"If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-12-2015, 11:54 AM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
OK Chas, read your link and much is open to interpretation and some is anachronistic beyond purpose.

“The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

Check on the standing army is farcical. You know as well as I do that the USA currently has the greatest, largest most well equipped standing army in the history of mankind, making this next argument anachronistic as well

“This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

“It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens.” Absolute truism? This author is kidding right?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
22-12-2015, 12:21 PM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:54 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Absolute truism? This author is kidding right?

I think he's a Sith. Drinking Beverage
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 10:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 08:50 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Oh goody. Another gun thread.

I was having symptoms of withdrawal.

Rolleyes

A thought occurred recently when thinking about the Trolley Problem...

The reason why people are more likely to take responsibility for the death of the one guy in the first scenario but not the second is supposed to be the proximity of the victim ... pulling a lever is a more remote action than physically and personally pushing the dude off the bridge.

I was wondering if this might (at least partially) account for the popularity of guns over e.g. knives.

Consider

That might have some substance in the case of a person intent on killing, but for self-defense it is simply a question of effectiveness.
It has a significant factor psychologically in the process and aftermath as well. The personal vs impersonal elements even in war are not unstuidied or questioned in this manner.

Some folks worry me with their concepts of self defense sometimes ignoring the process of defense. Such that life, regardless of factors of psychology or in relevance to what occurred is worth protecting always.

I as well wonder if there went any mental shift from the process of archery in ranged combat to mote modern gun technology. They both have the distance but I wonder if there still something else in contrast.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
Might have had something to do with slave patrols.

Quote: "If the country be invaded, a state
may go to war, but cannot suppress
[slave] insurrections [under this new
Constitution]. If there should happen
an insurrection of slaves, the country
cannot be said to be invaded. They
cannot, therefore, suppress it without
the interposition of Congress . . . .
Congress, and Congress only [under
this new Constitution], can call forth
the militia."

And why was that such a concern for
Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two
hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks,
and there are many in several other
states. But there are few or none in the
Northern States. . . . May Congress not
say, that every black man must fight? Did
we not see a little of this last war? We
were not so hard pushed as to make
emancipation general; but acts of
Assembly passed that every slave who
would go to the army should be free."

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890...ve-slavery


Any questions? Comments? Smart remarks? Knee-jerk reactions?

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
Ranged combat can vary depending on context, and the same was true with archery as well.

Providing suppressive fire to keep an enemy you can't even see pinned down while artillery rains down on them, for example, is quite different than urban combat (i.e. clearing rooms), which is about as close and personal as any bladed weapon combat.

In the same way, the role of archers ranged from flinging arrows in the general direction of battle formations in the hopes that some of them would find targets to directly shooting individuals who had penetrated their own ranks.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 01:07 PM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2015 01:10 PM by yakherder.)
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
There has been a disturbing knife attack trend in China. This has ranged from mentally disturbed people attacking young children to larger scale assaults, such as an incident not long ago in which 9 Uyghur separatists attacked a coal mine and killed about 50 Chinese workers.

In 1993, the government of Rwanda imported nearly a million dollars of machetes from China. The rest is history. On the flipside, some of those who were killed were given the option to pay for the bullets used in their executions. It was considered a less painful, albeit more expensive way to go.

Clearly, whatever psychological barrier exists can be overcome.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 05:28 PM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 11:54 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  OK Chas, read your link and much is open to interpretation and some is anachronistic beyond purpose.

“The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

Check on the standing army is farcical. You know as well as I do that the USA currently has the greatest, largest most well equipped standing army in the history of mankind, making this next argument anachronistic as well

“This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

“It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens.” Absolute truism? This author is kidding right?

The argument is about the intent of the framers, not the applicability of that intent to today's reality.

Gawdzilla was spouting bullshit.

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
22-12-2015, 05:38 PM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 08:50 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Oh goody. Another gun thread.

I was having symptoms of withdrawal.

Rolleyes

It's not a gun thread. Facepalm

It's a Canadian history thread. Thumbsup

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Can_of_Beans's post
22-12-2015, 10:06 PM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
(22-12-2015 05:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-12-2015 11:54 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  OK Chas, read your link and much is open to interpretation and some is anachronistic beyond purpose.

“The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

Check on the standing army is farcical. You know as well as I do that the USA currently has the greatest, largest most well equipped standing army in the history of mankind, making this next argument anachronistic as well

“This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

“It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens.” Absolute truism? This author is kidding right?

The argument is about the intent of the framers, not the applicability of that intent to today's reality.

Gawdzilla was spouting bullshit.

Gun nut???? Drop the gun.................
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2015, 10:53 PM
RE: "If it weren't for guns we'd still be British"
Did somebody say "framers"?

[Image: DSC05879.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: