RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 6:54:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods So you make it mandatory. It's not fucking rocket science, mate. It wouldn't even be difficult to set up. [image]http://jeffnielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/aha-moment.jpg[/image] HB, WM finally had his AHA moment. Were you following along? Did you have one, too? See, this is what Jeff was saying, regarding fixing the laws currently on the books. While it won't have prevented every mass shooting, it could have prevented at least some.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 7:22:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods So you make it mandatory. It's not fucking rocket science, mate. It wouldn't even be difficult to set up. [image]http://jeffnielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/aha-moment.jpg[/image] HB, WM finally had his AHA moment. Were you following along? Did you have one, too? See, this is what Jeff was saying, regarding fixing the laws currently on the books. While it won't have prevented every mass shooting, it could have prevented at least some. Which is a start, and a place to modify existing laws, or write new ones. And actually WM, it would be difficult, after all, you would need to add the procedure of hitting a 'submit' button to transmit the data, and that means a new training program for clerks of courts, and those that work in the records departments of mental health providers..... All because of adding one line to their task. But of course, there are those like tamaka who feel that a few innocent lives at the hands of a gun toting madman or criminal is acceptable. Hey, maybe she would change her mind if she lived in a place where innocent by standers are routinely shoot during gang related drive by shootings. Not saying I would want her harmed, but I figure a few bullets passing through the walls of her home might just give her food for thought... Or how about if she had to go to a crime scene where a toddler was killed during a drive by.... Or maybe I can get the sheriff's department to allow me access to the crime scene photos of the call that basically gave me the reason to turn in my badge and get out of law enforcement. 3 Dead children, shot by a mother who had a history of mental illness and violence, who was able to buy a gun because the information that would have prevented that was not available on a back ground check. Wonder how she would feel looking at the picture of a six month old who had been shot in the face with a shotgun at close range. Yep, an innocent life is worth the flaw in the laws preventing that type of person from buying a gun.

tamaka -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 8:22:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods So you make it mandatory. It's not fucking rocket science, mate. It wouldn't even be difficult to set up. [image]http://jeffnielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/aha-moment.jpg[/image] HB, WM finally had his AHA moment. Were you following along? Did you have one, too? See, this is what Jeff was saying, regarding fixing the laws currently on the books. While it won't have prevented every mass shooting, it could have prevented at least some. Which is a start, and a place to modify existing laws, or write new ones. And actually WM, it would be difficult, after all, you would need to add the procedure of hitting a 'submit' button to transmit the data, and that means a new training program for clerks of courts, and those that work in the records departments of mental health providers..... All because of adding one line to their task. But of course, there are those like tamaka who feel that a few innocent lives at the hands of a gun toting madman or criminal is acceptable. Hey, maybe she would change her mind if she lived in a place where innocent by standers are routinely shoot during gang related drive by shootings. Not saying I would want her harmed, but I figure a few bullets passing through the walls of her home might just give her food for thought... Or how about if she had to go to a crime scene where a toddler was killed during a drive by.... Or maybe I can get the sheriff's department to allow me access to the crime scene photos of the call that basically gave me the reason to turn in my badge and get out of law enforcement. 3 Dead children, shot by a mother who had a history of mental illness and violence, who was able to buy a gun because the information that would have prevented that was not available on a back ground check. Wonder how she would feel looking at the picture of a six month old who had been shot in the face with a shotgun at close range. Yep, an innocent life is worth the flaw in the laws preventing that type of person from buying a gun. I am concerned about you having guns as you've publicly commented you would consider mass murder and then tell us about all the guns you have, and ptsd you have, etc. Which 'submit' button should i hit for that?

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 12:37:15 AM)
PTSD is never a one-size fits all issue. The traumas are different, the triggers are different, and the episodes are different for everyone. We can't all have Nam flashbacks and see Charlies everywhere.

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 4:43:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 And actually WM, it would be difficult, after all, you would need to add the procedure of hitting a 'submit' button to transmit the data, and that means a new training program for clerks of courts, and those that work in the records departments of mental health providers..... All because of adding one line to their task. I hope that was sarcasm. [;)]

heavyblinker -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 4:56:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It has everything to do with logic. How the fuck do you tell if something works? Do you make a change, and make another change right away? No. Der. You wait to see what effect the first change has. If that doesn't work, you either change the first change, or make another. Jeff believes the first change can be changed to effect the necessary improvements. The background checks system has been in existence for 19 years and still isn't working properly. And yet, gun control in other countries works perfectly fine. Why do you think that nobody has been able to solve the problems over the past 2 decades? Is it because everyone is too collectively stupid to see what will work, or because it is being blocked/interfered with? The ACLU, NRA and mental health people are blocking it... the NRA because they are insane, and the others because they think it's discrimination. If everyone who wanted to own a gun needed to get a license, it wouldn't be discrimination. Blocking an effective database has been a bipartisan effort, apparently... though I don't think that the ACLU or mental health people are inherently left wing. quote: How do you prove to someone that you're responsible enough? Who gets to make that call - a person who doesn't think firearms should be in the hands of the general populace? A full legalization of every kind of firearm sort? What are you even talking about? Obviously a firearms expert would have to evaluate whether or not someone was responsible enough, preferably after teaching a firearms safety course. They do this for people who are learning to drive, you know. quote: Why don't they submit the info? Perhaps there's the next step (which I think is Jeff's position). We admit it won't work when we know it won't work. http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158932528/states-arent-submitting-records-to-gun-database quote: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined why states aren't submitting records in a July report. Some cited bureaucratic barriers, others technical ones, like switching from paper-based to computer systems. And some states contend it violates their laws to forward mental health records to the federal database. A few states are changing their laws. If you want to know why it isn't mandatory, well, here's an article you need to read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-trump-administration-has-already-been-rolling-back-gun-regulations/2017/10/04/5eaad7d6-a86b-11e7-8ed2-c7114e6ac460_story.html?utm_term=.d7af68a7dde4 Even if the database was perfectly functional and every state was willing to cooperate, it wouldn't prevent unstable people without records who don't seek help from obtaining a firearm. Licensing would. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: So hey, yes, people want to kill each other-- which is why I'm pretty sure that there are already laws against people killing each other... just not against making it much much easier for them to succeed. So you can seriously argue that all of these 'defense against tyranny' arguments are about rational people facing the truth? Please. See? You don't really give a shit about people killing people, unless they use a gun. Then it's the sky is falling! I'd rather figure out why we're killing each other and see if that can be fixed. LOL... sometimes you come off as a reasonable person, fat boy-- but not today. Why do you think we need to figure out why 'we're killing each other', but not about why people use guns? The two are mutually exclusive? You don't think that, unlike a lot of other things that kill people, the entire purpose of a gun is to make killing/wounding/hurting easier? I don't think most people care a lot about things that they are not personally involved in. This is evident on this board, in this thread. I mostly just don't want to get killed or for it to be easy for someone to kill me or someone I actually care about.

LTE -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 8:51:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you. Clearly you cannot understand a simple point. Nor do you seem to comprehend the law is now 49 fucking years old and makes perfectly good sense. And speaking as a gun owner, I happen to agree with the law as written, it sure as hell would have prevented over half of the mass shootings where the individual had been treated for mental conditions with violent episodes, AND even on meds continued to have such fucking episodes. But then you are the one that said that a few innocents dying at the hand of a gun toting criminal or lunatic was perfectly acceptable. No innocent dying is acceptable. But perhaps we mistakenly blame the death of innocents on a law rather than the will of the perpetrator and try to make exceptions to the law, the right to bear arms, in order to somehow save these individuals, to prevent their deaths in the first place. Before we suggest such a thing perhaps we should read the text of the Second Amendment copied below for our convenience. When you read it you see there is no exception to the Right. There's an important reason for that. The reason is to keep the Government from taking away that right for any possible "exception" and historically when a Government disarms the people, it starts with such exceptions and the result over time is many more deaths and the loss of liberty and only with the rearming of the people and the subsequent overthrow of the now abusive Government is when that liberty is restored after many more deaths. One can clearly see the 2nd Amendment is purposely written concisely to apply to any American without exception for the purpose of protecting our freedom and it states the one reason without exception. We cannot pretend the passage of time since it was written somehow makes it less applicable to a free society. Further, this one Amendment addresses the individual citizen and does not qualify that distinction and so we cannot here. Finally back to your point again, although deaths by a madman with guns is not acceptable, it is even more unacceptable to weaken the Right to Bear Arms and so we cannot pretend we can make such a decision or even suggest contemplating such a direction is acceptable even if a single madman uses his right to bear arms to kill innocents rather than protect his freedom. 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.

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 8:54:26 AM)
Exactly why do you still need a civilian militia, well regulated or not, now that you have had a fairly competent standing army for over two centuries?

LTE -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 9:10:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Exactly why do you still need a civilian militia, well regulated or not, now that you have had a fairly competent standing army for over two centuries? A good question. Because standing armies have historically been used to control a society when a Government body decides it can do so. There are some contemporary examples even in the U.S. such as at Selma. Kent State. Finally, over time the mission of a standing army can be changed whereas the Right must not ever be changed over time as a check permanently in place to protect "a free society". Some think Trump is a dictator, if he truly is then one must remember he is in control of "the standing army".

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 9:16:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LTE quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Exactly why do you still need a civilian militia, well regulated or not, now that you have had a fairly competent standing army for over two centuries? A good question. Because standing armies have historically been used to control a society when a Government body decides it can do so. There are some contemporary examples even in the U.S. such as at Selma. Kent State. Finally, over time the mission of a standing army can be changed whereas the Right must not ever be changed over time as a check permanently in place to protect "a free society". Some think Trump is a dictator, if he truly is then one must remember he is in control of "the standing army". There's been quite a bit of debate about whether or not that's what the second amendment refers to since 1788, though. Certainly there hasn't been a civilian uprising against a sitting president in your nation's history, so if that's what the second amendment is there to protect, it isn't doing its job.

heavyblinker -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 9:40:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LTE A good question. Because standing armies have historically been used to control a society when a Government body decides it can do so. There are some contemporary examples even in the U.S. such as at Selma. Kent State. Finally, over time the mission of a standing army can be changed whereas the Right must not ever be changed over time as a check permanently in place to protect "a free society". Some think Trump is a dictator, if he truly is then one must remember he is in control of "the standing army". Yes, I bet if the students had been armed while protesting Vietnam in front of armed guards, then the outcome would have been much better. Never mind that the massacre led to a 4 million student strike and basically swayed public opinion towards ending the war, effectively accomplishing their goal. FFS how can you seriously type this shit into your computer and hit 'OK'? You don't even seem to understand how the government works. Trump, Obama, Bush... they can't just order the fucking army to kill a bunch of Americans and expect everyone else to just obey them. And even if they did it, they certainly couldn't expect it to all be okay. And if they DID do this, the majority were okay with it/didn't care... and the targeted people DID fight back, you don't think it would escalate? Maybe the first time they use men with guns, but when that doesn't work, they realize it's time to pull out the drones. Is your semi-automatic rifle capable of shooting down a drone so far up in the atmosphere that you can't even see it? What about a missile that can be launched from miles away? Better get into your bomb shelter! Oh and watch out for chemical weapons, biological weapons, radiation weapons, etc. What an utterly ridiculous fantasy.

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 10:01:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: LTE A good question. Because standing armies have historically been used to control a society when a Government body decides it can do so. There are some contemporary examples even in the U.S. such as at Selma. Kent State. Finally, over time the mission of a standing army can be changed whereas the Right must not ever be changed over time as a check permanently in place to protect "a free society". Some think Trump is a dictator, if he truly is then one must remember he is in control of "the standing army". Yes, I bet if the students had been armed while protesting Vietnam in front of armed guards, then the outcome would have been much better. Never mind that the massacre led to a 4 million student strike and basically swayed public opinion towards ending the war, effectively accomplishing their goal. FFS how can you seriously type this shit into your computer and hit 'OK'? You don't even seem to understand how the government works. Trump, Obama, Bush... they can't just order the fucking army to kill a bunch of Americans and expect everyone else to just obey them. And even if they did it, they certainly couldn't expect it to all be okay. And if they DID do this, the majority were okay with it/didn't care... and the targeted people DID fight back, you don't think it would escalate? Maybe the first time they use men with guns, but when that doesn't work, they realize it's time to pull out the drones. Is your semi-automatic rifle capable of shooting down a drone so far up in the atmosphere that you can't even see it? What about a missile that can be launched from miles away? Better get into your bomb shelter! Oh and watch out for chemical weapons, biological weapons, radiation weapons, etc. What an utterly ridiculous fantasy. It's worth remembering that the Russian army threw in with the revolutionaries during the bolshevik uprising, on that level.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 11:59:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods There's been quite a bit of debate about whether or not that's what the second amendment refers to since 1788, though. Certainly there hasn't been a civilian uprising against a sitting president in your nation's history, so if that's what the second amendment is there to protect, it isn't doing its job. There has not been a president that blatantly disregarded the Constitution or the built in checks and balances except one, and well he just relocated almost a million Indians when SCOTUS told him the law was unconstitutional, but they were just Indians so no white cracker in the southeast waiting for free land gave a flying fuck. The fact that a bunch of them died on the walk was a bonus.

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 12:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods There's been quite a bit of debate about whether or not that's what the second amendment refers to since 1788, though. Certainly there hasn't been a civilian uprising against a sitting president in your nation's history, so if that's what the second amendment is there to protect, it isn't doing its job. There has not been a president that blatantly disregarded the Constitution or the built in checks and balances except one, and well he just relocated almost a million Indians when SCOTUS told him the law was unconstitutional, but they were just Indians so no white cracker in the southeast waiting for free land gave a flying fuck. The fact that a bunch of them died on the walk was a bonus. Jackson may well have been the worst offender, but he's hardly the only one. Just look at Nxon, Garfield and George II. Hell, even Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to arrest the Maryland Congress members, didn't he?

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 12:27:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Exactly why do you still need a civilian militia, well regulated or not, now that you have had a fairly competent standing army for over two centuries? When I ran the guy off who was messing around our neighbors house I was the militia. The army doesn't do that and the cops weren't there.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 12:29:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: LTE quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Exactly why do you still need a civilian militia, well regulated or not, now that you have had a fairly competent standing army for over two centuries? A good question. Because standing armies have historically been used to control a society when a Government body decides it can do so. There are some contemporary examples even in the U.S. such as at Selma. Kent State. Finally, over time the mission of a standing army can be changed whereas the Right must not ever be changed over time as a check permanently in place to protect "a free society". Some think Trump is a dictator, if he truly is then one must remember he is in control of "the standing army". There's been quite a bit of debate about whether or not that's what the second amendment refers to since 1788, though. Certainly there hasn't been a civilian uprising against a sitting president in your nation's history, so if that's what the second amendment is there to protect, it isn't doing its job. There hasn't been a need to, that could be because it has worked.

tamaka -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 2:42:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: LTE quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Exactly why do you still need a civilian militia, well regulated or not, now that you have had a fairly competent standing army for over two centuries? A good question. Because standing armies have historically been used to control a society when a Government body decides it can do so. There are some contemporary examples even in the U.S. such as at Selma. Kent State. Finally, over time the mission of a standing army can be changed whereas the Right must not ever be changed over time as a check permanently in place to protect "a free society". Some think Trump is a dictator, if he truly is then one must remember he is in control of "the standing army". There's been quite a bit of debate about whether or not that's what the second amendment refers to since 1788, though. Certainly there hasn't been a civilian uprising against a sitting president in your nation's history, so if that's what the second amendment is there to protect, it isn't doing its job. There hasn't been a need to, that could be because it has worked. Ya think? ; )

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 3:09:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: LTE quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Exactly why do you still need a civilian militia, well regulated or not, now that you have had a fairly competent standing army for over two centuries? A good question. Because standing armies have historically been used to control a society when a Government body decides it can do so. There are some contemporary examples even in the U.S. such as at Selma. Kent State. Finally, over time the mission of a standing army can be changed whereas the Right must not ever be changed over time as a check permanently in place to protect "a free society". Some think Trump is a dictator, if he truly is then one must remember he is in control of "the standing army". There's been quite a bit of debate about whether or not that's what the second amendment refers to since 1788, though. Certainly there hasn't been a civilian uprising against a sitting president in your nation's history, so if that's what the second amendment is there to protect, it isn't doing its job. There hasn't been a need to, that could be because it has worked. Ya think? ; ) Yes

JVoV -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 6:22:34 PM)
Uh, we did have a Civil War that one time. And if you think Granny and PawPaw weren't shootin' damn yankees from the upstairs bedroom, you're outta your mind.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/14/2017 6:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Uh, we did have a Civil War that one time. And if you think Granny and PawPaw weren't shootin' damn yankees from the upstairs bedroom, you're outta your mind. That was largely between formal armies. Except where I grew up (Mo) which had the ugliest fighting of the War.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625