ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 09:38 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 09:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Even with our high tech weaponry, the balance of power still rests on armed individuals."

Because individuals operate weapons, no one is disputing that. But the implication from the right is always that the guns are necessary protection from our own government. Which is quite literally saying that they believe they'll need them to kill cops and soldiers, implying that cops and soldiers (American citizens) would (in some scenario) operate under orders from a commander-in-chief who is declaring war on Americans. The notion that our government will (with its checks and balances) suddenly give way to fascism, is asinine.
It's not in any way out of the realm of possibility. Regardless, as things stand right now, it's not the government which is my immediate concern.

Quote:"I have no immediate intention of putting my leverage to active use, but I'm not about to willingly give it up in the face of a world that has no inherent reason to take my own interests into consideration."

Did anyone ever say you should give it up?
I'm not sure exactly what you had in mind, but at present I've got what many would refer to as assault rifles, high capacity magazines, about 60,000 rounds of ammunition, 3rd gen night optics, plate carriers, etc. If you're not interested in restricting that, then what exactly are we debating?

Quote:"Life is only as fair as you forcefully make it. That's just as true now as it's always been."

Life isn't fair, period. "Forcefully" trying to make it so, is a delusion.

I use the term "fair" sarcastically. Life is a game of leverage. Those above mentioned checks and balances recognize that. One of those checks and balances is that the people be armed, thereby maintaining some of that leverage for themselves. Without the threat of force, laws are merely suggestions. That goes both for the people being governed as well as the government governing them.

"I'm not sure exactly what you had in mind, but at present I've got what many would refer to as assault rifles, high capacity magazines, about 60,000 rounds of ammunition, 3rd gen night optics, plate carriers, etc. If you're not interested in restricting that, then what exactly are we debating?"

You sound like a hoarder and a gun enthusiast, not someone who has those things for self defense or protection. So yes, if you want guns for self defense from the average and every day (unlikely) dangers, why do you need any of that?

"I use the term "fair" sarcastically. Life is a game of leverage. Those above mentioned checks and balances recognize that. One of those checks and balances is that the people be armed, thereby maintaining some of that leverage for themselves. Without the threat of force, laws are merely suggestions. That goes both for the people being governed as well as the government governing them."

Libertarian bullshit. The power of the people in a democratic country does not come from the possession of arms, but from the right to vote and the freedom of speech and the press.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 09:43 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
I don't personally give a damn about the media. I've seen the worst this world has to offer with my own eyes. This society would rip it's self apart in a matter of days under the right context, and there are plenty of subcultures waiting to fight for dominance if given the chance.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 09:44 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 09:43 AM)yakherder Wrote:  I don't personally give a damn about the media. I've seen the worst this world has to offer with my own eyes. This society would rip it's self apart in a matter of days under the right context, and there are plenty of subcultures waiting to fight for dominance if given the chance.

And most of us prefer to look at the most likely scenario for reality, which is that the apocalypse isn't right around the corner. I am not an alarmist or a conspiracy theorist. So the threat of "society tearing itself apart under certain conditions" in the US is not something I recognize as a valid or likely threat.

What is a valid and likely threat, are the "good guys with guns" in the US who don't know how to use it, are too stupid to learn, and are convinced they need it to fight people like "Emperor" Obama. People like those that pointed guns at federal agents at the Bundy Ranch, etc, etc, etc

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 09:45 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 09:41 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The power of the people in a democratic country does not come from the possession of arms, but from the right to vote and the freedom of speech and the press.

And those things are guaranteed simply because a piece of paper says they are?

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 09:45 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 09:41 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The power of the people in a democratic country does not come from the possession of arms, but from the right to vote and the freedom of speech and the press.

And those things are guaranteed simply because a piece of paper says they are?

It comes from the consent of the people, not from a gun.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--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."

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 09:45 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 09:41 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The power of the people in a democratic country does not come from the possession of arms, but from the right to vote and the freedom of speech and the press.

And those things are guaranteed simply because a piece of paper says they are?

But you are also going back and forth now between arguments. You say you aren't keeping guns to protect you from the government, but that your power as a citizen is tied to your possession of firearms?

Which is it? You want guns to protect you from the every day (minimal) dangers of life, or because it holds some sort of protection for you against the government? (the latter of which contradict previous statements from you)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 09:58 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2015 10:04 AM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 09:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 09:45 AM)yakherder Wrote:  And those things are guaranteed simply because a piece of paper says they are?

It comes from the consent of the people

Indeed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186236/americ...arply.aspx

Ignore the headline. Even I support some stricter gun laws, especially for purchases. The majority of Americans want guns. The majority believe a gun makes us safer. Only 27% think handguns should be outright banned.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 09:58 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 09:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It comes from the consent of the people

Indeed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186236/americ...arply.aspx

Ignore the headline. Even I support some stricter gun laws, especially for purchases. The majority of Americans want guns. The majority believe a gun make us safer. Only 27% think handguns should be outright banned.

And we need better gun laws. As long as gun owners are reasonable and advocate for better gun laws, I don't have a problem.

(as an aside, what Americans believe with respect to whether or not guns actually make them safer or not, isn't relevant. Half of Americans believe in Creationism and of the remaining, correct, half of the population, about half of them believe evolution is guided/controlled by a god)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 10:04 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2015 10:08 AM by Chas.)
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 06:17 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(27-10-2015 09:04 PM)jabeady Wrote:  Wrong. The 2A provides for a pool of armed citizens from which a militia can be drawn. Militiamen were required to supply their own weapons, therefore the 2A does, in fact, protect an individual's right to possess firearms. As virtually every SCOTUS decision on the subject has held.

I'm running out the door for work and don't have a lot of time right now, but this statement is factually incorrect. There is very little jurisprudence on the 2nd Amendment as compared to most of the other amendments, but the Supreme Court only very recently recognized a private right to gun ownership. It wasn't until 2008 and the Heller decision that the Court actually said that is what it means, and even that decision allows for restrictions on weapons. So, the statement that this has been the law of the land for 200+ years is flat out, unequivocally wrong.

I suspect it was not explicitly stated by SCOTUS until recently because it was widely understood and treated as an individual right until fairly recently.

Fifty years ago you could walk into a small, local hardware store and by a gun as long as you were of age. It wasn't until U.S. society became more violent that restrictions started being imposed; the Court cases only then became necessary.

When my friends and I were 16, we would walk along the road from one guy's house carrying rifles and shotguns to a neighbor's property about 1/2 mile down the road.
It was neither illegal nor a problem. (No, those weren't flintlocks. Dodgy )

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
28-10-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 09:51 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 09:45 AM)yakherder Wrote:  And those things are guaranteed simply because a piece of paper says they are?

But you are also going back and forth now between arguments. You say you aren't keeping guns to protect you from the government, but that your power as a citizen is tied to your possession of firearms?

Which is it? You want guns to protect you from the every day (minimal) dangers of life, or because it holds some sort of protection for you against the government? (the latter of which contradict previous statements from you)

I want to have the option of force in order to protect myself from anyone whose interests are in conflict with my own to the extent that a compromise cannot be reached. That includes any entity ranging from a criminal element or gangs taking advantage of a lapse in government capabilities, to a government taking advantage of a lack of leverage possessed by the people it governs. When I say I'm not concerned with the government at the moment, I'm referring to immediate context. Governments around the world fail, collapse, and change hands on a regular basis. At this particular moment, our government is not in danger of immediate collapse and still chooses to acknowledge the Democratic process, including the above mentioned right to vote and freedom of speech (more or less). Consent alone, however, does not guarantee that this will remain true. What I was getting at above is simply that I recognize that, right now, the biggest threats to our sovereignty are not coming from the government. But that can always change.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: