2nd amendment
-
http://www.altpress.com/contributors/entry/phil_labonte_of_all_that_remains_on_the_second_amendment_and_our_right_to_b[^] Great music and clearly has a good understanding of the way our constitution "Should" be interpreted. Unfortunately he is right and we have a police state going on. Granted its not total lock down, but our rights have been trampled to near nil over the last 100 years. I don't understand why most people don't understand this. I hear the classic "Its outdated. You can't fight an apache with a rifle" To which my response is "Good point. We should consider getting an Apache for the neighborhood watch" :D Last night on TV I heard a good one. The argument of "Why would you ever need to shoot that many bullets so fast?" Responce: "Do you need a car that can go 250mph? Should that be made illegal as well?"
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.
-
http://www.altpress.com/contributors/entry/phil_labonte_of_all_that_remains_on_the_second_amendment_and_our_right_to_b[^] Great music and clearly has a good understanding of the way our constitution "Should" be interpreted. Unfortunately he is right and we have a police state going on. Granted its not total lock down, but our rights have been trampled to near nil over the last 100 years. I don't understand why most people don't understand this. I hear the classic "Its outdated. You can't fight an apache with a rifle" To which my response is "Good point. We should consider getting an Apache for the neighborhood watch" :D Last night on TV I heard a good one. The argument of "Why would you ever need to shoot that many bullets so fast?" Responce: "Do you need a car that can go 250mph? Should that be made illegal as well?"
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.
but you do need a license for the car regardless of size or speed, maybe you should be licensed for a gun too? and required to attended and pass training before ownership, no pass = no gun. as for the Car analogy, fine you can can have any gun but introduce a tax of $100 x ROF, at least that would pay for cleaning up afterwards To me arming untrained people is asking for trouble, think what would have happened at BAtman if the crowd was armed, the death toll would have been far worse as most people cannot hit a barn door in a zero stress situation let alone underfire, even trained police officers who are required to be profficent often cannot hit a gunman in these situations as for the disarming of a population causing terrible tragedies, surely these are happening monthly already in the uncontrol gun culture. The UK has pretty much disarmed its population and we are still here. The Idea that guns make you safe is wrong, fine have your guns but the argument that it is to prevent Govenment/some other Govenment from taking over is pure rubbish
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
but you do need a license for the car regardless of size or speed, maybe you should be licensed for a gun too? and required to attended and pass training before ownership, no pass = no gun. as for the Car analogy, fine you can can have any gun but introduce a tax of $100 x ROF, at least that would pay for cleaning up afterwards To me arming untrained people is asking for trouble, think what would have happened at BAtman if the crowd was armed, the death toll would have been far worse as most people cannot hit a barn door in a zero stress situation let alone underfire, even trained police officers who are required to be profficent often cannot hit a gunman in these situations as for the disarming of a population causing terrible tragedies, surely these are happening monthly already in the uncontrol gun culture. The UK has pretty much disarmed its population and we are still here. The Idea that guns make you safe is wrong, fine have your guns but the argument that it is to prevent Govenment/some other Govenment from taking over is pure rubbish
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but you do need a license for the car regardless of size or speed
Incorrect. You need a licence to drive it on publicly maintained roads. You do NOT need a licence to own it. OK, so maybe you have to have a licence to shoot the gun at public ranges. However you should still be able to own it with out the government tracking you and fire it on private shooting ranges etc.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
as for the Car analogy, fine you can can have any gun but introduce a tax of $100 x ROF, at least that would pay for cleaning up afterwards
This makes no sense. For one rate of fire is particular to only certain weaponry. Again the 2nd amendment does not speak to type of weaponry buts states in general the people shall be allowed to be armed. So your tax does nothing in the case of explosives etc. Maybe you think everything else should be illegal. Well the 2nd amendment disagrees with you (along with the Supreme court).
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
To me arming untrained people is asking for trouble
I well I also think teenagers behind the wheel is dangerous. But they have to learn somehow.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
think what would have happened at BAtman if the crowd was armed, the death toll would have been far worse as most people cannot hit a barn door in a zero stress situation let alone underfire, even trained police officers who are required to be profficent often cannot hit a gunman in these situations
You can't say that. For one we can simply look to the animal kingdom for an appropriate analogy. Attacks happen when the attacker feels they will be victorious and mostly unharmed. If most people were armed, the attacker would know that they would kill many, but the likelyhood of them surviving the attack is nil (someone would eventually just kill him). It would have been a suicide attack, regardless of the body armor etc. Moreover, you can't say that they would not have quickly taken him down. Even fully suited military takes hits and losses. A good shot would have done the job fine. Sure can't say it would have happened. But also can't say it wouldn't have.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
as for the disarming of a population causing terrible traged
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but you do need a license for the car regardless of size or speed
Incorrect. You need a licence to drive it on publicly maintained roads. You do NOT need a licence to own it. OK, so maybe you have to have a licence to shoot the gun at public ranges. However you should still be able to own it with out the government tracking you and fire it on private shooting ranges etc.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
as for the Car analogy, fine you can can have any gun but introduce a tax of $100 x ROF, at least that would pay for cleaning up afterwards
This makes no sense. For one rate of fire is particular to only certain weaponry. Again the 2nd amendment does not speak to type of weaponry buts states in general the people shall be allowed to be armed. So your tax does nothing in the case of explosives etc. Maybe you think everything else should be illegal. Well the 2nd amendment disagrees with you (along with the Supreme court).
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
To me arming untrained people is asking for trouble
I well I also think teenagers behind the wheel is dangerous. But they have to learn somehow.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
think what would have happened at BAtman if the crowd was armed, the death toll would have been far worse as most people cannot hit a barn door in a zero stress situation let alone underfire, even trained police officers who are required to be profficent often cannot hit a gunman in these situations
You can't say that. For one we can simply look to the animal kingdom for an appropriate analogy. Attacks happen when the attacker feels they will be victorious and mostly unharmed. If most people were armed, the attacker would know that they would kill many, but the likelyhood of them surviving the attack is nil (someone would eventually just kill him). It would have been a suicide attack, regardless of the body armor etc. Moreover, you can't say that they would not have quickly taken him down. Even fully suited military takes hits and losses. A good shot would have done the job fine. Sure can't say it would have happened. But also can't say it wouldn't have.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
as for the disarming of a population causing terrible traged
Quote:
Incorrect. You need a licence to drive it on publicly maintained roads. You do NOT need a licence to own it. OK, so maybe you have to have a licence to shoot the gun at public ranges. However you should still be able to own it with out the government tracking you and fire it on private shooting ranges etc.
ok dont see an issue with that, as long as its not removed from such a place without the proper license
Quote:
This makes no sense. For one rate of fire is particular to only certain weaponry. Again the 2nd amendment does not speak to type of weaponry buts states in general the people shall be allowed to be armed. So your tax does nothing in the case of explosives etc. Maybe you think everything else should be illegal. Well the 2nd amendment disagrees with you (along with the Supreme court).
no you made the car anology and my point is that you can tax it so that whilst being legal pushes it out the range of the general public - just like 250mph cars are. I thought explosives were illegal over there! It does not say that they can be armed with any weapon either, some weapons are already illegal so this argument is moot, you cannot own chemical or biological weapons (as far as I know ) so there are already accepted exclusions it is purely where you draw the line
Quote:
I well I also think teenagers behind the wheel is dangerous. But they have to learn somehow.
but are said teenages allowed out unsupervised without any training? from what I understand the only restriction on buying a gun is age and a waiting period? would you feel safe on the road if said rteenager could buy a car wait three days and then drive onto the freeway having NO experiance of driving before?
Quote:
You can't say that. For one we can simply look to the animal kingdom for an appropriate analogy. Attacks happen when the attacker feels they will be victorious and mostly unharmed. If most people were armed, the attacker would know that they would kill many, but the likelyhood of them surviving the attack is nil (someone would eventually just kill him). It would have been a suicide attack, regardless of the body armor etc. Moreover, you can't say that they would not have quickly taken him down. Even fully suited military takes hits and losses. A good shot would have done the job fine. Sure c
-
Quote:
Incorrect. You need a licence to drive it on publicly maintained roads. You do NOT need a licence to own it. OK, so maybe you have to have a licence to shoot the gun at public ranges. However you should still be able to own it with out the government tracking you and fire it on private shooting ranges etc.
ok dont see an issue with that, as long as its not removed from such a place without the proper license
Quote:
This makes no sense. For one rate of fire is particular to only certain weaponry. Again the 2nd amendment does not speak to type of weaponry buts states in general the people shall be allowed to be armed. So your tax does nothing in the case of explosives etc. Maybe you think everything else should be illegal. Well the 2nd amendment disagrees with you (along with the Supreme court).
no you made the car anology and my point is that you can tax it so that whilst being legal pushes it out the range of the general public - just like 250mph cars are. I thought explosives were illegal over there! It does not say that they can be armed with any weapon either, some weapons are already illegal so this argument is moot, you cannot own chemical or biological weapons (as far as I know ) so there are already accepted exclusions it is purely where you draw the line
Quote:
I well I also think teenagers behind the wheel is dangerous. But they have to learn somehow.
but are said teenages allowed out unsupervised without any training? from what I understand the only restriction on buying a gun is age and a waiting period? would you feel safe on the road if said rteenager could buy a car wait three days and then drive onto the freeway having NO experiance of driving before?
Quote:
You can't say that. For one we can simply look to the animal kingdom for an appropriate analogy. Attacks happen when the attacker feels they will be victorious and mostly unharmed. If most people were armed, the attacker would know that they would kill many, but the likelyhood of them surviving the attack is nil (someone would eventually just kill him). It would have been a suicide attack, regardless of the body armor etc. Moreover, you can't say that they would not have quickly taken him down. Even fully suited military takes hits and losses. A good shot would have done the job fine. Sure c
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
If you feel that your country is as uncivilised as that, then I can see why you would want to be armed, however I would never have placed the US in the same catagory as the Middle east and Iraq etc but as most police states actually occur with the blessing of the population I would still dispute its worth
I feel that armament is a sign of civilized. It means your civilized society is not foolish enough to think that another group of civilized folks will not take whats yours at first sign of their armament being stronger. One can not rely on the government to protect you from you neighbor. Their are plenty of records of crazy folks using armament to mass slaughter countless people in non-armed societies. This shows that the commonality between such incidents has nothing to do with gun regulation.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
ok dont see an issue with that, as long as its not removed from such a place without the proper license
Removal is irrelevant. Usage is not for what you are speaking. One should be able to transport to anywhere. So long as there is no regulations on said area (e.g. many places "Ban" guns on the premises)
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
ome weapons are already illegal so this argument is moot, you cannot own chemical or biological weapons (as far as I know ) so there are already accepted exclusions it is purely where you draw the line
Illegal but as was pointed out in the post (and many agree with it), that is unconstitutional. There is no way around that. One can argue why a person should not be allowed to have it (terrorist etc.), but the fact is that restraint is unconstitutional.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but are said teenages allowed out unsupervised without any training? from what I understand the only restriction on buying a gun is age and a waiting period? would you feel safe on the road if said rteenager could buy a car wait three days and then drive onto the freeway having NO experiance of driving before?
Not allowed out but they can certainly go purchase a car with out any supervision. Same is true for firearms actually. I think there are state regulations (at least in my state) that adolescents must go through training. In fact I seem to remember someone a slight loop hole in that the training
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
If you feel that your country is as uncivilised as that, then I can see why you would want to be armed, however I would never have placed the US in the same catagory as the Middle east and Iraq etc but as most police states actually occur with the blessing of the population I would still dispute its worth
I feel that armament is a sign of civilized. It means your civilized society is not foolish enough to think that another group of civilized folks will not take whats yours at first sign of their armament being stronger. One can not rely on the government to protect you from you neighbor. Their are plenty of records of crazy folks using armament to mass slaughter countless people in non-armed societies. This shows that the commonality between such incidents has nothing to do with gun regulation.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
ok dont see an issue with that, as long as its not removed from such a place without the proper license
Removal is irrelevant. Usage is not for what you are speaking. One should be able to transport to anywhere. So long as there is no regulations on said area (e.g. many places "Ban" guns on the premises)
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
ome weapons are already illegal so this argument is moot, you cannot own chemical or biological weapons (as far as I know ) so there are already accepted exclusions it is purely where you draw the line
Illegal but as was pointed out in the post (and many agree with it), that is unconstitutional. There is no way around that. One can argue why a person should not be allowed to have it (terrorist etc.), but the fact is that restraint is unconstitutional.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but are said teenages allowed out unsupervised without any training? from what I understand the only restriction on buying a gun is age and a waiting period? would you feel safe on the road if said rteenager could buy a car wait three days and then drive onto the freeway having NO experiance of driving before?
Not allowed out but they can certainly go purchase a car with out any supervision. Same is true for firearms actually. I think there are state regulations (at least in my state) that adolescents must go through training. In fact I seem to remember someone a slight loop hole in that the training
Quote:
I feel that armament is a sign of civilized. It means your civilized society is not foolish enough to think that another group of civilized folks will not take whats yours at first sign of their armament being stronger. One can not rely on the government to protect you from you neighbor. Their are plenty of records of crazy folks using armament to mass slaughter countless people in non-armed societies. This shows that the commonality between such incidents has nothing to do with gun regulation.
but this is your argument that guns will prevent this, yet your own country clearly shows that access to guns does not prevent this, and having a populus with access to guns has never prevented invasion by a such a force
Quote:
Removal is irrelevant. Usage is not for what you are speaking. One should be able to transport to anywhere. So long as there is no regulations on said area (e.g. many places "Ban" guns on the premises)
ok then as long as its transported by accepted means then i dont see a problem, carried around a public place tuncked in your sock I would say was not an acceptable manner oh and you cannot move a car arround without restriction, you need to be licensed or it needs be transported right?
Quote:
Not allowed out but they can certainly go purchase a car with out any supervision. Same is true for firearms actually. I think there are state regulations (at least in my state) that adolescents must go through training. In fact I seem to remember someone a slight loop hole in that the training was required for 12 to 17 year olds. Meaning an 11 year old did not need it. Had to get the training once they turned 12 though (even if they had already been using said weapon for years).
so why cannot the same rules apply for guns? you can buy one but it cannot be outside a designated place without license, and why an age limit? surely a 30yo untrained is as bad as a 17yo untrained? you wouldnt allow an untrained xdriver on a freway regardless of how old they were would you?
Quote:
Illegal but as was pointed out in the post (and many agree with it), that is unconstitutional. There is no way around that. One can argue why a person should not be allowed to have it (terrorist etc.), but the fact is that restraint is unconstitutional.
then the consistution is wrong
-
Quote:
I feel that armament is a sign of civilized. It means your civilized society is not foolish enough to think that another group of civilized folks will not take whats yours at first sign of their armament being stronger. One can not rely on the government to protect you from you neighbor. Their are plenty of records of crazy folks using armament to mass slaughter countless people in non-armed societies. This shows that the commonality between such incidents has nothing to do with gun regulation.
but this is your argument that guns will prevent this, yet your own country clearly shows that access to guns does not prevent this, and having a populus with access to guns has never prevented invasion by a such a force
Quote:
Removal is irrelevant. Usage is not for what you are speaking. One should be able to transport to anywhere. So long as there is no regulations on said area (e.g. many places "Ban" guns on the premises)
ok then as long as its transported by accepted means then i dont see a problem, carried around a public place tuncked in your sock I would say was not an acceptable manner oh and you cannot move a car arround without restriction, you need to be licensed or it needs be transported right?
Quote:
Not allowed out but they can certainly go purchase a car with out any supervision. Same is true for firearms actually. I think there are state regulations (at least in my state) that adolescents must go through training. In fact I seem to remember someone a slight loop hole in that the training was required for 12 to 17 year olds. Meaning an 11 year old did not need it. Had to get the training once they turned 12 though (even if they had already been using said weapon for years).
so why cannot the same rules apply for guns? you can buy one but it cannot be outside a designated place without license, and why an age limit? surely a 30yo untrained is as bad as a 17yo untrained? you wouldnt allow an untrained xdriver on a freway regardless of how old they were would you?
Quote:
Illegal but as was pointed out in the post (and many agree with it), that is unconstitutional. There is no way around that. One can argue why a person should not be allowed to have it (terrorist etc.), but the fact is that restraint is unconstitutional.
then the consistution is wrong
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but this is your argument that guns will prevent this, yet your own country clearly shows that access to guns does not prevent this, and having a populus with access to guns has never prevented invasion by a such a force
I never claimed it will prevent it. I have given a counter argument that shows saying removal of the guns prevents it. Not the same thing. Also, even if it were claimed that everyone having a gun does indeed prevent it one would likely be assuming under how the 2nd amendment was formed. Currently such restrictions prevent or keep many from wanting to purchase armament (infringement on the 4th amendment is why I do not arm myself).
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
ok then as long as its transported by accepted means then i dont see a problem, carried around a public place tuncked in your sock I would say was not an acceptable manner
oh and you cannot move a car arround without restriction, you need to be licensed or it needs be transported right?You are mixing up the 2 ideas. Comparing cars to guns a car moves (requires lic) and a gun shoots (that would be where 'your' proposed lic makes sense).
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
so why cannot the same rules apply for guns? you can buy one but it cannot be outside a designated place without license, and why an age limit? surely a 30yo untrained is as bad as a 17yo untrained?
you wouldnt allow an untrained xdriver on a freway regardless of how old they were would you?Same here. You are mixing up cars being made and licensed for transportation. A gun is made to shoot. Transportation and movement of it is irrelevant. If you make it relevant it infringes on my right to bear arms.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
then the consistution is wrong, and only a fool would think that unrestricted access to such things was acceptable, just because a bad guy can do something does not make it sensible to let everyone.
do you think that the founding fathers would countenance nukes in private hands? seriously?That is your opinion. Fact is armament is the individual's right. If they make a nuke they make a nuke. Granted we have federal laws in place that make it illegal, but technically they are unconstitutional. For the mean time do to how messed up society is
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but this is your argument that guns will prevent this, yet your own country clearly shows that access to guns does not prevent this, and having a populus with access to guns has never prevented invasion by a such a force
I never claimed it will prevent it. I have given a counter argument that shows saying removal of the guns prevents it. Not the same thing. Also, even if it were claimed that everyone having a gun does indeed prevent it one would likely be assuming under how the 2nd amendment was formed. Currently such restrictions prevent or keep many from wanting to purchase armament (infringement on the 4th amendment is why I do not arm myself).
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
ok then as long as its transported by accepted means then i dont see a problem, carried around a public place tuncked in your sock I would say was not an acceptable manner
oh and you cannot move a car arround without restriction, you need to be licensed or it needs be transported right?You are mixing up the 2 ideas. Comparing cars to guns a car moves (requires lic) and a gun shoots (that would be where 'your' proposed lic makes sense).
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
so why cannot the same rules apply for guns? you can buy one but it cannot be outside a designated place without license, and why an age limit? surely a 30yo untrained is as bad as a 17yo untrained?
you wouldnt allow an untrained xdriver on a freway regardless of how old they were would you?Same here. You are mixing up cars being made and licensed for transportation. A gun is made to shoot. Transportation and movement of it is irrelevant. If you make it relevant it infringes on my right to bear arms.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
then the consistution is wrong, and only a fool would think that unrestricted access to such things was acceptable, just because a bad guy can do something does not make it sensible to let everyone.
do you think that the founding fathers would countenance nukes in private hands? seriously?That is your opinion. Fact is armament is the individual's right. If they make a nuke they make a nuke. Granted we have federal laws in place that make it illegal, but technically they are unconstitutional. For the mean time do to how messed up society is
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: actually no, other than america there has been few miltary led translations The british empire lost control because we went broke fighting miltary agression (much to the benift of the US)
Quote:
Isn't that what I said? The British empire could not afford to control its colonies anymore due to rebellions.
But thats not true, it wasnt rebellions it was unable to subsidise them and the falling out of fashion of "empire" - would you like to inform me of the countries we lost to rebellion? (other than the US) oh and by the way how many wars of expansion* has the US fought since independance and how many wars of expansion has Britian fought in the same period? *Wars fought for the gaining of land where victory led to increased land ownership for the victor. It is not supprising that the US is not trusted by so many abroad, how the hell can they be trusted when it seems so many of its own people have such a distrust in govenemnt
Quote:
Moreover just because it is written and can be unwritten does not make it not a right. Do you have a right to live in your home? A right to own property? A right to vote? A right to walk down the street? All of these things either are written or can be written or can be unwritten to take away your supposed right. We have a written under an agreement of A government of the people by the people for the people. If the government deems that our contract shall be breached then we the people will not support the government. Checks and balances. Its why we have them.
what is a right? a right to live in your home, er no, you have a agreement that a home is yours, just ask your native indians exactly how much that is worth! no right to own property again ask the Indians, right to walk down the street, er no, you may have been given permission but you cannot walk down every street - this would contradict your right to own property. Your vote is even conditional, when your precious constitution was written only white male land owners could vote (so much for of the people by the people by the way) so how can voting be a right when for a large proportion of your history you have prevented this right to so many? you have no rights in this world other than what society has deemed to be acceptable and what it deems acceptable now may not be the sa
-
Quote:
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: actually no, other than america there has been few miltary led translations The british empire lost control because we went broke fighting miltary agression (much to the benift of the US)
Quote:
Isn't that what I said? The British empire could not afford to control its colonies anymore due to rebellions.
But thats not true, it wasnt rebellions it was unable to subsidise them and the falling out of fashion of "empire" - would you like to inform me of the countries we lost to rebellion? (other than the US) oh and by the way how many wars of expansion* has the US fought since independance and how many wars of expansion has Britian fought in the same period? *Wars fought for the gaining of land where victory led to increased land ownership for the victor. It is not supprising that the US is not trusted by so many abroad, how the hell can they be trusted when it seems so many of its own people have such a distrust in govenemnt
Quote:
Moreover just because it is written and can be unwritten does not make it not a right. Do you have a right to live in your home? A right to own property? A right to vote? A right to walk down the street? All of these things either are written or can be written or can be unwritten to take away your supposed right. We have a written under an agreement of A government of the people by the people for the people. If the government deems that our contract shall be breached then we the people will not support the government. Checks and balances. Its why we have them.
what is a right? a right to live in your home, er no, you have a agreement that a home is yours, just ask your native indians exactly how much that is worth! no right to own property again ask the Indians, right to walk down the street, er no, you may have been given permission but you cannot walk down every street - this would contradict your right to own property. Your vote is even conditional, when your precious constitution was written only white male land owners could vote (so much for of the people by the people by the way) so how can voting be a right when for a large proportion of your history you have prevented this right to so many? you have no rights in this world other than what society has deemed to be acceptable and what it deems acceptable now may not be the sa
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
But thats not true, it wasnt rebellions it was unable to subsidise them and the falling out of fashion of "empire"
I really don't think you read what I wrote. The British empire new it could no longer control its colonies. Just because it worked with them in those cases doesn't change the fact they were broke do to war. Anyways it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Including your blip about US expansion. Has nothing to do with the price of melons in Alaska.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
what is a right? a right to live in your home, er no, you have a agreement that a home is yours, just ask your native indians exactly how much that is worth!
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
you have no rights in this world other than what society has deemed to be acceptable and what it deems acceptable now may not be the same as what is deemm acceptable in a another time.
Now you just contradicted yourself. I will agree it is what society deems, and by society I mean those that you even group with. The beauty of the US society is we do give power to minorities. With that small groups do provide the rest of the society with rights, whether they choose to use them or not is up to them. Right to bear arms however is not being supported by a small minority in this case. It is a in fact a majority of people. You will be hard pressed to find a majority of people that wish to ban guns (that are US citizens). You will find a decent population that is OK with the regulations, and about a similar size that is not OK with any regulations. If you don't get this you really don't understand our society. Take a look at the active presidents stance "AFTER" the shooting. He being a Liberal even stated "No new regulations".
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.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
But thats not true, it wasnt rebellions it was unable to subsidise them and the falling out of fashion of "empire"
I really don't think you read what I wrote. The British empire new it could no longer control its colonies. Just because it worked with them in those cases doesn't change the fact they were broke do to war. Anyways it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Including your blip about US expansion. Has nothing to do with the price of melons in Alaska.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
what is a right? a right to live in your home, er no, you have a agreement that a home is yours, just ask your native indians exactly how much that is worth!
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
you have no rights in this world other than what society has deemed to be acceptable and what it deems acceptable now may not be the same as what is deemm acceptable in a another time.
Now you just contradicted yourself. I will agree it is what society deems, and by society I mean those that you even group with. The beauty of the US society is we do give power to minorities. With that small groups do provide the rest of the society with rights, whether they choose to use them or not is up to them. Right to bear arms however is not being supported by a small minority in this case. It is a in fact a majority of people. You will be hard pressed to find a majority of people that wish to ban guns (that are US citizens). You will find a decent population that is OK with the regulations, and about a similar size that is not OK with any regulations. If you don't get this you really don't understand our society. Take a look at the active presidents stance "AFTER" the shooting. He being a Liberal even stated "No new regulations".
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.
Quote:
I really don't think you read what I wrote. The British empire new it could no longer control its colonies. Just because it worked with them in those cases doesn't change the fact they were broke do to war. Anyways it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Including your blip about US expansion. Has nothing to do with the price of melons in Alaska.
firstly it was you that introduced the topic, secondly I did read your post, you said it
Quote:
Isn't that what I said? The British empire could not afford to control its colonies anymore due to rebellions.
and I pointed it out that it WASNT due to rebellions, but due to two world wars in which the US bled us dry. if there is a majority who support the right to bear arms then where is your problem? or do you not have control over your elected officials?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Quote:
I really don't think you read what I wrote. The British empire new it could no longer control its colonies. Just because it worked with them in those cases doesn't change the fact they were broke do to war. Anyways it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Including your blip about US expansion. Has nothing to do with the price of melons in Alaska.
firstly it was you that introduced the topic, secondly I did read your post, you said it
Quote:
Isn't that what I said? The British empire could not afford to control its colonies anymore due to rebellions.
and I pointed it out that it WASNT due to rebellions, but due to two world wars in which the US bled us dry. if there is a majority who support the right to bear arms then where is your problem? or do you not have control over your elected officials?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
When I brought it up there was relevance. With out proper armament the US would never have succeeded in its revolution. You are now turning this into a debate of why the British Empire colapsed. Move on.
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.
-
When I brought it up there was relevance. With out proper armament the US would never have succeeded in its revolution. You are now turning this into a debate of why the British Empire colapsed. Move on.
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.
no you brought it up as a cheep jibe at the British. most of the armament that defeated the british was supplied by the french and frankly I dont realy care wether you have guns or not as it has no effect on me (other than the horrible culture of Gangsta that seems to being exported) but why should I buy into your ideals of guns making things safer when it is obvious that its not true, and as for cover fire rubbish thats the biggest joke on codeproject this week
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
no you brought it up as a cheep jibe at the British. most of the armament that defeated the british was supplied by the french and frankly I dont realy care wether you have guns or not as it has no effect on me (other than the horrible culture of Gangsta that seems to being exported) but why should I buy into your ideals of guns making things safer when it is obvious that its not true, and as for cover fire rubbish thats the biggest joke on codeproject this week
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
most of the armament that defeated the british was supplied by the french
The war would have ended before it even started with out a base supply. The French supplied AFTER the war started and was considered a turning point. Read your history.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
and frankly I dont realy care wether you have guns or not as it has no effect on me (other than the horrible culture of Gangsta that seems to being exported)
So then why debate it?
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but why should I buy into your ideals of guns making things safer when it is obvious that its not true
Again you have missed the point of the 2nd Ammendment. It has NOTHING to do with YOU being safer. It is about an individuals right. One could claim that everyone is safer if the federal government put tracking devices and listening devices on everyone. However that is an invasion of privacy and against the 4th Ammendment. You really do not understand the Bill of Rights if you think the 2nd Ammendment has to do with safety. The argument of safety is simply a counter to why those that think the 2nd Ammendment should be nulled. By showing there is that argument (i.e. it is debatable), the point is moot as that is not why we have the Amendment. If there existed no argument the nay sayers would use that logic to null it out although that is not why it exists. For example, say the government says sugar is illegal because it is bad for you. Sugar is not added to food etc. because it is claimed to be good for you. It is added because people enjoy the flavor. Therefore it is irrelevant that sugar is bad for you. Maybe not the best comparison, but that is roughly what it sounds like to people that understand the point of the 2nd amendment.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
and as for cover fire rubbish thats the biggest joke on codeproject this week
Sure sure. You clearly don't understand what an armed populace means. Or what gun fire even causes. A guy in body armor is not a freaking terminator. He is still a person that if he gets hit with a bullet will have natural reflexes partially stunning (maybe for only mili seconds). When bullets come from multiple angles they can not see or predict where the next will come from. Again, this is not the debate.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
most of the armament that defeated the british was supplied by the french
The war would have ended before it even started with out a base supply. The French supplied AFTER the war started and was considered a turning point. Read your history.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
and frankly I dont realy care wether you have guns or not as it has no effect on me (other than the horrible culture of Gangsta that seems to being exported)
So then why debate it?
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
but why should I buy into your ideals of guns making things safer when it is obvious that its not true
Again you have missed the point of the 2nd Ammendment. It has NOTHING to do with YOU being safer. It is about an individuals right. One could claim that everyone is safer if the federal government put tracking devices and listening devices on everyone. However that is an invasion of privacy and against the 4th Ammendment. You really do not understand the Bill of Rights if you think the 2nd Ammendment has to do with safety. The argument of safety is simply a counter to why those that think the 2nd Ammendment should be nulled. By showing there is that argument (i.e. it is debatable), the point is moot as that is not why we have the Amendment. If there existed no argument the nay sayers would use that logic to null it out although that is not why it exists. For example, say the government says sugar is illegal because it is bad for you. Sugar is not added to food etc. because it is claimed to be good for you. It is added because people enjoy the flavor. Therefore it is irrelevant that sugar is bad for you. Maybe not the best comparison, but that is roughly what it sounds like to people that understand the point of the 2nd amendment.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
and as for cover fire rubbish thats the biggest joke on codeproject this week
Sure sure. You clearly don't understand what an armed populace means. Or what gun fire even causes. A guy in body armor is not a freaking terminator. He is still a person that if he gets hit with a bullet will have natural reflexes partially stunning (maybe for only mili seconds). When bullets come from multiple angles they can not see or predict where the next will come from. Again, this is not the debate.
fine, so you say your piece and I will shut up as obviously I know nothing moving on with life
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
fine, so you say your piece and I will shut up as obviously I know nothing moving on with life
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Eh don't be such a prude. Your input is valued, but a lot of what you have said has been said over and over and is not valid. E.g. 1. Country A disarmed and they have no problems (implying the government or some other private force did not start oppressing the people) Irrelevant because it uses the argument of hasn't happened yet so it therefore will not happen. 2. Country A has lower crime and they disarmed. Irrelevant as there are also numerous examples of countries with disarmament that have had even worse shootings or other maniacal incidents. 3. Times have changed and so have weapons. What does a person need with XYZ gun (where XYZ is not a traditional sport or hunting weapon) Irrelevant as the 2nd ammendment clearly states that the reason for armament is not for sport or hunting but to maintain the ability to create or actively have a local militia. 4. Having the populace armed would have made incident XYZ worse. Irrelevant as this is pure speculation and the 2nd amendment is not about making maniacal incidents better or worse. Did I miss something?
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.
-
Eh don't be such a prude. Your input is valued, but a lot of what you have said has been said over and over and is not valid. E.g. 1. Country A disarmed and they have no problems (implying the government or some other private force did not start oppressing the people) Irrelevant because it uses the argument of hasn't happened yet so it therefore will not happen. 2. Country A has lower crime and they disarmed. Irrelevant as there are also numerous examples of countries with disarmament that have had even worse shootings or other maniacal incidents. 3. Times have changed and so have weapons. What does a person need with XYZ gun (where XYZ is not a traditional sport or hunting weapon) Irrelevant as the 2nd ammendment clearly states that the reason for armament is not for sport or hunting but to maintain the ability to create or actively have a local militia. 4. Having the populace armed would have made incident XYZ worse. Irrelevant as this is pure speculation and the 2nd amendment is not about making maniacal incidents better or worse. Did I miss something?
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.
yes you have, let me know if you figure it out
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
yes you have, let me know if you figure it out
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
You don't like Americans because our guns intimidate you?
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.
Nope try again ps I do like guns and I have good friends who are american and some of those are actually from the USA
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Nope try again ps I do like guns and I have good friends who are american and some of those are actually from the USA
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Well I do not see any other argument you made against the 2nd amendment (other than tangent debates that were not really related). You will have to be clear about your point.
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.
-
http://www.altpress.com/contributors/entry/phil_labonte_of_all_that_remains_on_the_second_amendment_and_our_right_to_b[^] Great music and clearly has a good understanding of the way our constitution "Should" be interpreted. Unfortunately he is right and we have a police state going on. Granted its not total lock down, but our rights have been trampled to near nil over the last 100 years. I don't understand why most people don't understand this. I hear the classic "Its outdated. You can't fight an apache with a rifle" To which my response is "Good point. We should consider getting an Apache for the neighborhood watch" :D Last night on TV I heard a good one. The argument of "Why would you ever need to shoot that many bullets so fast?" Responce: "Do you need a car that can go 250mph? Should that be made illegal as well?"
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.
What a pile of crap.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.