriate, but I have no interest in banning them. I dunno; I may not be typical, but I wonder about it.
Politics has become so divisive and partisan that many people end up taking an extreme position based on a knee jerk reaction to the opposite extreme, which often isn't necessarily rational. I believe there can be room for compromise that can benefit the good of a majority, but the extremes are set up to divide voters along party lines. We have learned to hate each other, and I believe this has been choreographed by politicians and special interests.
Just watched a stage rendition of The Crucible. Before it is over, D and R will be burning each other, as witches ... cackle, cackle
Quote from: joebialek on October 23, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
The second amendment of the United States Constitution states: “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.†Obviously the need for a state militia has been replaced by the National Guard and Coast Guard whereby trained military personnel are entrusted with the defense of this country against domestic enemies. Their weapons are tightly controlled and safeguarded.
The only two reasons for a citizen to own a firearm are for hunting or defense of the household from intruders. In either case, ownership of a handgun, shotgun or rifle is more than adequate to satisfy these purposes. There is absolutely no need for any U.S. civilian to own any weapon more powerful or sophisticated than these.
Accordingly, all handguns, shotguns and rifles must be licensed and registered to the degree necessary to match weapon to owner at the click of a computer key. Furthermore, we must guarantee that the mentally ill do not gain access to them under any circumstances. Finally, if we had prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons several innocent victims would not have died or been harmed at shopping malls, college campuses, Congressional meetings, churches, and now concerts. We as a country must deal with this issue immediately lest our society fall back to the days when everyone carried a holster.
I agree that is the actual meaning of the 2nd amendment. "A well-regulated militia" is the army. We just didn't have a standing army then.
No, the militia was NOT the Army. The militia were locals who would be the first-responders in an emergency.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 06:09:00 AM
No, the militia was NOT the Army. The militia were locals who would be the first-responders in an emergency.
That WAS the original army and what the Founders thought was possible. They had no more concept of our modern army that farmers then had of tractors. The Founders lived in a time of citizen armies and we do not now.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 06:25:24 AM
That WAS the original army and what the Founders thought was possible. They had no more concept of our modern army that farmers then had of tractors. The Founders lived in a time of citizen armies and we do not now.
This is what they thought a militia was: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=019/llsp019.db&recNum=888
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 06:36:57 AM
This is what they thought a militia was: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=019/llsp019.db&recNum=888
That was 1832, not 1789.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 06:55:56 AM
That was 1832, not 1789.
Yep, and nothing changed in the interval. I don't have ready access to the earlier records, but there are numerous studies of the militia system available, most notable those produced by students at the Army's War College. I looked at them in comparison to Jefferson's Gunboat Navy when I was at Purdue.
The militia was supposed to protect Washington in 1814, and they fell flat on their collective asses.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 07:01:41 AM
Yep, and nothing changed in the interval. I don't have ready access to the earlier records, but there are numerous studies of the militia system available, most notable those produced by students at the Army's War College. I looked at them in comparison to Jefferson's Gunboat Navy when I was at Purdue.
The militia was supposed to protect Washington in 1814, and they fell flat on their collective asses.
But you are arguing effectiveness of the organized military, not "what a miltia was" at the time.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 07:05:27 AM
But you are arguing effectiveness of the organized military, not "what a miltia was" at the time.
And you know what it was at the time? You studied the make-up, drilling requirement, muster call-outs, etc.?
Look, to see what the militia was then in an entertaining way, watch "Drums Along the Mohawk."
Watch Drums Along The Mohawk
gomovies.fm/watch/7vN7XLxR-drums-along-the-mohawk.html
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 07:13:45 AM
And you know what it was at the time? You studied the make-up, drilling requirement, muster call-outs, etc.?
Look, to see what the militia was then in an entertaining way, watch "Drums Along the Mohawk."
Watch Drums Along The Mohawk
gomovies.fm/watch/7vN7XLxR-drums-along-the-mohawk.html
I read the book.
In a militia, you drilled and went home. With your squiirrel gun or without the one supplied to you and you weren't part of a "standing army".
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 07:21:51 AM
I read the book.
In a militia, you drilled and went home. With your squiirrel gun or without the one supplied to you and you weren't part of a "standing army".
When did I say otherwise?
I fumble with the "Well regulated militia" phrase of the constitution all the time. Besides being a haphazard redundant concept of the Armed Forces, it seems archaic. I think it sounds like that because it is. The Montana Militia and the Michigan Militia are Modern day militias that come to mind, which experienced a temporary upsurge in notoriety 20 years ago because of their intimidating and belligerent nature. They were anything but well regulated. They often had anti government motivations, and had very little similarity to standing armies. Videos I've seen of them training are pretty much what you can observe in a paint ball park, but I wouldn't want these guys defending Washington DC. And them thinking they might be called upon one day to rise to the nation's defense is pure fantasy. The militias will more likely be the training grounds for the eventual roving outlaws that will steal your food and valuables during the post apocalyptic dystopia. But as the first line of our nation's defense, they should be put in a box or sent to a day care facility.
The "Well regulated militia" section of the Constitution is outdated junk verbiage that contributes nothing to the national good. It's kind of like the Bible. If you stretch your imagination to the breaking point, you can probably read almost anything you want in it. It doesn't really require an amendment. You could just take a scissors and cut it out of the Constitution, and tape the thing back together again. 100 years from now, no one would even notice.
And with or without that garbage in the constitution, people would still be running around collecting guns or not collecting guns according to their whims, since the constitution would not even specify whether or not you could own guns.
Quote from: SGOS on October 27, 2017, 08:26:07 AM
I fumble with the "Well regulated militia" phrase of the constitution all the time. Besides being a haphazard redundant concept of the Armed Forces, it seems archaic. I think it sounds like that because it is. The Montana Militia and the Michigan Militia are Modern day militias that come to mind, which experienced a temporary upsurge in notoriety 20 years ago because of their intimidating and belligerent nature. They were anything but well regulated. They often had anti government motivations, and had very little similarity to standing armies. Videos I've seen of them training are pretty much what you can observe in a paint ball park, but I wouldn't want these guys defending Washington DC. And them thinking they might be called upon one day to rise to the nation's defense is pure fantasy. The militias will more likely be the training grounds for the eventual roving outlaws that will steal your food and valuables during the post apocalyptic dystopia. But as the first line of our nation's defense, they should be put in a box or sent to a day care facility.
The "Well regulated militia" section of the Constitution is outdated junk verbiage that contributes nothing to the national good. It's kind of like the Bible. If you stretch your imagination to the breaking point, you can probably read almost anything you want in it. It doesn't really require an amendment. You could just take a scissors and cut it out of the Constitution, and tape the thing back together again. 100 years from now, no one would even notice.
And with or without that garbage in the constitution, people would still be running around collecting guns or not collecting guns according to their whims, since the constitution would not even specify whether or not you could own guns.
There comes a time when archaic language needs to be changed to reflect the modern world. Slavery was abolished, women got the rights they deserved to vote and own property. Surely the antiquated "militia" can be reimagined to understand "gun rights" as hunting and no more than that. And future changes too.
"Well-regulated" just meant they were thoroughly drilled in the "regulations" (i.e., requirements) for the job. The King's Regulations governed the British Army and we just "borrowed" them for our guys.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 09:50:57 AM
"Well-regulated" just meant they were thoroughly drilled in the "regulations" (i.e., requirements) for the job. The King's Regulations governed the British Army and we just "borrowed" them for our guys.
You believe that? Really? "Regulated" meant, then as now, "controlled".
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 10:04:33 AM
You believe that? Really? "Regulated" meant, then as now, "controlled".
I believe it because I've studied the matter. Troops have to be "controlled", i.e. disciplined, on the battlefield. They spent hours practicing the manual of arms (which isn't a manual) and drilling in formations so they could do it under fire and remain a coherent fighting unit. The militia didn't spend that much time, some of them met only once a month (and many didn't show up for that muster) and their performance showed it.
I know what I'm talking about, even if you don't like it. My Masters was in Military History. My lead prof was a former professor at Sandhurst. One of his students was John Keegan.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 26, 2017, 05:09:00 PM
SCOTUS changed the amendment, they can change it again.
And giving up is not how problems get solved.
Who said I was giving up? Come on, you know this isn't black and white. I do not think that all guns should be banned from all people all the time, and
I did not say I did, so don't pull this straw man nonsense with me.
Even as a non-gun owner, I recognize that there are legitimate sporting and personal protection reasons for individuals to own guns. I myself have enjoyed target shooting on occasion -- in part because I could out-shoot the NRA member in our gaming group. Drove him right up a wall that the hippie socialist peace freak was at least as good a shot as him. ;)
I just want gun owners to receive basic training in safe operation, and demonstrate that knowledge in order to receive a license and not have a background that includes violent crimes, same as I want the drivers I share the road with to be properly licensed and not have a history of DUI.
And in much the same way I don't want to share the road with a tank, I don't want to share my neighborhood with someone with automatic weapons. There's no legitimate sporting use for them, and no legitimate personal protection use outside of a war zone.
"A total gun ban is not Constitutionally possible anyway. It would require amendment, and is simply not even a remotely plausible goal on any time frame less than many, many decades -- and isn't really plausible even then."
That's giving up to me. First off, as I noted, we don't need an amendment to change the amendment, as SCOTUS has proven. Second, the harder we try the sooner we're going to get this under control. I don't want a total ban either, but as long as the gun nuts are entrenched it may be the only option.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 11:18:46 AM
I don't want a total ban either, but as long as the gun nuts are entrenched it may be the only option.
I'm guessing this is Pelosi's tactic. She knows there will never be a total ban and must see some legitimate reasons for owning a gun. I don't know this for sure, of course, and I don't care. I never heard the comment in question, and don't know if she specified what was at the end of her "slippery slope," but even if she meant a total ban, that wouldn't be any more radical than the NRA position. There is middle ground between the two positions, and to me, that middle ground is a huge area.
Quote from: SGOS on October 27, 2017, 12:45:36 PM
I'm guessing this is Pelosi's tactic. She knows there will never be a total ban and must see some legitimate reasons for owning a gun. I don't know this for sure, of course, and I don't care. I never heard the comment in question, and don't know if she specified what was at the end of her "slippery slope," but even if she meant a total ban, that wouldn't be any more radical than the NRA position. There is middle ground between the two positions, and to me, that middle ground is a huge area.
Yep, and most Americans don't want the madness to continue but don't want a total ban. Pelosi starts with some wiggle room.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 11:18:46 AM
"A total gun ban is not Constitutionally possible anyway. It would require amendment, and is simply not even a remotely plausible goal on any time frame less than many, many decades -- and isn't really plausible even then."
That's giving up to me.
Well, you're free to misinterpret me if you like. I've made where I stand clear, I think.
Quote from: trdsf on October 27, 2017, 12:55:11 PM
Well, you're free to misinterpret me if you like. I've made where I stand clear, I think.
Fine, and I'll go with the impression I got from your post.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 11:18:46 AM
"A total gun ban is not Constitutionally possible anyway. It would require amendment, and is simply not even a remotely plausible goal on any time frame less than many, many decades -- and isn't really plausible even then."
That's giving up to me. First off, as I noted, we don't need an amendment to change the amendment, as SCOTUS has proven. Second, the harder we try the sooner we're going to get this under control. I don't want a total ban either, but as long as the gun nuts are entrenched it may be the only option.
You could try locking up anyone with an IQ less than 100.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2017, 09:50:57 AM
"Well-regulated" just meant they were thoroughly drilled in the "regulations" (i.e., requirements) for the job. The King's Regulations governed the British Army and we just "borrowed" them for our guys.
Probably goes back further, to the Medieval English requirement to practice every Sunday with the longbow.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 27, 2017, 06:25:24 AM
That WAS the original army and what the Founders thought was possible. They had no more concept of our modern army that farmers then had of tractors. The Founders lived in a time of citizen armies and we do not now.
Citizen armies in the US. Not in the British military. They weren't militia. Originally there was a huge argument over the US Navy (1787) because it was a standing military by necessity, unless you wanted to stick to privateers with letters of marque.
Quote from: Baruch on October 27, 2017, 01:38:13 PM
Citizen armies in the US. Not in the British military. They weren't militia. Originally there was a huge argument over the US Navy (1787) because it was a standing military by necessity, unless you wanted to stick to privateers with letters of marque.
Just as a very tiny minor quibble... We aren't discussing British law in this thread. But it could lead to 1812.
"Put a feather in his cap and called it Yankee Doddle"...
We did issue letters of marque during War of 1812.
O.P. It probably is time to make some changes, but there are no changes that can be made without an ammendment to the Constitution. and I mean the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights.
You need to read federalist editorials #40-#45 and then read the defense structure of the U.S. in the Constitution. The founders were adamantly opposed to the U.S. having a standing army. The only reason it isn’t specifically madated in the Constitution is because they couldn’t figure out how to to it. They decided on the side of caution to put it in the hands of Congress. Not more than every two years Congress is supposed to evaluate the threat to the U.S.. If it appears to be a time of peace Congress is supposed to disband the army (not the navy). And the defense of the U.S. falls onto the citizen soldiers; of which we all are( except for those enlisted as citizen soldiers of the several states- a double layer of protection) If called into service citizen soldiers are required to show up with a weapon capable of fighting alongside army regulars. Or in the case of a military coup we are all supposed to defend the government from the army.
Maybe this sounds outdated but I havent seen any ammendments to the Constitution to change this... by default (no ammendment) this is still the current state of the law.
I dont really know where I am on this issue. But hell we built this gvament, I think we could take it down. Maybe that’s why they keep doping us with fluoride in the water and chemical fantasia in our food.
"Maybe that’s why they keep doping us with fluoride in the water and chemical fantasia in our food."
:giggle:
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 29, 2017, 06:18:54 AM
"Maybe that’s why they keep doping us with fluoride in the water and chemical fantasia in our food."
:giggle:
Unfortunately for diabetics and others, our chemical imbalance makes even good food and drink, poison. And putting corn syrup in everything, is part of the diabetes epidemic. But they didn't conspire to ruin our food, and Monsanto would never produce franken-seeds. :giggle:
While I'm not completely against gun control, gun control isn't going to fix the problems we have, proper mental healthcare, addressing poverty, and ending the war on drugs which creates black markets where quite a lot of the violence comes from is what needs to be done.
Quote from: Jannabear on October 30, 2017, 03:05:24 AM
While I'm not completely against gun control, gun control isn't going to fix the problems we have, proper mental healthcare, addressing poverty, and ending the war on drugs which creates black markets where quite a lot of the violence comes from is what needs to be done.
Meanwhile we have less than a million people owning 123,000,000 guns. That's something that needs to be addressed right now.
Quote from: Jannabear on October 30, 2017, 03:05:24 AM
While I'm not completely against gun control, gun control isn't going to fix the problems we have, proper mental healthcare, addressing poverty, and ending the war on drugs which creates black markets where quite a lot of the violence comes from is what needs to be done.
(https://memecrunch.com/meme/B8Q8S/why-not-both/image.jpg?w=479&c=1)
Quote from: Jannabear on October 30, 2017, 03:05:24 AMWhile I'm not completely against gun control, gun control isn't going to fix the problems we have, proper mental healthcare, addressing poverty, and ending the war on drugs which creates black markets where quite a lot of the violence comes from is what needs to be done.
I completely agree. But eliminating poverty is a pretty lengthy, daunting task. Doing something to staunch the tide of violence first seems like a prudent first step.
Why gun control will fail in the foreseeable future in two graphs:
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/06/21121546/PSDT_2017.06.22.guns-00-03.png)
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/
(https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/D2B7/production/_98134935_annual_gun_lobbying_v2_640-nc.png)
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 30, 2017, 11:39:05 AM
Why gun control will fail in the foreseeable future in two graphs:
I dunno, I see a fair amount of low-hanging fruit here. There are majorities on both sides on the first four items, and majorities on both sides opposing the last (allowing concealed carry without a permit). We can at least tighten up the rules on where there is consensus.
I mean, we (as a nation) probably
won't, thanks to the hysterical and over-wrought shrieking by the NRA and the money they'll fire-hose at Washington to prevent even the most common-sense steps -- but without their bull-headed interference, these are things we could do with minimal problem and definite public support.
Quote from: trdsf on October 30, 2017, 12:30:29 PM
I dunno, I see a fair amount of low-hanging fruit here. There are majorities on both sides on the first four items, and majorities on both sides opposing the last (allowing concealed carry without a permit). We can at least tighten up the rules on where there is consensus.
Yeah, but that's really, really obvious and minor stuff. Stuff like not letting mentally ill people to carry guns. Who in the world could possibly be against that?
But when you talk about any major attempt to reign this stuff in, gun owners have a panic attack. Sure they might say they're on board with this or that measure (words are cheap), but the moment it's written on a bill (and the NRA ads start flying) all of a sudden it's the totalitarian government trying to take your guns so they can institute some sort of purge. WTF.
At the end of the day, gun owners are far more politically active on this subject and politicians are more beholden to the NRA and gun nuts than decent people who just want to go about their lives without worrying about getting shot. Unless that changes, progress will be minimal or nil.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 30, 2017, 12:42:54 PM
Yeah, but that's really, really obvious and minor stuff. Stuff like not letting mentally ill people to carry guns. Who in the world could possibly be against that?
But when you talk about any major attempt to reign this stuff in, gun owners have a panic attack. Sure they might say they're on board with this or that measure (words are cheap), but the moment it's written on a bill (and the NRA ads start flying) all of a sudden it's the totalitarian government trying to take your guns so they can institute some sort of purge. WTF.
At the end of the day, gun owners are far more politically active on this subject and politicians are more beholden to the NRA and gun nuts than decent people who just want to go about their lives without worrying about getting shot. Unless that changes, progress will be minimal or nil.
So let's go ahead and do the obvious and minor and work our way toward the middling and then the major, and work to elect representatives who exhibit at least some independence of the NRA. A small step is better than no step at all, and change isn't going to come all at once.
Quote from: trdsf on October 30, 2017, 12:51:48 PMSo let's go ahead and do the obvious and minor and work our way toward the middling and then the major
We've tried that. And here's the result (https://www.thedailybeast.com/three-weeks-after-las-vegas-legislation-to-ban-bump-stocks-has-stalled-out-in-congress). All the seemingly common ground vanishes and we're left no better than when we started.
Quoteand work to elect representatives who exhibit at least some independence of the NRA
Now that's a good idea. It goes without saying that NRA support is mostly across partisan lines. We need to stop electing people who dangerously cling to God, guns, and xenophobia.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 30, 2017, 01:54:16 PM
We've tried that. And here's the result (https://www.thedailybeast.com/three-weeks-after-las-vegas-legislation-to-ban-bump-stocks-has-stalled-out-in-congress). All the seemingly common ground vanishes and we're left no better than when we started.
Well, the problem there is that the ones in favor of sensible gun laws don't turn up with the same ferocity as the NRA nuts. So no, the common sense stuff
wasn't tried because the non-common-sense folk overwhelmed the process. We outnumber them, and we need to start acting like it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 30, 2017, 05:41:11 AM
Meanwhile we have less than a million people owning 123,000,000 guns. That's something that needs to be addressed right now.
You aren't going to magic away those guns, no matter how much police action there is to try to get rid of them there will always be plenty enough guns for people to commit whatever violence they want.
Either go to the root of the violence or you don't address it at all
QuoteEither go to the root of the violence or you don't address it at all
I think if it saves even one family from suffering then it has been justifiably addressed. If you had a choice between your father, mother, brother, sister, wife, husband from being killed or not being killed by senseless violence that could have been prevented... I don't think they will argue against saving them because it, "didn't address the problem in it's entirety".
Quote from: Shiranu on October 30, 2017, 10:00:22 PM
I think if it saves even one family from suffering then it has been justifiably addressed. If you had a choice between your father, mother, brother, sister, wife, husband from being killed or not being killed by senseless violence that could have been prevented... I don't think they will argue against saving them because it, "didn't address the problem in it's entirety".
Yep. Otherwise is essentially the Nirvana Fallacy - that one shouldn't undertake half-measures to address a problem because they don't completely solve the problem.
I read another report today showing that states with concealed gun allowances have increased gun deaths. And the deaths aren't self-defence against criminals.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 30, 2017, 11:05:27 PM
Yep. Otherwise is essentially the Nirvana Fallacy - that one shouldn't undertake half-measures to address a problem because they don't completely solve the problem.
Ends justify the means, for liberals and conservatives. May they all burn in nuclear hell ;-(
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 12:39:21 AM
I read another report today showing that states with concealed gun allowances have increased gun deaths. And the deaths aren't self-defence against criminals.
I suppose there is some argument to justify concealed weapons, but I have yet to construct one for myself that stands up to reason. In the old days, we went out in the corral and shot each other face to face like real men. None of this sneaking around shit.
Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 06:55:51 AM
Ends justify the means, for liberals and conservatives. May they all burn in nuclear hell ;-(
No. Or I'm neither.
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 08:46:50 AM
I suppose there is some argument to justify concealed weapons, but I have yet to construct one for myself that stands up to reason. In the old days, we went out in the corral and shot each other face to face like real men. None of this sneaking around shit.
Ah, the Old West. Where cowboys entering town had to surrender their weapons to the Sheriff, seldom had gunfights, and "death by gun" was very low... The good old days...
Quote from: Jannabear on October 30, 2017, 08:39:40 PM
You aren't going to magic away those guns, no matter how much police action there is to try to get rid of them there will always be plenty enough guns for people to commit whatever violence they want.
Either go to the root of the violence or you don't address it at all
Yeah, the old "we can't do nothing until we fix everything" argument.
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 08:46:50 AM
I suppose there is some argument to justify concealed weapons, but I have yet to construct one for myself that stands up to reason. In the old days, we went out in the corral and shot each other face to face like real men. None of this sneaking around shit.
You really believe the
mano-a-mano gunfight was anything but a penny dreadful creation? Or is that a sarcasm fail for me?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 31, 2017, 08:55:04 AM
Yeah, the old "we can't do nothing until we fix everything" argument.
One step at a time is better than no steps at all. Something like 50% of all the guns in the US are held by 3% of the population. More than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns die by suicide. There is one (1) justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put in the hands of criminals.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 31, 2017, 08:56:25 AM
You really believe the mano-a-mano gunfight was anything but a penny dreadful creation? Or is that a sarcasm fail for me?
No, the idea of "cowboys" shooting up the towns were created by the "penny-dreadfuls". All those poor beat-up herders (mostly young misfits from Eastern cities and farms) wanted from towns was whiskey, a brothel, and a soft bed for a night.
We should feel sad for them, not glorify them.
And those gunslingers in the legends? Most killed competing herders by ambushing them through holes in the walls.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 31, 2017, 08:56:25 AM
You really believe the mano-a-mano gunfight was anything but a penny dreadful creation? Or is that a sarcasm fail for me?
Yes, it's a fail.
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 09:30:48 AM
Yes, it's a fail.
Um, I think you might have misunderstood what he meant. Or did I?
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 09:36:01 AM
Um, I think you might have misunderstood what he meant. Or did I?
I have no idea. I thought my sarcasm was absurdly obvious. Maybe he was using sarcasm, and it went over MY head. None of this matters at this point. I still like him.
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 09:46:30 AM
I have no idea. I thought my sarcasm was absurdly obvious. Maybe he was using sarcasm, and it went over MY head. None of this matters at this point. I still like him.
I think Gawdzilla Sama did a snark and it got a little confusing after that. I like him too.
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 09:30:48 AM
Yes, it's a fail.
Dank ewe.
Wes Hardin was more likely to shoot someone in the back than any other way.
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 09:46:30 AM
I have no idea. I thought my sarcasm was absurdly obvious. Maybe he was using sarcasm, and it went over MY head. None of this matters at this point. I still like him.
Dead pan posts get dead pan replies. Else what are smilies for?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 31, 2017, 11:10:28 AM
Dank ewe.
Wes Hardin was more likely to shoot someone in the back than any other way.
And wet sheep.
There was a reason the feared guys were called "the hole in the wall" gang... Can't put a smilie after THAT.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 31, 2017, 11:11:05 AM
Dead pan posts get dead pan replies. Else what are smilies for?
Yep, no body language no good "get".
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 11:22:26 AM
Yep, no body language no good "get".
Or the sly look as you deliver the "news".
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 31, 2017, 11:26:05 AM
Or the sly look as you deliver the "news".
I trust "you" isn't "me". I know *I* couldn't deliver the news without a smirk and a snark...
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 11:32:46 AM
I trust "you" isn't "me". I know *I* couldn't deliver the news without a smirk and a snark...
Generic "ewe".
Quote from: SGOS on October 31, 2017, 08:46:50 AM
I suppose there is some argument to justify concealed weapons, but I have yet to construct one for myself that stands up to reason. In the old days, we went out in the corral and shot each other face to face like real men. None of this sneaking around shit.
Haha ... tell that to Morgan Earp. Bushwhacked by the Clantons.
Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2017, 08:52:11 AM
Ah, the Old West. Where cowboys entering town had to surrender their weapons to the Sheriff, seldom had gunfights, and "death by gun" was very low... The good old days...
Just can't trust Hollywood, now can we.
Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2017, 07:48:21 PM
Haha ... tell that to Morgan Earp. Bushwhacked by the Clantons.
The guns of the Earps and the Clantons were never concealed... That's what caused the fight. Towns required that guns of outsiders be surrendered while in town. The Clanton's refused. It forced a minor town war for control. The Earps won.
Hollywood glorification or not, most of us wouldn't have wanted to live in a place like Dodge City when Wyatt Earp was earning his reputation as a bad ass. According to studies of newspaper obituaries the per capita homicide rate in Dodge City during the height of the cattle boom there was 165 per 100,000.
To put that in perspective the 5-year homicide rate (2010-2015) in Chicago was 16.4. That's a tenth what it was in Dodge Cityin Wyatt Earp's day. The worse place in the US during that period was New Orleans at 46.9. About a fourth of Dodge City's rate. The worst place in the world right now is Caracas Venezuela at 130. Still a good bit less than Dodge City despite the fact that private gun ownership was completely banned in that country in 2012.
Venezuela is often used by the American right as an example of where we are headed if the left gets their way.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on November 04, 2017, 09:05:41 AM
Hollywood glorification or not, most of us wouldn't have wanted to live in a place like Dodge City when Wyatt Earp was earning his reputation as a bad ass. According to studies of newspaper obituaries the per capita homicide rate in Dodge City during the height of the cattle boom there was 165 per 100,000.
To put that in perspective the 5-year homicide rate (2010-2015) in Chicago was 16.4. That's a tenth what it was in Dodge Cityin Wyatt Earp's day. The worse place in the US during that period was New Orleans at 46.9. About a fourth of Dodge City's rate. The worst place in the world right now is Caracas Venezuela at 130. Still a good bit less than Dodge City despite the fact that private gun ownership was completely banned in that country in 2012.
Venezuela is often used by the American right as an example of where we are headed if the left gets their way.
Yeah. Rather than every other developed country in the world, which have by far fewer gun-related homocides and suicides, let's only pay attention to Venezuela. I mean seriously, after accounting for population, several countries put together would be needed to equal the amount of gun violence in America.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on November 04, 2017, 09:05:41 AM
Hollywood glorification or not, most of us wouldn't have wanted to live in a place like Dodge City when Wyatt Earp was earning his reputation as a bad ass. According to studies of newspaper obituaries the per capita homicide rate in Dodge City during the height of the cattle boom there was 165 per 100,000.
To put that in perspective the 5-year homicide rate (2010-2015) in Chicago was 16.4. That's a tenth what it was in Dodge Cityin Wyatt Earp's day. The worse place in the US during that period was New Orleans at 46.9. About a fourth of Dodge City's rate. The worst place in the world right now is Caracas Venezuela at 130. Still a good bit less than Dodge City despite the fact that private gun ownership was completely banned in that country in 2012.
Venezuela is often used by the American right as an example of where we are headed if the left gets their way.
If the Left get their way ... it is Gulag in Alaska. So ... I have no reason to invest in their bloody revolution.
Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2017, 10:14:48 AM
If the Left get their way ... it is Gulag in Alaska. So ... I have no reason to invest in their bloody revolution.
Who, exactly, do you think the Left wants to put in Alaskan gulags?
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 04:19:19 AM
Who, exactly, do you think the Left wants to put in Alaskan gulags?
Anyone to the Right of Lenin. Stalin is discredited. The Fabian Communists continue to infest and push toward Russia, 1922. Socialists are Communists, who want other Communists to do the violence, but are too tidy to do any violence themselves.
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 06:49:14 AM
Anyone to the Right of Lenin. Stalin is discredited. The Fabian Communists continue to infest and push toward Russia, 1922. Socialists are Communists, who want other Communists to do the violence, but are too tidy to do any violence themselves.
On scale US of 10 (10 far left) I am probably 7. On an international scale, I might be a 6. I have not liking for gulags, Stalin, communists or anything authoritarian. I have no love of violence to gain political ends.
Your statements say more about you than they do me. In fact, I am more concerned about you then ever previously. I'm not sure even a Alt-Righter would consider me communist. Well, OK, they consider 95% of the world communist, but do you want to be counted among THEM? Hmm, you might.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 07:45:24 AM
On scale US of 10 (10 far left) I am probably 7. On an international scale, I might be a 6. I have not liking for gulags, Stalin, communists or anything authoritarian. I have no love of violence to gain political ends.
Your statements say more about you than they do me. In fact, I am more concerned about you then ever previously. I'm not sure even a Alt-Righter would consider me communist. Well, OK, they consider 95% of the world communist, but do you want to be counted among THEM? Hmm, you might.
We corrected that false impression elsewhere. Democrat you are ... rebel without a cause you do. If you don't love violence, how can you support any government? Why aren't you a pacifist anarchist?
Paul Joseph Watson does a good wrap-up of the Texas Church Massacre ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MEYz67iN0
No, it isn't just an opportunity for political opportunists to toot their own horns. Sad.
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 07:54:56 PM
We corrected that false impression elsewhere. Democrat you are ... rebel without a cause you do. If you don't love violence, how can you support any government? Why aren't you a pacifist anarchist?
I have a cause. It is bi-partisan rational government. One that attends to both national infrastructure and international relations. One that understands that we should engage in international cooperative treaties to balance and improve trade and limit weapons of mass destruction. One that doesn't put so many minor drug users in prison. One that allows that children brought here should stay because it is the only culture and language they know. One that doesn't put college students in lifelong debt. One that doesn't try to make one religion's beliefs the basis of law. One that doesn't seek to make abortion a crime. One that doesn't Gerrymander State districts for political benefit. One that doesn't try to make real news "fake news".
Etc, etc. etc...
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 01:39:00 AM
I have a cause. It is bi-partisan rational government. One that attends to both national infrastructure and international relations. One that understands that we should engage in international cooperative treaties to balance and improve trade and limit weapons of mass destruction. One that doesn't put so many minor drug users in prison. One that allows that children brought here should stay because it is the only culture and language they know. One that doesn't put college students in lifelong debt. One that doesn't try to make one religion's beliefs the basis of law. One that doesn't seek to make abortion a crime. One that doesn't Gerrymander State districts for political benefit. One that doesn't try to make real news "fake news".
Etc, etc. etc...
Old fashioned, just like both of us ;-) That isn't how pop culture is these days ;-(
Even the smallest of towns in America aren't safe from gun-toting nuts:
Northern California Gunman Killed Wife Before Shooting Rampage (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/northern-california-shooting-wife.html)
How will this ever be dealt with? How can anyone do anything at all to put an end to this god-damned insanity!?
If I ever vote again I'll be a one-issue voter - gun control! I know it's likely too late to put that genie back in the bottle, but damn, something has to break one way or another.
Here's some chuckles for you guys: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mBrxjLcuygRlG9Tgdw2CiHtV9g1kgUwZGRnieYBpwSo/edit#heading=h.cigu1jpzioey
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 16, 2017, 02:39:12 PM
Even the smallest of towns in America aren't safe from gun-toting nuts:
Northern California Gunman Killed Wife Before Shooting Rampage (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/us/northern-california-shooting-wife.html)
How will this ever be dealt with? How can anyone do anything at all to put an end to this god-damned insanity!?
If I ever vote again I'll be a one-issue voter - gun control! I know it's likely too late to put that genie back in the bottle, but damn, something has to break one way or another.
Wrong issue. You need to support banning all marriage, not just gay marriage.
If it were up to me all marriage would've been banned long ago. Lucky for all of us, though - I'm not in charge.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 16, 2017, 07:12:00 PM
If it were up to me all marriage would've been banned long ago. Lucky for all of us, though - I'm not in charge.
Not up to us guys. It is a man-control system invented by women. But the feminists are working hard to kill it.
Quote from: Baruch on November 16, 2017, 07:13:49 PM
Not up to us guys. It is a man-control system invented by women. But the feminists are working hard to kill it.
Maybe now, but it was historically more in the favor of men in ancient times. Women always know their children, but unless I woman is faithful to one man, he doesn't know which kids are his.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 16, 2017, 02:39:12 PM
If I ever vote again I'll be a one-issue voter - gun control! I know it's likely too late to put that genie back in the bottle, but damn, something has to break one way or another.
Me? I'm going to build a fortified bunker and arm it with a Howitzer.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 17, 2017, 06:42:18 PM
Maybe now, but it was historically more in the favor of men in ancient times. Women always know their children, but unless I woman is faithful to one man, he doesn't know which kids are his.
Patriarchy is fake news, put out by the Matriarchy. But feminism existed in ancient Greek mythology too, think Artemis and Athena. Artemis was a man-hater.
Gun control is a great idea if you wanna strip the poor and marginalized of the power to defend themselves but keep the upper classes and their cop cronies armed. Arm the working class and marginalized, disarm the militarized cops.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on November 17, 2017, 08:37:00 PM
Gun control is a great idea if you wanna strip the poor and marginalized of the power to defend themselves but keep the upper classes and their cop cronies armed. Arm the working class and marginalized, disarm the militarized cops.
The rabble will never face up to the army. They'd be slaughtered.
As for "militarized", what does that mean? Lotta buzz words.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 16, 2017, 03:06:17 PM
Here's some chuckles for you guys: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mBrxjLcuygRlG9Tgdw2CiHtV9g1kgUwZGRnieYBpwSo/edit#heading=h.cigu1jpzioey
I only read a couple, but they were horrible. Who THINKS like that?
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on November 17, 2017, 08:37:00 PM
Gun control is a great idea if you wanna strip the poor and marginalized of the power to defend themselves but keep the upper classes and their cop cronies armed. Arm the working class and marginalized, disarm the militarized cops.
Shoot the rich?
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on November 17, 2017, 08:37:00 PM
Gun control is a great idea if you wanna strip the poor and marginalized of the power to defend themselves but keep the upper classes and their cop cronies armed. Arm the working class and marginalized, disarm the militarized cops.
Shoot a cop in self defense and tell me how well that works out for you.
When was the last time someone violently fought the government and won? Now, when was the last time someone shot their wife, their kids, their neighbour, the local school, church, concert? What is the ratio of people who fought the government and won vs the number of people who committed violent murder for no reason?
Quote from: Shiranu on November 17, 2017, 11:32:38 PM
Shoot a cop in self defense and tell me how well that works out for you.
I don't carry weapons on me or in the car. I have no desire to shoot a policeperson. If one decides to shoot me, I am likely to die. I do not break any laws deserving shooting.
But if one decided to, I sure would try to save my life in any possible way.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2017, 11:38:48 PM
I don't carry weapons on me or in the car. I have no desire to shoot a policeperson. If one decides to shoot me, I am likely to die. I do not break any laws deserving shooting.
But if one decided to, I sure would try to save my life in any possible way.
If one wanted to kill you, they would likely get away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist, even with video evidence clearly showing they weren't justified. But don't worry. As long as you're not black, brown, or Hispanic you should be fine.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 18, 2017, 12:40:20 AM
If one wanted to kill you, they would likely get away with it without so much as a slap on the wrist, even with video evidence clearly showing they were justified. But don't worry. As long as you're not black, brown, or Hispanic you should be fine.
I agree. As an older white guy, I am less likely to be shot for reaching for my driver's license. But no one should, and that is my objection...
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on November 17, 2017, 08:37:00 PM
Gun control is a great idea if you wanna strip the poor and marginalized of the power to defend themselves but keep the upper classes and their cop cronies armed. Arm the working class and marginalized, disarm the militarized cops.
Correct. The provision of uniform police, was so that private security would be paid for by the taxpayer ;-) You voters ... maroons.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 17, 2017, 10:04:59 PM
The rabble will never face up to the army. They'd be slaughtered.
As for "militarized", what does that mean? Lotta buzz words.
See my post on early Napoleonic crowd control. If it gets bad enough, I will drive a tank thru your front door myself. With the Army. Don't need no robo-cops or Judge Dred.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2017, 10:41:07 PM
Shoot the rich?
Guillotine mon cherie. Your bragging might get you a trip to Plac du Concorde .. I would STFU if I were you.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 18, 2017, 12:50:39 AM
I agree. As an older white guy, I am less likely to be shot for reaching for my driver's license. But no one should, and that is my objection...
I always keep my hands down in my lap. I don't do anything .. people have died bending over to retrieve something or opening their glove box. Don't give the cop a panic attack, and hope he doesn't have PTSD from Iraq.
And yes, being White or homeless will get you killed for no reason at all. I am sure the SJW would be happy if for every colored folk shot by the cops, we grab any white person off the street and shoot them, in fact 5 or 6 white people, to keep the ratios fair.
Quote from: Baruch on November 18, 2017, 02:13:57 AM
See my post on early Napoleonic crowd control. If it gets bad enough, I will drive a tank thru your front door myself. With the Army. Don't need no robo-cops or Judge Dred.
EOL
Quote from: Shiranu on November 17, 2017, 11:32:38 PM
Shoot a cop in self defense and tell me how well that works out for you.
Cops shoot an average of three people a day in the US. That means you have a 1 in 110,000,000 chance of being shot by a cop on any give day. The Internet would have you believe this is a holocaust.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 19, 2017, 06:32:46 PM
Cops shoot an average of three people a day in the US. That means you have a 1 in 110,000,000 chance of being shot by a cop on any give day. The Internet would have you believe this is a holocaust.
Unless you are black then it's about 1 in 28,000,000 on any given day. If you are a black male between 15 and 34 it is a lot worse than that. Black males between the age of 15 and 34 are killed by the police at a rate about 9x higher than the rest of us. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/08/the-counted-police-killings-2016-young-black-men) If you are a young black male living in the inner city it is even worse than it is for the average black male between 15 and 34. It is even worse for Native Americans than it is for blacks. White privilege includes being less likely to be killed by the police.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on November 19, 2017, 09:42:00 PM
Unless you are black then it's about 1 in 28,000,000 on any given day. If you are a black male between 15 and 34 it is a lot worse than that. Black males between the age of 15 and 34 are killed by the police at a rate about 9x higher than the rest of us. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/08/the-counted-police-killings-2016-young-black-men)
AtheismIsUnstoppable: "then black people should stop committing crimes!" (he's far from the only one to use that argument, I heard it a lot during the initial BLM/Blue Lives Matter kerfuffle)
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on November 19, 2017, 09:42:00 PM
Unless you are black then it's about 1 in 28,000,000 on any given day. If you are a black male between 15 and 34 it is a lot worse than that. Black males between the age of 15 and 34 are killed by the police at a rate about 9x higher than the rest of us. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/08/the-counted-police-killings-2016-young-black-men) If you are a young black male living in the inner city it is even worse than it is for the average black male between 15 and 34. It is even worse for Native Americans than it is for blacks. White privilege includes being less likely to be killed by the police.
Okay, 1/28,000,000. Still not a holocaust. Just a internet arm-waving festival.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 20, 2017, 06:37:36 AM
Okay, 1/28,000,000. Still not a holocaust. Just a internet arm-waving festival.
As long as one White person isn't wearing sack cloth and with finger to lip repeating "I am unclean" over and over ... their job isn't done. Collective guilt, it is what's for supper. Non-White? The other White meat.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 20, 2017, 06:37:36 AM
Okay, 1/28,000,000. Still not a holocaust. Just a internet arm-waving festival.
"If a problem isn't bad enough for my arbitrary line, then anyone who complains about it is just stupid!"
No one is saying it's going to be the death of the African American society, they are saying it's going to be the unjustified death of a father, mother, son, daughter.
They are saying it's the unjustified murder of a black man that will be swept under the rug by the P.D., that will be blamed on him wearing a hoodie or looking threatening with his back to the officer and his hands on his head.
They are saying it's the death of an innocent man with his wife and his kid in the car who informed the officer he was armed, and then murdered in front of his family for doing what they were told to do.
It's the murder of innocent men and women that old white men will just say, "Pfft, stop complaining it's not that bad!" because they don't have to worry every time they see a cop that they will be murdered in cold blood, or have false evidence planted on them, or be pulled over and stopped by police and several multiples the rate of that old white man because they "look" like a criminal.... even if they are well dressed, obeying the law and bothering no one.
But no, people should just shut up and not complain about state sanctioned murder of minorities, because it doesn't happen too often.
The fact that it happens even once and you are more concerned about people who are upset about it happening than the fact it happened says allot more negative things about you than them.
And I'm sure the protests and the millions of dollars raised for the families struck by these tragedies by internet arm waivers are meaningless as well. I'm sure the families are just as indifferent that people decided to help them rather than just bitch about other people online for daring to find murder something to be upset about.
Out of curiosity, my foreign posters... is there any other county in the world that sees a tragedy and says, "Meh, it's not bad enough... so stop trying to fix it!" like we do?
Thanks for the preaching.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 20, 2017, 06:21:17 PM
Thanks for the preaching.
Thanks for admitting you're full of shit about this subject. Honestly, the fuck is that even suppose to mean?
"Thanks for presenting why I'm wrong. Hurrrrr, got you bro! Feel that burn!"
I'll save you the embarrassment of letting you dig yourself an even deeper hole and let it slide for now. Toodaloo!
I give you hard numbers and you give me a lecture. Do you really think you are at all qualified to scold me?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 20, 2017, 06:21:17 PM
Thanks for the preaching.
My sermons are very popular, because they are very short.
"You are all going do die". "Amen."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 20, 2017, 06:40:04 PM
I give you hard numbers and you give me a lecture. Do you really think you are at all qualified to scold me?
Shiranu has his big-boy pants on (or kilt), and you look like a wee bairn ... so yes, he could spank you ;-)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 20, 2017, 06:40:04 PM
I give you hard numbers and you give me a lecture. Do you really think you are at all qualified to scold me?
I will try one more time, and I'll keep it short then, because I do generally think your an alright guy.
I am not trying to "lecture", but reality is more than just numbers and statistics, yes. I could reduce any tragedy to x in 1,000,000... but that doesn't mean that the weight of the tragedy is somehow lost or that we should therefor not say anything about it.
Even 5 years ago, the rate at which police got away with murder, both figuratively and literally, was higher than it is today... and that is because people bitched and moaned about it online and trying to make people aware of what is happening. Treyvon was probably the tipping point (though not police related, tied into the unjustified murder of African Americans) of where social media lead to noticeable protest groups about this issue... and ever since then, it has become harder and harder to sweep police brutality and murder under the rug.
African Americans have been doing everything in their power to make white America aware that this is an issue facing their community, but it also an issue that effects all of us, and we closed our ears and covered our eyes and pretended it wasn't there. Social media is how you reach white America... we don't generally live where this is happening, or when we do we are oblivious to it.
To compare it to one last thing; it's like saying Stonewall and police brutality only effected 1-in-1,000,000 (convenience number) homosexual men, so the people protesting in the street are really just waving their arms over nothing. No... the fact that the government is condoning any violence against the LGBT community is unacceptable, be it against 1,000,000, 1,000 or even 1 person... and the same can be said of any other minority group. Yes, things are "good" for them... but as a society, we shouldn't strive for "good", we should strive for exceptional. I was always taught that was the American way... to strive to the best at anything and everything... and therefor I can't just stay silent about the government covering up and pardoning the murder of fellow citizens simply for, frankly, the colour of their skin.
Sorry, you've been hooked by the internet.
Well, guess that respect was misplaced.
Don't feel bad, I don't give a damn who you respect.
Why do these threads always become dick measuring contests?
Optimally? Reintroduce mental institutions and anyone who has major menta illnesses are sent there for help or in worse case, permanent custody. At the very least make it do that certain mental disorders can’t have weapons.
Acknowledge and deal with domestic terrorism and armed gangs, Los Zetas and Army of God examples, disarm, arrest or lethal force I dont care.
The media loves to fan the flames of every crisis and event beyond its importance but they’re right, guns are an issue. We can’t ban them. Don’t even suggest it, we all know how people would react, though truthfully I dont See the point in civilians owning AR-15 semis with an 80 round drum clip. (Don’t like drum clips either) or handguns.
At least have every gun registered and make sure we have a yearly or every 6 month class gun owners are required to release on accuracy and proper gun safety. In this modern day police are more likely to shoot than ever because culians are more likely to shoot than ever. I remeber When we had cops being murdered back home. Everyone was afraid.
The pretty cop girl who came into my store the other day to check on us doesn’t deserve outright hostility, or distrust. But she’s a cop. And everyone hates cops
Btw, she was checking to make sure we were okay becuwse we were open way late, 4 hours past normal closing , and she was worried something was going down
QuoteWe can’t ban them.
Just like we "cant" have good health care? "Cant" pass civil rights for blacks, then women? "Cant" improve our education system? "Cant" cut back on our military budget? "Cant" legalize homosexuality? "Cant"...
We can do whatever the fuck we want; that's kinda America's thing. It's time to stop coddling and babying the morons who oppose gun control, who oppose health care, who oppose joining the rest of the civilized world and saying, "Right, this isn't even worth arguing over anymore. You are not swayed by people being murdered? No rational argument will ever sway you then, so we will just have to drag you kicking and screaming into the modern world.".
Guns are just as much a part of American history and society as slavery and segregation was. It took time, but we eventually have started to get that problem sorted out. This language of we "cant" change it is dangerous because it furthers the notion that Americans are both too stupid to join the rest of the modern world and reinforces the mindset of, "Why bother, because it won't happen anyways.".
Quote from: Shiranu on November 21, 2017, 11:04:24 AM
Just like we "cant" have good health care? "Cant" pass civil rights for blacks, then women? "Cant" improve our education system? "Cant" cut back on our military budget? "Cant" legalize homosexuality? "Cant"...
We can do whatever the fuck we want; that's kinda America's thing. It's time to stop coddling and babying the morons who oppose gun control, who oppose health care, who oppose joining the rest of the civilized world and saying, "Right, this isn't even worth arguing over anymore. You are not swayed by people being murdered? No rational argument will ever sway you then, so we will just have to drag you kicking and screaming into the modern world.".
Guns are just as much a part of American history and society as slavery and segregation was. It took time, but we eventually have started to get that problem sorted out. This language of we "cant" change it is dangerous because it furthers the notion that Americans are both too stupid to join the rest of the modern world and reinforces the mindset of, "Why bother, because it won't happen anyways.".
Yes yes very noble and all that good job.
Open your eyes and see if a hundred million people will readily accept the government walking in and taking away their guns without a fight, how about just a million. A million, a hundred thousand. People who are gun toting or gun owning. Thinking the government is takin away its rights and they’ll fight “tyrannyâ€
Open your eyes for once and realize people will fight to death for guns in the us even or especially
Because they’re wrong. Not just gun nuts, but people all over the US.
And remember last time we banned something big, slavery? Started a civil war.
Are you willing to risk something, even as small
As a few people gunning down each other over it?
We can’t ban it because it’s too big. Because it’s so ingrained into our culture that people think of it as an inalienable right. And they’ll fight to the death for it even if it’s wrong.
Banning guns completely isn't necessary. We just need to catch up with the rest of the Western world and apply some common sense laws to control the responsible sale, storing, and use of guns.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 21, 2017, 11:49:00 AM
Banning guns completely isn't necessary. We just need to catch up with the rest of the Western world and apply some common sense laws to control the responsible sale, storing, and use of guns.
I've been a owner and shooter since 1965. It really pisses off the gun nuts when I say we don't need 256,000,000 guns in this country.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 21, 2017, 11:49:00 AM
Banning guns completely isn't necessary. We just need to catch up with the rest of the Western world and apply some common sense laws to control the responsible sale, storing, and use of guns.
Fortunately Europe is being converted to Islam ... they will be quite violent ... in the future. Euro-topia is not a reality.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 21, 2017, 11:04:24 AM
Just like we "cant" have good health care? "Cant" pass civil rights for blacks, then women? "Cant" improve our education system? "Cant" cut back on our military budget? "Cant" legalize homosexuality? "Cant"...
We can do whatever the fuck we want; that's kinda America's thing. It's time to stop coddling and babying the morons who oppose gun control, who oppose health care, who oppose joining the rest of the civilized world and saying, "Right, this isn't even worth arguing over anymore. You are not swayed by people being murdered? No rational argument will ever sway you then, so we will just have to drag you kicking and screaming into the modern world.".
Guns are just as much a part of American history and society as slavery and segregation was. It took time, but we eventually have started to get that problem sorted out. This language of we "cant" change it is dangerous because it furthers the notion that Americans are both too stupid to join the rest of the modern world and reinforces the mindset of, "Why bother, because it won't happen anyways.".
But we should admit we are animals, and act accordingly. That is called honesty, not virtue signaling. Yes, no more slavery (just 20,000 fuckable girls). No more genocide (is that you Libya?). The hypocrisy is thicker than wet cement. Retreating into a monastery, where everyone thinks alike, is sexless, under a military like discipline, doing simple manual labor ... with no families, no women, no children ... pacifist (not militant monks of Mt Hei in Japan). That is the only small scale utopia Europeans have managed. The world outside the monastery though ... barbaric, with actual barbarians.
I'm not sure where I called for the full confiscation of guns grin, but okay...
When people start losing their guns my thoughts and prayers will be with their loss, but that's all.
(https://imageshack.com/i/pnHKJZTUj)
Future FEMA camp inmates. Enjoy the showers ;-(
I read about a recent semantics study of "bear arms" in common usage in the time the Constitution was written. It said that "bear arms" was only in militia situations meaning holding military weapons in miltias, not hunting or personal defense.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 26, 2017, 02:14:46 AM
I read about a recent semantics study of "bear arms" in common usage in the time the Constitution was written. It said that "bear arms" was only in militia situations meaning holding military weapons in miltias, not hunting or personal defense.
Correct. But to people 200 years ago, a government powerful enough to confiscate guns was anathema. They wanted a weak government. In which case neither of us would have found work. We still have militia, called National Guard and Reserve. Back in the day, guns were issued and kept at home, not in the armory. But that was when personal weapons and military weapons were comparable. Once military weapons became scary, they were kept in the armory, and issued temporarily as needed, same as active duty. The Swiss still issue military guns to their militia, but just at the low end, and the Swiss are civilized.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 26, 2017, 02:14:46 AM
I read about a recent semantics study of "bear arms" in common usage in the time the Constitution was written. It said that "bear arms" was only in militia situations meaning holding military weapons in miltias, not hunting or personal defense.
I had occasion to read the op-ed pieces and pamphleteering of the day when doing a semester on "first responders" (Grad School) in the Antebellum US. I would agree with that study given the information you provided.
Got a "A" for that paper. Sadly, I no longer have most of my grad school work.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 24, 2017, 06:56:57 AM
3% of Americans own half the country's 265 million guns (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/)
That's less than a million people owning 132.5 million guns.
Most Americans don't own guns. Must Americans who own guns have just one. The problem isn't with "Americans", it's with ~one in 33 Americans.
Wrong, there are guns in approximately 43% of American homes. That may mean that at least 1 family member shoots, and can/will pick up arms against a threat.
And many of us have thousand and thousands of rounds of ammo.
Quote from: Feral Atheist on December 19, 2017, 06:39:38 PM
Wrong, there are guns in approximately 43% of American homes. That may mean that at least 1 family member shoots, and can/will pick up arms against a threat.
And many of us have thousand and thousands of rounds of ammo.
Wrong, as in you know fuck all about math. Most Americans don't own a gun. 43% of Americans live a home that has a gun. That doesn't mean 43% of Americans own a gun.
Quote from: Feral Atheist on December 19, 2017, 06:39:38 PMThat may mean that at least 1 family member shoots, and can/will pick up arms against a threat.
What threat?
QuoteAnd many of us have thousand and thousands of rounds of ammo.
Oh, that threat.
Quote from: Feral Atheist on December 19, 2017, 06:39:38 PM
Wrong, there are guns in approximately 43% of American homes.
I'm no statistics genius, but I'm pretty sure that both claims are not mutually exclusive; guns are owned in many homes, but some own far more than others.
Also, Gawdzilla's statistic is cited (a practice you would be wise to adopt). On what basis do you consider it wrong?
Competitive statistical virtue signaling by two armed thugs.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 20, 2017, 10:56:36 PM
I'm no statistics genius, but I'm pretty sure that both claims are not mutually exclusive; guns are owned in many homes, but some own far more than others.
Also, Gawdzilla's statistic is cited (a practice you would be wise to adopt). On what basis do you consider it wrong?
We had a gun in our home when I was a kid. It was a single-shot .410 gauge shotgun. Five people, one gun. Most Americans have one gun or no guns. That's how you say it without being deliberately misleading.
Quote from: Baruch on November 26, 2017, 09:46:27 AM
Correct.
Thank you... Every thing else was irrelevant.