Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
See, my point is that even if the 2nd meant what you think it means (it doesn't)
|
you continue to support this notion of a state army and keeping the redneck idiots from running around with guns, yet I've seen zero historical evidence from you to support this ludicrous theory. You can't say 'but they didn't really mean for everyone to have guns' without producing anything to support it and expect anyone to believe it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
well I'm glad you brought that up! Waco is an excellent point. Koresh and his gang had one of the biggest civilian arsenals around, and what happened? They all died in a fire. They managed to drop a few ATF agents, and that's it. And that wasn't even a coordinated military assault. See my point here? You're not going to win if the government decides to get you, so why endanger the rest of the public with your fantasies about warding off an evil government with your rifle?
|
a group of nearly 100 held off two government branches with armored vehicles for over 50 days. Do you know why the FBI pushed for a final assault? They knew that it wouldn't be long before other armed groups of citizens came to help the davidians. I see you support the notion of it's preferable to live subservient to the government than to die free.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
6 years ago I'd have said that to order a bullshit war in a foreign country would be complete political suicide after Vietnam, but Bush managed to get reelected.
|
which should tell you that propaganda can go a long way to convincing alot of people, just like goering said. But it will always have its limits even though you say it doesn't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
And how many would die from him shooting them before he was dropped? How many would die in the crossfire as everyone around them whipped out their machine guns and started blasting away? You need to think these scenarios through. "Kill all them motherfuckers" is almost never the answer.
|
Until you can change your perception of americans being idiots, nothing anyone says will ever change your stance. You CANNOT prevent idiocy in some people but such is the price of freedom. Apparently the price is too high for you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Bullshit. That's not irrelevant at all. You tried to slip an argument past me but it didn't work. You tried to suggest that legally posessed machine guns aren't used in crimes very much. Nice try, but if someone steals my machine gun that I bought legally, the machine gun is no longer legally owned and therefore drops off your narrow statistical analysis. As the old saying goes, figures may not lie, but liars can figure. Manipulating the statistics to try and prove a point that's broader than the statistics you limit yourself to is dishonest.
|
pure obfuscation on your part. don't let your machine gun be stolen. pretty simple.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Great, and since an unorganized militia is unregulated, I don't have a 2nd amendment right to a gun.
|
wrong and wrong.
Are you really suggesting that the constitution's framers considered a militia well regulated as long as it was composed of people who were supposed to control themselves? That's a bit of a kindergarten approach to it don't you think? And if I'm the one that's supposed to be regulating myself, who's basic orders are you suggesting I follow? Your arguments fail to stand up to even the lightest logical scrutiny.[/QUOTE] And yet, that is exactly what the framers thought and believed. But you're obviously a much more intelligent and wiser individual than those bumbling fools that created this republic, since those who believe in the individual rights theory are unreasonable and illogical, despite all the evidence they put forth. What is it like being such a genius?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
1) The dick act is named for its sponsor, Senator Charles Dick, who was a republican. So quit blaming the democrats.
|
One has nothing to do with the other.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
2) The states still have a well regulated, armed militia. They're called cops.
|
wrong. cops are 'law enforcement', not the militia, but another dead horse with you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Their intent was to insure states had militias. Not to insure that hunters get a deer, or that you get to play with guns and pretend to be a freedom fighter.
|
WE are that militia, not a 'state' government run body of military members.
I wonder if you are really as smart as you think you are, since you apparently have very little understanding of the historical evolution and development of the constitution.