The gun thread, reloaded.
- Thread starter 23536
- Start date
my example was deliberately stupid to make the point.
when you take things out of context, you can make them say anything you want. which is what he's doing.
alasdair
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
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.
Please interpret the comma oh wise one; aladairm.
Being as you cannot have a militia without weapons the right for people to own weapons shall not be infringed upon. SCOTUS is with me on this one for now. Now if Obama gets another radical appointee you may be able to transform this country but for now...
Please interpret the comma oh wise one; aladairm.
Being as you cannot have a militia without weapons the right for people to own weapons shall not be infringed upon. SCOTUS is with me on this one for now. Now if Obama gets another radical appointee you may be able to transform this country but for now...
we'll never agree. the founders clearly (in my opinion) intended you to have a gun so that you could be part of a militia and help out in the event of more red coats.
but you think it means no limits. oh, except for the bit where you believe that the types of weapons should be limited. my point is that you believe it should be limited just in a different way. i'm trying to understand why my expressing my opinion on this makes me some kind of traitor and you a patriot?
alasdair
but you think it means no limits. oh, except for the bit where you believe that the types of weapons should be limited. my point is that you believe it should be limited just in a different way. i'm trying to understand why my expressing my opinion on this makes me some kind of traitor and you a patriot?
alasdair
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Famine (the majority of the numbers contributed to his "death count") isn't murder unless it's an intentional deprivation of food from a population. For centuries up until and during the early Mao era, China had experienced terrible famines regularly and cyclically. Wiping out millions, kinds of famines. The same thing was happening in India at the time and on the same scale, even though India has something like 20% more arable land than China does with a smaller population.
With that said, I'm not a particular supporter of Mao's actions or even his theories. But there are plenty of murky numbers and figures attributed to his administration.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
It's more like criminal incompetence during the Great Leap Forward. Is that murder? Or just negligent homicide?
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
There were plenty of chaotic happenings during the time, don't get me wrong. The local party officials openly encouraged former workers and slaves to humiliate or kill their former landlords or counterrevolutionaries. Mao was just a figurehead.
The Mao administration was simply extremely inefficient and poorly planned. Removing educated men and women who could contribute vast amounts of value to Chinese society and placing them on collective farms or in smelting factories isn't an efficient way to build a new country. It may have undermined the dogmatic mantras that the Party espoused, but putting highly educated and specialized workers to work utilizing their special skills rather than shipping them off for manual labor is a much better way to recover from decades of war, economic ruin and infrastructural destruction.
The Mao administration was simply extremely inefficient and poorly planned. Removing educated men and women who could contribute vast amounts of value to Chinese society and placing them on collective farms or in smelting factories isn't an efficient way to build a new country. It may have undermined the dogmatic mantras that the Party espoused, but putting highly educated and specialized workers to work utilizing their special skills rather than shipping them off for manual labor is a much better way to recover from decades of war, economic ruin and infrastructural destruction.
bass face
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 234
According to your douchy statement I may not need a gun but I will still defend the rights of other who are smaller than me to carry a gun for protection.
Also you may not make such a stupid fucking comment if you have h ad the experience of really needing the police, calling them multiple times, living near serval police stations, and not having them come for 45 minutes.
Folley
Bluelighter
I'd keep a rifle in my house for the same reason I'd keep a shovel or an ax, yeah it will probably just sit there for years without much action but I still want them there when the need arises.
Not to mention, competition shooting is a LOT of fun. I'd say anyone who says otherwise has likely never fired a gun before
Not to mention, competition shooting is a LOT of fun. I'd say anyone who says otherwise has likely never fired a gun before
Folley
Bluelighter
Ah, no. I'm a long gun man 
At 200+ yards it becomes about so much more than point and shoot
At 200+ yards it becomes about so much more than point and shoot
bass face
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 234
Ah, no. I'm a long gun man
At 200+ yards it becomes about so much more than point and shoot
there are 200 yard targets in 3 gun matches
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Nope it clearly states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed b/c it is necessary to have a standing militia. The arms of the day were rifles, early shotguns, and pistols; the arms I believe the common citizen should be allowed to have per the constitution.
Six of this or half a dozen of another what is the difference. Mao was a sociopath communist monster that murdered millions of people in the name of his flawed ideology. Even if I were a card carrying fascist I still would never indirectly stand up for Hitler.
it doesn't clearly state anything, hence the debate.
so you'll be trading in everything but your musket? you're full of it.
alasdair
bloodshed344
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,576
Actually, it quite clearly states it's intent and only a lawyer (haha!) could argue otherwise.
As to the other point... droppersneck is confused. Citizens should have the right to bear all the arms that the military uses because citizens are the military. The constitution doesn't call for a standing army, especially not a standing army that is better equipped than the population it is supposedly defending.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
B/c I am standing up for the word of the SCOTUS, founding fathers, and the vast majority of the population. You are representing the biased opinion of the vast majority of Jon Stewarts viewing audience. In short the law of the land says I'm right and you're wrong.
So you feel the public should have access to drones and biological weapons?
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
But the Supreme Court seems to have a slightly contradictory view of the 2nd amendment than the founding fathers.
- CNSNews.
bloodshed344
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,576
Where did I say I support the military having these weapons? The worst part about your post is that it implies you do.
Of course I don't feel ANYONE should have access to such, but I think a militia by the people for the people would handle it a lot better than the ruling class who believe an earth with more than 500 million people is not sustainable. I mean gee golly, have you ever thought "Why do the people close to the source of money love war so much?"
Nah man, go fellate Mitt Romney.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
I'm pretty sure that's what the well established militia portion of the amendment is referring to.
You have to take into account the historical conditions of the time. No formal army, no police force, no real state or federal law enforcement aside from volunteer soldiers and well regulated state militias. The first step toward establishing an army that can repel foreign invasion is to establish well trained militias capable of participating in war.
The document is 240 years old ffs.