![]() |
![]() |
#751 |
Seasoned Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 412
|
![]() Hypothetically speaking.
If there was a guarantee of 100% that there would be no more school shootings if you handed in your gun. Would you do it? Would you do it for 90%, 80%..... 50% or wouldnt you do it at all? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#752 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]() Quote:
But there's little coherence to the Constitutional argument that we should simultaneously be militarizing the police while disarming the public. There's no honest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which allows for that. Going back to you worrying about what I 'need' in a gun. I own a useless .22 and a Winchester deer rifle (.270) Both have seen better days. But it's not about what I personally need. It's about whether a citizen has the right to present a credible resistance to a (theoretically) corrupt government. That's exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#753 | |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 33,684
|
![]() Quote:
The reality is that we're already paying the cost for this theoretical. Besides, the RKBA hasn't ever stopped the government from doing the wrong thing, going way back to the Whiskey Rebellion. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#754 | ||
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,323
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
- Permanent ban on assault weapons - Permanent ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds - Permanent ban on rifles over a certain muzzle velocity capable of semi-automatic fire - Permanent ban of on-site storage of firearms where there is a resident under the age of 18 You can own certain types of firearms, no limit to number of firearms or number of ammunition, just types. You can own them, and if you have children in the home, you can store them off-site at a place like a gun club or Gander Mountain. You can still teach your kids gun safety and take them hunting, and the gun clubs and stores can charge a small nominal fee for secure storage. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#755 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]() Quote:
But let's just say that there's a reason that gun bans (including 1994's, and even earlier prohibitions on fully-automatic weapons) only address manufacture and sales instead of confiscation. Your government wants no part of going house to house. Which is good for both sides. Because that apprehension is a last level of protection. This really comes down to a certain segment of people having far more faith in their government than the Constitution and its authors ever thought prudent. In a lot of ways it's success has bred the complacency that might someday work to undo it. Quote:
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#756 | |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,029
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#757 |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 33,684
|
![]() It's more about a certain segment of people having far more paranoia regarding their government than even the Founders thought reasonable.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#758 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Wagz' translation "Trust your government! They know best! (as long as my guy runs it)" Death throes of the Roman Republic translation... "Few men desire freedom, the greater part desire just masters." |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#759 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]() Quote:
How well armed were the Vietnamese? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#760 |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 33,684
|
![]() Amazing how Mubarak was overthrown without a massive armed revolution, eh?
If you *really* want to be able to take on the gubmit, you should strongly oppose any restrictions on weaponry - take the 2nd Amendment as absolute. Forget semi-autos. Full-auto. RPGs. SAMs. Artillery. Tanks. WMDs. Go fer it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#761 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]() Quote:
Oh, and Mubarak was overthrown because the military allowed him to be. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-7341749.html Or did you really believe that the dictatorship simply dissolved in the face of protest signs and thrown rocks? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#762 |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,323
|
![]() Do you even know what it means to be "trained in the discipline and use of arms" in the context of 18th century America? You're a fool if you don't think it means something completely different than today.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#763 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]() Quote:
You keep arguing that we the people pose zero threat to the standing army Hamilton and others said we were supposed to balance.. Essentially you're arguing that the we the people should become even more heavily armed and even better prepared. As I said earlier, the founders believed being ably armed was a civic duty, not just a privilege. Being lax in your duty doesn't nullify the obligation. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#764 |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 33,684
|
![]() Go ahead and see how far your fantasies of fighting off the gubmit go with the populace outside of the RKBA purist nujobs.
In the meantime, tell us how we can lessen the ~100,000 deaths and injuries from firearms we have every year. PS - More guns in more hands in more places ain't the answer. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#765 | |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,644
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#766 | |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,323
|
![]() Quote:
Neither stance is based in any sense of rational, reasonable thought, nor are they based on amy sort of statistical evidence, and neither person is really interested in the reduction of violence. They simply want to keep their guns, and need to hide behind those stances because they can't really provide any compelling reason there needs to be those types of weapons available to the general public. And Beavis, Hamilton wasn't pointing to the necessity of an armed populace in the sense you're thinking of. "Trained in the discipline and use of arms" is the exact phrasing that many of the military drill manuals of the day used. Militias. Context. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#767 |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,323
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#768 |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,644
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#769 |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,323
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#770 |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,644
|
![]() Feel much better. With the bull**** you proposed, i'd happily tell you to go **** yourself to your face. I'm not trying to be a tough guy. The things you propose only punish honest citizens. So what would you expect? If I were to say workers unions should be banned, i would expect you to tell me to go **** myself.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#771 | |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,323
|
![]() Quote:
Please. Form a logical argument based on facts and statistics, and then you can discuss things at the grown up table. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#772 | |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,644
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#773 |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,323
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#774 |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,029
|
![]() Are you saying that 300 million people with 300 million guns can't protect themselves if the 535 people making the rules decide to enslave us?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#775 | |
Ring of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,323
|
![]() Quote:
It will never happen, not because the government is afraid of all you big bad gun owners...here's a clue: they're not. It's because there is literally no reason to think that the government is coming after your guns. Just certain, reasonable types of arms and ammo. What would be the benefit? Seriously. Please explain to me what benefit the government could hope to gain from getting rid of all guns? They already own you. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|