I think I've debated you maybe once, if ever. Fixation much?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
President Proposes Study On Media Violence
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
I think I've debated you maybe once, if ever. Fixation much?
And oh, look...guns and gun permits have been stolen from homes that were listed publicly in a newspaper as having both. One more reason we should totally have a gun registry. 
If someone commits crimes with these weapons as a result of media telling them where to steal the guns, does that count as media violence?
If someone commits crimes with these weapons as a result of media telling them where to steal the guns, does that count as media violence?
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2000
- Messages
- 6,258
the administration's strategy is basically to throw shit everywhere and hope that something sticks. Let's blame everything but the real issue. Someone that's mentally fucked up is also a common denominator between all these massacres.. video games, media, etc.. it's all a product of the environment.. but stable people know the difference between COD and Colorado and CT.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
I've been playing violent video games since I was a child, 30 years later, I still have no desire to go shoot up people and take lives in the real-world. Maybe I'm crazy, but I am able to tell the difference between the fantasy world and the real-world. My level of rage and violence has not been heightened. I'm still a pretty nice guy who wants love for all. /shrug
The national guard is not 'the militia'.
The national guard is GOVERNMENT, commanded by the state GOVENOR (of which ever state you chose.)
The militia is the one made up of free people, in order to overturn oppression and tyranny, which means the militia cannot consist of any 'government' command. For some reason people seem to make a distinction between a states military and the federal governments military, they are for all intents identical.
The national guard is GOVERNMENT, commanded by the state GOVENOR (of which ever state you chose.)
The militia is the one made up of free people, in order to overturn oppression and tyranny, which means the militia cannot consist of any 'government' command. For some reason people seem to make a distinction between a states military and the federal governments military, they are for all intents identical.
What I am saying is that the government, and the majority of Americans, consider the National Guard to be "the militia", in that they are supposed to be reserved for domestic use, particularly in the event of foreign invasion. Now, you and I agree that the very concept of a militia means that it must have as little relationship to the State as possible, but for the purposes of arguing the definition of the Second Amendment, the government's meaning holds relevance for those ninnys that can't understand the right is of the people, not the militia.
PhotoBobBarker
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 122
How about this...
A completely independent civilian organization be responsible for maintaining a gun sales registry. And for the police to retrieve records from it, would require a subpoena. Have it in a secured building that would automatically dump ALL records if a security breach was detected (have two or three identical buildings for redundancy, and maybe place them in caves for security).
I have no problem with requiring background checks for private sales. But they should be done at no cost to the seller/buyer. All states be required to issue a "gun show pass" (or what ever you would want to call it), That would act as a 1 day background check for anyone to present to the dealers (so you could have accountability, and not interfere with sales.
Those are simple measures that would be FAR more positive results than what is being done.
This is the problem. The people have been convinced that the National Guard is a militia. They are in fact NOT. The National Guard is a state army, nothing less.
A few other things to keep in mind.
After the first "assault weapon ban" violent crime didn't drop. In fact the opposite happened.
Things like Magazine capacity limits don't do anything useful... please see below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI
I carry (and have for about 4 years now) a Glock 29. It has a 10rd magazine. But I also carry two extra magazines. That give me 30 rounds total. In EVERY case of these mass shootings, they have had plenty of time for mag changes. So what is the point? It sounds good. That is all.
Finally (and this is for el gonso)
The militia is a group of free citizenry, gather to fight a cause. They are allowed to join or leave with no legal ramifications. This is not like the National guard that is in fact a citizen army.
The part of the "2ndA" that you keep quoting is just the preface to the statement.
"but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents,"
This, taken from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is what the Second Amendment is ALL about
"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 or to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
The Second amendment is not about protection of property or self. It is not about the right to maintain hunting arms. It is about one thing only. To provide the civilian, the common every day person a last check against a tyrannical government. It is about providing EQUAL force of the people against the government.
It was legal in that time for an average person, if they were so motivated to own a cannon or a ship full of them. The most destructive devices of the day.
The problems have stemmed from things like the Hughes act (it's very passing was questionable at best).
The problem is that we have let Congress believe that it only takes a majority vote to pass such laws. Being that they are essentially destroying the intent and implementation of the 2nd amendment, in reality it should require a full review and a 2/3s vote to change it.
Just a few ramblings of someone tired of being accused of being a "baby killer" because of something that I own.
One last thing to ponder
A quote atributed to Benjamin Franklin (but could have been Richard Jackson"
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
A completely independent civilian organization be responsible for maintaining a gun sales registry. And for the police to retrieve records from it, would require a subpoena. Have it in a secured building that would automatically dump ALL records if a security breach was detected (have two or three identical buildings for redundancy, and maybe place them in caves for security).
I have no problem with requiring background checks for private sales. But they should be done at no cost to the seller/buyer. All states be required to issue a "gun show pass" (or what ever you would want to call it), That would act as a 1 day background check for anyone to present to the dealers (so you could have accountability, and not interfere with sales.
Those are simple measures that would be FAR more positive results than what is being done.
This is the problem. The people have been convinced that the National Guard is a militia. They are in fact NOT. The National Guard is a state army, nothing less.
A few other things to keep in mind.
After the first "assault weapon ban" violent crime didn't drop. In fact the opposite happened.
Things like Magazine capacity limits don't do anything useful... please see below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI
I carry (and have for about 4 years now) a Glock 29. It has a 10rd magazine. But I also carry two extra magazines. That give me 30 rounds total. In EVERY case of these mass shootings, they have had plenty of time for mag changes. So what is the point? It sounds good. That is all.
Finally (and this is for el gonso)
The militia is a group of free citizenry, gather to fight a cause. They are allowed to join or leave with no legal ramifications. This is not like the National guard that is in fact a citizen army.
The part of the "2ndA" that you keep quoting is just the preface to the statement.
"but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents,"
This, taken from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is what the Second Amendment is ALL about
"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 or to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
The Second amendment is not about protection of property or self. It is not about the right to maintain hunting arms. It is about one thing only. To provide the civilian, the common every day person a last check against a tyrannical government. It is about providing EQUAL force of the people against the government.
It was legal in that time for an average person, if they were so motivated to own a cannon or a ship full of them. The most destructive devices of the day.
The problems have stemmed from things like the Hughes act (it's very passing was questionable at best).
The problem is that we have let Congress believe that it only takes a majority vote to pass such laws. Being that they are essentially destroying the intent and implementation of the 2nd amendment, in reality it should require a full review and a 2/3s vote to change it.
Just a few ramblings of someone tired of being accused of being a "baby killer" because of something that I own.
One last thing to ponder
A quote atributed to Benjamin Franklin (but could have been Richard Jackson"
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
Governments have murdered 262,000,000 people in the 20th century. It's politicians that can't be trusted with weapons. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
Governments have murdered 262,000,000 people in the 20th century. It's politicians that can't be trusted with weapons. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
That pic is win.
Since you were talking numbers of people killed and governments with gun control: A LITTLE WORLDLY GUN CONTROL HISTORY
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and
from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were
unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—- ————- ————-
Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated
in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and
from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were
unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—- ————- ————-
Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated
in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————
It's ironic that the government who wants to disarm it's citizenry arms the narcotics industry.
Operation Gunwalker trafficked thousands of military grade weapons ranging from full auto rifles to grenades to fifty caliber long range rifles.
Some of those same guns have been used to kill murder Border Patrol agents inside the continental US, god knows how many murders have resulted in Mexico and other third world countries.
Obama and attorney general Eric Holder owned Operation Gunwalker.
In this video clip the Obama administration Deputy Attorney General announces on C-Span that the Obama administration is sending 100 agents to the Southwest border within 45 days to fortify IT'S "Project Gun Runner".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFyIFGe60Qs
No arrests ever resulted from gunwalker, despite the ATF watching the guns walk to Mexico. The ATF was even informed of the transactions prior to the sales, and they ordered the gun stores to sell the weapons anyway.
Ultimately the whistleblowers inside the ATF were terminated, promoted, or allowed to retire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cDUp0efIBM
The administration has blood on it's hands.
Operation Gunwalker trafficked thousands of military grade weapons ranging from full auto rifles to grenades to fifty caliber long range rifles.
Some of those same guns have been used to kill murder Border Patrol agents inside the continental US, god knows how many murders have resulted in Mexico and other third world countries.
Obama and attorney general Eric Holder owned Operation Gunwalker.
In this video clip the Obama administration Deputy Attorney General announces on C-Span that the Obama administration is sending 100 agents to the Southwest border within 45 days to fortify IT'S "Project Gun Runner".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFyIFGe60Qs
No arrests ever resulted from gunwalker, despite the ATF watching the guns walk to Mexico. The ATF was even informed of the transactions prior to the sales, and they ordered the gun stores to sell the weapons anyway.
Ultimately the whistleblowers inside the ATF were terminated, promoted, or allowed to retire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cDUp0efIBM
The administration has blood on it's hands.
Millions upon millions of people play violent video games, don't go on killing sprees.
Millions upon millions of people watch violent movies, don't go on killing sprees.
Millions upon millions of people read books with violence, don't go on killing sprees.
Millions upon millions of people have one or more firearms, don't go on killing sprees.
Someone goes on a killing spree? Its not the individual, its (videogame/movies/books/firearms) or some other inanimate objects fault and NOT an issue of mental health or triggers like abuse.
Only in America.
I don't blame the president though, its all these liberals going full-retard and demanding that SOMETHING be done. SOMETHING, even if its a waste of money, hugely idiotic, and infringes upon the rights of Americans. In the news for example, I hear non-stop about how they want to ban/nerf all these black long arms, when the most recent psycho just used a simple run of the mill semi-automatic pistol.
Millions upon millions of people watch violent movies, don't go on killing sprees.
Millions upon millions of people read books with violence, don't go on killing sprees.
Millions upon millions of people have one or more firearms, don't go on killing sprees.
Someone goes on a killing spree? Its not the individual, its (videogame/movies/books/firearms) or some other inanimate objects fault and NOT an issue of mental health or triggers like abuse.
Only in America.
I don't blame the president though, its all these liberals going full-retard and demanding that SOMETHING be done. SOMETHING, even if its a waste of money, hugely idiotic, and infringes upon the rights of Americans. In the news for example, I hear non-stop about how they want to ban/nerf all these black long arms, when the most recent psycho just used a simple run of the mill semi-automatic pistol.
Why is it that people who support gun rights through fervently pointing at the 2nd Amendment fail to recognize the first part of the amendment? Not the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms part" but the "A WELL-REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part. Right there in the damn amendment is says well-regulated. It could probably be argued that no control at all or improper control that leads to further gun violence is, by the straight wording of the amendment, against the Constitution.
Also, why is it that people talking about how we need more people armed also fail to mention how often non-military, non-police get gunned down when they try to intervene. Or worse, they start blasting innocent people.
But whatever, given it's government, I fully expect them to treat this just like immigration. Blame everything and everyone except the root cause of the problem. For guns, this is mental health and a complete lack of tracking of inventories and possession of firearms. For immigration, it's the jerks and companies who use illegal labor willingly suffering no kind of prosecution.
And video games having anything to do with violence is absurd. Teen pregnancy is a problem, are we blaming honey boo boo or those weird reality teen mom shows? I don't see people blaming country music for the high divorce rate because they glorify breakups.
The really sad part, because Obama did to this, now whatever the results of the study, it will be lambasted, conspiracy theoried, and ignored.. because that's basically what's been done with everything else.
Also, why is it that people talking about how we need more people armed also fail to mention how often non-military, non-police get gunned down when they try to intervene. Or worse, they start blasting innocent people.
But whatever, given it's government, I fully expect them to treat this just like immigration. Blame everything and everyone except the root cause of the problem. For guns, this is mental health and a complete lack of tracking of inventories and possession of firearms. For immigration, it's the jerks and companies who use illegal labor willingly suffering no kind of prosecution.
And video games having anything to do with violence is absurd. Teen pregnancy is a problem, are we blaming honey boo boo or those weird reality teen mom shows? I don't see people blaming country music for the high divorce rate because they glorify breakups.
The really sad part, because Obama did to this, now whatever the results of the study, it will be lambasted, conspiracy theoried, and ignored.. because that's basically what's been done with everything else.
First thing, facts, I'm loving it, thanks for sharing.
Second thing, facts, they don't apply to an out of control government...lol.
Last thing, IMO they'll never ever, never ever come right out in the open and attempt an outright ban on long range rifles. That's the line in the sand for too many people because it's obvious enough to know why greed stricken/power hungry men would want to do this in the first place and they know we know this. However what we just saw by our very own government was a simple test, a test to gauge the populaces reaction to limiting our very right to not be trampled on by them, to have a fighting chance if ever need be. Like a reactionary poll. Just the fact they did this on this kind of scale while standing on graves of slain children while ignoring all those it has killed abroad worries me. It worries some of my military friends as well, it's agreed upon so we must all be crazy. I have one x-military (paratrooper) friend that is a probation officer (Point: not living in his Moms basement) and he told me in his own words there will be an internal war in the US in our lifetime. I thought he was crazy at the time. I had to question my outlook later on, not his.
I live in NY by the way!
Our very own government WILL dance all over our freedoms for as long as they possibly can blaming everyone but themselves. To them (the CIA mostly) I'm a terrorist for even saying this which is why they try to enact some of the BS laws they have. Just look at what they do all around the world as examples of them just not giving a fuck about nothing, anything! If I'm not mistaken didn't our government just pass some shit saying they can preemptively attack China if we feel they have too many (hidden) nukes, all while China still buys our debt...lol. If that's not a my dicks bigger declaration nothing is. Lets piss off the whole entire world and then make up lies about why they attacked us or we have to attack them. I swear there must be no mirrors in the white house/pentagon/CIA.
One day our government is going to take things way too far for way too many people. It's no longer an if in my mind but instead a when. So they're just thinking ahead and want to make sure everyone that opposes them is at a great disadvantage, just in case. The US GOV is spinning out of control and mass killing its own citizens over all a power struggle doesn't seem so crazy anymore to me, it kind of seems inevitable looking back at history mixed with a little common sense. I think JFK felt this way too. Our very own CIA takes out Presidents in real life according to the Kennedy family themselves. Imagine what they could be up to right know, today! Well when they're not drone striking country after country terrorizing our future terrorists.
I know it sounds Alex Jones crazy, I used to think that too, but I just don't see them ever pulling back saying enough is enough in time. They'll wait until the people react first for what they're doing to the people continuously BUT then they'll blame the people for it all, the bad guys. Propaganda is way more important than I ever thought. It's today's biggest most used weapon in conflicts of any kind. Just like when the US drops bombs it's the war on terrorism but when someone does it back to us using any means necessary they just hate our freedoms and are pure crazy terrorists. So our government takes away more of our freedoms to protect us...lol. (dead fucking give away)
Whoever is controlling the US reserve fiat currency at the highest levels (I'm not talking about our government here either, I'm talking about the people loaning it to our government here) need to be ousted and hanged in front of the world. They're stealing from the entire world and using the US government as the tool to do it. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder and those capable of bidding for it are not what we consider normal (good) people. They're at the tip of the problems with humanity in my opinion.
Our sun won't last forever so anyone thinking the US GOV is going to last forever is crazier than my post just was...lol. Anyway, be good people here, give up all your weapons and save some lives, just not your life, or something like that...lol.
I forgot what my point was with this, fuck it!
In case the CIA is reading my text: All praise be my God Obama, god bless the USA, I have no guns, and I love dropping bombs on innocent people abroad because war is profitable. I fucking love the CIA! Thank you for letting me breathe. Can I wash your car? Thank you sir! You're all handsome too. Love you..bye!
It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the militia. It doesn't say the right of the people to keep and bear arms well-regulated. It's very specific. The first part says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". That's the reason for why the second part exists. It's saying that in order to maintain a free state, you need to have a well-regulated militia. And one of the key mistakes people like you make in failing to recognize that this was from 230 years ago is that "regulated" did not mean back then what it does now. You think that "regulation" only comes from the government. Look at the dictionary definition of "regulate":
Where in there do you see the word "government"? Nowhere, because to "regulate" something merely means to ensure it's ordered, standardized, and controlled. Not only do these qualifications not require government oversight, but they're usually easier to obtain without government.
Now, to finish up...having established that the talk of a militia is a reason, and not a qualifier, read the second part: "the right of the people"...not the militia..."to keep and bear arms"...not just to own, but to carry..."shall not be infringed". What part of "shall not be infringed" means within "reasonable" limitations, or any limitations at all? Why doesn't it say "subject to the rules of the people"? Why doesn't it say "up until the point that right affects public safety"?
Because school shootings were going on back then, have been going on since then, and they were smart enough to understand that sometimes shit happens, and giving up your liberty is not the answer.
Are you planning on moving? If not, I'd recommend it. I'm no longer sure whether Bloomberg or Cuomo is the bigger tyrant, but if I had to deal with both, I'd be checking housing prices in Texas.
In all seriousness I'm really contemplating moving to Texas where some of my family live. I feel like that might be the best state to live in our current reality.
----------------------------------
Also, I'm not anti-American at all, I love most of the people in this country. That said if I had a chance to throw a show at O*** I probably would do it and serve the 10-15 years for it (Well if someone got it on video and got in online...lol).
If it wasn't for our family all being in Wisconsin, where we live...and if it wasn't for the recently passed CC law...we'd be moving down there. As it is, we're still thinking about it for the simple sake of potentially finding better jobs.
I couldn't legally carry in NY if I was shot in the face and survived the ordeal and requested a CC later on, serious! Just to be clear though, Cuomo (who carries himself) backed off what he first stated really fast after what I'm sure was an increase in phone calls and conversations but the fact he even said it should lay to rest idiots saying the people in charge don't want your guns. YES THEY FUCKING DO, PERIOD! Just hard to get them, but they're trying, slowly but surely, they're trying. They just ain't going to admit it on national television (on purpose).
Okay, at least I know the Governor of my state wants them all because he told me so. He also just passed a law which in its current form means most/some cops are currently breaking the law themselves...lol.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cuomo_blue_it_C0bt5gF3sKW9btYWe5p0VN
Anyway, our founding fathers would've preferred a guilty man go free than an innocent man suffer....not these guys anymore. They'd rather everyone suffer but them.
To them: My guns are not a privilege, they're an Ol'natural right! I keep them! Thanks for playing along though, it's been fun.
all about context
in this case "Well-Regulated' means "disciplined" or "trained"
you have remember it was written in the 1700's you cant apply modern definitions of words you have to look at when it meant then
and dont give them that "living document" bullshit
I'm quite aware what the second part says. I'm not arguing that part and you are right on the money about why the first part is there. Not going to argue that at all. People like me? I'm just asking a question. How do you ignore one part and vehemently back the other? And I have no clue what you mean by the definition of regulate changing. Even it's latin root means "to control". It means the same thing now that it did then. And no, regulation doesn't just come from government. But it doesn't mean the government isn't involved either. I can't own a tomahawk cruise missile now can I?
You're kidding right? You have the exact definition right there, as written by the government itself. And what qualifications? Are you talking about gun ownership? And no, if it were easier to obtain regulation without government, we wouldn't have a problem with illegal guns.
You're right. It is a reason. A militia is comprised of individuals. It is not a standing army. We didn't really have one of those back then so the citizenry needed to be armed in case of war and conscription. That's part of why that amendment is there. Again, I'm not arguing the right to possess weaponry but there has to be some controls. The amendment even stipulates it with mention to a well-regulated militia. No one is saying you can't hold a pistol or a knife or hell a sword if you want. But I think it's against the premises of the entire document for a drugged up psycho to randomly purchase explosives and heavy weapons and for no one to say anything.
Yes, they were going on back then. I will agree that population increase might make the events seem more common when they are not. However, the death tolls have drastically increased since the early 1900's. Instead of 2 or 4, the number jumps to 6, 10, 20, etc. The evolution of weaponry has allowed that. So ya, shit does happen. Some shit shouldn't though and it could have been easily prevented. The answer isn't an arms race on a street by street level though. I don't want the philosphy of Mutually Assured Destruction to be something we have to guarantee every time we send our kids to school. Because right now, the loopy people are winning the arms race, if we kick it up a notch, then they'll just bring something bigger.
Yeah, disciplined and trained. It also meant controlled. It's almost always meant controlled or governed. Hell.. we don't even live up to the disciplined part. You could walk into a gun shop high on crack and buy a gun, that no one tracks, as long as you pass the background check, if it's administered. We don't even try.
Hell.. even the definition of people didn't mean women and colored people back then. Does that mean only white male landowners can have arms?
It's not a matter of ignoring the first part...it's recognizing that the first part is irrelevant to the debate on gun rights. Anti-gun people keep trying to suggest that the Second Amendment was meant only for members of a militia, and it's bullshit. In order to keep them from pursuing that Big Lie, one has to focus on the relevant part.
And for decades, people kept cannons and other large weapons on their property. Some still do to this day(for decorative purposes, obviously). When's the last time someone went on a rampage with a howitzer?
...did you just claim that the dictionary was written by the government?
And we don't have a problem with illegal guns. Almost all guns used in the massacres that we can't stop talking about were obtained legally.
I'm really tired of this dishonest red herring. Nobody is saying, or has ever said, that the Second Amendment protects the rights of people to commit crimes. Those who continue to suggest this are perpetuating one of the most sickening and low straw men arguments in the gun control debate. The point is that the solutions offered up by anti-gun people would only affect law-abiding gun owners. Adam Lanza broke the law to get his hands on a rifle, as did Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold when they carried out Columbine...when the Assault Weapons Ban was in full effect. Laws do not affect the lawbreakers.
The death tolls have increased largely because of the higher population density of urban areas. Pack more people into a small space, and you have a higher rate of victims, whether injured or killed. This was demonstrated when a 90-year-old man claimed 73 victims with his car about a decade ago...more than any shootings we've had. It has nothing to do with the evolution of weaponry. Explosives were used to kill and injure more than 40 children and adults at a US school back in the 1930s. Nothing sophisticated about that. Again: shit happens. That doesn't mean we have to lay back and do nothing about it...but what we should be doing should be as individuals, not as a bureaucratic body looking to exert power over others.
mind you that part only referred to the militia part there is a nice comma after that
so it does NOT apply to the latter half which states
see the comma thats the version that was ratified
the part be for the comma was to establish a militia in the states for defense of the states
btw the National/State Guard is not a militia
the 2nd part is to establish that all free men have to right to own and carry arms so they could legally FORUM a militia
so whats a Militia?
http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=militia
so we can see from this that people should have to right to own any firearm they want
why do people need an AR-15 well to be able to form militia
why would form a militia?
THIS
the whole point was that founders of this nation knew it couldnt last for ever and that the needed to include language to give the people a way to over throw a corrupt government
the govt wants gun control because they know this
if the people is unarmed they cant revolt
See
No, it specifically means that it is not controlled by the government, otherwise it is simply an army.
That is entirely moot though, as the constitution does not say "the militia" has the right to bare arms, it says the people do. I can also assure you that like-minded liberals have absolutely no interest in seeing my work buddies and myself forming an organized militia outside government control that does military drills with true military grade firearms on the weekend, as if anything that would just make gun-owners appear even more dangerous to them.
If you are referring to the preamble, while it is not specific, firearm ownership was at no point restricted to "white race", "males", or "land owners", so please refrain from going full retard. And yes, there is a process for constitutional amendments, and those have been made such as the 13th and 15th in your example.
As I already pointed out, "regulate" has many meanings, and you keep coming back to the one you like. That has nothing to do with what the writers of 2A intended.
Such a statement demonstrates that you've never been to a gun store, nor bought a firearm. That stupid factoid of "40% of gun sales don't have background checks" is bullshit. First of all, it's a 20-year-old number from a Clinton-sponsored study made around the same time they were trying to push the first AWB. Secondly, it mainly focuses on person-to-person sales of firearms, which of course do not have background checks, any more than you do a background check on someone buying a laptop or used car from you. If you want to tell me I don't have the freedom to sell my private property to someone else at my own discretion, then that's a whole other conversation you're free to start up.
For a long time, they did. They didn't want blacks and women to be armed. Why? Because as long as they were unarmed, they could be controlled. Women are now the highest growing demographic of gun owners in this country, and those in poor neighborhoods are right on their heels. They're more empowered than ever. Do you see that as a bad thing?
That is an excellent point, and those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Let us look at the South and practice of slavery in the 1800's for example, and try to figure out how it was even logistically possible.
The planters, the wealthy plantation elite in the South that dominated politics and the local economy, by definition owned at least twenty slaves. They made up less than two percent of the total population in the South, and yet were able to control so many people and save for an occasional outbreak the blacks that made up almost half the population were powerless to them. A disarmed people simply aren't able to stand up for their rights with words alone, unless the oppressor allows for it.
It is quite ironic that some left-wingers wish to use this as an example of how the American people should be disarmed, when it is exactly that which makes such large populations of people subject to the tyranny of a few. The right to vote and bare arms are the two most fundamental powers that the masses of people have to ensure that they aren't abused by an elite minority.
The planters, the wealthy plantation elite in the South that dominated politics and the local economy, by definition owned at least twenty slaves. They made up less than two percent of the total population in the South, and yet were able to control so many people and save for an occasional outbreak the blacks that made up almost half the population were powerless to them. A disarmed people simply aren't able to stand up for their rights with words alone, unless the oppressor allows for it.
It is quite ironic that some left-wingers wish to use this as an example of how the American people should be disarmed, when it is exactly that which makes such large populations of people subject to the tyranny of a few. The right to vote and bare arms are the two most fundamental powers that the masses of people have to ensure that they aren't abused by an elite minority.
Okay. The gun ban happened three years later than commonly referred to. So?
And have you one of those for the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Turkey with the Armenians, etc?
So I was just watching a documentary about medieval weaponry, and sure enough they even had their version of gun control laws in antiquity.
The ruling caste of kings and the nobility (lords) used a police force of knights to control and oppress vast quantities of serfs that lived in utter poverty even though they were the ones producing all of the food/work/wealth of the nation yet allowed to keep little to nothing.
Why then didn't the peasants simply say "no way Jose" and complain more about the heavy taxation? The sword of course. They actually had laws that the serfs were not permitted to own a sword, and so the small government and their army/police force had absolute power that was checked only by the power of another government and their army/police force that like a mafia wanted to take control of some of their serfs. Interestingly enough, this system sprang up independently almost the same throughout the world, with nearly identical rule and form of government in the Japanese feudal system for example.
The Founding Fathers, themselves having been at the mercy of such a monarchy, as such were very careful to ensure that their government had checks and balances on power and that one of those checks was that the people were empowered in a real tangible way: to vote and bare arms.
So anyone that says the Founding Fathers couldn't have envisioned the technological advance from muskets to faster firing cartridge based rifles is full of it, as these were educated men and equally aware of the historical need to empower the people even going back to iron swords.
The ruling caste of kings and the nobility (lords) used a police force of knights to control and oppress vast quantities of serfs that lived in utter poverty even though they were the ones producing all of the food/work/wealth of the nation yet allowed to keep little to nothing.
Why then didn't the peasants simply say "no way Jose" and complain more about the heavy taxation? The sword of course. They actually had laws that the serfs were not permitted to own a sword, and so the small government and their army/police force had absolute power that was checked only by the power of another government and their army/police force that like a mafia wanted to take control of some of their serfs. Interestingly enough, this system sprang up independently almost the same throughout the world, with nearly identical rule and form of government in the Japanese feudal system for example.
The Founding Fathers, themselves having been at the mercy of such a monarchy, as such were very careful to ensure that their government had checks and balances on power and that one of those checks was that the people were empowered in a real tangible way: to vote and bare arms.
So anyone that says the Founding Fathers couldn't have envisioned the technological advance from muskets to faster firing cartridge based rifles is full of it, as these were educated men and equally aware of the historical need to empower the people even going back to iron swords.
Well then, every other station got it wrong. While I think the type of weapon used is irrelevant to what happened, a single report, apparently from early on, is no proof of anything. There's news reports from 9/11 talking about a bomb having gone off at the Capitol in Washington. If the media is lying, then so is the chief medical examiner.
True, he could've did it with anything. My school bus analogy from a few threads ago applies which was taking over a school bus full of kids and driving it off a bridge/cliff/into a lake would've accomplished almost double the deaths with no gun at all and would probably be easier to accomplish given the idea. However to me, the fact the reporters claimed to have spoke with several officials about it and that they all stated there were only handguns used does seem odd now to say the least.
I mean these are people that carry and deal with guns everyday so they have to know a little about what they're talking about (Like just looking at a shell casing). As well as the reporters having brains and ears and dealing in communications everyday. But yeah either way it doesn't matter because it was a mental health issue, not a gun issue.
I do blame the President. He is politicizing in the second term...he doesn't need to do that, he needs to show leadership and commitment to the constitution HE swore to uphold. Instead, he is trying to shred the constitution.
This tells me he DOES NOT have the best interest of Americans in his plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
It wasn't Hitler's gun ban, it was Germany's gun ban.
Hitler's gun ban was specifically targeted to Jewish people. It is NOT the gun ban referred to by the 1935 speech.
Isn't it funny how liberals try to inject false confusion into arguments they do not agree with?
It's a known fact news reports are pretty much ALWAYS wrong on pertinent details and are mostly always controlled by the political agenda of the so called 'editor in chief'.
Starcrossed
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 2,160
The news is pretty much a constant repetition of all things annoying and shitty in the world. I can't see how it would make anything worse? Yes, that is sarcasm.
Thank God someone can tell me how shitty the years of my life on this planet will be. Does it create violence? Unhappy people are generally more violent.
Thank God someone can tell me how shitty the years of my life on this planet will be. Does it create violence? Unhappy people are generally more violent.