Piers Morgan is a Retard
-
So in other words Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I state this then. A toaster does not toast the toast, rather the toast toasts the toast.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
It's a fact that the 2nd Amendment is what kept Japan from invading the US in WW2
It was? I would have thought that staging the invasion across a large ocean would have been the most significant problem. Do you have a citation for that which emphasizes the first and also discusses how the second was not relevant?
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
and I consider any attempt at gun control as an infringement on my rights.
However if people of the US want to change those rights they have the ability to modify the constitution.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
ALL of the original Constitutional amendments were established to specifically address the very things they experienced and that led up to the resulting revolution.
At least to the extent that the members of the original congress were able to agree upon. And viewpoints since then have changed then - as one obvious example the view point on slavery.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
even though the Constitution has been subjected to agenda-based interpretations ever since
Not sure what that means since of course the US was set up specifically with the understanding that nothing was absolute and that things do change. Of course one does have the right to claim that they do not like some ruling/law. However the country was set up with rules in place to strive for a fair system and it is one which has succeeded when one compares it to other systems. This despite those who claim that their favorite cause is being snubbed simply because they don't win absolutely every single fight (and conviently ignoring the rights/wishes of others in the process.) And just to make it very clear...I am in favor of private gun ownership.
jschell wrote:
I would have thought that staging the invasion across a large ocean would have been the most significant problem.
The Japanese put forward the idea of invading the continental US, but Admiral Yamamoto told his superiors that doing so would result in disaster because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".
jschell wrote:
However if people of the US want to change those rights they have the ability to modify the constitution.
Abolishing one of the Amendments would take an act of [insert your favorite deity here], or a tyrranical executive decree in the form of an "executive order". If that were ever to happen, "hell would be a-poppin'" (as an old boss of mine used to say), and the US would fall to the bottom of the "best places to visit" list.
jschell wrote:
Not sure what that means since of course the US was set up specifically with the understanding that nothing was absolute and that things do change. Of course one does have the right to claim that they do not like some ruling/law. However the country was set up with rules in place to strive for a fair system and it is one which has succeeded when one compares it to other systems. This despite those who claim that their favorite cause is being snubbed simply because they don't win absolutely every single fight (and conveniently ignoring the rights/wishes of others in the process.)
I spit in the eye of anyone that would try to take one of my rights away, even if it doesn't appear to affect me. Case in point: Texas is considering establishing permanent DUI checkpoints, and they've already established "no-refusal" laws regarding breathalyzer and blood draws (5th amendment violations). The permanent checkpoints where they pull you over to see if you're drunk is a 4th amendment violation (unreasonable search). Now, considering I haven't had an alcoholic beverage since about 1998, and I've been driving after dark MAYBE half a dozen times in the last 10 years, you'd think this wouldn't bother me much. But it does (for the cited constitutional reasons). I also refuse to cooperate at border checkpoints that are 100 miles INSIDE US borders for the same reasons. I've written at least half a dozen letters to that effect and mailed them to my representatives in the state capitol (trying to work within the system I'm defending).
-
To paraphrase Chris Rock, make bullets cost $50,000 and there'll be no more innocent bystanders. I don't have a strong personal stand on this, I think gun control probably wouldn't solve the problems people want it to solve; someone interested in killing themselves or someone else will find a gun somewhere if they really want it. Or they'll find another way that is just as harmful and destructive. Having said that, the one thing that struck me as I read your post was the thought of our Government going "rogue" and/or there being a military coup. I'm just not sure that given the power of our military that the presence of gun owning Americans would dissuade them, or could in reality prevent such a thing from happening.
Andrew Stoute wrote:
To paraphrase Chris Rock, make bullets cost $50,000 and there'll be no more innocent bystanders.
No, that would only create a black market for ammo (which probably already exists, so it would just be extended instead of created).
Andrew Stoute wrote:
I don't have a strong personal stand on this, I think gun control probably wouldn't solve the problems people want it to solve; someone interested in killing themselves or someone else will find a gun somewhere if they really want it. Or they'll find another way that is just as harmful and destructive.
Whenever some criminal/crazy person commits a crime with a gun, all of the innocent law-abiding gun owners are punished with tougher laws and regulations. The thing the anti-gun crowd seems to be unable to comprehend is that criminals, by their very nature, don't obey lays and regulations. If they want to get a gun, they don't have to wait for background checks, or worry about getting a license to carry their weapons. They simply go buy one with cash, and put it in their waistband. The 2nd Amendment is alive and well for the criminal element.
Andrew Stoute wrote:
Having said that, the one thing that struck me as I read your post was the thought of our Government going "rogue" and/or there being a military coup. I'm just not sure that given the power of our military that the presence of gun owning Americans would dissuade them, or could in reality prevent such a thing from happening.
People in power don't often think about what's right or smart. IMHO, we're right at the edge of a cliff (and not the fiscal one either). Everyone has their own tipping point, and I know what mine is, because I've given it a due amount of thought and concsideration. I don't want it to go that way, but if it does, I hope I'm as resolute as my ancestors were. My aunt traced our family back to the early 1700's in this country, and I will NOT be the first to ignore my responsibility.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants -
jschell wrote:
I would have thought that staging the invasion across a large ocean would have been the most significant problem.
The Japanese put forward the idea of invading the continental US, but Admiral Yamamoto told his superiors that doing so would result in disaster because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".
jschell wrote:
However if people of the US want to change those rights they have the ability to modify the constitution.
Abolishing one of the Amendments would take an act of [insert your favorite deity here], or a tyrranical executive decree in the form of an "executive order". If that were ever to happen, "hell would be a-poppin'" (as an old boss of mine used to say), and the US would fall to the bottom of the "best places to visit" list.
jschell wrote:
Not sure what that means since of course the US was set up specifically with the understanding that nothing was absolute and that things do change. Of course one does have the right to claim that they do not like some ruling/law. However the country was set up with rules in place to strive for a fair system and it is one which has succeeded when one compares it to other systems. This despite those who claim that their favorite cause is being snubbed simply because they don't win absolutely every single fight (and conveniently ignoring the rights/wishes of others in the process.)
I spit in the eye of anyone that would try to take one of my rights away, even if it doesn't appear to affect me. Case in point: Texas is considering establishing permanent DUI checkpoints, and they've already established "no-refusal" laws regarding breathalyzer and blood draws (5th amendment violations). The permanent checkpoints where they pull you over to see if you're drunk is a 4th amendment violation (unreasonable search). Now, considering I haven't had an alcoholic beverage since about 1998, and I've been driving after dark MAYBE half a dozen times in the last 10 years, you'd think this wouldn't bother me much. But it does (for the cited constitutional reasons). I also refuse to cooperate at border checkpoints that are 100 miles INSIDE US borders for the same reasons. I've written at least half a dozen letters to that effect and mailed them to my representatives in the state capitol (trying to work within the system I'm defending).
Nice rebuttal and the points I would make exactly. Here is the kicker! The Constitution does not give us our rights, they are given to us by the creator and are unalienable. Therefore, the Constitution is only a solidification and proclamation of our natural rights.
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Well the first thing I took away from this rant is that you seem to think the govt is restrained from what, taking over the country! I instantly thought of Egypt, Syria where tyrannical regimes are being ousted by the populace. Guess what, that is because their voting system does not work not because the populace isn't armed! Sorry relating the US to the Arab spring is dumb I know, you guys had your Spring more than a century ago. Then you witter on about the constitution and how sacred and set in stone it is, for a start it's a century out of date and I think they have been whittling away at it since it was written. I disagree with you about gun control, but I have no problem with you taking that stand, your decision your country! I also think the commentator has the right to put his 2c worth in, the venue may have been inappropriate but not the idea.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Well, if you are going down THAT logic path..... Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. (Oh, and heat toasts toast. I don't own a toaster but use the oven instead. Well, actually, it toasts bread, but that just doesn't fit.) ;P
Guns don't kill people.......[^]
==================================== Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise! ====================================
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Since the framers of the Constitution wanted the arms-bearing citizens to be the militia, I think we should grab all those guys and send them to Iraq and Afghanistan! ;P
-
jschell wrote:
I would have thought that staging the invasion across a large ocean would have been the most significant problem.
The Japanese put forward the idea of invading the continental US, but Admiral Yamamoto told his superiors that doing so would result in disaster because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".
jschell wrote:
However if people of the US want to change those rights they have the ability to modify the constitution.
Abolishing one of the Amendments would take an act of [insert your favorite deity here], or a tyrranical executive decree in the form of an "executive order". If that were ever to happen, "hell would be a-poppin'" (as an old boss of mine used to say), and the US would fall to the bottom of the "best places to visit" list.
jschell wrote:
Not sure what that means since of course the US was set up specifically with the understanding that nothing was absolute and that things do change. Of course one does have the right to claim that they do not like some ruling/law. However the country was set up with rules in place to strive for a fair system and it is one which has succeeded when one compares it to other systems. This despite those who claim that their favorite cause is being snubbed simply because they don't win absolutely every single fight (and conveniently ignoring the rights/wishes of others in the process.)
I spit in the eye of anyone that would try to take one of my rights away, even if it doesn't appear to affect me. Case in point: Texas is considering establishing permanent DUI checkpoints, and they've already established "no-refusal" laws regarding breathalyzer and blood draws (5th amendment violations). The permanent checkpoints where they pull you over to see if you're drunk is a 4th amendment violation (unreasonable search). Now, considering I haven't had an alcoholic beverage since about 1998, and I've been driving after dark MAYBE half a dozen times in the last 10 years, you'd think this wouldn't bother me much. But it does (for the cited constitutional reasons). I also refuse to cooperate at border checkpoints that are 100 miles INSIDE US borders for the same reasons. I've written at least half a dozen letters to that effect and mailed them to my representatives in the state capitol (trying to work within the system I'm defending).
My brother (a naturalized U S citizen) was driving along I-10 from Austin, TX to San Diego when he was pulled over and asked about his citizenship. My brother replied that he is a U S citizen and his two passengers (a sister and brother-in-law) were visitors to the US and showed him their passports. He was politely told that their papers were in order and they could go on their way. My brother pointed out that he had not shown any proof of US citizenship. The policeman told him that in case of claimed US citizenship, the rules are to take the person at his word. My brother was pleasantly surprised at this. This happened in 2003 or 2004 and I don't know if it was in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona or California.
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
He is not known as Piers Moron for nothing. The man is a twat, but that doesn't mean I agree with your assertion.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
This is not the first time that I have heard this pro/contra gun argument amongst Americans. And yes, you can say that guns do not kill people, but peolpe kill people, guns just make it easier for people to kill other people. I am sure that many a murder could have been averted if the murderer did not own a licensed weapon. The problem is that many gun owners are not fit to carry a gun. Personally I think that you should be able to own a weapon if you wanted one, but only if you met the following conditions: 1. A prospective gun owner should pass a psychological evaluation to make sure that he/she does not have psychopathic tendencies or other psychlogiacal disorders such as anger issues, etc. 2. The prospective gun owner should have no criminal record (juvenile or otherwise) what so ever. 3. The prospective gun owner must undergo proficiency training on how to safly handle his or her fire arm of choice. 4. The prospective gun owner must prove that he has secure storage for the gun; i.e. a gun safe. 5. Gun licence should be revoked, and weapon confiscated if the gun owner uses his or her weapon irresponsibly. 6. Gun licence should be revoked if the gun owners weapon is stolen (while the gun owner is not carrying the weapon) due to not storing the weapon in a gun safe. 7. If a prospective gun owner was found guilty of negligence or irresponsible gun use in the past he should not be allowed to own a gun again. IMHO if a person meats meets the restrictions I mentioned above, that person would more then likely be a responsible gun owner and not pose any threat to society.
If only closed minds would come with closed mouths. Ego non sum semper iustus tamen Ego sum nunquam nefas!
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Nice interpretation. It made me consider some issues they faced at the time. The state lacked resources and logistics. Due to organizational differences the US may have not had the power to maintain a standing army to fight the likes of the British Empire by itself. Add the simple fact that militias were a huge part of winning independence. The logical conclusion at the time was that every able bodied man needed to have their own weapons to be able to help in the defense of the country. You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.
-
Nice rebuttal and the points I would make exactly. Here is the kicker! The Constitution does not give us our rights, they are given to us by the creator and are unalienable. Therefore, the Constitution is only a solidification and proclamation of our natural rights.
richcb wrote:
Here is the kicker! The Constitution does not give us our rights, they are given to us by the creator and are unalienable.
Your parents?
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy".
For those who don't pay attention to American football, the issue of head injuries and the effects they have on players has become a big issue. Many players have committed suicide as a result of their head injuries. Now, I think it's safe to say that the player in this case committed suicide because he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail, so at first glance this situation looks unrelated to the brain damage issue. But I think it's a fair question to ask if brain damage contributed to this player's lack of self-control. The manner in which he committed suicide may prevent us from finding out. I don't know if an autopsie has been suggested or will be attempted. I'm not suggesting football or anything else be banned, I'm saying that there are more relevant issues involved here and that Costas (and Jason Witless) did everyone a disfavor by bringing up gun control. It's become a huge distraction.
-
This is not the first time that I have heard this pro/contra gun argument amongst Americans. And yes, you can say that guns do not kill people, but peolpe kill people, guns just make it easier for people to kill other people. I am sure that many a murder could have been averted if the murderer did not own a licensed weapon. The problem is that many gun owners are not fit to carry a gun. Personally I think that you should be able to own a weapon if you wanted one, but only if you met the following conditions: 1. A prospective gun owner should pass a psychological evaluation to make sure that he/she does not have psychopathic tendencies or other psychlogiacal disorders such as anger issues, etc. 2. The prospective gun owner should have no criminal record (juvenile or otherwise) what so ever. 3. The prospective gun owner must undergo proficiency training on how to safly handle his or her fire arm of choice. 4. The prospective gun owner must prove that he has secure storage for the gun; i.e. a gun safe. 5. Gun licence should be revoked, and weapon confiscated if the gun owner uses his or her weapon irresponsibly. 6. Gun licence should be revoked if the gun owners weapon is stolen (while the gun owner is not carrying the weapon) due to not storing the weapon in a gun safe. 7. If a prospective gun owner was found guilty of negligence or irresponsible gun use in the past he should not be allowed to own a gun again. IMHO if a person meats meets the restrictions I mentioned above, that person would more then likely be a responsible gun owner and not pose any threat to society.
If only closed minds would come with closed mouths. Ego non sum semper iustus tamen Ego sum nunquam nefas!
-
Nice interpretation. It made me consider some issues they faced at the time. The state lacked resources and logistics. Due to organizational differences the US may have not had the power to maintain a standing army to fight the likes of the British Empire by itself. Add the simple fact that militias were a huge part of winning independence. The logical conclusion at the time was that every able bodied man needed to have their own weapons to be able to help in the defense of the country. You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.
I'm not weighing in on the topic itself, just your response to this post. Debating this shouldn't mean that I am for, or against, any gun laws or reasons. I just wanted to respond to the armed forces/military point of view.
Dexterus wrote:
You now have an outstanding armed forces. The 2nd Amendment seems absolutely outdated and useless.
I don't think that is correct. If the armed forces are deployed, then we are vulnerable to invasion. If we feel we need to protect ourselves from them, we need a way to do so. If any un-seen circumstances arise, we should be prepared. The last thing is, the government controls the military. The government does not control the population [in the same direct ways].
If it moves, compile it
-
richcb wrote:
Here is the kicker! The Constitution does not give us our rights, they are given to us by the creator and are unalienable.
Your parents?
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
Jim Henson. Because only a Muppet would believe that guff.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
To paraphrase Chris Rock, make bullets cost $50,000 and there'll be no more innocent bystanders. I don't have a strong personal stand on this, I think gun control probably wouldn't solve the problems people want it to solve; someone interested in killing themselves or someone else will find a gun somewhere if they really want it. Or they'll find another way that is just as harmful and destructive. Having said that, the one thing that struck me as I read your post was the thought of our Government going "rogue" and/or there being a military coup. I'm just not sure that given the power of our military that the presence of gun owning Americans would dissuade them, or could in reality prevent such a thing from happening.
Quote:
I'm just not sure that given the power of our military that the presence of gun owning Americans would dissuade them, or could in reality prevent such a thing from happening.
Funny, that's what the British thought about the American settlers.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Amen, well said. I normally don't read this long of a post but your defense of the Constitution is admirable. This is a less and less popular opinion and I'm glad to see you defend it well. Thank you.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
He is not known as Piers Moron for nothing. The man is a twat, but that doesn't mean I agree with your assertion.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
He might be a moron, but he's a filthy rich moron. So he's doing something right.
People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.
-
Most of you have probably heard about the football player who killed his girlfriend and then went to his team offices and killed himself in front of his coaches. The whys and wherefores of those events are not important, but are a necessary lead-in to this post. During halftime on Monday Night Football, Bob Costas expounded on how guns should be banned and the 2nd amendment is specifically to blame for the previously fore-mentioned "tragedy". I have news for Mr Costas - it's not the gun's fault that someone picked it up and used it to commit a crime. It's also not the 2nd Amendment's fault. It's the fault of the as*hole that USED the gun that way. This is fodder for another thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the severe backlash that has resulted from his comments, and the NFL and NBC are going to suffer as a result (not that I'm at all heart-broken over that silver lining). Following that broadcast, Mr. Morgan tweeted the following: “Quite incredible that Bob Costas makes an impassioned plea for less handguns, and Americans go crazy with indignation," "He's 100% right." “The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles, Fact.” I'm really tired of foreigners expressing their uneducated opinions about our constitutional rights. Here's a FACT for Mr. Morgan: The framers of our Constitution were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of the duly elected government. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognized the necessity of a standing army (a *well regulated* militia) to provide for the country's defense from foreign aggression: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State,..." Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *m
Well, I don't think that less guns means less brutality. Look at Vermont: 35% of the citizens got a gun (37% in Texas), but only 0,7 murders per 100.000 people annually (12,7% in Texas). In New York 11% have a gun and there are about 13,2 murders per 100.000 people anually.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Some people are interpreting this to mean that the militia must be "well regulated", as in controlled and registered, and this interpretation couldn't be more wrong. In the era in which this document was written, it was common practice to refer to soldiers in an organized army as "regulars", because they were "well regulated" in terms of training and provisions (ammo). This means that the first four words were intended to mean that the militias - as opposd to the idea of a standing army - must be well trained with *modern battlefield-capable weapons of the time* and supplied so that they might be called up to defend the country.
Well regulated means also well educated not only well armed. By, the way I'm not citizen of the USA, but I think it's allowed to talk about it. I got no influence to your politics, but everyone has the right to his own opinion. In my opinion: Just because a right was correct in 1791 it doesn't me it must be correct nowadays. Times are changing. So every paragraph and every right should be looked at from time to time. Yes, there should be talked about, and that doesn't mean that it should be abondoned or be valid automatically for the future. If someone doesn't like that, well perhaps he (she or it) is from yesterday. Times are changing sometimes and trying to get this under control is pure communism.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.