Gun Control in the US

[AGX-17]

Well, if they disarm the military, there's no method by which to enforce the public will on the world sphere. So the 9/11 attacks? Just gonna have to suck it up biatch because you can't "Hunt em down" if you don't have the weapons to remove any power base found. WW2? You're screwed. Stalin? You're screwed even more.

Stalin? USA now has more people in its stuffed prisons, 6 million, than were stuck in Stalin’s gulag prison system.

http://www.calwatchd...-stalins-gulag/

How armed military/police can protect you against own government?

 

The police and military are an arm of the government. In the US, their ultimate purpose is to protect the wealthy and powerful by way of prioritizing the protection of the property rights of those who own property from those who do not. The US prison population is a direct result of the ignorance/stupidity of Americans in believing the conservative spiel that more and harsher penalties is a successful tactic for reducing crime rates, rather than preventing crime by addressing the root causes (poverty, disenfranchisement, poor schools and lingering institutionalized racism, to name a few.) Anyone who is not delusional would be hard-pressed to name a police force in America that isn't made up primarily of white men, that does not exhibit racist tendencies toward african-americans (especially) and hispanics.

 

Stalin, one of greatest mass murderers of the 20 century. He ccommitted horrific crimes against his own people. He was responsible for the death of millions.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...-of-stalin.html

http://en.wikipedia....;s_Great_Terror

http://rt.com/politi...-purge-victims/

 

I notice you are very good at reminding us "Westlings" about our corrupted governments and institutions but how does it feel to have one of the worst mass murderers in history as someone who is still celebrated in your country. Do they teach you about the insanity that was Stalin in your schools?

Stalin make counterrevolution, exterminate 1 million Bolsheviks and rule as Tsar, but capitalists hate him not because this ( They even awarded him by Men of Year for this )

Western peoples hate him so much after WW2, when Soviets defeat European crusaders, and wipe out they from East Europe. Your "millions killed by Stalin" its just anti-Soviet propaganda without proofs. USSR population growth approved this.

Anyway you not answer simple questions - How armed police can protect American peoples from own "Stalin". Even now in USA imprisoned more peoples than in Stalin's Gulag, and it's even only beginning ( Stalin not began repressions before establishing gun control in 1929).

 

Time's "Man of the Year" isn't an endorsement of person, policy or action (at least it wasn't prior to the modern era of political correctness,) it was an ostensibly objective declaration of who was the most influential person that year. American politics and majority public opinion was capitalist/anti-communist at the time. Hitler was named Man of the Year, too, that wasn't an endorsement of his policies and actions. People like Mohandas Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. were also named Man of the Year. It was/"is" about influence and impact, not some kind of national American poll of who's America's favorite person in the world. It's the editors of Time and contributing scholars/analysts who determined Stalin should be Man of the Year, not "the American people" at large.

 

Though that's not the case anymore (2001 they named Rudy Guliani instead of Osama bin Laden, when the truth of who was more influential that year is obvious to everyone.)

 

Not to mention the fact that you stated he "killed 1 million Bolsheviks" while simultaneously saying "Your 'millions killed by Stalin' its just anti-Soviet propaganda without proofs."

 

Cue the indignant, canned ignorant Russian Nationalist response about how Russia is morally, genetically, racially, politically superior, etc. And how Russia totally didn't lose that war in Afghanistan and the Soviet Union didn't collapse from within, it was a western CIA coup to destroy Paradise on Earth out of spite and envy despite the West's inferior intelligence services.

 

I would not be wrong in assuming you were born after the fall of the Soviet Union, no?

Edited January 13, 2013 by AGX-17

[Zoraptor]

Your "millions killed by Stalin" its just anti-Soviet propaganda without proofs. USSR population growth approved this.

NKVD records are around a million for people directly killed by Stalin's orders. There isn't any doubt he was a spectacularly unpleasant guy with or without western or Krushchev era soviet revisionism, and with or without things like the 30s famines.

 

Having said that he was better than Hitler- for the very little that is worth- he/ the USSR was by far the most important in the defeat of Hitler and he does tend to get the blame for any and everything from the west, including attempts to make him worse than Hitler by blaming him for all the soviet war dead; as if the stuff he did do wasn't bad enough. But there probably is a certain amount of westerners 'wanting' him to be the worst as that makes it easier when a bunch of eminently western institutions- Germany, the Catholic Church etc- were responsible for or complicit in the 'worst' stuff.

 

Most people don't really care about the millions in US jails because they're criminals- rather than political prisoners or similar- who have gone through the justice system and for most people that means that they broke the law and deserve punishment, though things like legalising cannabis suggests that at least one of the main contributors to the prison population ("War on Drugs") doesn't quite hold the cachet it once did. Excepting those incarcerated for direct guncrime it's a peripheral issue to gun control anyway.

[obyknven]

Not to mention the fact that you stated he "killed 1 million Bolsheviks" while simultaneously saying "Your 'millions killed by Stalin' its just anti-Soviet propaganda without proofs."

 

Cue the indignant, canned ignorant Russian Nationalist response about how Russia is morally, genetically, racially, politically superior, etc. And how Russia totally didn't lose that war in Afghanistan and the Soviet Union didn't collapse from within, it was a western CIA coup to destroy Paradise on Earth out of spite and envy despite the West's inferior intelligence services.

 

I would not be wrong in assuming you were born after the fall of the Soviet Union, no?

 

Millions it's mean more than 1 million. Most of them are Bolsheviks, because main target of repressions is communistic party. But western propaganda mumbling about 20 millions exterminated - it's total lie ( party in 1933 have only 3,5 million members ). Of course capitalists don't worry about this repression, because they kill much more communists by own hands. I understand when communists blame Stalin for repressions, but when capitalists do this too - it's looks like hypocrisy. At least capitalists have real reason to hate, Stalin break they colonial plans ( Generalplan "OST" http://www.worldfutu.../gpoarticle.htm ), and establish Soviet republics in East Europe.

 

P.S. I born before Soviet Union dissolving.

[obyknven]

Of course Stalin is bad guy, but not too bad as western propaganda shoving. These information from anti-Stalinist investigators, who use real documents, these numbers are right.

http://translate.goo...ary/id_376.html

http://translate.goo...ry/id_1882.html

http://translate.goo...ary/id_937.html

There makes comparison between USA and scary Stalin's USSR.

http://www.davidicke...3&postcount=210

http://www.davidicke...6&postcount=211

Strange figures isn’t it? The country which volunteered to be the main defender of the human rights and democracy has such amount of inmates in quite peaceful times (comparing to the WW and pre-WW periods). And it should be noted that totalitarian and communistic China who has constantly been accused by US in human rights violation has lower number of inmates: 1.5 millions in China against 2.3 millions in US (not to mention that the population of China is about 1.3 billion and the US population is approx. 300 millions). And nobody cries on every corner that there are repressions in the USA. Nobody cries that all these 2.3 millions are innocent «victims of the regime», every American will tell you that they all are criminals who deserved to be imprisoned. And of course unlike in the USA, in the Stalin’s USSR all imprisoned were innocent; every democrat knows it for certain. The USSR in fact didn’t have any criminals and the prisons were empty, it was kind of a Disneyland, a land of peaceful hippies with flowers in their hairs and therefore bloody Stalin got bored and decided to fill up the prisons with the innocent citizens, since the criminals were absent.

It's just for for better understanding how dangerous situations in USA now.

 

 

Turkey established gun control in 1911.

From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.

 

The USSR established gun control in 1929.

From 1929 to 1953, ~ 1 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.

 

Germany established gun control in 1938.

From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other mongrelized peoples" unable to defend themselves from their government, were exterminated.

 

China established gun control in 1935.

From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated by their own government.

 

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.

From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.

 

Uganda established gun control in 1970.

From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.

 

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.

From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.

 

Does anybody see a pattern here?

[Meshugger]

The police and military are an arm of the government. In the US, their ultimate purpose is to protect the wealthy and powerful by way of prioritizing the protection of the property rights of those who own property from those who do not. The US prison population is a direct result of the ignorance/stupidity of Americans in believing the conservative spiel that more and harsher penalties is a successful tactic for reducing crime rates, rather than preventing crime by addressing the root causes (poverty, disenfranchisement, poor schools and lingering institutionalized racism, to name a few.) Anyone who is not delusional would be hard-pressed to name a police force in America that isn't made up primarily of white men, that does not exhibit racist tendencies toward african-americans (especially) and hispanics.

 

What do cops have against minorities? Don't they usually keep to themselves anyway. Or is it an american thing?

[Calax]

The police and military are an arm of the government. In the US, their ultimate purpose is to protect the wealthy and powerful by way of prioritizing the protection of the property rights of those who own property from those who do not. The US prison population is a direct result of the ignorance/stupidity of Americans in believing the conservative spiel that more and harsher penalties is a successful tactic for reducing crime rates, rather than preventing crime by addressing the root causes (poverty, disenfranchisement, poor schools and lingering institutionalized racism, to name a few.) Anyone who is not delusional would be hard-pressed to name a police force in America that isn't made up primarily of white men, that does not exhibit racist tendencies toward african-americans (especially) and hispanics.

 

What do cops have against minorities? Don't they usually keep to themselves anyway. Or is it an american thing?

Part of it's a hold over from the 70's, where the cops were a tool used to keep the minorities "in line". Part of it is also that the African American minority at least is fearful of the police because of the history of violence against them (including the Rodney King beating in the 90's). They're slowly adding more minorities to the police forces, but for the majority of police departments, the officers are white.

[Calax]

Can somebody please explain to me how the ATF is a "corrupt organization" when they haven't had an increase in personell since the 1970's and they haven't been able to keep a registry of all transactions involving guns, or to enforce the federal laws upon gun sellers since 2006ish?

 

Apparently 57% of all guns used in illegal activites/illegally owned can be traced back to 1% of gun sellers... but the ATF can't shut down or get rough with those sellers because they can't actually keep any sort of records of anything. AND the bearau doesn't even have a full director because the director has to be confirmed by congress.

 

Makes me wonder if Obama could shut it down and re-open it under another name, to unrestrict them for enforcement purposes.

[alanschu]

I dislike the NRA's commercial.

 

That is all.

[Valsuelm]

 

The issues of speech specifically encountered in the 1st amendment can actually be one of the more complicated ones, as it invokes the 14th amendment often as well, an imperfect and contradictory amendment to put it nicely as well as some of the legal source for one of the biggest shams in our modern world: the national debt.

You lost me. How does this have to do with anything.

 

I don't think I ever had you.

 

As I previously mentioned, you would do well to actually read the Constitution, as well as get a clue as to what the legal and philosophical issues that have arisen out of it's interpretation, practice, and real life applicability on everyone is. If you did that, you'd know exactly what this has to do with anything.

 

Because I'm pretty sure based on your continuing ignorance of things myself and others in this thread have posted (some of the answers to your ATF question were already given by one of the folks who called it corrupt, and I do recommend looking into what he wrote) I'll give you a big hint:

 

One who has a clue (is actually familiar with the Constitution) can rarely can mention the First Amendment without bringing up the Fourteenth in regards to the first's applicability anywhere other than on the Federal Government because of how the First was written and it's original purpose.

 

The First Amendment was meant to only apply to the Federal Government. There purposefully were not limitations placed on the States or local governments in regards to making saying some things a crime. One of the things the Fourteenth Amendment does by many interpretations of it (it's a horribly worded amendment) is apply the First Amendment to the State and local governments. Anyone who actually takes the time to read and think about could come to this conclusion, and if they bothered to learn how the First Amendment is ever argued in court they'd know this. It's quite clear that you don't bother to learn.

 

In contrast. The second amendment is much more limiting than the first on what government can do. '...shall not be infringed' is different than 'Congress shall make no law...'.

 

Note that I did not respond to you earlier than now, as frankly I've come to the realization that arguing with you is near pointless as you refuse to educate yourself. The answers to most of the questions you bring up have already been answered in the thread, and you'd find answers to them and more if you actually did some serious homework. I don't mind the person who really just doesn't know that much, I do mind the person who's been pointed again and again in the direction he/she can come to know but refuses to go there. As I said earlier: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. You've been standing over a pool of water that myself and others have lead you to but apparently don't realize you need it for awhile in this thread now.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Valsuelm

[Calax]

So you're saying that the 1st amendement has been somehow inextricably linked to a "reconstruction" amendment because of the fact that it puts into law what had already been practice for anglo-americans at the time (that white people were citizens simply because they were born here, while african americans weren't because they were slaves)? And this is because of the current immigration issues to america?

 

As to infringement, we've gone over this. Your "rights to bare arms" are technically already infringed and have been since things such as bazookas and flamethrowers were not allowed to be used in civilian hands becuase of just how dangerous they were. They are technically still "arms" in the terms of what a "well regulated militia" would end up having in a military context. Although I am unsure of just how much given that militias in the 1700's didn't exactly have cannons carting around with them. Of course, then you can go back to Militia. With Militia, according to the American Heritage Dictionary being "an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers or the whole body of physically fit citizens eligible by law for military service to call for in times of emergancy."

 

And to steal wiki's list (shut up gromnir)

 

 

 

Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.^[3]

• The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
  • A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
  •  
  • A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
  •  
•  
• A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
•  
• An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
•  
• The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
•  
• In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.^{[citation needed]}
•  
• A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,^[4] often politicized.

   

 

And while you may declare that you and your buds from down the street should be considered a militia, you don't have a clear chain of command, and wouldn't come, as a militia, to the military in a time of emergency. You'd instead just be flat out drafted and turned into a proper military soldier.

 

 

Sure "well regulated" may have changed it's meaning over the histories, but so has "militia". In the times of the founders, a Militia was basically the current US Army Reserve/US National Guard. You show up for a few weeks a year to sort out drills and practice shooting, as well as retain a military commission based on that service (Daniel Boone, for example, was a Colonel in the Kentucky Militia). No neighborhood watch group, or gun club, or whatever you want to say, can claim that their militia will have carry over into the US military in terms of rank.

 

Also, from the same guys who made the constitution you have the First and Second Militia Act(s) of 1792, The first simply saying that the President could call up the militias to active service, the second saying

 

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

 

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

 

So, the 2nd amendment basically says that the soldiers in the Reserve or National Guard have a non-infringed right to bare arms, but the average Joe doesn't.

 

And the Militia act of 1903 established the National Guard to replace the militias constructed under this and previous systems.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Calax

[Luridis]

Being a Libertarian, it saddens me to see so many people today who are willing to sit back and allow our rights to be eroded further and further. These same people don't realize that we're already bordering on a police state. Democrats and Republicans continue to squabble about the issues that were specifically chosen to divide the people. Look at the last few elections, nearly 50/50 division of the people every time. Divide et Impera

 

Here are some facts for you...

 

The semi-automatic handgun is the weapon of choice for most mass shootings since 1999. Assault rifles are not machine guns, those have been illegal forever, without federal permit. Most of the weapons they're talking about banning are nothing more than semi-automatic hunting rifles. So, if handguns are used more often, and assault rifles aren't machine guns, why are we even discussing them? Because the usefulness of a handgun is far less than a rifle in the face of a military occupation. (Read: Executive order of martial law.)

 

Why was this whole thing really brought up? Oh, I dunno... To distract people from the fact that our nation is bankrupt and they still haven't fixed it? The 2011 fiscal year closed with the end of 2012. Did you know our nation's debit has exceeded it's income? In fact, it's the highest GDP-debit ratio we have ever had.

 

2011 US Debit: 15.222 Trillion Dollars
2011 GDP (Value Produced): 14.911 Trillion Dollars
Ratio: 100.3%

 

You have heard the quote by now I am sure, about trading liberty for security. Well, I hope I'm dead wrong about what's coming... I really do. But if it does, everyone is going to learn real fast what that safer feeling and petty squabbling have cost them. No, I'm not talking about Sept. 11th conspiracies. I'm talking about the evolution of corporate monetary influence that the people have allowed themselves to be distracted from, time and again. (Remember campaign finance reform? right... where's the ban on that.)

 

This is a scene from a movie made in the 1980's and, the rotten truth of it is, it's far more fact than fiction.

 

Edited January 31, 2013 by Luridis

[Luridis]

So you're saying that the 1st amendement has been somehow inextricably linked to a "reconstruction" amendment because of the fact that it puts into law what had already been practice for anglo-americans at the time (that white people were citizens simply because they were born here, while african americans weren't because they were slaves)? And this is because of the current immigration issues to america?

 

As to infringement, we've gone over this. Your "rights to bare arms" are technically already infringed and have been since things such as bazookas and flamethrowers were not allowed to be used in civilian hands becuase of just how dangerous they were. They are technically still "arms" in the terms of what a "well regulated militia" would end up having in a military context. Although I am unsure of just how much given that militias in the 1700's didn't exactly have cannons carting around with them. Of course, then you can go back to Militia. With Militia, according to the American Heritage Dictionary being "an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers or the whole body of physically fit citizens eligible by law for military service to call for in times of emergancy."

 

And to steal wiki's list (shut up gromnir)

 

 

 

Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.^[3]

• The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
  • A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
  •  
  • A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
  •  

•  
• A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
•  
• An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
•  
• The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
•  
• In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.^{[citation needed]}
•  
• A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,^[4] often politicized.

   

 

And while you may declare that you and your buds from down the street should be considered a militia, you don't have a clear chain of command, and wouldn't come, as a militia, to the military in a time of emergency. You'd instead just be flat out drafted and turned into a proper military soldier.

 

 

Sure "well regulated" may have changed it's meaning over the histories, but so has "militia". In the times of the founders, a Militia was basically the current US Army Reserve/US National Guard. You show up for a few weeks a year to sort out drills and practice shooting, as well as retain a military commission based on that service (Daniel Boone, for example, was a Colonel in the Kentucky Militia). No neighborhood watch group, or gun club, or whatever you want to say, can claim that their militia will have carry over into the US military in terms of rank.

 

Also, from the same guys who made the constitution you have the First and Second Militia Act(s) of 1792, The first simply saying that the President could call up the militias to active service, the second saying

 

>

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

 

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

 

So, the 2nd amendment basically says that the soldiers in the Reserve or National Guard have a non-infringed right to bare arms, but the average Joe doesn't.

 

And the Militia act of 1903 established the National Guard to replace the militias constructed under this and previous systems.

 

Arrrgh... I hate the way quote works now, even with the flipping of the BBCode switch it's still more work.

 

I've seen your argument before and there have been plenty of law professors to rebut it. But at the end of the day, there's no point in arguing about it... The murders are only going to get more frequent because men do not think clearly when under heavy emotional stress, like the stress brought on by a system designed to bleed them dry and keep them impoverished. What am I saying? The right to bear arms is irreverent when the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is so downtrodden.

[alanschu]

 

Here are some facts for you...

 The semi-automatic handgun is the weapon of choice for most mass shootings since 1999. Assault rifles are not machine guns, those have been illegal forever, without federal permit. Most of the weapons they're talking about banning are nothing more than semi-automatic hunting rifles. So, if handguns are used more often, and assault rifles aren't machine guns, why are we even discussing them? Because the usefulness of a handgun is far less than a rifle in the face of a military occupation.

 

Try not to preface an opinion with the term fact.

 

Handguns get their share of ire too.  If you're curious why they are talking about the semi-automatic, large magazine rifles, it's probably because they have the unfortunate distinction of being used in the mass shootings recently.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

So you're saying that the 1st amendement has been somehow inextricably linked to a "reconstruction" amendment because of the fact that it puts into law what had already been practice for anglo-americans at the time (that white people were citizens simply because they were born here, while african americans weren't because they were slaves)? And this is because of the current immigration issues to america? As to infringement, we've gone over this. Your "rights to bare arms" are technically already infringed and have been since things such as bazookas and flamethrowers were not allowed to be used in civilian hands becuase of just how dangerous they were. They are technically still "arms" in the terms of what a "well regulated militia" would end up having in a military context. Although I am unsure of just how much given that militias in the 1700's didn't exactly have cannons carting around with them. Of course, then you can go back to Militia. With Militia, according to the American Heritage Dictionary being "an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers or the whole body of physically fit citizens eligible by law for military service to call for in times of emergancy." And to steal wiki's list (shut up gromnir)  

 Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.^[3]

• The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
  • A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
  •  
  • A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
  •  
•  
• A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
•  
• An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
•  
• The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
•  
• In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.^{[citation needed]}
•  
• A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,^[4] often politicized.

   

 And while you may declare that you and your buds from down the street should be considered a militia, you don't have a clear chain of command, and wouldn't come, as a militia, to the military in a time of emergency. You'd instead just be flat out drafted and turned into a proper military soldier.  Sure "well regulated" may have changed it's meaning over the histories, but so has "militia". In the times of the founders, a Militia was basically the current US Army Reserve/US National Guard. You show up for a few weeks a year to sort out drills and practice shooting, as well as retain a military commission based on that service (Daniel Boone, for example, was a Colonel in the Kentucky Militia). No neighborhood watch group, or gun club, or whatever you want to say, can claim that their militia will have carry over into the US military in terms of rank. Also, from the same guys who made the constitution you have the First and Second Militia Act(s) of 1792, The first simply saying that the President could call up the militias to active service, the second saying 

>I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

 http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm So, the 2nd amendment basically says that the soldiers in the Reserve or National Guard have a non-infringed right to bare arms, but the average Joe doesn't. And the Militia act of 1903 established the National Guard to replace the militias constructed under this and previous systems.

 Arrrgh... I hate the way quote works now, even with the flipping of the BBCode switch it's still more work. I've seen your argument before and there have been plenty of law professors to rebut it. But at the end of the day, there's no point in arguing about it... The murders are only going to get more frequent because men do not think clearly when under heavy emotional stress, like the stress brought on by a system designed to bleed them dry and keep them impoverished. What am I saying? The right to bear arms is irreverent when the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is so downtrodden.

There have also been plenty of law professors to support his arguments. When reading the US constitution you have to take in to account that at the time it was written, there was no universally accepted rule on how to use commas correctly.

[Luridis]

 

Here are some facts for you...

 

 The semi-automatic handgun is the weapon of choice for most mass shootings since 1999. Assault rifles are not machine guns, those have been illegal forever, without federal permit. Most of the weapons they're talking about banning are nothing more than semi-automatic hunting rifles. So, if handguns are used more often, and assault rifles aren't machine guns, why are we even discussing them? Because the usefulness of a handgun is far less than a rifle in the face of a military occupation.

 

Try not to preface an opinion with the term fact.

 

Handguns get their share of ire too.  If you're curious why they are talking about the semi-automatic, large magazine rifles, it's probably because they have the unfortunate distinction of being used in the mass shootings recently.

 

I mistakenly made that plural... but if you go read that report, the fact is that handguns were used more often in mass shootings, according to the government's own study.

[Luridis]

There have also been plenty of law professors to support his arguments. When reading the US constitution you have to take in to account that at the time it was written, there was no universally accepted rule on how to use commas correctly.

And if people weren't so programmed to be so self-centered, to believe in such antisocial ideologies as "he who dies with the most toys wins" guns would be far less an issue. Again, go read that report, and the bit about "financial stress".

 

You might be thinking, "Oh, come on! People aren't that greedy." No?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-28/libor-lies-revealed-in-rigging-of-300-trillion-benchmark.html

 

BTW: I'm not advocating socialism... I'm advocating a true free market, something we had only for a short time in this country. Also, sane regulation of that market. "You want to off-shore 10,000 jobs to a country where the workers are paid at a 1/10 ratio because they allow abhorrent labor practices, tariff time." "You want to offshore work to a country with a state paid higher education, while Americans are paying $100-200 a textbook, tariff time."

Edited January 31, 2013 by Luridis

[mkreku]

When a right wing nut rambles about "guns don't kill people, people kill people", does it only apply to guns? Or does the same rules apply to hand grenades? Or rocket launchers? Or nuclear missiles? Or is it just guns?

 

Maybe only guns are innocent, lifeless objects, while the other weapons are self aware entities with a mean streak. 

[Luridis]

When a right wing nut rambles about "guns don't kill people, people kill people", does it only apply to guns? Or does the same rules apply to hand grenades? Or rocket launchers? Or nuclear missiles? Or is it just guns?

 

Maybe only guns are innocent, lifeless objects, while the other weapons are self aware entities with a mean streak. 

 

Grenades, Rocket Launchers and Nuclear Missiles are illegal in civilian hands. So are fully automatic weapons, silencers and ultra high power sniper rifles. People are pretty much limited to handguns and semi automatic rifles, regardless of what they look like. AK-47's and M-16's function no differently than hunting rifles in a civilian configuration.

 

BTW: Liberals and Conservatives calling each other "nuts" is exactly the sort of polarization the establishment wanted to create with a 2 party system.

[Hurlshort]

I prefer to call both sides nuts.  The moderate view is that guns don't need to be illegal, but it shouldn't be a free for all either.

 

I'd be happy with a proper licensing program, something similar to what it takes to drive a car.  

[AGX-17]

 

 

When a right wing nut rambles about "guns don't kill people, people kill people", does it only apply to guns? Or does the same rules apply to hand grenades? Or rocket launchers? Or nuclear missiles? Or is it just guns?

 

Maybe only guns are innocent, lifeless objects, while the other weapons are self aware entities with a mean streak.

 

Grenades, Rocket Launchers and Nuclear Missiles are illegal in civilian hands. So are fully automatic weapons, silencers and ultra high power sniper rifles. People are pretty much limited to handguns and semi automatic rifles, regardless of what they look like. AK-47's and M-16's function no differently than hunting rifles in a civilian configuration.

 

BTW: Liberals and Conservatives calling each other "nuts" is exactly the sort of polarization the establishment wanted to create with a 2 party system.

 

 

The phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" is less than mainstream and logically fallacious. The intended purpose of any firearm is to kill. A sword or lance made in 1100 AD was meant to kill people. Guns are the modern standard of killing technology. A gun is a tool meant for killing, just as a hammer is a tool meant for hammering nails. A hammer can be used a kill people, an unintended use of the device. A gun's intended use from its medieval-era inception was to kill people, not to shoot at paper targets or bleach buckets filled with explosives. A gun used to kill people is being used for its intended purpose.

 

The second amendment isn't as simple as "everyone has a right to lethal weapons."

 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Notice that it literally begins with "A well regulated militia," not "An unregulated individual." You have to twist it into a lot of knots to say that means individuals have a right to bear arms. Remember, the founding fathers were the elites. Have you ever heard of Shay's Rebellion? The founding fathers did not design the US system of government with the intent that citizens be guaranteed the right to violently overthrow the government that they created and ran. They had no intention of being killed by a mob of angry citizens.

 

And just for a fun jab at libertarianism, the terms "free-market" and "capitalism" never appear anywhere in the U.S. constitution. But here's what it does say:

 

"Article II

 

Section. 8.

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

 

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

 

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

 

[...]

 

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

 

Besides, isn't the endgame of Libertarianism to have total deregulation of the economy with the government's role relegated to defending the property rights of property owners? With guns and soldiers?

[Valsuelm]

BTW: Liberals and Conservatives calling each other "nuts" is exactly the sort of polarization the establishment wanted to create with a 2 party system.

Most of the folks you'll find arguing in this thread are very indoctrinated in that way of thinking, and do not see the forest through the trees.

 

Tip: In the upper left corner of your reply box is a button to use BBCode Mode. That will allow you to use the old format of quoting.

 

And you're right on tariffs. Those would solve a lot of problems. Yet that's a taboo subject and you'll get labeled a tinfoil hat wearer or an old fuddy duddy when a large majority of the population is brainwashed into thinking 'free trade' is all that, and a similar number brainwashed into thinking change is always for the better. We don't call it 'change' much anymore though, that's passe, and isn't as good a word as others in the battle for minds. Use words like 'evolution' and 'innovation' that way the opposing argument sounds bad right off the bat.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

@AGX I agree with your points, but I have to correct you on the 2nd Amendment.

 

It actually says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". You missed two commas, whose inclusion really turn the amendment into a garbled cluster****. You were closer than most right-wingers though, they seem to be allergic to "regulated".

 

On libertarians: I think it is funny as hell how they talk like they are the most patriotic and loyal 'mericans EVAR, but end up agreeing with Russian propaganda most of the time. Any one else see a bit of humor in that.

Edited February 1, 2013 by KaineParker

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

BTW: Liberals and Conservatives calling each other "nuts" is exactly the sort of polarization the establishment wanted to create with a 2 party system.

Most of the folks you'll find arguing in this thread are very indoctrinated in that way of thinking, and do not see the forest through the trees.Tip: In the upper left corner of your reply box is a button to use BBCode Mode. That will allow you to use the old format of quoting.And you're right on tariffs. Those would solve a lot of problems. Yet that's a taboo subject and you'll get labeled a tinfoil hat wearer or an old fuddy duddy when a large majority of the population is brainwashed into thinking 'free trade' is all that, and a similar number brainwashed into thinking change is always for the better. We don't call it 'change' much anymore though, that's passe, and isn't as good a word as others in the battle for minds. Use words like 'evolution' and 'innovation' that way the opposing argument sounds bad right off the bat.

Oh please, nobody would call you a tin foil hat wearer or fuddy duddy. We prefer "bat**** conspiracy nut" these days.

 

Sorry our Illuminati indoctrination prevents us from seeing the truth presented by the prophet Alex Jones, Mother Russia, and Ron Paul.

[Zoraptor]

Libertarians are fine. As with anything the problem is when they get detached from reality, but that is something that can happen to anyone espousing any philosophy, not just libertarians.

 

Personally I would say that most people are 'brainwashed' into saying that what exists at the moment is anything resembling free trade, and I pretty much come out as an anarchist in all the political compass type tests. Free trade is a very good idea, in theory, it just doesn't really exist and everyone is happy to ignore it when convenient- CAP in the EU, similar agricultural subsidies in the US, China using dump/choke tactics to bankrupt competitors etc.

 

Of course, describing as 'true free trade' an utterly subjective set of tariff criteria based on things such as OMG socialised education!!! is also about as far from free trade as it's possible to get. If a country has socialised education then that costs more and taxes are higher- all other things being equal- and there is thus no net advantage. Tariffs are fine to prevent genuinely anticompetitive practices like deliberately selling below cost to bankrupt competitors (a favourite of the Chinese) because those practices are themselves contra free trade and are deliberate attempts to distort the market.

[Calax]

 

 

 

 

Here are some facts for you...

 

 The semi-automatic handgun is the weapon of choice for most mass shootings since 1999. Assault rifles are not machine guns, those have been illegal forever, without federal permit. Most of the weapons they're talking about banning are nothing more than semi-automatic hunting rifles. So, if handguns are used more often, and assault rifles aren't machine guns, why are we even discussing them? Because the usefulness of a handgun is far less than a rifle in the face of a military occupation.

 

Try not to preface an opinion with the term fact.

 

Handguns get their share of ire too.  If you're curious why they are talking about the semi-automatic, large magazine rifles, it's probably because they have the unfortunate distinction of being used in the mass shootings recently.

 

 

 

I mistakenly made that plural... but if you go read that report, the fact is that handguns were used more often in mass shootings, according to the government's own study.

 

 

Except that hand guns are explicitly protected under the supreme court. As Scalia wrote, and I pointed out here, handguns are protected as being easily kept weapons of home and self defense. HOWEVER, Hunting rifles, and anything larger is not covered due to it's size and design. Most standard rifles are covered because hunting is kind of a "thing" and you can't fire to many bullets at the same time with one. One of the reasons assault rifles are being targeted is because of the sheer firepower you find in them. 30 rounds out of the end of a rifle in 28 seconds. And the AK47/M16 ripoffs that are out there are easily modded to be fully automatic (although the kickback is a bitch to deal with), which you can't do to easily with a hunting rifle.