Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2013, 02:17 PM
Re: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
So, you're argument is that you might need your guns if the government, where pro-gun advocates reside too, comes after you?

So, you need your guns so you can kill soldiers and cops?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 04:35 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(26-04-2013 04:24 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 11:11 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The constitution talks about the right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. The average person carrying their gun, is not a part of a militia and we have a well-regulated militia, it's called the Military.
Your opinion might be that it violates the constitution, but that hinges upon ignoring or redefining the rest of that section.

Oh look, another post thats sucks and is wrong.

James Madison, Federalist Paper #46

Quote:To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence

10USC311

Quote:(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The 'regulated militia' part, specifically, is good for context, along with the rest of the amendment as a whole, being good for providing the reason and purpose for the amendment.

You don't have the Free Speech Clause needing an explanation, or any of the rest of the First Amendment clauses, divided up into specific amendments, all with unique purposes.

It's an amendment for security and war type of purposes, for militias to be able to be formed for those purposes, in general. Probably needed for general support from the public, and as Julius pointed out, it likely did tie in to the security need of the South, also, more specifically, needing/wanting slave militias.

You can't have a pacifist group of representatives randomly deciding they are going to undermined war capabilities, on a federal level harming states abilities, and you definitely need to be armed to be at all considered a proper 'well regulated militia'.

The Supreme Court cases, I'm sure, were 5-4 decisions. I really can't see how an individual having the right to own a firearm can be interpreted from the Second Amendment, any more than I could see the Boston Marathon Bombers having protection under the Free Exercise Clause.

(26-04-2013 04:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nowhere in the Constitution does it prohibit carrying firearms concealed, nor give the government the power to prohibit it.

And that is why we should just ban guns, for individual ownership, especially to completely bypass that as a contention.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 04:55 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(27-04-2013 02:17 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So, you're argument is that you might need your guns if the government, where pro-gun advocates reside too, comes after you?

So, you need your guns so you can kill soldiers and cops?

No, it is just one possible reason. You know my opinions from previous conversations, surely your memory isn't that terrible.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 05:29 PM
Re: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
If "the government" wants to take your guns, they would. But it wouldn't be politicians or pieces of paper doing it. It would be soldiers and law enforcement. So, when someone says "we have to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government," all I hear is "I may to need to kill soldiers and cops someday."

There is no government conspiracy to take people's guns or freedom. Just like 9/11 wasn't an inside job, Bigfoot is most likely fake, and Pam Andersons boobs are totally real.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
27-04-2013, 05:54 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Guns, another one of those things we experience first as toys when we're kids, and continue to be infatuated with after we fake growing up.
The only reason most people have a gun, is because so many other people have guns. We have to have what everyone else has don't we? It's like a social network of weaponry, one big shooting club, safety in numbers for the paranoid I suppose.
We become obsessed by things so easily, and we never let go. We behave this way with everything 'pop', but especially with our religions and our guns; oppressively, maniacally and dragging the rest of society into the grave one way or another whether they agree or not.
[/size][/font]Name two other things that we've dragged behind us like Linus' blanket for centuries that have killed more people than religion and guns. We just refuse to give 'em up, because they make us feel so good.
"Guns don't kill people, religion kills people." There's not much difference between the two.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 06:53 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(27-04-2013 05:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If "the government" wants to take your guns, they would. But it wouldn't be politicians or pieces of paper doing it. It would be soldiers and law enforcement. So, when someone says "we have to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government," all I hear is "I may to need to kill soldiers and cops someday."

There is no government conspiracy to take people's guns or freedom. Just like 9/11 wasn't an inside job, Bigfoot is most likely fake, and Pam Andersons boobs are totally real.

While there is no government conspiracy to take people's guns and freedom, there are politicians whose aim is to take people's guns and freedoms, just as there are people here who wish to do so.

If police and military were ordered to confiscate civilian guns, not all of them would cooperate, not all of them would follow what they consider an unlawful order.

That action might well foment rebellion, it would certainly cause fighting and killing.

There may come a day when the people agree to have a disarmed society, but that day has not yet come.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-04-2013, 07:08 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(27-04-2013 04:35 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  The 'regulated militia' part, specifically, is good for context, along with the rest of the amendment as a whole, being good for providing the reason and purpose for the amendment.

You don't have the Free Speech Clause needing an explanation, or any of the rest of the First Amendment clauses, divided up into specific amendments, all with unique purposes.

It's an amendment for security and war type of purposes, for militias to be able to be formed for those purposes, in general. Probably needed for general support from the public, and as Julius pointed out, it likely did tie in to the security need of the South, also, more specifically, needing/wanting slave militias.

You can't have a pacifist group of representatives randomly deciding they are going to undermined war capabilities, on a federal level harming states abilities, and you definitely need to be armed to be at all considered a proper 'well regulated militia'.

The Supreme Court cases, I'm sure, were 5-4 decisions. I really can't see how an individual having the right to own a firearm can be interpreted from the Second Amendment, any more than I could see the Boston Marathon Bombers having protection under the Free Exercise Clause.

Dude, it's right in front of you. Read the 2nd Amendment, re-read the US code I cited. It may not be what you agree with, but that's not the point.

The National Guard is no longer a militia, they are a reserve branch of the army, and they use state supplied evil baby killing assault rifles in Foreign WARS on temporary ACTIVE DUTY.

(27-04-2013 05:54 PM)Rick Yost Wrote:  Guns, another one of those things we experience first as toys when we're kids, and continue to be infatuated with after we fake growing up.
The only reason most people have a gun, is because so many other people have guns. We have to have what everyone else has don't we? It's like a social network of weaponry, one big shooting club, safety in numbers for the paranoid I suppose.
We become obsessed by things so easily, and we never let go. We behave this way with everything 'pop', but especially with our religions and our guns; oppressively, maniacally and dragging the rest of society into the grave one way or another whether they agree or not.
[/size][/font]Name two other things that we've dragged behind us like Linus' blanket for centuries that have killed more people than religion and guns. We just refuse to give 'em up, because they make us feel so good.
"Guns don't kill people, religion kills people." There's not much difference between the two.


(27-04-2013 05:54 PM)Rick Yost Wrote:  The only reason most people have a gun, is because so many other people have guns.


You seem to be fixated on the gun itself which is ironic. Why would you wish to be at a disadvantage or on equal ground with someone wanting to do you and yours harm? Now all of a sudden because people are childish and have a irrational fear of weapons, having things like like firearms, fire extinguishers, basic 1st aid, flood/hurricane provisions etc etc makes you paranoid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBlackKnight's post
27-04-2013, 09:11 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Chas said exactly what I would have said. The only thing I would have tacked on is that 'conspiracy' usually has negative connotations, and gets lumped in with Elvis, Paul is Dead, Lizard people and the like but there are people openly conspiring to disarm the populace. There is almost certainly people doing so behind closed doors as well. I'm not saying the 'pro-gun' agenda is always pure, it isn't, but there are conspirators.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 09:25 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
I know that there are a lot of anti-gun people on this forum. I used to be anti-gun: anti-handgun, specifically. I have always supported ownership of shotguns and hunting rifles and even big, badd-arse semi-auto rifles. Neverthelesss, many of my fellow citizens don't, and I can understand to a degree why they don't. So...let's here it. Please tell me why ya' don't like certain types of guns - or guns altogether, and I'll try to explain why there is really nothing to fear.

Seriously, I'd like to hear what you have to say - and I won't answer you using Jargon or NRA-speak.

Thanks.

Julius
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 09:50 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(27-04-2013 05:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If "the government" wants to take your guns, they would. But it wouldn't be politicians or pieces of paper doing it. It would be soldiers and law enforcement. So, when someone says "we have to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government," all I hear is "I may to need to kill soldiers and cops someday."

There is no government conspiracy to take people's guns or freedom. Just like 9/11 wasn't an inside job, Bigfoot is most likely fake, and Pam Andersons boobs are totally real.

Here's a article from veteran member of our best military unit who's mission's you've watched movies based on, he's now a firearms/tactics trainer and explains why the government just can't swoop in and collect all the guns.

http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/...d_amen.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: