Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Interests > Tilted Weaponry


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-09-2006, 11:51 AM   #1 (permalink)
Still Free
 
Cimarron29414's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
Effects of a Democratic Congress?

Anyone else going to buy up a "scary" gun between now and Jan 20? While I have been mildly considering getting an AR-15 to compete in NRA Service Rifle competitions, the change in leadership in Washington has me more anxious to make the purchase. I feel like one of the first things Pelosi will do is dust off her A.R. ban and Brady Bill (she wrote the A.R. ban), it we will all be back to 10 round mags and no ARs.

Never in my life have I felt more threatened about losing my rights to bear arms, and it's a sad day when you will purchase a weapon that you wouldn't normally rush into, simply because you believe your right will be taken from you very soon.

Others feel this way?
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."
Cimarron29414 is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 12:44 PM   #2 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
The Dems will be sidetracked by the War and the mess the Republicans left behind. You'll probably be fine for at least the next 8-10 months.

Also, Magnum P.I. is going to be taking over for Heston, you really can't lose. Ferraris for everyone!!

Last edited by Willravel; 11-09-2006 at 12:46 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 01:51 PM   #3 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
The Dems will be sidetracked by the War and the mess the Republicans left behind


and that will be the first excuse they'll have for not governing the way they promised...."oh we were left with the waaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrr"
__________________
"According to the map we've only gone four inches" -Dumb and Dumber
Kali is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 02:18 PM   #4 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali
and that will be the first excuse they'll have for not governing the way they promised...."oh we were left with the waaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrr" [/COLOR]
1) can the color, it's hard to read

2) how about letting us fuck up before you whine about it eh? It's not like the republicans did a great job. It's time to let someone else have a turn. The newly elected democrats (who were elected BECAUSE your side screwed things up so badly) haven't even taken office yet, and already you're complaining about them. That's absurd.

Oh and BTW, Will is right. We have a lot of work to do cleaning up your party's messes before we ever get around to worrying about assault weapon bans, but if it reaches the point where we have enough breathing room to look into it, I'll support it. You don't need an AK-47. I swear you guys are incredible. Ban nail clippers from airplanes, but submachine guns in suburbia is just fine? Sheesh.
shakran is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 07:38 PM   #5 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
I'm not saying that Nancy wouldn't want to ban it, but with the moderate democrats and Bush still in the White House, I don't think it will happen.

Are AR-15s really a problem? I don't hear about them being used in crimes very often. And there are plenty of people like me that don't own a gun, but have to hold it every time I go into Cabela's.

On a side note...I'm still pissed that I didn't get that free gun from that bank in Michael Moore's movie. I lived in Michigan and would have opened an account with them to get a gun.

Right now, I can't really justify buying a AR-15 either. But I want the option to.

This is my favorite military gun, but there is really no reason anyone in the general public would need one. If everything went to hell, and we had to stop an armed invasion, I want this gun.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/m107.htm
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 09:49 PM   #6 (permalink)
Unbelievable
 
cj2112's Avatar
 
Location: Grants Pass OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
You don't need an AK-47. I swear you guys are incredible.
There are already laws in place to strictly regulate the ownership of AK-47's. I have a lot of shit i don't need, many of them could be used to kill people if I were so inclined. Outlawing things because people don't need them is just fucking stupid.
cj2112 is offline  
Old 11-09-2006, 09:56 PM   #7 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj2112
There are already laws in place to strictly regulate the ownership of AK-47's. I have a lot of shit i don't need, many of them could be used to kill people if I were so inclined. Outlawing things because people don't need them is just fucking stupid.
Outlawing things becuase they have no reasonable use outside of shooting (i.e. seriously injuring or killing) another human being is smart. There is a reason that it's illegal to build, keep, or use a nuclear weapon in the US. That's why Democrats, after years and years of cleaning up the republimess, will probably turn their attention on certian guns. If you don't like it, vote Libertarian.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 05:37 AM   #8 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
There is a reason that it's illegal to build, keep, or use a nuclear weapon in the US.
That's news to me. I better hide that centrifuge out back.

I can't believe that I can't have a nuclear arsenal to protect my house from a invading foreign country (surely it wouldn't be used in a US civil war).



Nuclear weapons and material isn't the same as assault rifles. However, I'm sure there are people out there that say that the public should have access to any weapon our military has, just in case we need to defend ourselves from them one day.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 06:43 AM   #9 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
Nuclear weapons and material isn't the same as assault rifles. However, I'm sure there are people out there that say that the public should have access to any weapon our military has, just in case we need to defend ourselves from them one day.
You're right.
On both counts.

So...where is the line drawn? Certainly no sane person believes that Joe P. Citizen should be allowed to have a nuclear warhead out in his backyard storage shed. Nor, I think, should he be able to own a tank, a bazooka, a grenade launcher, an aircraft carrier....and so on and so forth.

Look...I'm not in favor of gun control. I fully support the 2nd amendment. I am a hunter. I am a hunter safety instructor (NRA certified). I own guns. I own rifles. I own shotguns. I own handguns. I do not own an assault rifle. I don't see the point. Since I can't (for good reason) own one that fires on full auto, then the only other benefit to having one is...that it looks badass? I don't think so. I got enough of looking badass when I had to carry one in the military, thank you.

So, I really haven't made my mind up on the whole assault rifle ban...still. No one has yet to provide to me, a strong enough argument. One way...or the other.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 07:40 AM   #10 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
So, I really haven't made my mind up on the whole assault rifle ban...still. No one has yet to provide to me, a strong enough argument. One way...or the other.
The only reason I can think of to own an assault riffle would be entertainment (I'm assuming we're not talking about light assault rifles, like the Fedorov Avtomat...but more like modren, full assault rifles like he M16, SIG, or AK). It's major overkill for anything else: hunting (you'd have to pick pieces of the deer from a hundred yard radius), home protection (you're likely to bring down your house, and possibly a neighbors with a gun of that power...not to mention they'd have to do dental to ID what was left of the home invader), skeet (you could take down a plane right after atomizing a clay target or bird), that crazy biathalon event where you ski and shoot (you'd fall off your skiis, and that would mean that you'd be shooting out of control). So target practice is the only thing it's really slated for besides people killing. Maybe they should just be allowed on gun ranges.

If I see someone walking down the street with an assault rifle, I'm calling the police, and following them to make sure they don't kill anyone. It's a little more serious than a handgun because it's too powerful.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 10:59 AM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
You don't need an AK-47. I swear you guys are incredible. Ban nail clippers from airplanes, but submachine guns in suburbia is just fine? Sheesh.
Every home should have at least one machine gun with 1,000 rounds, someone who's familiar with shooting it, and participate in weekly shoots to keep in practice in accordance with the militia act.

The Second Amendment has absolutely squat to do with hunting. It's about keeping the people in power over the government. The socialists of this country have done way too much damage to the 2nd Amendment, another attempted gun ban COULD be the match that lights the fire.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Last edited by dksuddeth; 11-10-2006 at 11:03 AM..
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:28 PM   #12 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Every home should have at least one machine gun with 1,000 rounds, someone who's familiar with shooting it, and participate in weekly shoots to keep in practice in accordance with the militia act.
Even if I wanted to do this, I doubt I have the money to fire off that many rounds.

This argument is the sole reason I'm opposed to people owning assault weapons. Attitudes like this are insane. Sure, you have a machine gun. Great. One tank and your day is over. The only logical conclusion is either 1) we engage in a government / citizen arms race (government obviously wins since they can buy a lot more missiles than you can) or 2) we stop being ridiculous about insisting on gun ownership.


No one's trying to take your hunting rifles away, but really, do you really think that overall we'd be safer if everyone, including the idiots, had machine guns? That's just crazy.


Quote:
The Second Amendment has absolutely squat to do with hunting. It's about keeping the people in power over the government.
And that worked great when the best weapon the government could obtain was a flintlock rifle. The citizens had a chance because their weapons were as good as the government's. Now, there's absolutely no chance for the ammendment to work as you say it's intended. I buy a machine gun, Bush buys a B-52. He wins. So since there's no way the citizenry is going to overcome the power of the government, that argument is null and void.

But if the citizenry really does want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, they should certainly buy a gun and join a well-regulated militia. Unless you're in a WELL REGULATED militia, the 2nd simply does not apply to you. Period.
shakran is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:42 PM   #13 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Let's boil this down. A well regulated militia. We all know what a militia is, right? It's a civilian force that answeres to the government in a time of trouble. It's not a potential insurgent force, as an insurgent force does not answer to the government. The well regulated militia is ...*drumroll*... the National Guard! Te right of the civilians (read: people) to bear arms is protected. I'm not in the militia, so I don't have the constitutional right to bear arms.

I guess we're back to kicking that dead horse again.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:43 PM   #14 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
The Second Amendment has absolutely squat to do with hunting. It's about keeping the people in power over the government. The socialists of this country have done way too much damage to the 2nd Amendment, another attempted gun ban COULD be the match that lights the fire.
Is it a problem for gun rights advocates that Bush just secretly signed into law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which gives him right for to call up the National Guard of any state (with or without the approval of that state's governor) for purposes of "suppressing public disorder"?

If I were a gun advocate who was concerned about the public being able to overthrow the government if needed (versus just really liking noisy dangerous toys), I'd have a real problem with that.

Last edited by ratbastid; 11-10-2006 at 12:49 PM..
ratbastid is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:49 PM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Even if I wanted to do this, I doubt I have the money to fire off that many rounds.
ONLY because of current prohibition laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
This argument is the sole reason I'm opposed to people owning assault weapons. Attitudes like this are insane. Sure, you have a machine gun. Great. One tank and your day is over. The only logical conclusion is either 1) we engage in a government / citizen arms race (government obviously wins since they can buy a lot more missiles than you can) or 2) we stop being ridiculous about insisting on gun ownership.
And this is where we let a cowardly group of people screw us. Posse Comitatus is SUPPOSED to ensure that the military would NEVER be used against the citizenry, but now all the gov has to do is make a claim of drugs being involved and BOOM, instant armored vehicles abound. I won't bother going over the people vs. military issue again since that would be beating the dead horse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
No one's trying to take your hunting rifles away, but really, do you really think that overall we'd be safer if everyone, including the idiots, had machine guns? That's just crazy.
How many of those 'idiots' would walk out in public and start firing, KNOWING that everybody else has a machine gun and WILL be firing back? I don't think a whole lot will, in fact, do you know how many LEGALLY owned machine guns have been used in a crime? ONE, and that one was owned by a police officer.




Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
And that worked great when the best weapon the government could obtain was a flintlock rifle. The citizens had a chance because their weapons were as good as the government's. Now, there's absolutely no chance for the ammendment to work as you say it's intended. I buy a machine gun, Bush buys a B-52. He wins. So since there's no way the citizenry is going to overcome the power of the government, that argument is null and void.
dead horse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
But if the citizenry really does want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, they should certainly buy a gun and join a well-regulated militia. Unless you're in a WELL REGULATED militia, the 2nd simply does not apply to you. Period.
Again, ALL of us are the well regulated militia, or at least we should be had the democrats not infringed on our rights to keep and bear arms. Well regulated does NOT mean government regulated. It also does not mean that you HAVE to be in the militia to keep and bear arms, since the militia act qualifies members of organized and unorganized militia as american citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Let's boil this down. A well regulated militia. We all know what a militia is, right? It's a civilian force that answeres to the government in a time of trouble. It's not a potential insurgent force, as an insurgent force does not answer to the government. The well regulated militia is ...*drumroll*... the National Guard! Te right of the civilians (read: people) to bear arms is protected. I'm not in the militia, so I don't have the constitutional right to bear arms.

I guess we're back to kicking that dead horse again.
We are all the militia. one district court ruled that the militia was the national guard. This is incorrect insofar as it is only one part of the militia, the organized militia. Also, since the constitution prevents states from maintaining a standing army, the PEOPLE naturally make up the security of a free STATE by keeping and bearing arms equal to that of the standing federal army.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Is it a problem for gun rights advocates that Bush just secretly signed into law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which gives him right for to call up the National Guard of any state (with or without the approval of that state's governor) for purposes of "suppressing public disorder"?

If I were a gun advocate who was concerned about the public being able to overthrow the government if needed (versus just really liking noisy dangerous toys), I'd have a real problem with that.
especially since the national guard, being federalized, is no longer a state militia, therefore, the people make up the actual militia and hence the individual right shall not be infringed.

For a better look at how congress has usurped power from the people, read my signature.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Last edited by dksuddeth; 11-10-2006 at 12:57 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 01:21 PM   #16 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
ONLY because of current prohibition laws.
Uh, no, because ammo is expensive.

Quote:
And this is where we let a cowardly group of people screw us. Posse Comitatus is SUPPOSED to ensure that the military would NEVER be used against the citizenry,
If the civilians attack the government, it is crazy to think the government will not respond with the tools available to them.

Quote:
but now all the gov has to do is make a claim of drugs being involved and BOOM, instant armored vehicles abound.
What? The ATF and the Marines are two seperate entities. . . .

Quote:
I won't bother going over the people vs. military issue again since that would be beating the dead horse.
And you don't have any logical arguments on that subject either. You can't. A rifle cannot beat a bomber.


Quote:
How many of those 'idiots' would walk out in public and start firing, KNOWING that everybody else has a machine gun and WILL be firing back?
Hell all you need is one nutcase to start something like that.

Quote:
I don't think a whole lot will, in fact, do you know how many LEGALLY owned machine guns have been used in a crime? ONE, and that one was owned by a police officer.
Next question: How many LEGALLY bought guns have been stolen and THEN used in crimes?


Quote:
Again, ALL of us are the well regulated militia,
No, we're not well regulated. I don't have a commanding officer, and neither do you. We are, in fact, completely UNregulated.

Quote:
or at least we should be had the democrats not infringed on our rights to keep and bear arms.
It was unregulated before the democrats were democrats.

Quote:
Well regulated does NOT mean government regulated.
I know that. I'll settle for ANY regulation. Hint: When you're in a regulated organization, you generally attend at least one informational meeting in your lifetime. Funny, i don't recall going to any meetings of the militia.

Quote:
It also does not mean that you HAVE to be in the militia to keep and bear arms, since the militia act qualifies members of organized and unorganized militia as american citizens.
The constitution supercedes any other act you can come up with. Unconstitutional laws are null and void.



Quote:
We are all the militia. one district court ruled that the militia was the national guard.
Legal precedent.

Quote:
This is incorrect
Not according to the law it isn't.

Quote:
insofar as it is only one part of the militia, the organized militia.
Organized = regulated. Non-regulated militias do not fall under the 2nd.

Quote:
Also, since the constitution prevents states from maintaining a standing army,
Woah! I had no idea all the governors were breaking the law with the national guard!

Quote:
the PEOPLE naturally make up the security of a free STATE by keeping and bearing arms equal to that of the standing federal army.
So I CAN buy a nuclear weapon now. Excellent.

Your logic is breaking down bigtime



Quote:
especially since the national guard, being federalized, is no longer a state militia,
It can be both at once. And it is.

Quote:
therefore, the people make up the actual militia and hence the individual right shall not be infringed.
This is an illogical conclusion.
shakran is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 03:39 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
sorry shak, your reasoning, interpretation, and conclusions are wrong and illogical.

It should be interesting to you that it wasn't until 1905 that the first court determined specifically that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, I guess that those first 125 years of our countries existence consisted of moronic judges who probably couldn't even name the signers of the declaration OR the constitution.

Quote:
If the civilians attack the government, it is crazy to think the government will not respond with the tools available to them.
Which is the exact reason WHY the people should have all arms available to them, but that's something that the socialists/communists/statists can't have because it interferes with their agenda.

Quote:
What? The ATF and the Marines are two seperate entities. . . .
yes, they are. But just like YOU said that the government would use all of it's tools available, so they will shift military hardware (tanks) over to law enforcement agencies. They did it at waco.

Quote:
A rifle cannot beat a bomber.
to order such an attack would be COMPLETE political suicide. It will never happen.

Quote:
Hell all you need is one nutcase to start something like that.
He'd be dead pretty quick, wouldn't he. One nutcase gone from the gene pool. I would think that would make you MORE comfortable with less nuts having guns, after a time.

Quote:
Next question: How many LEGALLY bought guns have been stolen and THEN used in crimes?
irrelevant because we're discussing machine guns.

Quote:
No, we're not well regulated. I don't have a commanding officer, and neither do you. We are, in fact, completely UNregulated.
regulated does NOT mean having a government run structure. YOU are a member of the unorganized militia, therefore YOU are part of the militia. IF you were to be called in to service, try to say you're NOT well regulated and see if that gets you out of it. It won't. Because you don't have a CO, you are part of the UNORGANIZED militia.

Quote:
I know that. I'll settle for ANY regulation. Hint: When you're in a regulated organization, you generally attend at least one informational meeting in your lifetime. Funny, i don't recall going to any meetings of the militia.
Do you have a good explanation WHY you aren't 'regulating' yoruself? It is YOUR responsibility to be well regulated...meaning you can shoot, maintain, and keep your weapon and follow basic orders.

Quote:
Woah! I had no idea all the governors were breaking the law with the national guard!
Before 1903, they weren't. It was a ready reserve, meaning that they were NOT a standing army. The Dick Act federalized them, essentially making them available upon notice, turning them in to a standing army, hence they were no longer a state militia.

Quote:
So I CAN buy a nuclear weapon now. Excellent.
Your logic is breaking down bigtime
Strawman argument and you couldn't afford a nuke anyway, much less bear one. There is that political suicide thing also.

Quote:
It can be both at once. And it is.
If it can now be called in to federal service, bypassing the governers authorization, they are no longer a state militia.

Quote:
This is an illogical conclusion.
Only because you still choose to ignore the founding fathers intent of the 2nd Amendment. That is ok though, I understand not wanting to be wrong so badly that you'll not concede despite all historical evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
Legal precedent
which was contradicted in numerous higher court cases afterwards. no legal precedent.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 04:34 PM   #18 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Which is the exact reason WHY the people should have all arms available to them, but that's something that the socialists/communists/statists can't have because it interferes with their agenda.
You just said "all arms". You can't say "all arms", then get pissed when nukes get brought into the coversation. There absolutely, positively has to be a line drawn. I don't think anyone at all should have nuclear weapons, especially civilians. I feel the same way about all weapons, but for the sake of your statement, let's stick with serious weapons, as serious weapons like land-to-air missles, heavy, full auto machine guns, sniper rifles, and possibly nukes would be necessary in order to take the US military head on. In order for there to be the necessary force to deter the full power of the military, so as to protect us from the phantom menace of the marshal law, military police state. The current populace, including the uber-gun nuts, would be totally outguned in every way by the US military. Even if you managed to get together all of the former and retired military officers, you'd still have your ass handed to you.

Bottom line: any sane person can see that the right to bear arms has no real world connection with the responsibility of the public to keep the government in check. We have the reight to bear arms now, and I don't see one bullet being fired becuase of the loss of freedoms over the past 6 years. Not one shot rang out when we were wire tapped without a warrant. Not one bullet was fired when the Military Comissions Act of 2006 murdered Habeas Corpus. Not one shot rang out when the term "enemy combatent" was used to circumvent the Geneva Convention. Nothing. Nada. Until I see vigilantism on the rise among those who legally own weapons, I will not see the populace as a well regulated anything, and I will not support the arming of civilians. It's useless. Our military will prevent any kind of invasion, AND we have the National Guard in reserves...so that's out. If the government were to start turning on the populace, you wouldn't see lone gunmen or even organizaed terrorist cells work with any success. The only real success, as I've stated before, would come from domestic terrorism: independant terrorist bombers that have no connection to any kind of organization. That's the only way to fight the US military, and I don't see that happening until we're so far gone it may not make a difference.

That should effectively take the question or armed rebelion and well regulated militia out of your argument once and for all.

As far as nukes: all you need for a dirty bomb is some radioactive material, which is less guarded than bomb grade nuclear material.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Only because you still choose to ignore the founding fathers intent of the 2nd Amendment. That is ok though, I understand not wanting to be wrong so badly that you'll not concede despite all historical evidence to the contrary.
I'm assuming you know the origianl text of the Second Ammendment:
Quote:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The founding fathers wanted the second ammendment to be a barrier against a standing army. We fucked them in the ass when we let fear win over logic and created a perminant US military. See, the founding fathers understood that a standing army was a serious threat to democracy and civil liberties, so they wanted a militia: a military made up of volunteer civilians who trained for time of war, but were not full time soldiers.

The Federalists, on the other hand, wanted a perminant, federally controled military. They also didn't want a bill of rights.


BTW, San Francisco has been under the handgun ban for some time now, and crime rates have slowly dropped. Just an aside.

/threadjack
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 04:54 PM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
you know will, you're right. we're fucked. surrender all your freedom and work as a slave. we all shoud. we can't beat the government, you better do everything they tell you. freedom was just a dream. welcome to your new world order.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 05:01 PM   #20 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
you know will, you're right. we're fucked. surrender all your freedom and work as a slave. we all shoud. we can't beat the government, you better do everything they tell you. freedom was just a dream. welcome to your new world order.
Aha! Now you know what it's been like to be a Democrat the last six years! Welcome to the revolution!
ratbastid is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 05:17 PM   #21 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
you know will, you're right. we're fucked. surrender all your freedom and work as a slave. we all shoud. we can't beat the government, you better do everything they tell you. freedom was just a dream. welcome to your new world order.
I already explained the only real way to fight the US government and military:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The only real success, as I've stated before, would come from domestic terrorism: independant terrorist bombers that have no connection to any kind of organization.
With organization comes leadership, and with leadership comes targets of opportunity. Hierarchies have a fundamental flaw: they are dependant on leadership. Independant single person cells simply working off logic (would you bomb a DMV that keeps people in long lines fo hours at a time, or a Raytheon plant that builds missiles for the military?).

But moving back for a moment: have you shot anyone for the loss of your freedoms? No? Is that becuase I'm laying down for the NWO, or because you are laying down for the NWO? I've already explained that my best weapon is my big fat mouth. I tell people what's up, and a lot of people listen (the trick is a joke every now and again). You've made it clear that your weapon of choice has a barrel and launches little metal projectiles. My weapon is firing at a 300 words a minute. I'm doing everything I can, and you say, "welcome to your new world order."? I don't want to turn that argument around on you completly, so I suggest that we move on.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 05:20 PM   #22 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Aha! Now you know what it's been like to be a Democrat the last six years! Welcome to the revolution!
seeing no positive benefit from either republicans or democrats for the last 14 years, how do you think I feel?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 07:51 PM   #23 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Let's boil this down. A well regulated militia. We all know what a militia is, right? It's a civilian force that answeres to the government in a time of trouble. It's not a potential insurgent force, as an insurgent force does not answer to the government. The well regulated militia is ...*drumroll*... the National Guard! Te right of the civilians (read: people) to bear arms is protected. I'm not in the militia, so I don't have the constitutional right to bear arms.
I would think the argument could be made that the NRA could be a organized civilian force. I wouldn't be surprised if they have enough retired military in their ranks to give a challenge to the US military if they were to try and overthrow a extreme democrat government that wasn't doing their job right (and forced everyone to give up all guns).

Plus, having the majority republican military fighting the primarily republican NRA wouldn't sit well. There would be a lot of dissent in the military I would assume. (If your father was fighting for the NRA, and you were in the military, I couldn't imagine them shooting at each other) And you can't just nuke Birmingham and Charleston to wipe out the NRA either. They will blend into the general population. It would get ugly real fast.

When I read the second amendment, I take it to mean that if the government and military get too powerful and use their power for evil, the general population needs to be able to restore the government back to the constitution and hold new elections. The majority of people voted for the government we have, so if the majority of people want to kill some muslim religious extremists, the other 49% have to go along with it. If Bush would have blocked this election and made himself king, then there might have been a problem.

Last edited by ASU2003; 11-10-2006 at 08:02 PM..
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:19 PM   #24 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
It should be interesting to you that it wasn't until 1905 that the first court determined specifically that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, I guess that those first 125 years of our countries existence consisted of moronic judges who probably couldn't even name the signers of the declaration OR the constitution.
Well first it's 118 years because before 1787 we were under the Articles of Confederation (and judges between 1776 and 1787 would have been quite amazing if they had been able to name the signers of the constitution)

Second, I'm not sure what point you're driving at here. Want to elaborate?


Quote:
Which is the exact reason WHY the people should have all arms available to them, but that's something that the socialists/communists/statists can't have because it interferes with their agenda.
OK. You first. Go buy a nuke. Have fun getting your hands on one. FYI it's gonna cost you several million so you might wanna polish off that platinum Visa. See, my point is that even if the 2nd meant what you think it means (it doesn't) it wouldn't matter because the people cannot financially keep and bear arms that equal the government's.


Quote:
yes, they are. But just like YOU said that the government would use all of it's tools available, so they will shift military hardware (tanks) over to law enforcement agencies. They did it at waco.
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?


Quote:
to order such an attack would be COMPLETE political suicide. It will never happen.
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.

Quote:
He'd be dead pretty quick, wouldn't he. One nutcase gone from the gene pool. I would think that would make you MORE comfortable with less nuts having guns, after a time.
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.

Quote:
irrelevant because we're discussing machine guns.
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.


Quote:
regulated does NOT mean having a government run structure.
Yes, I know that. I've said that.

Quote:
YOU are a member of the unorganized militia,
Great, and since an unorganized militia is unregulated, I don't have a 2nd amendment right to a gun.

Quote:
therefore YOU are part of the militia. IF you were to be called in to service,
I won't be.

Quote:
try to say you're NOT well regulated and see if that gets you out of it. It won't. Because you don't have a CO, you are part of the UNORGANIZED militia.
Then if it's unorganized who the hell is going to be calling me into service?



Quote:
Do you have a good explanation WHY you aren't 'regulating' yoruself? It is YOUR responsibility to be well regulated...meaning you can shoot, maintain, and keep your weapon and follow basic orders.
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:
Before 1903, they weren't. It was a ready reserve, meaning that they were NOT a standing army. The Dick Act federalized them, essentially making them available upon notice, turning them in to a standing army, hence they were no longer a state militia.
1) The dick act is named for its sponsor, Senator Charles Dick, who was a republican. So quit blaming the democrats.

2) The states still have a well regulated, armed militia. They're called cops.


Quote:
Strawman argument and you couldn't afford a nuke anyway, much less bear one.
My point exactly. I can't afford a nuke. The government can.

Quote:
There is that political suicide thing also.
If the government has turned totalitarian and is out to oppress us, they don't give a damn about political suicide, because you can't commit political suicide in a dictatorship. Do you think the Iraqis who were killed by Saddam's soldiers were tittering into their beards thinking "haha! He's committing political suicide!"

And btw Iraq was a society that DID have much more powerful weapons than American civilians had, and it STILL took an outside army to topple Saddam.



Quote:
Only because you still choose to ignore the founding fathers intent of the 2nd Amendment.
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.
shakran is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:35 PM   #25 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
I would think the argument could be made that the NRA could be a organized civilian force. I wouldn't be surprised if they have enough retired military in their ranks to give a challenge to the US military if they were to try and overthrow a extreme democrat government that wasn't doing their job right (and forced everyone to give up all guns).
Wow. So for you, all government boils down to the Second Amendment? If those bad Democrats try to take our guns away, we better have the good Republican populace be armed enough to overthrow them?

I've heard of single-issue voters, but that's just nuts.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 08:49 PM   #26 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
I would think the argument could be made that the NRA could be a organized civilian force. I wouldn't be surprised if they have enough retired military in their ranks to give a challenge to the US military if they were to try and overthrow a extreme democrat government that wasn't doing their job right (and forced everyone to give up all guns).
The NRA isn't regulated at all. All you need is $35 for a membership. You don't even have to own a gun...so that thins out the ranks a bit. Even among those who own a gun, very few can shoot with the same proficiency as a freshly trained military officer, and many of the NRA members are getting on in age...so that thins out the ranks quite a bit more.

The NRA is great for lobying and fighting things like the New Orleans gun confiscations or SF's proposition H. They are not a body capable of any kind of military action.

Also, if this "extreme democrat government" forced everyone to give up their guns, what use would the NRA be at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
Plus, having the majority republican military fighting the primarily republican NRA wouldn't sit well. There would be a lot of dissent in the military I would assume. (If your father was fighting for the NRA, and you were in the military, I couldn't imagine them shooting at each other) And you can't just nuke Birmingham and Charleston to wipe out the NRA either. They will blend into the general population. It would get ugly real fast.
That goes both ways. Some NRA members wouldn't be able to fire on US soldiers, having been soldiers themselves. Some would probably shit themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
When I read the second amendment, I take it to mean that if the government and military get too powerful and use their power for evil, the general population needs to be able to restore the government back to the constitution and hold new elections. The majority of people voted for the government we have, so if the majority of people want to kill some muslim religious extremists, the other 49% have to go along with it. If Bush would have blocked this election and made himself king, then there might have been a problem.
The elections were both stolen, and no one did shit. Again, people love to talk big about insurection, but it's hot air. When push comes to shove, there will only be a few that stand...and in the instance of standing against the government, it's always the liberals that stand strong. The conservatives didn't burn draft cards and fight back against riot police.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:00 PM   #27 (permalink)
Crazy
 
I had always read the bill of rights inside their historical context and from that determined that the second Amendment:

Quote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
meant that the people of this new nation would need to be prepared to take up arms in support of this nation at any time.

I personally have always believed that no person should be allowed to own a weapon that they did not know how to use and store safely. To that end I personally believe that we should require owners of guns to obtain a license, much like a drivers license. Yes I do know that you have to have a license to own a gun, but there is nothing in obtaining that license that says you have to know how to use it.

if anyone in this world has advanced the cause of gun control in America in the last 5 years it's been our nice Republican VP. See what happens when you put a gun in the hands of an idiot? Lawyers get shot.

On second thought maybe this isn't such a bad idea.
__________________
~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~


"A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing." ~Erno Philips
Xera is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:27 PM   #28 (permalink)
Artist of Life
 
Ch'i's Avatar
 
I will never understand why people will adamantly, and with fervent vigor, attack the slightest notion of losing their right to bear arms when so many other rights have been plucked away with hardly a word in opposition.
Ch'i is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:28 PM   #29 (permalink)
Eccentric insomniac
 
Slims's Avatar
 
Location: North Carolina
The last AWB turned out to be a political lead balloon. They won't risk it before the next big elections in 2008. Though I am sure a few will make token speaches about bringing back a ban before then.

After the 2008 presidential race, all bets are off. Nevermind that the world didn't end when the last AWB expired.



CHI: A lot of people do oppose the loss of those rights as well. But I can think of two reasons why any erosion of the second amendment is protested perhaps more vigorously than others: 1: You are losing something tangible. One day you can have something and the next you have to surrender it or put your name on a list. and 2: The second amendment was intended to be our last-ditch defence against a government turned bad. If you remove all other liberties except the second amendment, people may through force of arms reinstate a government that serves the people.
__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Last edited by Slims; 11-10-2006 at 09:31 PM..
Slims is offline  
Old 11-10-2006, 10:24 PM   #30 (permalink)
Artist of Life
 
Ch'i's Avatar
 
You might be right about the tangibility, but still...

This thread brings to mind my favorite verse from the Declaration of Independence:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter of abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Ch'i is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 12:56 AM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I doubt we'll see much, at least right away. The Dem leadership seems silent on the issue, oddly enough. They could be planning something sneaky, like attatching a nasty bill to the Defense Appropriation as a rider, though, and I wouldn't put it past them.

Their big concern right now is '08. They want that ugly oversized house-trailer back -real- bad. The Military-Industrial-Banking Complex sees the advantages too, so they and their media mouthpieces are keeping shut.

As a consequence, I think Greg has it nailed. I don't expect anything to come of it for at least the next two years; the Dem's success this time around hinged on being able to woo moderate Republicans and Independants, who were fed up with Iraq and such. That support wouldn't survive another AWB, and the Dem leadership knows it. I think they'll keep gun-grabbing out of the headlines until '08, if they can.
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 06:56 AM   #32 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
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.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 10:32 AM   #33 (permalink)
Artist of Life
 
Ch'i's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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.
And so, the flame war begins...
Ch'i is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 11:15 AM   #34 (permalink)
Tilted
 
I need to address some dead horseshit I saw in this thread:

1) Well-regulated militia does not mean government-regulated. Nowhere does it say "A government lapdog militia being necessary..." It means able-bodied adults.

2) Rifles can beat bombers, look at wars like Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afganistan(which I still can't spell), and to a certain(lesser) extent Iraq. This is especially true in numbers, such as... oh I dunno... a militia vastly outnumbering an army who would probably have a serious problem attacking its own country.


I also have to address the issue of gun crimes. Apart from what I hear on the news, once or twice a year, I hear many more stories of distant acquintances and friends of coworkers about people being stabbed or beaten. Gun crimes are a sensationalized myth. We learn this from television and movies: when somebody kills somebody, it means bang bang.
sasKuach is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 11:36 AM   #35 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sasKuach
I need to address some dead horseshit I saw in this thread:
That's a really great way to enter a conversation. People really are more likely to listen to you if you call their points dead horseshit. I know it's put me in a great mood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sasKuach
1) Well-regulated militia does not mean government-regulated. Nowhere does it say "A government lapdog militia being necessary..." It means able-bodied adults.
There are three types of militia in the US:
1) The Constitutional militia. This is an unorganizated militia that consists of all able bodies men (or now adults) from the age of 18-45 who can be called into active service by Congress. These would, of course, answer to executive power, and could be construed as "government lapdogs".
2) The State Select militia. This is the National Guard (also "government lapdogs").
3) Private militia. Mercenaries organizaed into private para-military organizations. These aren't government lapdogs, but they are usually considered to be extreemists, and are unlikely to be considered the "all able bodies adults" you speak of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sasKuach
2) Rifles can beat bombers, look at wars like Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afganistan(which I still can't spell), and to a certain(lesser) extent Iraq. This is especially true in numbers, such as... oh I dunno... a militia vastly outnumbering an army who would probably have a serious problem attacking its own country.
Bombers are the only effective weapon against military superpowers, and the past 10 years of history proves it. How effective were rifles against the Unibomber? How effective were rifles against the Oklahoma City bombing? The USS Cole? You can't fight what you can't see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sasKuach
I also have to address the issue of gun crimes. Apart from what I hear on the news, once or twice a year, I hear many more stories of distant acquintances and friends of coworkers about people being stabbed or beaten. Gun crimes are a sensationalized myth. We learn this from television and movies: when somebody kills somebody, it means bang bang.
It was hardly sensationalized when my best firend was shot.

Last edited by Willravel; 11-11-2006 at 11:50 AM.. Reason: changed "shotguns" to "rifles"
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 12:08 PM   #36 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
There are three types of militia in the US:
1) The Constitutional militia. This is an unorganizated militia that consists of all able bodies men (or now adults) from the age of 18-45 who can be called into active service by Congress. These would, of course, answer to executive power, and could be construed as "government lapdogs".
2) The State Select militia. This is the National Guard (also "government lapdogs").
3) Private militia. Mercenaries organizaed into private para-military organizations. These aren't government lapdogs, but they are usually considered to be extreemists, and are unlikely to be considered the "all able bodies adults" you speak of.
And of those militias, we are to report with our own arms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Bombers are the only effective weapon against military superpowers, and the past 10 years of history proves it. How effective were rifles against the Unibomber? How effective were rifles against the Oklahoma City bombing? The USS Cole? You can't fight what you can't see.
Bombers are useless when there is nobody to fly them. guerilla tactics work wonders.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 12:21 PM   #37 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
And of those militias, we are to report with our own arms.
You'd report to the National Guard or the Senate in the case that the government were to turn on us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Bombers are useless when there is nobody to fly them. guerilla tactics work wonders.
Are we talking about bombers (airplanes with bombs to drop) or bombers (guys that covertly plant explosives)? I'm talking about the latter. I'm actually talking about the most basic of guerilla tactics.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 02:45 PM   #38 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
You'd report to the National Guard or the Senate in the case that the government were to turn on us?
Of course not. That would be the moment that those of us who form the community would band together and fight against the government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Are we talking about bombers (airplanes with bombs to drop) or bombers (guys that covertly plant explosives)? I'm talking about the latter. I'm actually talking about the most basic of guerilla tactics.
my misunderstanding then. I thought you were talking about bombers as in B52's etc.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 03:14 PM   #39 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Of course not. That would be the moment that those of us who form the community would band together and fight against the government.
Ah, but that's not regulated in the least. The militia spoken of in the second ammendment is well regulated.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-11-2006, 03:42 PM   #40 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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.
You keep supporting the idea that the 2nd lets anyone and everyone have a gun, yet I've seen zero logic from you as to why they would bother qualifying that with the well-regulated militia clause.

I, however, have pointed out that clause, which is what supports the idea that "they didn't really mean for everyone to have guns."



Quote:
a group of nearly 100 held off two government branches with armored vehicles for over 50 days.
Because the government sat around doing nothing for 48 of those days. Don't delude yourself.


Quote:
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.
Bull. That is absolute bunk that you're making up as you go along. I challenge you to give me a reliable, trustworthy source that claims that. They raided when they did because Director Sessions was an idiot who was already in trouble for taking taxpayer funded personal trips all over the country, and was trying to show that he was tough so he could keep his job. Many of the field agents (Sessions didn't bother consulting the guys on the ground who knew what was going on) actually were in favor of pulling back a bit to de-escalate the situation and try to calm Koresh down.

Quote:
I see you support the notion of it's preferable to live subservient to the government than to die free.
I support the notion that it is better to live in a peaceful, democratic society than it is to hole myself up in a bunker cleaning the guns in my arsenal pretending the post-apocalyptic totalitarianism is here and coming to get me.


Quote:
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.
You're damn right it is. Unless the government is actually oppressing you, you don't need to run around claiming you and your gun is the only thing standing between us and government oppression. But random shootings can and should not be excused by claiming it's all part of the price of freedom.

Quote:
pure obfuscation on your part. don't let your machine gun be stolen. pretty simple.
Pure blindness on your part. Guns get stolen every day. Pretty simple.

Quote:
wrong and wrong.
So you think something that's unorganized is in fact regulated? Someone get this kid a dictionary.

Quote:
And yet, that is exactly what the framers thought and believed.
No, they did not. They were not that stupid.

Quote:
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?
Ahh, more insults that add nothing to the argument. Keep it up sport.


Quote:
wrong. cops are 'law enforcement', not the militia, but another dead horse with you.
Well according to you nothing can be a militia unless it's individuals running around without any regulation or training in the use of their weapons. Not much of a militia.



Quote:
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.
Pushing for another ban, are we?

What you mean to say is that I disagree with you and am therefore stupid. Just because my historical view of the constitution is not the same as yours does not mean that you are not the one who has no clue what he's talking about.
shakran is offline  
 

Tags
congress, democratic, effects

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:16 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360