If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion   (americanthinker.com) divider line 502
    More: Obvious, Framers of the Constitution, second amendment, due process clause, target shooting, Constitution of the United States, importance, U.S. Supreme Court, faiths  
•       •       •

1725 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 8:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



502 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 01:54:46 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: vygramul: verbaltoxin: You're just proving my point that most of these 2nd amendment humpers are wetting themselves over Red Dawn actually happening.

It's pretty much irrelevant. The Founders were constantly wetting themselves about Red Dawn actually happening, and they wrote the thing.

Yep, so they said you could have firearms as part of a well regulated militia.

See? I can beg the question, too!


That's not begging the question. It would be, if that was the initial proposition. It isn't, it was a response to what is really an ad hominem (and therefore a new proposition) and not part of the initial proposition.
 
2012-12-03 02:02:22 PM  
"A well educated populace being necessary to the prosperity of the state, the right of the people to read and own books shall not be abridged"


"Engineers being necessary to construct civil infrastructure, the right of the people to keep calculators and perform calculations shall not be abridged"


There's no textual precondition. It's plain English. You people are dumb.
 
2012-12-03 02:08:23 PM  

redmid17: You can buy military helicopters and tanks assuming they've been decommissioned. I don't think there are any Apaches or Abrams sitting around waiting to be purchased by civilians, but you can definitely find some older stuff. Since you're clearly interested in purchasing one, here's a handy link:


I wouldn't mind getting a Scimitar or Scorpion scout tank.

Though, France and Switzerland have made some very nice wheeled scout tanks/armored recon units.
 
2012-12-03 02:09:10 PM  

dr_blasto: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.

You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?

Can you answer these:
Number of weapon bans signed by Obama= 0
Number of weapon bans signed by Romney= 0
Number of weapon bans decided to be OK by your link because a Republican did it= 0


I changed your question marks with the proper answers.

Romney didn't sign any weapons ban:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

This is a perfect example of don't believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the "assault weapon" ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
...
4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.


What Romney signed was a bill that *PROTECTED* the ownership of 'grandfathered' pre-1994 "assault weapons" and that also protected the ownership of semi-auto guns that could accept removable magazines in Massachusetts. Without those, the existing vaguely worded Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban, enacted years before Romney took office, could have been used to ban guns that were legal to own prior to the sunset of the federal ban.

At it's very worst, what Romney signed protected the status quo in Massachusetts in the face of a very real threat.
 
2012-12-03 02:12:36 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons.


I'm a Liberal and I don't piss my pants at the thought of people owning guns. But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on gun ownership and to mock people who think they need to own a gun in case they have to overthrow the government someday.
 
2012-12-03 02:14:02 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.


This.

i50.tinypic.com

They lost, Ernesto.
 
2012-12-03 02:14:17 PM  

jake_lex: Imperialism: Who's taking guns away? I'm not going to click but I assume they're terribly frightened by a threat that literally doesn't exist.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for one of these articles to give an actual, documented example of how the Obama Administration is moving to take guns away from their owners, not just "HERP A DERP NOW THAT HE'S BEEN ELECTED FARTBONGO IS GONNA SEND HIS GAY NAZI MUSLIN COMMIE STORMTROOPERS TO GET YOUR GUN"


I'm legitimately curious (though not enough to...ya know, ACTUALLY RESEARCH IT) how many of these publications/EiC of the publication owns stock in gun/ammo manufacturers. Despite the fact that gun legislation hasn't really changed (except becoming LOOSER), it seems like we have several of these articles every month. Almost like they're trying to drum up business.
 
2012-12-03 02:15:43 PM  

dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.

You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?

Can you answer these:
Number of weapon bans signed by Obama= 0
Number of weapon bans signed by Romney= 0
Number of weapon bans decided to be OK by your link because a Republican did it= 0

I changed your question marks with the proper answers.

Romney didn't sign any weapons ban:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

This is a perfect example of don't believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the "assault weapon" ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
...
4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal l ...


maybe you two have not heard but the election is over.
 
2012-12-03 02:19:06 PM  

Pincy: But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on gun ownership and to mock people who think they need to own a gun in case they have to overthrow the government someday.


Why?
 
2012-12-03 02:30:56 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.


Exactly.

My opinion is that the Dems won't give until the deadender in the Senate finally retire or die. Outside of Reid, the Democratic leadership in the Senate is the last bastion of the prohibitionist mentality left that has any power in the Federal gov't. They will not compromise (still pushing the failed AWB) and they pay no political price for their intransigence.

Want to finish off the Repubs? Start acting like true liberals and support liberal gun rights policies. Prohibition (AWB) is not a liberal position, it is a statist, authoritarian position.
 
2012-12-03 02:42:42 PM  

Pincy: Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons.

I'm a Liberal and I don't piss my pants at the thought of people owning guns.


Good.

But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on gun ownership


Aye, there's the rub. What would you consider reasonable? We already have some reasonable laws, and some unreasonable ones.

and to mock people who think they need to own a gun in case they have to overthrow the government someday.


What, like that has never happened before? Don't you read history at *ALL*?

See, one of the *NICE* things about widespread private ownership of guns is that it makes totalitarianism that much harder to implement.

You don't have to be able to win, you just have to make it expensive enough that they won't try.
 
2012-12-03 02:47:51 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.

Exactly.

My opinion is that the Dems won't give until the deadender in the Senate finally retire or die. Outside of Reid, the Democratic leadership in the Senate is the last bastion of the prohibitionist mentality left that has any power in the Federal gov't. They will not compromise (still pushing the failed AWB) and they pay no political price for their intransigence.

Want to finish off the Repubs? Start acting like true liberals and support liberal gun rights policies. Prohibition (AWB) is not a liberal position, it is a statist, authoritarian position.


the labels rarely work. The same party that does not want the government telling them what to do also wants the government to tell women that they cannot get abortions and that the govt. should tell gays that they are allowed to marry.

Liberals believe that people should not be allowed to shoot up entire neighborhoods without at least having to at least reload. They error on the side of human life. Conservatives hang their beliefs on an outdated portion of the Constitution and believe that every man has the right to own machine guns.
 
2012-12-03 02:48:54 PM  
What caused this reversal of liberal dogma? Why is "gun control" now a dirty word and a guaranteed political loser?

Because you wingnuts got our credit rating downgraded, are trying to use theocracy as legal basis for discrimination, and are trying to claim special rights for your churches above and beyond what you actually need. Plus, the Middle East is currently trying to commit suicide, again. As The Modern World put it, the occasional civilian mass murder is just the price the rest of us have to pay for you guys throwing enough temper tantrums so we can't handle this and handle other pressing issues at the same time.

/I mean, really. Not like the rest of the world exists or anything.
 
2012-12-03 02:51:33 PM  

PsiChick: What caused this reversal of liberal dogma? Why is "gun control" now a dirty word and a guaranteed political loser?

Because you wingnuts got our credit rating downgraded, are trying to use theocracy as legal basis for discrimination, and are trying to claim special rights for your churches above and beyond what you actually need. Plus, the Middle East is currently trying to commit suicide, again. As The Modern World put it, the occasional civilian mass murder is just the price the rest of us have to pay for you guys throwing enough temper tantrums so we can't handle this and handle other pressing issues at the same time.

/I mean, really. Not like the rest of the world exists or anything.


Can i get an AMEN!!


the nail, you hit it right on the head!!!
 
2012-12-03 02:57:28 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Either take this argument to its logical conclusion and argue that all Americans should have the right to own Apache gunships and Abrams tanks, or just STFU.


That is not a logical conclusion at all. Apache aircraft and tanks take trained crews to operate and maintain, use advanced technology and use munitions that would be considered destructive devices in the civilan world which are already highly regulate and most don't have easy or legal access to. A handgun is not in the same ballpark as a tank or Apache, it's not even the same farking game.
 
2012-12-03 03:03:29 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons. You're literally a right wing stereotype given life and I'm tired of having to decide if I want to vote for gun rights or health care in elections. Give up the damn gun control issue.


This, I disagree with the right on every basic issue I can think of. The exception is that I own guns and think any law abiding person should be allowed to as well. We have background checks, waiting periods, etc., We have the gun control we claimed we wanted, we won. We aren't going to ban guns and we shouldn't be trying to, it is a waste of time. We should focus on underlying social issues that lead to violence, not banning the tools that are used to commit violence.
 
2012-12-03 03:13:48 PM  

chuckufarlie: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.

You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?

Can you answer these:
Number of weapon bans signed by Obama= 0
Number of weapon bans signed by Romney= 0
Number of weapon bans decided to be OK by your link because a Republican did it= 0

I changed your question marks with the proper answers.

Romney didn't sign any weapons ban:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

This is a perfect example of don't believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the "assault weapon" ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
...
4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on ...


dittybopper: At it's very worst, what Romney signed protected the status quo in Massachusetts in the face of a very real threat.


What was his position on guns in 94 when he ran for senate? Well, let's just say, in Romney's own words his position was, "not going to make me the hero of the NRA."
 
2012-12-03 03:15:29 PM  
Oh look, another thread on an American Dimwit "ZOMG Fartbongo wants our guns" post.

*leaving*
 
2012-12-03 03:28:27 PM  

dittybopper: At it's very worst, what Romney signed protected the status quo in Massachusetts in the face of a very real threat.


This is what GOAL had to say at the time: "Firearm Reform Bill Signed, Romney Takes Opportunity to Betray Gun Owners."

And this is what Romney thought he was signing to ban: "Romney described assault weapons as "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

Basically GOAL and the GOP are trying to rewrite history here to make it look like Romney did not EXTEND the AWB in Mass. But he did, and the NRA was participating in the rewrite of history because they are shills for the GOP.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/03/nra-rewrites-history-to-hide- r omney-support-for/190318
 
2012-12-03 03:30:05 PM  

whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads


I love this...

Here... let's take a moment to shift a paradigm for a moment.

"so grow up and accept that some regulation of your rights to free speech may happen. And if your newspaper/tvstation doesn't stop getting so nosy you can expect federal officials to start raiding their offices"

Look, the Constitution _isn't_ the bible... it's considerably more important given that it's the basis of our entire rule of law in the US. You have to either respect the foundation of the law or it has no basis.

In the same way that we treasure the 1st amendment we MUST give exactly the same weight to the 2nd amendment. Why? Because the premise for it is to provide us a means to enforce our rights when others seek to restrict them.

Furthermore the founders were revolutionaries... they saw that to keep or declare your liberty you must at times fight and shed blood to protect those rights. They also saw first had how europe had disarmed its populace and enforced a dictatorial regime over its people and sought to not have the same happen in the US.
 
2012-12-03 03:44:58 PM  

Bell-fan: whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

I love this...

Here... let's take a moment to shift a paradigm for a moment.

"so grow up and accept that some regulation of your rights to free speech may happen. And if your newspaper/tvstation doesn't stop getting so nosy you can expect federal officials to start raiding their offices"

Look, the Constitution _isn't_ the bible... it's considerably more important given that it's the basis of our entire rule of law in the US. You have to either respect the foundation of the law or it has no basis.

In the same way that we treasure the 1st amendment we MUST give exactly the same weight to the 2nd amendment. Why? Because the premise for it is to provide us a means to enforce our rights when others seek to restrict them.

Furthermore the founders were revolutionaries... they saw that to keep or declare your liberty you must at times fight and shed blood to protect those rights. They also saw first had how europe had disarmed its populace and enforced a dictatorial regime over its people and sought to not have the same happen in the US.


There is nothing about any Amendment that can keep it from being repealed. It has happened in the past.

The founding fathers were not revolutionaries by the time they all sat down to write the Constitution. Just more claptrap.

What the founding fathers did not see was that some day weapons would be far more potent than the average flintlock. Try defending your liberty against a modern army. You would need something a lot more powerful than a rifle or even a machine gun.

In short, that argument no longer holds water. If you want a rifle to go hunting - great. If you want a handgun for defense - outstanding. If you want something to protect you from the coming zombie apocalypse - dandy.

But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.
 
2012-12-03 03:45:45 PM  

manimal2878: chuckufarlie: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Although the NRA's agenda usually aligns with that of the GOP, the powerful group also adheres to what it calls "an incumbent-friendly" policy: If an incumbent and a challenger candidate have equally strong records protecting gun rights, the incumbent gets the endorsement, regardless of party.

This explains their Romney endorsement.

You mean the Romney who enacted a number of pro-gun and pro-sportsman measures in Massachusetts? As opposed to the incumbent who had spent 8 years helping to funnel millions of dollars into anti-gun advocacy?

Can you answer these:
Number of weapon bans signed by Obama= 0
Number of weapon bans signed by Romney= 0
Number of weapon bans decided to be OK by your link because a Republican did it= 0

I changed your question marks with the proper answers.

Romney didn't sign any weapons ban:

Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons

This is a perfect example of don't believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the "assault weapon" ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
...
4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban di ...


????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
2012-12-03 03:48:23 PM  

chuckufarlie: But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.


Outstanding question ask the Iraqis, Afghanis, Viet Cong, ect....
 
2012-12-03 04:01:16 PM  

chuckufarlie: Bell-fan: whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

I love this...

Here... let's take a moment to shift a paradigm for a moment.

"so grow up and accept that some regulation of your rights to free speech may happen. And if your newspaper/tvstation doesn't stop getting so nosy you can expect federal officials to start raiding their offices"

Look, the Constitution _isn't_ the bible... it's considerably more important given that it's the basis of our entire rule of law in the US. You have to either respect the foundation of the law or it has no basis.

In the same way that we treasure the 1st amendment we MUST give exactly the same weight to the 2nd amendment. Why? Because the premise for it is to provide us a means to enforce our rights when others seek to restrict them.

Furthermore the founders were revolutionaries... they saw that to keep or declare your liberty you must at times fight and shed blood to protect those rights. They also saw first had how europe had disarmed its populace and enforced a dictatorial regime over its people and sought to not have the same happen in the US.

There is nothing abou ...


google asymmetric warfare and come back to the conversation when you've read up on it.
 
2012-12-03 04:05:14 PM  

manimal2878: This is what GOAL had to say at the time: "Firearm Reform Bill Signed, Romney Takes Opportunity to Betray Gun Owners."

And this is what Romney thought he was signing to ban: "Romney described assault weapons as "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

Basically GOAL and the GOP are trying to rewrite history here to make it look like Romney did not EXTEND the AWB in Mass. But he did, and the NRA was participating in the rewrite of history because they are shills for the GOP.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/03/nra-rewrites-history-to-hide- r omney-support-for/190318


Now now, you know the rules. You're not allowed to use a Republican's words against him. But what Obama wrote in high school in someone's year book is HUGELY RELEVANT to the topics of the day. It's simple math.
 
2012-12-03 04:05:22 PM  

redmid17: way south: What I don't get is why people are either pretending to be illiterate or are against the idea of having the government follow its own rules.

/and why would a military or a state run militia need special rights to own weapons? You'd tend to assume that's a given.
/Which is probably why the 2nd amendment says "The people" and not "These people".

What do you mean these people?


I mean the mark of a good legislator is in their ability to be concise. Refer to the constitution itself when the founders wrote for the ability for congress "To provide and maintain a Navy".

If they wanted weapons to only exist in the hands of a state run militia, they'd have said "The states are to maintain militias". No reason needed, no debate would ensue.
Instead they gave the right to be armed to "The people", not a specific group of people.

We can spend an entire lifetime trying to make believe it was something more elegant, but this is short and ugly Machiavellian idealism. You are conscripted at birth into an army that serves a master of its choosing, and congress (chosen by popular vote) knows it will always be that master.

Some of people may not like that idea or the consequences it suggests, but the options are to either accept it or change it.
We can't pretend it doesn't exist.
 
2012-12-03 04:09:22 PM  
A bit hollywood, but the right idea Link
 
2012-12-03 04:11:01 PM  

way south: redmid17: way south: What I don't get is why people are either pretending to be illiterate or are against the idea of having the government follow its own rules.

/and why would a military or a state run militia need special rights to own weapons? You'd tend to assume that's a given.
/Which is probably why the 2nd amendment says "The people" and not "These people".

What do you mean these people?

I mean the mark of a good legislator is in their ability to be concise. Refer to the constitution itself when the founders wrote for the ability for congress "To provide and maintain a Navy".

If they wanted weapons to only exist in the hands of a state run militia, they'd have said "The states are to maintain militias". No reason needed, no debate would ensue.
Instead they gave the right to be armed to "The people", not a specific group of people.

We can spend an entire lifetime trying to make believe it was something more elegant, but this is short and ugly Machiavellian idealism. You are conscripted at birth into an army that serves a master of its choosing, and congress (chosen by popular vote) knows it will always be that master.

Some of people may not like that idea or the consequences it suggests, but the options are to either accept it or change it.
We can't pretend it doesn't exist.


Was supposed to be a joke. Guess I need to be more liberal with bold tags or quotes.
 
2012-12-03 04:14:43 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: But do not tell me that you need your rifle to defend your freedom. Take a look at the arsenal of even a second rate military and then compute how long you would last against it, armed with you rifle or automatic weapon.

Outstanding question ask the Iraqis, Afghanis, Viet Cong, ect....




Ask the Hungarians in 1956.
Ask the Ethiopians in the 1930s.
Ask the Poles in Warsaw in 1944.
Ask the Tibetans in 1956.

The US did not go into any of the countries that you listed with the intent to stay there forever.

And let's face facts, you boys do not want your guns so you can help defend this country from some foreign invader. The US military would politely tell you to go home and leave it to the professionals. Then, they would lock you up if you did not go home. You want your guns to defend your freedom against the US government. You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.
 
2012-12-03 04:17:30 PM  

redmid17: Was supposed to be a joke. Guess I need to be more liberal with bold tags or quotes.


You have to use illustrations sometimes...


What do you mean "these people"?

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-03 04:19:28 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: Bell-fan: whistleridge: True.

They also thought white people could own black people as chattel, the vote should be restricted solely to white males over the age of 21 who owned property, the loser of a presidential election should become VP, and that black people counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (but said vote would be controlled by the white person who owned them).

The Founders weren't saints, and the Constitution isn't the Bible. They were greedy hypocritical farkups who managed to achieve some amazing things in spite of those imperfections, and the Constitution is a living document that has been required to change with the times.

So grow up, and accept that some regulation of your overpriced penis-extending toys may happen. And if your preacher doesn't stop politicking from the pulpit, your church may lose its tax-exempt status too. Wah.

/ why do I even bother posting in these stupid threads

I love this...

Here... let's take a moment to shift a paradigm for a moment.

"so grow up and accept that some regulation of your rights to free speech may happen. And if your newspaper/tvstation doesn't stop getting so nosy you can expect federal officials to start raiding their offices"

Look, the Constitution _isn't_ the bible... it's considerably more important given that it's the basis of our entire rule of law in the US. You have to either respect the foundation of the law or it has no basis.

In the same way that we treasure the 1st amendment we MUST give exactly the same weight to the 2nd amendment. Why? Because the premise for it is to provide us a means to enforce our rights when others seek to restrict them.

Furthermore the founders were revolutionaries... they saw that to keep or declare your liberty you must at times fight and shed blood to protect those rights. They also saw first had how europe had disarmed its populace and enforced a dictatorial regime over its people and sought to not have the same happen in the US.

There i ...


I do not need to look it up. It is just guerrilla warfare with a fancier name. Are you under the impression that something like the movie "red dawn" might just work? It won't.

Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?
 
2012-12-03 04:19:32 PM  

chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.


So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.
 
2012-12-03 04:25:37 PM  

redmid17: way south: redmid17: way south: What I don't get is why people are either pretending to be illiterate or are against the idea of having the government follow its own rules.

/and why would a military or a state run militia need special rights to own weapons? You'd tend to assume that's a given.
/Which is probably why the 2nd amendment says "The people" and not "These people".

What do you mean these people?

I mean the mark of a good legislator is in their ability to be concise. Refer to the constitution itself when the founders wrote for the ability for congress "To provide and maintain a Navy".

If they wanted weapons to only exist in the hands of a state run militia, they'd have said "The states are to maintain militias". No reason needed, no debate would ensue.
Instead they gave the right to be armed to "The people", not a specific group of people.

We can spend an entire lifetime trying to make believe it was something more elegant, but this is short and ugly Machiavellian idealism. You are conscripted at birth into an army that serves a master of its choosing, and congress (chosen by popular vote) knows it will always be that master.

Some of people may not like that idea or the consequences it suggests, but the options are to either accept it or change it.
We can't pretend it doesn't exist.

Was supposed to be a joke. Guess I need to be more liberal with bold tags or quotes.


My bad, it went entirely over my head.
 
2012-12-03 04:29:14 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.


What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.
 
2012-12-03 04:30:29 PM  

chuckufarlie: I do not need to look it up. It is just guerrilla warfare with a fancier name. Are you under the impression that something like the movie "red dawn" might just work? It won't.

Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?


I'm not planning on fighting anyone. It's just idiotic to say that guerilla warfare wouldn't work against the US army when it's the only strategy that's worked against them for the last 60 years...
 
2012-12-03 04:34:17 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.


You sound like you believe that every soldier will mindlessly kill their fellow citizens if given that order... some people have a better opinion of our armed forces than you and don't believe they would do that should such a scenario present itself.
 
2012-12-03 04:34:32 PM  
... yeah but they thought about it for a minute..
 
2012-12-03 04:38:06 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.


It may be premature to decide you've lost a war that hasn't been declared yet and has no factions besides "us" VS "those who serve in the US military but are somehow not also us".

/I suspect that drones won't protect their pilots families from being murdered by an angry mob.
/hopefully the fear of another civil war will always help cooler heads prevail in Washington.
 
2012-12-03 04:45:41 PM  

GanjSmokr: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.

You sound like you believe that every soldier will mindlessly kill their fellow citizens if given that order... some people have a better opinion of our armed forces than you and don't believe they would do that should such a scenario present itself.


not at all. I am under the impression that nobody is ever going to give that order. I believe that the idea that somebody is going to turn our military against us is just plain crazy, I cannot even imagine how somebody would try to pull that off.

Any war that involves the US military against US civilians is going to be started by the civilians. And not in retaliation because of some take over of the govt.

I also understand that if you are a member of a group that fires on either US troops or the FBI, they will most certainly fire back,
 
2012-12-03 04:47:46 PM  

way south: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.

It may be premature to decide you've lost a war that hasn't been declared yet and has no factions besides "us" VS "those who serve in the US military but are somehow not also us".

/I suspect that drones won't protect their pilots families from being murdered by an angry mob.
/hopefully the fear of another civil war will always help cooler heads prevail in Washington.


what is it that you are anticipating that is going to turn the majority of the population against the government?
 
2012-12-03 04:56:40 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: I do not need to look it up. It is just guerrilla warfare with a fancier name. Are you under the impression that something like the movie "red dawn" might just work? It won't.

Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?

I'm not planning on fighting anyone. It's just idiotic to say that guerilla warfare wouldn't work against the US army when it's the only strategy that's worked against them for the last 60 years...


No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

And that group may try to get foreign support, but it is not going to get it. The Navy will see to that.


If you think that this uprising would get popular support because the "wrong" person got elected, you'd better think about it again. There is nothing going on now that would cause people to support some sort of uprising. And there is nothing that is going to happen either. The system prevents it.
 
2012-12-03 05:03:38 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: I do not need to look it up. It is just guerrilla warfare with a fancier name. Are you under the impression that something like the movie "red dawn" might just work? It won't.

Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?

I'm not planning on fighting anyone. It's just idiotic to say that guerilla warfare wouldn't work against the US army when it's the only strategy that's worked against them for the last 60 years...

No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

And that group may try to get foreign support, but it is not going to get it. The Navy will see to that.


If you think that this uprising would get popular support because the "wrong" person got elected, you'd better think about it again. There is nothing going on now that would cause people to support some sort of uprising. And there is nothing that is going to happen either. The system prevents it.


"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tsu
 
2012-12-03 05:04:41 PM  

s2s2s2: Princess Ryans Knickers: Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?

Which part of "the people" do you not understand?


Exactly. So if "the people" decide to limit your guns your response is what, now?
 
2012-12-03 05:06:07 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: s2s2s2: Princess Ryans Knickers: Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?

Which part of "the people" do you not understand?

Exactly. So if "the people" decide to limit your guns your response is what, now?


"Every immoral law must be disobeyed."
 
2012-12-03 05:07:34 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: I do not need to look it up. It is just guerrilla warfare with a fancier name. Are you under the impression that something like the movie "red dawn" might just work? It won't.

Who are you planning on fighting against in this war?

I'm not planning on fighting anyone. It's just idiotic to say that guerilla warfare wouldn't work against the US army when it's the only strategy that's worked against them for the last 60 years...

No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

And that group may try to get foreign support, but it is not going to get it. The Navy will see to that.


If you think that this uprising would get popular support because the "wrong" person got elected, you'd better think about it again. There is nothing going on now that would cause people to support some sort of uprising. And there is nothing that is going to happen either. The system prevents it.

"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tsu


Sun Tsu never had to send poorly armed civilians against tanks and aircraft.

That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying.
 
2012-12-03 05:08:22 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Princess Ryans Knickers: s2s2s2: Princess Ryans Knickers: Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?

Which part of "the people" do you not understand?

Exactly. So if "the people" decide to limit your guns your response is what, now?

"Every immoral law must be disobeyed."


who decides that it is immoral? There is the rub.
 
2012-12-03 05:11:46 PM  

chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying


Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win
 
2012-12-03 05:11:51 PM  

chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.


You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.
 
2012-12-03 05:17:38 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

 
2012-12-03 05:18:20 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.


And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?
 
Displayed 50 of 502 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report