RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns.

RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/31/2015 9:35:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph trying to sum it up again: you need your weapons for: a) fighting another British invasion b) being prepared for the next civil war c) resistance against a tyrannical government (which some say you already have ...) and d) threatening/fighting your bad neighbours e) killing boars (which later purposes, as I understood it so far, are, however, not covered by your constitution) any other I missed so far? Both d and e are self defense. A was an example, nobody expects the Brits to attack us. B something we all, at least the progun people sincerly hope to avoid C as pointed out there are degrees of tyranny (see my tag lines) we still have the opportunity to change things at the ballot box. Armed revolt it the very last resort.

Politesub53 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/31/2015 5:31:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Accurate history? As in that taught in the School system of the UK? Your lack of knowledge of British Colonial Policy from the 1600's would fill volumes. And yet when I have pulled you over your inaccurate bullshit you have yet to provide any link showing otherwise.

blnymph -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/1/2015 2:36:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph trying to sum it up again: you need your weapons for: a) fighting another British invasion b) being prepared for the next civil war c) resistance against a tyrannical government (which some say you already have ...) and d) threatening/fighting your bad neighbours e) killing boars (which later purposes, as I understood it so far, are, however, not covered by your constitution) any other I missed so far? Both d and e are self defense. A was an example, nobody expects the Brits to attack us. B something we all, at least the progun people sincerly hope to avoid C as pointed out there are degrees of tyranny (see my tag lines) we still have the opportunity to change things at the ballot box. Armed revolt it the very last resort. But - I may be wrong since I do not know many details for sure - but how I understand the discussion, only example A is covered by this second amendment, since what else could be the purpose of a militia but defense against an external enemy?

jlf1961 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/1/2015 3:13:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Accurate history? As in that taught in the School system of the UK? Your lack of knowledge of British Colonial Policy from the 1600's would fill volumes. And yet when I have pulled you over your inaccurate bullshit you have yet to provide any link showing otherwise. Escuse me, I provided many links, cites, and full discriptions, the fact you disagree with them is your problem.

Kirata -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/1/2015 8:55:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph But - I may be wrong since I do not know many details for sure - but how I understand the discussion, only example A is covered by this second amendment, since what else could be the purpose of a militia but defense against an external enemy? The militia of the Second Amendment intends the People, armed, as distinguished from organized militia units like various State Guards, which were referred to as select militias. Threats to the security of a free state and the People's rights to life and liberty are not limited to foreign invasions and tyrannical governments. The principle being enacted is the natural right of self-defense. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ~Thomas Jefferson The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people... ~George Mason The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ~Samuel Adams K.

BamaD -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/1/2015 9:12:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph trying to sum it up again: you need your weapons for: a) fighting another British invasion b) being prepared for the next civil war c) resistance against a tyrannical government (which some say you already have ...) and d) threatening/fighting your bad neighbours e) killing boars (which later purposes, as I understood it so far, are, however, not covered by your constitution) any other I missed so far? Both d and e are self defense. A was an example, nobody expects the Brits to attack us. B something we all, at least the progun people sincerly hope to avoid C as pointed out there are degrees of tyranny (see my tag lines) we still have the opportunity to change things at the ballot box. Armed revolt it the very last resort. But - I may be wrong since I do not know many details for sure - but how I understand the discussion, only example A is covered by this second amendment, since what else could be the purpose of a militia but defense against an external enemy? What other perpose could the militia have other than foriegn invasion? They dealt with brigands (gangbangers and thugs in modern parleance) with criminals, and anyone threatening the safety of the community. The Korean shopkeepers in the example that this thread started with were performing in the finest traditon of the militia. People who stop a home invasion rather than hope they live through it and can tell the police are the militia. When I stand on my poarch and keep my property from being used for drug deals I am the militia.

Termyn8or -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/1/2015 1:53:23 PM)
They will never understand. But guess what. If they come for our guns they are going to need guns to do it. And even then alot of them will be taken out in the process. They certainly will here. T^T

Musicmystery -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/1/2015 3:35:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ~Samuel Adams K. Yep. And disarming peaceable citizens isn't anyone's goal. It's not the peaceable citizens shooting up the schools.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/1/2015 5:00:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ~Samuel Adams K. Yep. And disarming peaceable citizens isn't anyone's goal. It's not the peaceable citizens shooting up the schools. It doesn't seem to have been the standard bogey of the gang banger either. My impression is that the ones shooting up schools were peaceable, right up to the time that they weren't peaceable. They've put me in mind of those pit bulls who've never been savage, until they were savage.

Kirata -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/1/2015 6:23:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ~Samuel Adams Yep. And disarming peaceable citizens isn't anyone's goal. It's not the peaceable citizens shooting up the schools. Yeah, no. Meet Dianne Feinstein. But okay, let's not pick that nit.... Explain to me why almost nobody on the anti-gun side, and I'm only saying "almost" to cover my ass, because I would bet if they exist you could count them on the fingers of one hand after amputating at least three, ever suggests increased penalties for illegal possession, more money for police departments to trace and prosecute traffickers, or fully funding NICS and fixing its reporting holes? Explain to me why the anti-gun side has been in favor of reduced capacity magazines and banning faux "assault" weapons, variously defined as anything having a telescoping stock, pistol grips, or a flash suppressor that doesn't even actually "suppress" anything, none of which has the slightest likelihood of putting a serious dent in firearms fatalities. The only reason I can see, generously giving them credit for not being dumber than a fucking box of hammers, is that they don't really want effective laws. They only want laws that are virtually guaranteed to achieve as little as possible, and preferrably nothing, so then they can say: "See, we were reasonable, but it isn't working. Now we have to...." K.

jlf1961 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/1/2015 10:18:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ~Samuel Adams K. Yep. And disarming peaceable citizens isn't anyone's goal. It's not the peaceable citizens shooting up the schools. It doesn't seem to have been the standard bogey of the gang banger either. My impression is that the ones shooting up schools were peaceable, to the time that they weren't peaceable. They've put me in mind of those pit bulls who've never been savage, until they were savage. Your ignorance continues to amaze me, on so many levels... First, with very few exceptions, those people shooting up schools had many instances in their back ground indicating a possibility of violence, which, had the NCIC been mandatory and current, would have prevented them from obtaining firearms in the first place. In fact I have on three different occasions provided a link proving that very point. Second, concerning pit bulls. Pit bulls, like any canine, can be raised to be socialized so there is a very small chance of any aggressive behavior, and that which occurs is usually provoked, and more often than not, little more than a nip to warn someone that the worst is yet to come since they ignored the previous warning growls. Since I have raised pits around infants, children and the occasional idiot, I have never had one turn aggressive or "savage" although one of my niece's boyfriends did need 23 stitches after one of my pits tried to take his arm off, but then he had just slapped my niece across the room and bloodied her nose. That was the one and only time he showed any aggression in the 12 years I had him before he died of old age. Presently I have 8 dogs in my home including a pit bull and two other "viscious and aggressive" wolf hybrids, one of which is a high content. She was a rescue, and when I got her she had 3 bullet wounds, 35 pounds underweight and had every reason on the planet to hate humans. However, she lets my 3 year old grandson climb all over her (she draws the line at being used as a pony) and the only "aggressive" acts she has demonstrated has been when a stranger enters the house without an escort of a family member, or when someone decides it is time to re arrange the furniture (in which case it is very aggressive vocal arguing and laying on the article of furniture in question trying to make it too heavy to move.) So, since you clearly do no research before making such broadly stupid comments, I have one thing to say "Google is a search engine and is our friend. Use it."

tweakabelle -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/2/2015 12:45:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph what else could be the purpose of a militia but defense against an external enemy? It gives the boys an opportunity to compare and show off their guns, each one vying to have the biggest nastiest one, and an occasion to dress up and pretend that they are 'real' warriors and not merely inadequate nobodies with unresolved Dirty Harry complexes. There is some disagreement as to whether they achieve these goals ........ or not.

jlf1961 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/2/2015 2:46:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph what else could be the purpose of a militia but defense against an external enemy? It gives the boys an opportunity to compare and show off their guns, each one vying to have the biggest nastiest one, and an occasion to dress up and pretend that they are 'real' warriors and not merely inadequate nobodies with unresolved Dirty Harry complexes. There is some disagreement as to whether they achieve these goals ........ or not. This coming from a citizen of a country that just this year was called on to ease restrictions on certain human rights activities such as freedom of expression, association and assembly?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/2/2015 7:01:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 This coming from a citizen of a country that just this year was called on to ease restrictions on certain human rights activities such as freedom of expression, association and assembly? And what the fuck has that to do with guns and guns ownership jlf?? Or are you twisting the situation into being about people having more guns - which isn't the same as freedom of expression or assembly.

Kirata -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/2/2015 10:05:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph what else could be the purpose of a militia but defense against an external enemy? It gives the boys an opportunity to compare and show off their guns, each one vying to have the biggest nastiest one, and an occasion to dress up and pretend that they are 'real' warriors and not merely inadequate nobodies with unresolved Dirty Harry complexes. I knew we could count on you for an intelligent contribution. K.

xBullx -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/2/2015 10:42:33 AM)
I find it interesting as to who is generally for and who is generally against the right and even responsibility to bear arms. Generally speaking, those that seek out, mark their own path; are self identifying or independent thinking tend to support or even own guns. While those that are comfortable having their security provided for them or wish to claim a self determining status by proxy tend to be against gun ownership. Our modern society is on the retreat. While a rally is always possible, the days of autocracy is never very far off. As crazy as it sounds, I've studied this a good deal and while I never sat in on any meetings, am not sure I agree, I think I understand the reason why women did not originally have the right to vote. Emotion versus logic.

jlf1961 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/2/2015 11:06:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 This coming from a citizen of a country that just this year was called on to ease restrictions on certain human rights activities such as freedom of expression, association and assembly? And what the fuck has that to do with guns and guns ownership jlf?? Or are you twisting the situation into being about people having more guns - which isn't the same as freedom of expression or assembly. Well, they already made it damn near impossible to own a gun, so it seems to be a going thing to remove the rights of the people. There are a few historic examples of countries who took away the right to own firearms and limit the rights that I mentioned. Seems to go hand in hand, historically speaking.

crazyml -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/2/2015 11:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Well, they already made it damn near impossible to own a gun, so it seems to be a going thing to remove the rights of the people. There are a few historic examples of countries who took away the right to own firearms and limit the rights that I mentioned. Seems to go hand in hand, historically speaking. It is very very easy to own a gun legally. So no - it is not "damn near impossible" It is not easy to own a pistol, but a simple police check, and a valid reason (typically permission to shoot on someone's land) and hey presto you can have a shotgun or a rifle. You seem to be desperately confused about democracy... No "country" took away the right of people in the UK to carry pistols, it was the democratically elected government that expressed the overwhelming will of the people to restrict the availability of firearms. It's one of the considerable blessings of living in a democracy where we can change our laws. It's worth noting that next to no-one rocked up to demonstrate against the gun restrictions, while nearly 100,000 marched in opposition to the ban on hunting foxes with hounds. Here's the really fucking amazing thing about the democratic process... if enough people wanted to relax the laws, they could get themselves elected and change the law. Whew!

BamaD -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/2/2015 11:31:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph what else could be the purpose of a militia but defense against an external enemy? It gives the boys an opportunity to compare and show off their guns, each one vying to have the biggest nastiest one, and an occasion to dress up and pretend that they are 'real' warriors and not merely inadequate nobodies with unresolved Dirty Harry complexes. There is some disagreement as to whether they achieve these goals ........ or not. When was the last time you attended an American militia meeting. or are you just spouting what you like to think they are about?

BamaD -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (11/2/2015 11:38:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Well, they already made it damn near impossible to own a gun, so it seems to be a going thing to remove the rights of the people. There are a few historic examples of countries who took away the right to own firearms and limit the rights that I mentioned. Seems to go hand in hand, historically speaking. It is very very easy to own a gun legally. So no - it is not "damn near impossible" It is not easy to own a pistol, but a simple police check, and a valid reason (typically permission to shoot on someone's land) and hey presto you can have a shotgun or a rifle. You seem to be desperately confused about democracy... No "country" took away the right of people in the UK to carry pistols, it was the democratically elected government that expressed the overwhelming will of the people to restrict the availability of firearms. It's one of the considerable blessings of living in a democracy where we can change our laws. It's worth noting that next to no-one rocked up to demonstrate against the gun restrictions, while nearly 100,000 marched in opposition to the ban on hunting foxes with hounds. Here's the really fucking amazing thing about the democratic process... if enough people wanted to relax the laws, they could get themselves elected and change the law. Whew! But owning a hand gun is damed near impossible, and self defence, a basic right that even animals have, is not, according to other Englishmen on here, recognized. Bit no there is no real restrictions there. Would you like some oacean front property in Arizona that I can get for you cheap.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625