A terrible epidemic
-
Again, a nonsense-argument; you owning a rifle does not change anything about your current government, and in case of a clash you'd still be outgunned. Is that why the US is "spreading democracy" all over the world? To rid us from our tyrannical governments? :D
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Again, a nonsense-argument; you owning a rifle does not change anything about your current government, and in case of a clash you'd still be outgunned.
That is simplistic. For starters the military is composed of US citizens and there is no assurance that they would fight against other citizens nor even that they themselves would not be fighting against the government. Secondly, guerilla tactics are a tried and true military strategy that has proven very effective for centuries if not longer.
-
NoNotThatBob wrote:
And yet Presidents sign Executive Orders and live.
I am not a fan of the "executive order". In my opinion, it's a violation of the separation of powers in that it allows the President to legislate, which should not be within his sphere of influence. Even the DOJ should not be allow to *make* law, but look at the unconstitutional free reign to do so given to the EPA, TSA, and BATFE. The government, as a whole has strayed far from the intent and design of the framers. "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes." Madison "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." - Jefferson "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Hamilton "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." - Webster "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - Tucker If you think the nature of governments has changed since 1796, you are as stupid as they come.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I am not a fan of the "executive order". In my opinion, it's a violation of the separation of powers in that it allows the President to legislate, which should not be within his sphere of influence. Even the DOJ should not be allow to make law, but look at the unconstitutional free reign to do so given to the EPA, TSA, and BATFE.
Congress creates laws, not regulations. The US cannot exist solely on laws. Simply not possible. Even something as simple as "do not run a red light" requires regulations to define what that means.
-
I'm not arguing against any of the points you raised but I would like to expand on one, if I may.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." - Jefferson
I would like to say the a majority of gun owners are lacking in the discipline department. This in conjuncture with:
2nd Amendment
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.
This can be interpreted that the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to defend themselves from any enemy and that they best way they could do that is if the states maintained militias that could be called up in case of emergency. In recent times, that responsibility has been shifted to the National Guard. At that point, the militia, comprised of various members of the community, was rendered obsolete. To get to my point, since state and local militias were replaced by the national guard, there are limited options for individuals to obtain the necessary training to handle firearms correctly. Also, the natural consequence of having militias is that most members of the community will own similar weapons with similar ammunition which makes supplying the militia in times of war a little bit simpler than having each member supply their own ammunition. They could easily run out of their special ammo rendering them ineffective on the battlefield. I do believe that militia training and structure was the discipline Jefferson was getting at.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Foothill wrote:
This can be interpreted that the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to defend themselves from any enemy and that they best way they could do that is if the states maintained militias that could be called up in case of emergency. In recent times, that responsibility has been shifted to the National Guard. At that point, the militia, comprised of various members of the community, was rendered obsolete
It can be interpreted, incorrectly, to mean that. For starters, historically, there was no National Guard nor other 'state' militia. The militias referred to were rank and file citizenry that could be required, by the state, to participate in military actions. Second the Supreme Court has ruled that it applies to private citizens. [^]
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Again, a nonsense-argument; you owning a rifle does not change anything about your current government, and in case of a clash you'd still be outgunned.
That is simplistic. For starters the military is composed of US citizens and there is no assurance that they would fight against other citizens nor even that they themselves would not be fighting against the government. Secondly, guerilla tactics are a tried and true military strategy that has proven very effective for centuries if not longer.
jschell wrote:
That is simplistic. For starters the military is composed of US citizens and there is no assurance that they would fight against other citizens nor even that they themselves would not be fighting against the government.
..seriously? You expect some stranger to have doubts because of your nationality? If you do not agree with the government, then you're an extremist fanatic.
jschell wrote:
Secondly, guerilla tactics are a tried and true military strategy that has proven very effective for centuries if not longer.
So your "resistance" is largely symbolic, as Che's was?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Again, a nonsense-argument;
That's because you're ignorant of the reasons. Check out the video I mentioned above. It explains everything. Of course, you have to be willing to hear the truth.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
you owning a rifle does not change anything about your current government
A bunch of cave dwellers in Afghanistan have proven this idea invalid. Besides that, 100 million gun owners in this country would present a sizable force.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and in case of a clash you'd still be outgunned
Which is why the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify restrictions on the types of arms you can keep/bear. The founders knew that in order to defend against a tyrannical government, the citizens would be required to have access to battlefield-capable weapons of the day.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Is that why the US is "spreading democracy" all over the world? To rid us from our tyrannical governments?
Again, the government does not necessarily represent the will of the people they govern. The US isn't a democracy - it's (supposed to be) a constitutional republic. Look it up. Beyond that, the US government is not interested in spreading democracy, and anyone with any self-awareness at all readily recognizes that fact.
".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
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
A bunch of cave dwellers in Afghanistan have proven this idea invalid. Besides that, 100 million gun owners in this country would present a sizable force.
With a "gun" being maximally some semi-automatic machine-gun, not a bazooka.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Which is why the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify restrictions on the types of arms you can keep/bear. The founders knew that in order to defend against a tyrannical government, the citizens would be required to have access to battlefield-capable weapons of the day.
So, where is your hydrogen-bomb? :)
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The US isn't a democracy - it's (supposed to be) a constitutional republic. Look it up. Beyond that, the US government is not interested in spreading democracy, and anyone with any self-awareness at all readily recognizes that fact.
That was more a jab at the American way of defending their economic interest :) ..which is something that any nation is expected to do; we just don't market it as "liberating people".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
So we're curing the Cancer by killing the patient? :laugh:
-
jschell wrote:
That is simplistic. For starters the military is composed of US citizens and there is no assurance that they would fight against other citizens nor even that they themselves would not be fighting against the government.
..seriously? You expect some stranger to have doubts because of your nationality? If you do not agree with the government, then you're an extremist fanatic.
jschell wrote:
Secondly, guerilla tactics are a tried and true military strategy that has proven very effective for centuries if not longer.
So your "resistance" is largely symbolic, as Che's was?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You expect some stranger to have doubts because of your nationality? If you do not agree with the government, then you're an extremist fanatic.
Perhaps you are confusing citizen (singular) with citizens (plural). Gun ownership is about the second not the first. And the right of citizens (plural) to own guns was specifically added because, during the formation of the US, the government (Britain governors) attempted to outlaw the ownership (citizens) of guns. So if citizens (plural) decide that they need to take on the US government then as a group (plural) guns provide them that ability.
-
jschell wrote:
Not sure what that is supposed to mean
I'm sure you don't. ;) :rolleyes:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Indeed. And when the constitution was written, neither did bump stocks, automatic weapons, or guns that cost less than several months wages... The technology has moved on, society has moved on. The world now is not the one the constitution's authors lived in, or wrote for.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
And when the constitution was written, neither did bump stocks, automatic weapons, or guns that cost less than several months wages...
Irrelevant. Bloggers didn't exist either but free speech still applies. And private citizens back then owned 'advanced' weapons then as well, up to an including private ships that were used in military operations under the direction of the private owners.
OriginalGriff wrote:
The world now is not the one the constitution's authors lived in, or wrote for.
And the constitution can be amended to remove the right of citizens to own guns but every survey indicates that the general public does not want that to occur.
-
I suppose from that answer that you think that the only shootings in the US occur when escaped felons shoot someone.
Your ability to think on this subject appears way too narrow to be able to have a conversation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You expect some stranger to have doubts because of your nationality? If you do not agree with the government, then you're an extremist fanatic.
Perhaps you are confusing citizen (singular) with citizens (plural). Gun ownership is about the second not the first. And the right of citizens (plural) to own guns was specifically added because, during the formation of the US, the government (Britain governors) attempted to outlaw the ownership (citizens) of guns. So if citizens (plural) decide that they need to take on the US government then as a group (plural) guns provide them that ability.
jschell wrote:
So if citizens (plural) decide that they need to take on the US government then as a group (plural) guns provide them that ability.
Regardless of the type and amount of guns the population buys, it remains a population; a collection of farmers, accountants and babysitters. And those are going to march against the US military? Going to take down some tanks and some fight-helicopters, just like the movies :D
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Now come on, dont tell me he wasnt inspired by the Nazis!!! Look at the damn helmets man!! :)
AFAIK, no... the helmets of the troopers in star wars were actually inspired in the chimneys of "la pedrera" (a building by Gaudi) in Barcelona casa mitla star wars - Google-Suche[^]
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Your ability to think on this subject appears way too narrow to be able to have a conversation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
jschell wrote:
So if citizens (plural) decide that they need to take on the US government then as a group (plural) guns provide them that ability.
Regardless of the type and amount of guns the population buys, it remains a population; a collection of farmers, accountants and babysitters. And those are going to march against the US military? Going to take down some tanks and some fight-helicopters, just like the movies :D
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Regardless of the type and amount of guns the population buys, it remains a population; a collection of farmers, accountants and babysitters.
Where exactly do you think soldiers come from? How exactly do you think that the US won independence from England?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
And those are going to march against the US military?
Rather certain I already addressed exactly that. That statement is simplistic. The US military consists of citizens of the US. As such those citizens up to and including the generals are citizens. They have the same knowledge or even more so of the legal merits of what might or might not happen. And the same emotional leanings as the rest of the nation. First of course is the law. The US military is not allowed to engage citizens. So the generals, and CAC down the line would be required to ignore that. Second is that because the military, all of it, consists of citizens then there is the possibility than many of them would side with those that are standing against the government. Third full on war in the US, with the full US military would destroy the US and the military and and reasonable government is going to understand that. They are not going to use bunker blasters on New York city to roust fighters. It would be the same as urban theaters around the world where military fighters must go street to street against single arms fires from those in opposition. Additionally the US military is effective because the US civilian population supports it. The bombs, bullets, tanks, helicopters and parts for those come from civilian sources. Do you know how many hours a military helicopter can fly without maintenance? How many miles can a tank travel without diesel?
