Gun Control




Posted by Jesse Smith

*Is suprised that this thread hasn't been created yet!!*

Do you think there should be gun control??!! I'm a hard core Republican, though I hate guns!!!! I wouldn't even think about buying them...just because of what they can do if you move a trigger about an inch!! Every gun on da planet should be destroyed!!!!!!!!




Posted by WillisGreeny

Thread maybe new, but the topic sure isn't.

in b4 Bj.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

80% of handguns that are involved in shootings aren't even registered (or closer to that.) I don't know a ton about the subject, but it seems like there's a bigger issue that gun control won't entirely fix. At least here gun control is pretty strict and it's a pretty long process just to own a gun. But, we still have a problem because guns are smuggled in from the States where it's ridiculously easy to buy one. So it'd be nice if the States would crack down on it.




Posted by WillisGreeny

I think it'd be better to convince some people that they really don't need a gun than just creating a longer waiting process or w/e. I'm not talking about innercity people where the threat is immanent; I'm talking about people like the Khardashiens (read about this a week ago) that think a gun would solve all their paranoias. Christ, just because a guy broke into their store (or something like that) every family member needed a handgun?

My Fear: I'll be walking down the street one night and happen to be trailing in back of a girl convinced I'm a rappist simply because I have a penis. She shoots me

Fear 2: I tell some ******* off for the hell of it. He gets ****ed and shoots me.

Fear 3: Some little kid finds his dumb parent's handgun in the closet/or w/e and while playing outside shoots me.

Fear 4: Same stupid parents leave their gun at home which gets robbed. The criminal now uses their gun to mug me,

oh and he shoots me too.

I consider fear 2 and 4 more realistic, but hey! That's my gun anxiety.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

whoa wait, Jesse voted yes?!

I believe there should be stricter gun laws. I do not believe in completely banning guns. I've been over this though, so I won't elaborate unless someone gives a sh*t




Posted by Lord of Spam

i'm all for gun control

granted for me that means using both hands while firing :/. I'm also probably one of the few vgc members to have actually fired and own a gun.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

pretty much had no bearing on anything though.




Posted by Fei-on Castor

I believe that to blame guns for gun-related violence is to blame forks for obesity.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

spoilers: there would be a lot loss deaths if gangs didn't have guns.




Posted by Fei-on Castor


Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: spoilers: there would be a lot loss deaths if gangs didn't have guns.


I don't believe this, actually.

Let me give an analogy, as I often do. I work far from my home, too far to walk or ride a bike. So I drive to work everyday. But then, my car broke down and now I don't have a functioning car. It would seem that because I lost my sole means of getting to work that I would then fail to get to work most of them time. But I'm always on time and never miss work, in spite of the lack of a car. I find ways, whether it's a taxi or hitching a ride with a friend or co-worker.

I think the same applies to gangs. If someone wants to kill another person, they will. You can take their gun away, and they'll get a different weapon. Knives, baseball bats, whatever. They'll find a way. Now, their success may be diminished by the lack of an effective weapon, but they won't just give up on trying. And I know that you'll say that diminished success will result in less deaths, and I suppose it may deter a few would-be killers, but not many, I don't think.

Furthermore you must also consider the person you're taking the gun from. A person who would use a gun to murder another person is a criminal, someone who has less regard for the law. Therefore, if you make it unlawful to possess a gun, the criminals won't comply. The law-abiding types will surrender their guns (because they abide by the laws), and the criminals will continue to carry theirs because they, by definition, break laws.

So your end result would be cities filled with armed criminals and unarmed nice guys.



Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Didn't read that because you're wrong. people would still get killed like every generation in the history of man, but it wouldn't be as relatively simple. the murder rate would likely plummet.




Posted by WillisGreeny

And if the US hadn't made the Atom bomb in the 40s the army would have just stoned and arrowed all the japanese to death just the same!




Posted by Fei-on Castor


Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: Didn't read that because you're wrong. people would still get killed like every generation in the history of man, but it wouldn't be as relatively simple. the murder rate would likely plummet.


When alcohol was criminalized in the 1920's, alcohol consumption didn't decrease much at all. Initially, it did because it was hard to come by. But in a short time, people found ways to get alcohol distributed.

The same thing applies to guns. Sure, at first people would have trouble getting a gun if they wanted one, but it wouldn't take long for people to find ways to make it happen.

And those who opted not to go through the trouble of getting an illegal gun could just use another means to kill someone.

[quote]And if the US hadn't made the Atom bomb in the 40s the army would have just stoned and arrowed all the japanese to death just the same!

I see what you're trying to say. But this is a complicated comparison. If we had known the lasting impacts and sheer devastation left by a nuclear weapon, I think we would've gone about it in a different way. This is evident by the fact that we (and everyone else) haven't used a weapon like that since then.

Our goal with that bomb wasn't necessarily to kill Japanese civilians. So had we not used that bomb, we could've met our goal another way.



Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: When alcohol was criminalized in the 1920's, alcohol consumption didn't decrease much at all. Initially, it did because it was hard to come by. But in a short time, people found ways to get alcohol distributed.


When I said what I said I meant a hypothetical situation where guns never existed.

Gangs use black market guns to begin with so obviously it'd have next to no effect.



Posted by WillisGreeny

Why do we build fences around buildings if burglars can simply climb over them? So that it's harder, not impossible.

Comparing alcohol and guns is very...umm...I see quite a few things wrong with it. The reason Alcohol consumption stayed constant wasn't because people were drinking the best of the best booze, but because they were drinking inferior products made by farmers in the woods. Moonshine is easy as **** to make once you know the ingredients and cooking temperature. See, alcohol has nice and easy home made substitutes, while the demand for firearms doesnt. Sure, you can make a homemade gun with a spraycan and a metal cyllinder, but you sure as **** can't hide that in baggy pants, and good luck trying to hit anyone.

Sure, people may result to using clubs to kill if they REALLY REALLY want to, but I think most people would agree with me that there are better odds outrunning a hoodie than a bullet.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Not to mention there's no crossfire. Lots of people die from stray bullets... not so much an issue with knives and bats.




Posted by Fei-on Castor


Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: When I said what I said I meant a hypothetical situation where guns never existed.

Gangs use black market guns to begin with so obviously it'd have next to no effect.


Oh, my bad. I misunderstood you.

[quote=Vampy]Not to mention there's no crossfire. Lots of people die from stray bullets... not so much an issue with knives and bats

Agreed.



Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

If only that were a reality.




Posted by WillisGreeny

They should design a bullet that after 100 ft poofs away into dust. Criminals would want it because there's less evidence, and neighbors would want if for obvious reasons. Stray bullets no more!!!

besides, bullet forensics is becomimg more questionable as FBI agents admit to their findings in cases dealing with bullet fragments disputable.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz


Quoting Fei-on Castor: When alcohol was criminalized in the 1920's, alcohol consumption didn't decrease much at all. Initially, it did because it was hard to come by. But in a short time, people found ways to get alcohol distributed.

The same thing applies to guns. Sure, at first people would have trouble getting a gun if they wanted one, but it wouldn't take long for people to find ways to make it happen.

And those who opted not to go through the trouble of getting an illegal gun could just use another means to kill someone.



I see what you're trying to say. But this is a complicated comparison. If we had known the lasting impacts and sheer devastation left by a nuclear weapon, I think we would've gone about it in a different way. This is evident by the fact that we (and everyone else) haven't used a weapon like that since then.

Our goal with that bomb wasn't necessarily to kill Japanese civilians. So had we not used that bomb, we could've met our goal another way.



we could have done worse. Oh wait, we did: http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/fire.html

Good discussion here. However I honestly believe gang violence in relation to gun murders is relatively small. Gangs typically kill each other and nobody really cares if a gangster gets killed by a gun. Most of the murders we care and cringe about aren't gang-related. Outside of Oakland, of course. It's a relatively small number, given the big scope of things.



Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Gangs were an example. If there were no guns it'd impact a lot more than just gangs obviously. But it's actually a fairly apt example for countries like Canada. Most of our big city murders are directly gang related. Toronto sees about 90 murders a year which may not be a lot but a lot of those guns come from America and more and more of those deaths are because of crossfire with someone innocent getting killed. That's a pretty big issue that's directly related to America's lax gun control.




Posted by misogenie

I can imagine some distant future a gun that shoots bullets at slow speed that gives out a powerful deafening shrieking sound when it hit's the surface of person's body or object. People cannot be killed by what I call sonic bullets. The deafening gun's power is enough to put the strongest man in the world on the ground like a child in tears with hands cupping the ears. ;):cool:




Posted by Omni

The future would be pretty retarded if they wasted time inventing things like that.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

our drug problem comes primarily from Mexico and other Latin American countries. Rather than ***** at them about it, we ***** about our border being insecure. Blame-game isn't our style.




Posted by Lord of Spam


Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: spoilers: there would be a lot loss deaths if gangs didn't have guns.


yeah, probably. thing is, theres so many guns in america that it would be almost impossible to get rid of them all. not to mention that even if you banned the guns outright, the only people that would voluntarily comply would be people that follow laws anyway.

make owning a gun a criminal offense and only criminals will own guns



Posted by specopssv44

I support responsible gun ownership. I dont believe felons or ignorant people should own guns. I think if youre going to own a gun a weapons safty class is an affordable and should be taken by individuals without any formal firearms training. I support background checks and i wouldnt have a problem with firearm registration if i werent afraid the government would show up one day and take my weapons without viable reason.

If you dont know already firearms are expensive, and it makes me pretty angry that one day i might have to hand over 12,000 dollars worth of weapons. Additionally i feel responsible gun ownership makes neighborhoods and homes safer. I know with confidence if someone enters my house with the intent to do harm to me or my family its not gonna be a great day for them, between my 110 lb akita and my HK .45 the odds swing back in my favor.




Posted by Poco


Quoting specopssv44: I support responsible gun ownership. I dont believe felons or ignorant people should own guns. I think if youre going to own a gun a weapons safty class is an affordable and should be taken by individuals without any formal firearms training. I support background checks and i wouldnt have a problem with firearm registration if i werent afraid the government would show up one day and take my weapons without viable reason.

If you dont know already firearms are expensive, and it makes me pretty angry that one day i might have to hand over 12,000 dollars worth of weapons. Additionally i feel responsible gun ownership makes neighborhoods and homes safer. I know with confidence if someone enters my house with the intent to do harm to me or my family its not gonna be a great day for them, between my 110 lb akita and my HK .45 the odds swing back in my favor.



so what you are saying is people like you should not be allowed to own an firearm.

ban all guns destroy the military begin the glorious communist revolution.



Posted by Foppy D


Quoting Fei-on Castor:
I think the same applies to gangs. If someone wants to kill another person, they will. You can take their gun away, and they'll get a different weapon. Knives, baseball bats, whatever. They'll find a way. Now, their success may be diminished by the lack of an effective weapon, but they won't just give up on trying. And I know that you'll say that diminished success will result in less deaths, and I suppose it may deter a few would-be killers, but not many, I don't think.


That's not entirely true. I deal with a lot of people who have been charged with armed robbery or other violent, gun related crimes that are actually big pussies and feel empowered with a weapon that can kill with little force and skill required to use it. Without a gun they (the people I'm referring to) are completely harmless.



Posted by Speedfreak

In England, London especially, gangs use knives. It's not theoretical, gangs can, will and do use different weapons if guns aren't available. A lot of them even use swords like katanas. In many ways they're much more deadly, too.




Posted by WillisGreeny

That's why the military still uses them instead of guns, since they're more deadly in many ways...


Yeah I don't follow.




Posted by Speedfreak

Tanks are more deadly than firearms, this is why every single soldier is equipped with a tank.




Posted by WillisGreeny

if guns weren't so cheap in comparison, then that'd probably be true.




Posted by Speedfreak

Right.

And if aircraft carriers were as cheap as firearms, every soldier would have an aircraft carrier.




Posted by WillisGreeny

and this explains your point that swords are more deadly than guns?




Posted by Speedfreak

No, I'm ridiculing you because you're a complete moron.




Posted by Omni

When used effectively, a single stab from a knife is delivered with over 5 times the force of a bullet. A katana would be even more dangerous, obviously.




Posted by Speedfreak

WE HAVE A WINNERRRRRRRR.

My point is, Iron Koala, that not every situation calls for an aircraft carrier, a tank or a gun. There are many situations where a knife is best, which is why all soldiers get them.




Posted by WillisGreeny

Using that definition, poisioning a glass of tea can be more deadly than an atomic bomb if the task was just to kill a guy. Obviously one thing can be more deadly than another depending on the given situation.


As for your original argument, before you fenced yourself into a different point not worth arguing, you were talking about gangs using knives as substitutes to guns being ***more deadly in many ways***. Knives make terrible substitutes as ranged weapons, and quick get-aways in a car would require some running and opening of vehicles.

Excuse me for pointing out that if knives had truely more useful ways than a gun that perhaps militaries around the world would put larger emphasise on blade weildeing skills than marksmenship.




Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=Iron Koala;933699]Using that definition, poisioning a glass of tea can be more deadly than an atomic bomb if the task was just to kill a guy. Obviously one thing can be more deadly than another depending on the given situation.


As for your original argument, before you fenced yourself into a different point not worth arguing, you were talking about gangs using knives as substitutes to guns being ***more deadly in many ways***. Knives make terrible substitutes as ranged weapons, and quick get-aways in a car would require some running and opening of vehicles.

Excuse me for pointing out that if knives had truely more useful ways than a gun that perhaps militaries around the world would put larger emphasise on blade weildeing skills than marksmenship.

Again, every single military gives their soldiers knives and emphasise its importance as a general-purpose tool and a weapon. In close quarters it's a relatively well-known fact that knives are more effective than guns, even (especially) gun nuts will tell you how bad guns are when you're in punching range.. It's common sense that a knife blade will do more damage than any standard handgun. Lastly, gangs in England use knives because they know the general public doesn't have guns. They're extremely easy to come by and don't make any noise.

So yeah, knives are a lot deadlier than guns in many ways.




Posted by WillisGreeny

How exactly can something be more deadlier in more situations when the only circumstance it's deadlier pretains to being in close proximity.

I'm still going to bring my gun to the knife fight, since all I need to do is keep a distance.




Posted by Speedfreak

A gun is deadlier than a knife in many ways.

A knife is deadlier than a gun in many ways.

These two sentences are not mutually exclusive, you just don't understand English.




Posted by WillisGreeny

If all you were trying to get across was that, then I clearly overestimated what you were to argue. Oops.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

our gangs would totally kick your gangs' asses




Posted by Random

Who needs a gun when you can throw a knife? Besides.. You run faster with a knife.. Everybody knows that cmon?




Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;933934]our gangs would totally kick your gangs' asses

Totally! I'd love to watch!




Posted by The underground

i voted no for the fact you dont have a good option to vote for certian gun controll is good but being too strict is ridulous me my self am an avid gun collector and own over 70 different types of fire arms and i havent killed no one illeagly or on u.s soil but statiscly countrys with light gun control and were everyone has a firearm crime rate is low and vice versa. well hell here in the U.S it was mandatory that at the age of 18 the government issued you the standard millitary rifle and sidarm i wish they kept it like that lol so i wouldnt of had to join the army to get a couple m-16's lol but gun controll is very good to a extent.




Posted by Foppy D


Quoting WillisGreeny: How exactly can something be more deadlier in more situations when the only circumstance it's deadlier pretains to being in close proximity.

I'm still going to bring my gun to the knife fight, since all I need to do is keep a distance.


I've been doing Krav Maga for a few months now, and a knife is WAY more dangerous than a gun. Almost every self defense system backs this up. Think about it. Pretty much a gun can only hurt (without considering the chamber blast or pistol whipping someone) whoever is in a straight line of wherever the gun happens to be pointing at the time of squeezing the trigger.

A knife, on the other hand, can be very difficult to deal with. It's assumed that most knife disarming techniques will still result in some small injury or cuts to your arms or hands. Guns are a snap to rip out of someone's hand, but knives are much more tricky. Once someone pulls out a knife you are immediately in a defensive position, no matter the circumstance.



Posted by Vampiro V. Empire


Quoted post: I can imagine some distant future a gun that shoots bullets at slow speed that gives out a powerful deafening shrieking sound when it hit's the surface of person's body or object. People cannot be killed by what I call sonic bullets. The deafening gun's power is enough to put the strongest man in the world on the ground like a child in tears with hands cupping the ears.


They already have those. They're massive directional speakers that only affect you in a narrow beam and instantly brings you to your knees.


Quoted post: yeah, probably. thing is, theres so many guns in america that it would be almost impossible to get rid of them all. not to mention that even if you banned the guns outright, the only people that would voluntarily comply would be people that follow laws anyway.


that's why this is a hypothetical. It's impossible to do away with gun violence now. But ****, it would solve three countries' gun issues.



Posted by specopssv44

i still vote everyone should carry a gun everywhere.... sure, alot of people are gonna die in the first 3 weeks, but after that it should level out.... for what its worth people would probably be much more polite in public as well.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Or just be like nearly every other nation with gun registration where the issue of gun violence is hardly a concern.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

I don't know what's funnier: Foppy's facetiousness, Spec's ignorance, Vamp's Naivety, or my observational commentary and pretentiousness.




Posted by Foppy D

Me. I am funnier.




Posted by specopssv44


Quoted post: I don't know what's funnier: Foppy's facetiousness, Spec's ignorance, Vamp's Naivety, or my observational commentary and pretentiousness.


you are like, the best poster EVAR.... someone should erect a statue of you in times square so you can look at yourself and masturbate.



Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

whatever soothes your butthurt, speccy




Posted by specopssv44

i wouldnt say butthurt exactly, more like my normal state of disgruntled-ness..... maybee one day i are go to callege and not be ignarant man... on second thought, **** that. I admit sometimes i have trouble articulating myself in posts, but thats to be expected considering getting a point across to someone in my line of work consists of shouting creative profanity and the occasional *** kicking.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

You're a big fan of yourself, huh?
No biggie on the post articulation. You have your opinion, and I respect it, but by the same token, I feel it is ignorant and have the right to say such. Ignorant doesn't mean I think that you are stupid. Ignorant means that I think you have not researched or even considered the opposing side, don't know of the strong arguments against completely unhindered gun access, and therefore, are ignorant about it. cheers




Posted by Speedfreak

You know, as ridiculous as the concept of an old lady needing to know martial arts sounds, it's not really that much more ridiculous than an old lady acting rationally to a break-in, locating her Glock and shooting the s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it out of intruders.




Posted by Foppy D


Quoting Speedfreak: You know, as ridiculous as the concept of an old lady needing to know martial arts sounds, it's not really that much more ridiculous than an old lady acting rationally to a break-in, locating her Glock and shooting the s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it out of intruders.


Agreed.

Wait, what would you know? In england the cops are armed with rollerskates and whistles.



Posted by Fei-on Castor

I think this debate misses the point of why the second amendment is in the US Constitution. It's not there to protect hunters. It's not there so that people can carry them to defend against criminals. It's not there because guns are fun to shoot (and they are).

It's there because guns are powerful, lethal weapons. It's there because the government should always fear the people, to an extent. We, the people, are the employers of all politicians. We have the power to hire and fire them.

We carry guns to remind them that if they try to keep their jobs, even after we tell them to go, we can kill them. Plain and simple. If they fail to do their jobs well, and then fail to resign from their jobs to make it available for someone better, we can force them out.

And if the government as a whole tries to infringe upon the rights expressed in the first amendment, we can use the right in the second amendment to defend those in the first.

There's a reason why the freedoms of speech, religion, petition, press and assembly are the first expressed in the Bill of Rights. And there's a reason why the right to bear arms and form militias is the second, right behind it.




Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Chances are if it comes down to an uprising against the government people are going to resort to guns and weapons whether the constitution deems it legal or not.

I mean, really, what, they're going to say "****, that's right we aren't allowed to carry guns. forget the plan, guys..."? no.




Posted by Fei-on Castor


Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: Chances are if it comes down to an uprising against the government people are going to resort to guns and weapons whether the constitution deems it legal or not.

I mean, really, what, they're going to say "****, that's right we aren't allowed to carry guns. forget the plan, guys..."? no.


No, it's largely symbolic. It reminds elected officials that we are in power. When an oppressed people tries to overthrow their oppressor, they struggle for a long time trying to get the resources and power to do so. The rebels will usually have to storm a weapons cache that belongs to the oppressor. Like the French storming the Bastille, and others. If the peasantry of France would've been well armed the whole time, the monarchy would probably have never taken advantage of them the way they did. But because the people were powerless to do anything, they were easy to abuse.

Yes, if the federal government of the US were to entirely ban the ownership of firearms for civilians, the people would get guns one way or another and do something about it. But that's much less likely to happen if the people already have a bunch of guns.

But with time, the notion of owning guns indicating power has diminished. Sure, I may have a pile of guns in my house. But if the US Military was coming for me, my guns would do little. They have things better than guns, things which we are not allowed to own. Even a simple RPG would remove just about any gun-wielding threat. That's not to mention the vast arsenal at the disposal of the US Armed Forces.

So we'd probably have to use our guns to storm the Bastille, so to speak. Then, armed with better technology, we'd proceed.

But without some form of lethal force like guns, we'd never be able to storm our proverbial Bastille. Yes, there are ways to illegally obtain guns even now, and it's not too difficult, actually. But if we already have them, it's one step out of the way, should the conditions for revolution arrive.



Posted by Vampiro V. Empire

Pretty much completely disagree with your thinking. Don't think that's it at all.




Posted by Fei-on Castor


Quoting Vampiro V. Empire: Pretty much completely disagree with your thinking. Don't think that's it at all.


Fair enough. At least you're not calling me an idiot for thinking the way I do.

It's okay to disagree. In fact, it's quite healthy. Things would be boring if everyone all thought the same way.



Posted by Bj Blaskowitz


Quoting Fei-on Castor: I think this debate misses the point of why the second amendment is in the US Constitution. It's not there to protect hunters. It's not there so that people can carry them to defend against criminals. It's not there because guns are fun to shoot (and they are).

It's there because guns are powerful, lethal weapons. It's there because the government should always fear the people, to an extent. We, the people, are the employers of all politicians. We have the power to hire and fire them.

We carry guns to remind them that if they try to keep their jobs, even after we tell them to go, we can kill them. Plain and simple. If they fail to do their jobs well, and then fail to resign from their jobs to make it available for someone better, we can force them out.

And if the government as a whole tries to infringe upon the rights expressed in the first amendment, we can use the right in the second amendment to defend those in the first.

There's a reason why the freedoms of speech, religion, petition, press and assembly are the first expressed in the Bill of Rights. And there's a reason why the right to bear arms and form militias is the second, right behind it.


That is entirely and completely the entirely wrong idea. Entirely wrong. Completely wrong. Did you make that up? You guys flaunt the 2nd amendment, but not in its entirety. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to maintain a militia. The militia is now the national guard and standing army. There is no need for unbridled gun ownership. Get realistic. Quit being silly. Guns did not have the killing capacity then like they do now. The situation has changed entirely. The Constitutional is a framework. It can be changed and amended (hence amendments post bill of rights). People are so gung-ho about the constitution and reading literally, from a textualist viewpoint, and then ignore the fact that the constitution is ever changing (I don't hear those same old-school libertarians, who pretend that they're the closest thing to the ideal of the Framers, [which isn't even something brag-worthy, given how out of touch it makes them with a global society, but I digress] supporting complete isolationism in trade, taking away womens' suffrage, re-instituting slavery, etc) and was intended to be changed.

The 2nd Amendment's original intent was to maintain a militia. Period. Quit fabricating other reasons. And who cares what the original intent was? Be pragmatic and realize that, as it was changed then, it can be changed now, so quit pretending like regulation of gun ownership is such a horrible, un-american thing. Smarter people than you and I have argued it, and if it wasn't for half-wit, textualist conservative ideology by that dimwit Antonin Scalia, there would be some reasonable limitations to gun ownership in the capital and possibly in the remainder of the country. Times change. Get the hell out of the 18th century. *** libertarians **** me off.



Posted by specopssv44

There is a serious difference between a militia and the "standing army" or national guard (which is basically a reserve to augment the Army or to aid the state in emergencies)

A militia is a force of ordinary citizens who are prepared to serve as emergency law enforcement,or a paramilitary unit during times of crisis without pay, salary of fixed terms of service. The national guard are trained, and paid uniformed DoD employees, NOT a militia. Additionally, all service-members, weather active, reserve or national guard are sworn to follow the orders of the commander in chief.

I agree with fei-on, a militia exists to protect the people when the government has failed.


Quoted post: Guns did not have the killing capacity then like they do now. The situation has changed entirely.

Youre right, should we have to defend ourselves against the government we could be in serious trouble. Advances in body armor and the aerospace industry have made our military much more lethal. A band of poorly trained people armed with firearms only stands no chance in open battle, resorting to gurella warfare and roadside bombs. but if they let us buy stinger rockets and high explosives we could even the playing field if we had to, i think youre onto something Bj!



Posted by WillisGreeny

[quote=specopssv44;940600]There is a serious difference between a militia and the "standing army" or national guard

I highly doubt Bj's point is at all jepordized by this clarification...

Think late 1700's America where there ISN'T a national guard. There's only two choices: militia, or the standing army. The purpouses of the militia then were to function as how the national guard function today in the event of a homeland emergency. Regular citizens needed to be allowed guns so that forming militias wouldn't be constrained, and be cost effective. If the country could have aforded an emergency standing army like the national guard at its birth, the 2nd amendment probably be non-existant.

But- like whatelse Bj said- whatever the constituion had "meant" to say is stupid **** to argue over considering the constitution is meant to be changed for the better in the future regardless of what it currently says. It's a rule book to a game that's far from perfect, yet, a **** load better than other rule books out there. It shouldn't be considered a stone tablet, but more as a dry eraser board.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

the militia evolved into the standing army. The state national guard units are the former state militias. I figured you'd know this, spec.

I don't give two squirts of sh*t what the difference is between a "militia" and the standing armies now. I'm smart enough to make the connection between 1797 "militia" and 2009 "army."

Funny thing is, I see here that Article I, Section 8, paragraph 15 of that there US Constitution, which I doubt you have read, says: "[Congress shall have the power] to provide for calling forth the Militia (note it's capitalized, which denotes a formal militia, not a band of idiots with guns yelling 'hell yeah') to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions." So it would seem contradictory to argue, constitutionally, that a militia was designed for the purpose of insurrection. Additionally, if you are saying "when the government has failed," you are trying WAY too hard to reach an ends where there is none yet. I feel the government is doing fine. I, being a pragmatist, feel this argument is stupid, as I don't think "intent" is the full-blown argument-settler when it comes to constitutional interpretation, for the reasons I stated previously. But no matter how you look at it. . . well you guys who flaunt the 2nd amendment don't know d*ck about the constitution. You just regurgitate crap you hear on Rush or something.

[quote=specopssv44]Youre right, should we have to defend ourselves against the government we could be in serious trouble. Advances in body armor and the aerospace industry have made our military much more lethal. A band of poorly trained people armed with firearms only stands no chance in open battle, resorting to gurella warfare and roadside bombs. but if they let us buy stinger rockets and high explosives we could even the playing field if we had to, i think youre onto something Bj! while I know you're joking, this proves my next argument: complete unhindered control of arms is stupid, given the changes in weaponry since the drafting of the constitution. It would be silly for me to be allowed to possess automatic weapons, nuclear warheads, dirty bombs, and tanks in my back yard, so quit pretending that there isn't already a "common sense" leash around the 2nd amendment.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

the militia evolved into the standing army. The state national guard units are the former state militias. I figured you'd know this, spec.

I don't give two squirts of sh*t what the difference is between a "militia" and the standing armies now. I'm smart enough to make the connection between 1797 "militia" and 2009 "army."

Funny thing is, I see here that Article I, Section 8, paragraph 15 of that there US Constitution, which I doubt you have read, says: "[Congress shall have the power] to provide for calling forth the Militia (note it's capitalized, which denotes a formal militia, not a band of idiots with guns yelling 'hell yeah') to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions." So it would seem contradictory to argue, constitutionally, that a militia was designed for the purpose of insurrection. Additionally, if you are saying "when the government has failed," you are trying WAY too hard to reach an ends where there is none yet. I feel the government is doing fine. I, being a pragmatist, feel this argument is stupid, as I don't think "intent" is the full-blown argument-settler when it comes to constitutional interpretation, for the reasons I stated previously. But no matter how you look at it. . . well you guys who flaunt the 2nd amendment don't know d*ck about the constitution. You just regurgitate crap you hear on Rush or something.

[quote=specopssv44]Youre right, should we have to defend ourselves against the government we could be in serious trouble. Advances in body armor and the aerospace industry have made our military much more lethal. A band of poorly trained people armed with firearms only stands no chance in open battle, resorting to gurella warfare and roadside bombs. but if they let us buy stinger rockets and high explosives we could even the playing field if we had to, i think youre onto something Bj! while I know you're joking, this proves my next argument: complete unhindered control of arms is stupid, given the changes in weaponry since the drafting of the constitution. It would be silly for me to be allowed to possess automatic weapons, nuclear warheads, dirty bombs, and tanks in my back yard, so quit pretending that there isn't already a "common sense" leash around the 2nd amendment.




Posted by Foppy D

We'll all be happy that we have our guns when the chinese and/or russians invade US soil and we can fight back without looking to our army.

That and aliens. Hopefully aliens that don't have some kind of force field around them.




Posted by Speedfreak

So wait, BJ is for gun control?




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

some gun control. I don't like the laxed gun regulations that exist now, but I don't want sane, law-abiding Americans to lose their right to carry guns ALL entirely.




Posted by S

Zombies are a good reason for guns too.

In all seriousness though, I'm going to have to agree with Fei-on and Spec here. A Democracy should fear its own people, because sans a massive outside influence, nothing but us is going to make our government change, and we all know too well how it doesn't like to change.

And though you may like how our government is run BJ, I have to say I have some large complaints. Not something a bloody revolution is going to fix the most effectively, but if some tipping point is eventually tripped, that may be a necessity some day. And yes, we as people of said Democracy need to be able to show that we are the ones in charge, not the government, and not their military.

But that's not to say I don't agree with gun control either. I just don't agree with, like yourself, removing the right of law-abiding, sane, citizens to carry arms... and pretty much only for the reasons listed above. I earnestly believe that the power is simply unneeded in near all aspects of life, even self defense, but it is an equalizer in the fact that every woman, man, neanderthal can carry, and be taken down, by a gun.




Posted by Lord of Spam

just so you guys know, the argument of keeping guns to fight our own forces is pretty much bs. There would be few people that are good enough shots to be effective, and the total lack of tech on citizens parts is just too great to beat the military.

You'd be squashed :cookie:




Posted by S

Yet we still continue to lose men in butt-****-egypt-Iraq.




Posted by Speedfreak

Yeah, the US military would have a tough time fighting off 250 million p[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]ssed off Americans if a handful of mountain cave-dwellers prove to be difficult.

Even Brits can own guns, anyway.




Posted by WillisGreeny

I don't think we have enough caves for 250 million people-




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz


Quoting Fei-on Castor: I think this debate misses the point of why the second amendment is in the US Constitution. It's not there to protect hunters. It's not there so that people can carry them to defend against criminals. It's not there because guns are fun to shoot (and they are).

It's there because guns are powerful, lethal weapons. It's there because the government should always fear the people, to an extent. We, the people, are the employers of all politicians. We have the power to hire and fire them.

We carry guns to remind them that if they try to keep their jobs, even after we tell them to go, we can kill them. Plain and simple. If they fail to do their jobs well, and then fail to resign from their jobs to make it available for someone better, we can force them out.

And if the government as a whole tries to infringe upon the rights expressed in the first amendment, we can use the right in the second amendment to defend those in the first.

There's a reason why the freedoms of speech, religion, petition, press and assembly are the first expressed in the Bill of Rights. And there's a reason why the right to bear arms and form militias is the second, right behind it.


the reason that the bill of rights is in the constitution, period, is because certain states demanded that it be in there before they (the states) signed the constitution. This advances even further proof that the states wanted their right to bear arms in support of their respective militias. It wasn't even granted by the federal government. It was put in there as a compromise.



Posted by Poco

hey specops what do you think about having a black president? (remember you can only use 1 racial slur in your reply)




Posted by Foppy D


Quoting Speedfreak: Yeah, the US military would have a tough time fighting off 250 million p[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]ssed off Americans if a handful of mountain cave-dwellers prove to be difficult.

Even Brits can own guns, anyway.


You don't really know how military operations work...

Anything infantry or armored can't handle they just blow up using bombs/air support.



Posted by S

Bombing US soil doesn't sound like the most brilliant of ideas in a civil war.




Posted by Lord of Spam

as if there were a smart way to go about civil war?




Posted by Liecham

I think all law abiding citizens should have the right to own guns. I own some, and work around them.




Posted by Poco

i love the american "rebels". it's usually a bunch of dumbass rednecks and homeschooled kids thinking they can take on a trained and disciplined army. it'd be hilarious to watch the slaughter.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

[QUOTE=S




Posted by Foppy D


Quoting Lord of Spam: as if there were a smart way to go about civil war?


Yeah they could have like a geometry bee or something