balitmore, oakland etcRTHKI wrote:
chicago
Which is as asinine as responding to to the question "why do you post on a web forum" with "First amendment says so".Jay wrote:
What I don't think you foreigners get is that when someone replies with '2nd Amendment says so' to a question about why they own guns, it's a very polite way of heading off a debate and at the same time telling you they do not want to be bothered on the topic.
Do gun owners get pulled up by people asking questions they don't want to hear when they're out and about? Or is it only in discussion forums where its not really unreasonable, and if they want to have hissy fits and shout "because freedom" over and over they just look stupid?Using the same car example, how would you feel if an environmentalist walked up to you as you were about to start your car and started questioning you about why you weren't using mass transit, or riding a bicycle or walking instead of polluting the environment and potentially causing someone to die or be physically impaired by your carbon monoxide emissions. You'd feel uncomfortable, yes? I'd tell them to fuck off. A more polite person might point out that there is no law limiting their freedom to possess and own a car for transportation. What if that environmentalist then went to the government and tried to have cars banned from the road? Would you be pissed off, or would you just go along with it?
Well there you go, the 2nd amendment is subject to adjustment by the courts and the govt, and has been extensively modified and altered over the years so ongoing discussion is perfectly reasonable.Now, as for guns themselves, well, it's not just the 2nd Amendment that props up private gun ownership, it's over 200 years of case law as well as multiple instances of the Supreme Court upholding and strengthening gun rights. The NRA has been the chief advocate of gun rights and gun owners for a while now, and you have to understand that in many cases they take what appears to be an extreme position, but it's just a negotiating tactic. If they take that extreme position, they end up with a more favorable outcome when gun laws do get placed on the books, one that is more to their side of the thought process than to the people who want them banned. They've advocated for gun control laws in the past, they've pushed for local background checks, and safety courses for concealed carry permits etc. They aren't the enemy by any means. Honestly I wish there was a well funded group that stood up for the other amendments just as heartily, but all we have is the pussy ass ACLU and their band of well-meaning misfits.
Its been changed repeatedly and will be changed repeatedly.So, yeah, that's where that line of thinking stems from. Call it outdated, call it stupid, call it whatever you want, but it is enmeshed in the fabric of what it is to be American. Good luck changing that, or convincing most people to think otherwise.
Fuck Israel
Furthermore, I don't really get what the angry end of the 'pro-gun' crowd really think they're doing shouting down anyone who questions anything.
The fact is their rights have been steadily whittled away and are going to be further whittled away unless they come up with something smarter than "constitution says so".
The fact is their rights have been steadily whittled away and are going to be further whittled away unless they come up with something smarter than "constitution says so".
Fuck Israel
What about tyrannical dogs running loose?-Sh1fty- wrote:
The key word here, UN13, is need. I said if we got rid of criminals the only people that would NEED guns are the military. We're not talking about leisure here.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That doesn't even make any sense. You said there's nothing wrong with owning a gun for fun, but then say that if you get rid of criminals only the military will need guns?-Sh1fty- wrote:
@Burnzz
There's nothing wrong with owning a gun for fun and/or self-defense. The only culture change necessary is crime. You get rid of criminals and nobody will ever need a gun except the military.
ALL MY WAT.
I'd tell you to start analyzing your own logic, but it would be like asking a cat to herd itself. I bet you'll try to slick by this like you've dodged answering most of the questions posed to you over the past few days.
orly? i looked it up on wikipedia, and to me it looks kinda ambiguous. what kinda military it is if on one hand it's supposed to be organised on the national level, but on the other every state has a right to train one for itself?Cybargs wrote:
well regulated militia means an organized military shahter, you know the type that every country has.Shahter wrote:
absolutely, shifty. there's totally nothing wrong with that, but the fucking amendment says that the guns and "well regulated militia" whatever the hell that might mean is "necessary to maintain teh free state". that may have been semi-sensible 200 of years ago.
anyway, that part is simply unclear, or badly worded, but the one about shifties needing mini-14's to defend themselves against their own government is plainly outdated.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Every state in the US does have military units, they're called national guard units and their commander in chief is their state governor.Shahter wrote:
orly? i looked it up on wikipedia, and to me it looks kinda ambiguous. what kinda military it is if on one hand it's supposed to be organised on the national level, but on the other every state has a right to train one for itself?Cybargs wrote:
well regulated militia means an organized military shahter, you know the type that every country has.Shahter wrote:
absolutely, shifty. there's totally nothing wrong with that, but the fucking amendment says that the guns and "well regulated militia" whatever the hell that might mean is "necessary to maintain teh free state". that may have been semi-sensible 200 of years ago.
anyway, that part is simply unclear, or badly worded, but the one about shifties needing mini-14's to defend themselves against their own government is plainly outdated.
Well you can ask switzerland why do all of their citizens need Assault Rifles? Nobody is going to invade them anyway right? Plus they're one of the freest country in the world.
Turn the US into Switzerland. 'Nuff said. Anyone who wants a gun is military-trained and you basically have everyone part of a "well-regulated" militia.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
I like pie.
Blame the hippies. They used to have conscription and the draft until vietnam.TSI wrote:
Turn the US into Switzerland. 'Nuff said. Anyone who wants a gun is military-trained and you basically have everyone part of a "well-regulated" militia.
Problem solved.
what an idiotic system.Cybargs wrote:
Every state in the US does have military units, they're called national guard units and their commander in chief is their state governor.Shahter wrote:
orly? i looked it up on wikipedia, and to me it looks kinda ambiguous. what kinda military it is if on one hand it's supposed to be organised on the national level, but on the other every state has a right to train one for itself?Cybargs wrote:
well regulated militia means an organized military shahter, you know the type that every country has.
anyway, that part is simply unclear, or badly worded, but the one about shifties needing mini-14's to defend themselves against their own government is plainly outdated.
not everybody. only those, who are fit to be in the military.Well you can ask switzerland why do all of their citizens need Assault Rifles? Nobody is going to invade them anyway right?
have you been to switzerland, kiddie? they are one of the most grossly regulated countries in the world. regulations upon regulations upon regulations. you can't even fart sideways in there without submitting somekinda paper to authorities first.Plus they're one of the freest country in the world.
also, what TSI said.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
You do realize that the national guard is still part of the overall military right? it's just their primary purpose is to be the first line of defense in the event of an invasion.
what i do realize that any national military needs to be centralized under one command. in the amendment however - or at least in it's explanation i found - it says that it doesn't.Cybargs wrote:
You do realize that the national guard is still part of the overall military right? it's just their primary purpose is to be the first line of defense in the event of an invasion.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
huh?Shahter wrote:
what i do realize that any national military needs to be centralized under one command. in the amendment however - or at least in it's explanation i found - it says that it doesn't.Cybargs wrote:
You do realize that the national guard is still part of the overall military right? it's just their primary purpose is to be the first line of defense in the event of an invasion.
Commander in chief of the national guard is the state governor
national guard is part of the US military
the national guard can still be called upon by the federal government - if approved by the governor.
National guard units ARE NOT full time military, they are reserved components, hence they are by definition a militia.
the wording of "well regulated militia" just means a trained military, the word "state" can be both applied to the states, and the USA as a sovereign state.
edit: the US military is a centralized unit, hence department of defense. National Guard is just a different ball game.
Last edited by Cybargs (2013-01-30 07:57:04)
IF my aunt had a beard she'd be my uncle.-Sh1fty- wrote:
There are a lot of opinions flying around as to why that is but I won't address that right now. You obviously didn't understand that what I was saying was in response to what Burnzz said. Try reading it again. I wasn't saying we could get rid of crime, I was saying that IF we could then weapons wouldn't be a necessity.
fuck off already.
whatever. none of that is there in the amendment - it's "free state", "well regulated militia" and other pompous crap in there. i have no problem understanding, for example, you, but the shit they have in that constitution is so ambiguous it just reeks of information manipulation.Cybargs wrote:
huh?Shahter wrote:
what i do realize that any national military needs to be centralized under one command. in the amendment however - or at least in it's explanation i found - it says that it doesn't.Cybargs wrote:
You do realize that the national guard is still part of the overall military right? it's just their primary purpose is to be the first line of defense in the event of an invasion.
Commander in chief of the national guard is the state governor
national guard is part of the US military
the national guard can still be called upon by the federal government - if approved by the governor.
National guard units ARE NOT full time military, they are reserved components, hence they are by definition a militia.
the wording of "well regulated militia" just means a trained military, the word "state" can be both applied to the states, and the USA as a sovereign state.
edit: the US military is a centralized unit, hence department of defense. National Guard is just a different ball game.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
either way, the first clause of the second amendment is pretty clear - you need a military in order to protect your (sovereign) state.
that's not what it says in there and it's far from "clear", imo.Cybargs wrote:
either way, the first clause of the second amendment is pretty clear - you need a military in order to protect your (sovereign) state.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
We have three major designations for our military forces. We have active duty units and reserve units which are controlled completely by the federal government, and we have National Guard units which are nominally under the control of the states and partially funded by them, but which are under federal control when they are called up to supplement our national forces. When a National Guard unit is called up at the federal level the president needs to ask permission from the state governor to do so, but that's mostly an anachronistic formality.Shahter wrote:
what i do realize that any national military needs to be centralized under one command. in the amendment however - or at least in it's explanation i found - it says that it doesn't.Cybargs wrote:
You do realize that the national guard is still part of the overall military right? it's just their primary purpose is to be the first line of defense in the event of an invasion.
The system is a relic from the time when we had a very small national army and state militia units of volunteers and draftees were called up to supplement to 'regular army' forces. The Civil War was predominantly a fight between state militia units under their respective federal governments' control. Now they're just weekend warriors who are called up in times of national emergency.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yeah. If it were clear we wouldn't have so much debate about it.Shahter wrote:
that's not what it says in there and it's far from "clear", imo.Cybargs wrote:
either way, the first clause of the second amendment is pretty clear - you need a military in order to protect your (sovereign) state.
and open interpretation + constitutional lawyers.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Yeah. If it were clear we wouldn't have so much debate about it.Shahter wrote:
that's not what it says in there and it's far from "clear", imo.Cybargs wrote:
either way, the first clause of the second amendment is pretty clear - you need a military in order to protect your (sovereign) state.
-Whiteroom- wrote:
Yeah. If it were clear we wouldn't have so much debate about it.Shahter wrote:
that's not what it says in there and it's far from "clear", imo.
my points. the amendment is total crap.Cybargs wrote:
and open interpretation + constitutional lawyers.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
yeah same with the rest of the bill of rights amirite.Shahter wrote:
-Whiteroom- wrote:
Yeah. If it were clear we wouldn't have so much debate about it.Shahter wrote:
that's not what it says in there and it's far from "clear", imo.my points. the amendment is total crap.Cybargs wrote:
and open interpretation + constitutional lawyers.
i dunno. can't really say, didn't research much into the rest of it. it would be a safe bet, however, given the rate at which human civilization have been progressing over past two hundred years, to assume that any document as complex and dependent on historical context as bill of rights would become largely irrelevant if left mostly unchanged over that period.Cybargs wrote:
yeah same with the rest of the bill of rights amirite.Shahter wrote:
-Whiteroom- wrote:
Yeah. If it were clear we wouldn't have so much debate about it.my points. the amendment is total crap.Cybargs wrote:
and open interpretation + constitutional lawyers.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
I don't even know what's in my constitution bar a few obvious rules.
Nobody really cares. I prefer it that way tbh
Nobody really cares. I prefer it that way tbh
Last edited by Shocking (2013-01-30 11:20:28)
inane little opines
Kinda dumb to be so willfully ignorant of the basics of your government. Especially if you know more about ours then your own.Shocking wrote:
I don't even know what's in my constitution bar a few obvious rules.
Nobody really cares. I prefer it that way tbh
So most of the people debating our second amendment don't even know what is in their own constitution. Impressive..
because only the hippies were tired of sending their teens into the meat grinderCybargs wrote:
Blame the hippies. They used to have conscription and the draft until vietnam.TSI wrote:
Turn the US into Switzerland. 'Nuff said. Anyone who wants a gun is military-trained and you basically have everyone part of a "well-regulated" militia.
Problem solved.
you are dumb