The right to bear arms
Offline I couldn't agree more. The 2nd Amendment must be changed to suit the times. Allow for a single bolt action rifle and a single shot revolver with a small amount of ammo. If you need more, then go to the armory to get the weapon and ammo so you can go hunting or fire at the shooting range. No more vast amounts of ammo and weapons. No more automatic weapons. If you are a collector, then weapons should be unable to fire and disabled. Finally, there should be laws against buying pieces of weapons individually and then putting the weapon together piece by piece.
- Login to post comments
Offline
I blame the parents because they were ignorant.
Oh so it was the other digitalbeachbum who went on a tirade against the NRA. Sorry I had you mixed up with the other guy.
I'm still waiting for the media to actually report the truth behind the issue which led up to this shooting. I suspect that there is stuff being hidden, swept away in to some corner so that no one will find it.
I bet somehow the NRA is behind the coverup.
I blame not the Marine Corps for all of those shootings...
Wow, that comes as a complete shock to me.
.... As I have stated previously, I believe people who want to own weapons should undergo testing every year to give them permission to be gun owners. Gun ownership isn't a fucking right, it's a god damn privilege. It must be earned and right now the system they have in place makes it a "right" to have arms.
Being a Marine is a privilege, I suppose. Too bad the Marines didn't properly "test" all those fucked up recruits who've made history for killing innocent people.
When it comes to other amendments they modify them to fit the times. What is preventing this amendment from being modified? Is it that the framers got it right and no one should change it? What if they got it wrong?
While you're at it go ahead and modify the First Amendment to "fit the times". Do you actually believe the Constitutional Framers foresaw the invention of radio, television, personal computers, smart phones, communication satellites, traffic cameras, CCTV surveillance systems, covert listening devices, etc ?
Who is preventing it from being modified? The courts? The NRA? The money?
Oops, there's that evil NRA popping up again. What was that about "blame" again ?
PS, do you get this pissed off at the American Medical Association when people OD on prescription drugs ?
- Login to post comments
Offline digitalbeachbum wrote:I have a question for you which I really want you to think long and hard about before you reply.
What would the original designers of our constitution say about all the murders and crime we have today? If they could have forseen the future, what do you think they would have done differently?
They would most likely punish the guilty without sweeping up the innocent in a wave of mass hysteria simply because they belonged to a specific demographic.
Beside, you don't think murder and crime was a problem in colonial America ? You are really naive.
You are naive
- Login to post comments
Offline I believe you would be happier in 1775.
I dislike all special interest groups. All lobbyists should be outlawed.
The context of those amendments does click in my head and I believe that the creators of those original words meant it for a different reason. Those same words have no proper contact in society today. They need to be modified.
- Login to post comments
Offline Please excuse me, I've been off my meds and I need to take a break for a while.
I really need to have the doc check my dosage.
- Login to post comments
I do not consider that a massive arsenal but that he had access to it bothers me. I said it before.. "I blame the mom and dad"
The media has been whacko about this entire issue. I just learned yesterday that he had ear plugs in when they found him.
The fact you're admitting it does catch me by surprise.
True. A person would likely need the same nuclear setup as a government to be able to bargain anyway...
Looking back, I really should have been a lot more clear, sorry.
I was really referencing this post: "There are tens of thousands of well trained individuals, any of whom could take out 5 average citizens without any trouble or even being seen in less than 10 seconds, who work in teams to coordinate efforts to put you 6 feet under, in as many pieces as they like, who will follow orders to do so."
Do you think soldiers should be willing to kill innocent citizens because they were ordered to do so?
So, we beg the military not to hurt us?
Soldiers are willing to kill innocent citizens and they do - its called collateral damage. Happens in every conflict of any size.
I am not intending to imply it is wrong. It happens. If you don't like it, don't advocate for war.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
"The fact you're admitting it does catch me by surprise."
Why? I ALWAYS admit when I make mistakes, and notice. I just don't make mistakes very often. My posting history will confirm this.
"Do you think soldiers should be willing to kill innocent citizens because they were ordered to do so?"
There's no such thing as an innocent civillian in a democracy, excepting children of course. So your question is irrelevant.
"So, we beg the military not to hurt us?"
Still nonsensical. Is the military hurting you? There's a tank parked on your front lawn and fighter jets strafing your property?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No, I DON'T happen to like it when innocent people die. And no, I DON'T advocate for war.
I'll take your word for it. Until and unless I see otherwise, that is.
Hahahaha, so you think "innocent until proven guilty" is complete bullshit unless you're a child?
You really don't seem to get the point. It is this: How are people supposed to protect themselves from tyrannical and/or unjust governments?
"I'll take your word for it. Until and unless I see otherwise, that is."
Like I already said, my posting history proves it. Why take my word when the proof is right here?
"Hahahaha, so you think "innocent until proven guilty" is complete bullshit unless you're a child?"
That's a false comparison. Do the people elect leaders or not? If they do, they are the opposite of innocent. They are responsible. Every American who was of legal voting age in 2000 shares responsibility for George Bush, and everything he did while in office, whether you like it or not.
"You really don't seem to get the point. It is this: How are people supposed to protect themselves from tyrannical and/or unjust governments?"
The same way they always have. You're the one who doesn't get it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Forgive the cutting up of your post, but these are the only two bits I would like to respond to.
I did not think that you liked it when innocent people die, nor that you advocated war. It is expected that there will be collateral damage in any conflict. I don't like it either, but I have yet to see anyone come up with some alternative.
And, if you are "protecting" yourself from a tyrannical and/or unjust government, there will be innocent people who die. I don't care how you think you can manage the "protection," there will be dead people - including children.
In the US, we protect ourselves by voting the bums out - or in. The early colonial government may have needed protection in the form of "well-ordered militias," but that is no longer needed. The bureaucracy is too large, too well entrenched for a simple rising up of a citizen militia to overthrow it. As a demonstration of this, I give you the historical example of the late 60s - and the riots of 1968.
Change happened as a result of those riots, but not an overthrow. Many people considered the government of the late 60s to be tyrannical - heck, I thought the Bush II administration was tyrannical. But overthrowing is not necessary. Just wait for the next election cycle.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Because your posting history is ridiculously long and I don't feel like looking through it all.
How are the people who voted against him responsible for his actions? How are the people who he tricked with false promises responsible for his deception?
Ok, and what way is that?
If you're too lazy to search for evidence then I demand a retraction of your insulting and unproven comment regarding the accuracy of my posts.
"How are the people who voted against him responsible for his actions? How are the people who he tricked with false promises responsible for his deception?"
That's how democracy works. I suggest you study it, since you're as clueless as the average American.
"Ok, and what way is that?"
There's too many ways to list. Here I recommend studying history.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
My comment solely described my reaction to one of your posts. Since I was genuinely surprised by your admission, my comment is quite accurate.
Actually, no, that is not how democracy works.
I recommend you be more careful with your wording. Your initial post said "the same way" not ways.
I'll respond to your post a bit later cj, sorry for the delay.
1: It is a lie, and you're an asshole. I bet you made that comment because it applies to you, as when people have such character flaws they project said flaws onto others.
2: Yes, that is how democracy works. Which you'd know if you had a decent education.
3: Grammar nazi's automatically lose, because they never have an argument. They simply nitpick. Obsessive/compulsive much? XD
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Hahahaha, I'm the asshole? You've insulted me in almost every single post! Also, said comment reads "The fact you're admitting it does catch me by surprise." Perhaps it shouldn't have surprised me, BUT IT DID. So, my comment remains true.
Fine.
What about people who insult their opponent? I seem to remember this thing called "ad hominem". Also, if you don't want me to nitpick, stop insulting me in every reply.
EDIT: Look, it's really hard for me to be nice to someone who keeps insulting me. I'm sure I can be much more pleasant if you'll stop adding insults at the ends of your replies.
You insulted me first, hypocrite. I'll stop when you do. Not before.
Somehow I'm not surprised you don't know what an ad hominem really is. It is an insult without an argument, an attempt to distract from a lack of ability to counter a point. Not an insult within an argument that counters a point.
And now that you have no arguments left, I'm going to turn one of your questions against you. You asked, with a few variations:
How are people supposed to protect themselves from tyrannical and/or unjust governments?
I ask you: How is your owning a gun going to protect you from a tyrannical government and/or military?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Should Be "Grammar Nazis"
*&^%$#@!@@$%
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Bullshit! Show me where I've insulted you and I'll apologize.
Really? If that's true, I didn't actually know that... Of course, the insult still wouldn't be a valid part of the argument.
It will prevent you from being completely helpless if they attack you.
Pigshit. I already did, and demanded a retraction. I'll call you whatever I want until I get one.
True.
I have a hard time seeing that. One unmanned drone, which your government can and does legally operate in US airspace right now, is capable of killing you from such a distance that you can't even see it. How aren't you completely helpless?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Oh, you're referring to my comment about being surprised by your admission of mistake. Well, I ACTUALLY WAS SURPRISED. Would you like me to apologize for my inappropriate reaction?
Are you so insensitive that you can't see how insulting the insinuation that I'd lie or err and refuse to acknowledge it is?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No, I can definitely see how insulting that would be--I just didn't realize that's what my comment implied... Since it may be hard to believe someone could honestly make a mistake like that, you should know I have Asperger's Syndrome. I won't go into the details, but it makes social interaction and predicting the effects of words and actions difficult for me. What I should have said is that I was surprised by how willing you were to admit error. In my experiences, at least, people tend to be more reluctant. So...I'm really sorry about that Vastet, I shouldn't have said it.
EDIT: Fuck! I feel so ashamed for being that stupid.
I really hate myself sometimes...
As an individual, I would be. My comment was really referring to governments in general; nonviolent civil disobedience would be by far a better method of protest and protection if living in the US.
Don't be ashamed. Clearly I share some blame in this. I had no idea you had aspergers, and I feel like a dick now. I'm sorry.
I agree a lot of people can't or won't admit when they are wrong. It's one of the reasons I try extremely hard not to do the same. It took a few years of swallowing my pride before I became comfortable with it. And it still isn't always easy.
As a result, I tend to fly off the handle when I feel I'm being accused of failing to admit error, in any sense.
My apologies for all the unnecessary shit I said.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It's ok. Though, I...I think I'll stop posting in the political forums for a little bit--they make me very emotional.
I probably won't get to your post for a while cj, sorry for that...
Oh, ok, I understand now. Yeah, being able to admit fault is both very important and very difficult. I think you should be very proud of your accomplishment.
Just...try not to get upset if people seem to question it--they likely don't know about any of your past efforts.
Thank you, that seriously makes me feel much better.
Yes, the democratic process worked so well for the native Americans and the African Slaves, didn't it ? All they needed to do to get the US government from continuing to treat them like sub-human shit was just petition their congressmen and senators. It so simple ! There's no need for violence.
Besides you'll be completely wiped out by US cavalry if you even try to revolt. Democracy is awesome !
Slaves and so-called natives didn't obtain freedom or rights via gun ownership or violence.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Which is precisely my point. Do you think there was a reason why slaves weren't allowed to possess arms ?
When was Brady repealed?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
lol you told them. lol.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Bah; your mother wears a dress!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Unfortunately genocide is not antiquated yet. So the right to bear arms is not at all foolish is such a world. Yet another example of leftists basing their political ideology on how they wish the world worked rather than how it actually does.
Genocide, war and poverty will not be antiquated until the right to breed is antiquated. So it's best to have some firepower in such a world. Aren't you part of the crowd that want's to send anyone that opposes massive wealth redistribution to the guillotine? How is that supposed to happen without some arms?
BTW, has Canada disarmed its citizens yet? If so, maybe its time to go up after all the natural resources that pay for their welfare state since ours is broke.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act#Opposition_by_National_Rifle_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act#The_Brady_Law_today
Not repealed... it's worthless and in need of overhauling. 30,000 reversals? Laws need to constantly be reviewed and modified to fit the era. The Brady is still in place but it does very little for society compared to what it was meant to do.
And it never will be. And there isn't a firearm that can complete or prevent a genocide. Making your entire post a laughable waste of internet space.
Reading your insane gibbering is as amusing as always.
"Aren't you part of the crowd that want's to send anyone that opposes massive wealth redistribution to the guillotine?"
Wants to? More like KNOWS that it's coming, and only the rich can prevent it by ending the hoarding of wealth.
BTW, feel free to try. We'd be happy to burn down your white house again. Maybe we'll make a tradition of it. Every 200 some years, Canada kicks America's teeth in. Sounds like great fun.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Oh really. When was the last genocide committed against a well armed populace?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
When was the last genocide against a completely unarmed populace? And how would a well armed populace defend themselves against a well armed and trained army? No matter how many guns you have, you don't have fleets, air forces, missiles, and the tech they have. If a first world nation's military moves to create a genocide, then there will be one. Your gun cabinet won't help.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Oh I stand corrected... the "well regulated militia" means to stock pile a bunch of weapons and ammo at your house.
Define well armed..
You've already stated that you don't care what the Constitution says regarding the Second Amendment so why are you now back trying to debate it ? The SCOTUS has already affirmed that it is an individual right, not a collective right so no matter how contemptuous you are of it it changes nothing. The opinion of a left leaning Marine doesn't outweigh the opinions of Supreme Court justices.
Oh, I'm still waiting for anyone to reveal any writings by James Madison or any of his contemporaries that stated the 2'nd Amendment was authored to protect sporting purposes such as hunting or target shooting. If you believe that was his intended meaning then you are utterly oblivious to historical context and are simply pushing an agenda.
It's not a specific number of weapons but more of a ratio. The level of firearms ownership that is sufficient to prevent a government entity from attempting to monopolize the use of force. There are multiple examples in the Arab world right now of armed revolutions causing a serious impediment to what would otherwise be a one-sided slaughter.
Also during this discussion you've repeatedly referenced your service in the Marine Corps while at the same time railing against the NRA.
You are also quite obviously a fan of guilt by association.
If the NRA is responsible for what Adam Lanza did then the Marine Corps should be held to the same ethical standard and is therefore responsible for the November 22, 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy since Lee Harvey Oswald was trained in the use of firearms by the Marine Corps.
The Marine Corps is responsible for what Marine Charles Whitman did a few years later when, using sporting weapons, he climbed the UT Austin clock tower and expertly shot and killed 14 innocent people and wounded 32 others....with marksmanship skills acquired in the Marine Corps.
If the NRA as an organization is responsible for various school shootings within the US then the Marine Corps as a whole must also be held responsible for the November 19'th 2005 Haditha Massacre in which 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women and children were murdered by eight Marines who went berserk.
( The fact that most of the charges were dropped against the Haditha shooters is no different that the fact that during the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam all 26 Army defendants went scott free except for Lt. Calley who was later pardoned by the Idiot in Chief, President Nixon. The military investigating the military is like having John Gotti investigate the Mafia. It is the ultimate conflict of interest. )
Sure, but none of that could happen in America, or Canada, or the U.K., or Russia, or China, or Japan, France, Germany, etc. The governments being rebelled against are not world powers by any strech. They are also in the position of having world powers interfering against them.
If all Texas somehow suddenly coagulated and rose up as a single violent entity of rebellion, it would be quashed in a week. The resources available to first world governments as incomparable to third world governments.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Both Canada and Russia have actually encountered events along these lines.
In Canada, back in 1970, was The October Crisis. Which for all intents and purposes was a rebellion against the government. It was crushed after martial law was invoked.
In Russia, the issue with Chechen rebels springs up every now and then, and every single time the Russian military squishes their enemy at any cost, and very quickly.
1st world governments are far too powerful to simply overthrow with rebellion. They can be conquered by other 1st world governments, or they can over-extend and collapse, but you can't violently overthrow them from within.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I could only exclude America from this because there is an actual army which could be accessed which the government has only a very little control over. That army is the imprisoned populace.
But freeing them all and forming them into a rebelling army would still be staggeringly difficult, exceptionally expensive, and completely foreseeable. It couldn't happen at this time.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Wow! you would be a perfect citizen to live in 1775.
You forget that things change and the amendments are their to modify he constitution so that it fits with the modern times. Get off your rocker grandpa. The NRA isn't here to protect us. They are here to make money for their friends who manufacture weapons.
Things need to change while I support the core of the framers I do believe they intended to have people stock piling tons of ammo and weapons.
I have a question for you which I really want you to think long and hard about before you reply.
What would the original designers of our constitution say about all the murders and crime we have today? If they could have forseen the future, what do you think they would have done differently?
Are you gun nuts actually afraid of being over run by the US government? Holy shit batman, their fucking nuts!
Wow, you continue to amaze me with your ignorance.
I blame the parents because they were ignorant. They probably were all tied up with their personal lives and weren't well informed of the possible treatments for their child. The mother was collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in alimony and obviously she didn't do enough for her kid. I'm still waiting for the media to actually report the truth behind the issue which led up to this shooting. I suspect that there is stuff being hidden, swept away in to some corner so that no one will find it.
I blame not the Marine Corps for all of those shootings, I blame the government for not having stricter gun control. As I have stated previously, I believe people who want to own weapons should undergo testing every year to give them permission to be gun owners. Gun ownership isn't a fucking right, it's a god damn privilege. It must be earned and right now the system they have in place makes it a "right" to have arms.
(edit)
When it comes to other amendments they modify them to fit the times. What is preventing this amendment from being modified? Is it that the framers got it right and no one should change it? What if they got it wrong? Who is preventing it from being modified? The courts? The NRA? The money?
They would most likely punish the guilty without sweeping up the innocent in a wave of mass hysteria simply because they belonged to a specific demographic.
Beside, you don't think murder and crime was a problem in colonial America ? You are really naive.
That statement says more about you than it does me. Am I supposed to be offended ?
So outlaw special interest groups ( but just the ones you don't like )
What, are you going down that "sporting uses only" road again ? Does the revolutionary context of these amendments just not click inside your head ?