Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
the National RIFLE Association, if it's TRULY interested in protecting your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, should be advocating for WEAPONS, and not only GUNS.
And if you want to define the 2nd in terms of the period in which the constitution was written, that's fine with me. You still can't own an AK-47, you can't own a shotgun, you can't own an automatic or semiautomatic hand gun. About all you can own is a musket, a muzzle loading rifle, a few pistols, and an antique canon. Oh, and a blunderbuss. You wanna go that route, that's OK by me.
|
nowhere does it define the weapon types, other than to say rifle or pistol, only what the militia is. It also has been interpreted to mean common small arms, like rifles and pistols, just so we don't have to go in to the rocket launcher and nuclear weapons argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Why would there be much CQC? Bomb the civilians. Wipe up what's left. You keep assuming that the government isn't gonna want to do that but if it's a truly tyrannical government, it won't care about moral issues like that.
|
Whats a government going to do without a populace to rule over? Do you think that things will magically produce themselves?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
BTW the Iraqis had a crapload of personal arms, and they never overthrew Saddam even when he killed thousands of civilians unjustly. That goes to show that people don't tend to revolt unless things get REALLY bad, and we have NEVER had a successful modern revolution with citizens against a well armed and modernized military. . . At least not without help from somewhere.
|
Until things are REALLY bad? seems I said that in this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
It's highly unlikely that Senator Hatch is gonna be running around with a machine gun. If you shoot him you are shooting an unarmed citizen. If you've already managed to defeat the military, the politicians aren't going to kick up much of a fight.
|
In order to control him, are you going to point your finger at him?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
That's nice. What are the requirements to obtain a NON concealed weapons license?
|
Texas is not an open carry state, however, the states that are open carry do require licenses and training, except for alaska and vermont I believe.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Well let's see. Cheney (I'm using him because it's the most recent example - I'm not trying to launch an attack against the VP) is from Wyoming. He was allowed to use a gun in Texas. I'm guessing he didn't go to any training class. So we already have an issue here where we dont' know who has guns or how competent they are with them.
|
Now you've gone the apples and oranges route. You went from handguns to shotguns. There are no required training classes on firearms for hunting except for minors, that i'm aware of.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Terrorists tried to kill us with anthrax. Should we encourage the citizenry to start making their own biological weapons?
|
see above with regards to nuclear weapons
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
All speculation, and therefore not relevant.
|
And your assumption of people and their proficiency or their proclivity to shoot random gunfire causing hundreds of accidental deaths is NOT speculation and NOT irrelevant?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
No, you talked about homicides involving innocent bystanders. If the innocent bystander gets killed because someone accidentally shoots him, that's manslaughter, not homicide, and it wouldn't count toward your statistic.
|
why are you refusing to understand this statement of fact?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Ah. So because there are fewer accidental deaths from firearms than from cars, those deaths are automatically OK. I could echo your lines about feeling warm and fuzzy here, but I won't  |
what warm and fuzzy? You've gone on and on about how dangerous guns are and should be kept out of hands of civilians that aren't trained with them yet I've just shown you that you are 53 times more likely to be killed in a MV accident. Did I say it was OK? No, I simply showed you that there is less of a problem than you make it out to be.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Explain to me why you have a problem with requiring people to be well trained before they (legally) get hold of a gun. Again, the argument that if we restrict guns only criminals will have guns has a point, however, it should not be used as an excuse not to pass the law.
|
Point out to me where I said that they should not require training. I simply said that the amount of training YOU think they require is ridiculously high. You also didn't explain the difference.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
You're advocating an arms race amongst a bunch of untrained, panicky civillians. That does NOT sound like a great idea to me.
|
If the government is not going to enforce its current laws, we the people NEED to be able to defend ourselves. Would you not agree?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Given, but it's not like there's only going to be ONE tank in the area. And if the civilians manage to defeat the tanks, then again, the government has bombers at its disposal. Pretty hard for a ground-based civilian with a shotgun to take out a B52 at 40,000 feet.
|
We could go in to all kinds of scenarios but it's obvious that you are incapable of seeing the ability of armed civilians due to your pessimism. Pessimism is fine, but it can also be defeatist and I think thats where you are already at. You were right, that i'm not going to move you and you certainly aren't going to move me when it comes to what we believe is constitutionally protected. We'll see how it turns out in the end.