• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The gun thread, reloaded.

Bardeaux said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay. You never made the case of why there should be a standing army. Or a police force.

Oh and since we're on the subject... okay we need the army industrial machine to protect amurca from terrorists right? and we need police to protect us from ourselves, right???

How is it then that you're 8x more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist?

and no, I don't think that's what the OLD ASS DOCUMENT was referring to. I don't think they were referring to the right of individuals to form their own armies as that sounds treasonous. I mean really did you even think about that?
 
bloodshed344 said:
Okay. You never made the case of why there should be a standing army. Or a police force.
Click to expand...

Do I really need to?

I mean, a standing army isn't really necessary. But trained, experienced and capable reserves are always a good idea. But in 1792, the revolutionary war ended just a few years prior. The British would be back.

Oh and since we're on the subject... okay we need the army industrial machine to protect amurca from terrorists right? and we need police to protect us from ourselves, right???

How is it then that you're 8x more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist?
Click to expand...

Now you're just preaching to the choir. Militarization of police, bad. Rule of law and enforcement thereof, good.

I've found a 20 minute documentary that sums this this entire thread.
 
Last edited:
Droppersneck said:
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.
Click to expand...

So The first amendment does not apply to copy machines, just printing presses?
 
I guess I'm one of the few pro-2nd ammendment / proud of my firearms, for self-defense, and hunting. I've had plenty of fun with AR-15s, and other, better fully automatic assault weapons, but never like, as an act of malice, like using an Uzi for a drive by shooting. I understand where a lot of people are coming from when they say that if we banned guns, then utopia would happen, blah blah blah, point is, am I one of the only ones who believes society as we know it is doomed?

And that at the end, as time and history has shown, that by any means necessary, when it comes down to it, the only person looking out for you, is you. If/When life becomes an every-man-for-himself scenario, I think all of my efforts towards preparing for an apocalypse will not be something that people make fun of. I'm not like those crazies on that show dooms day preppers on TV, but I have spent YEARS accumulating and preparing a way of getting the fuck out of where I am if necessary, beyond the normal "Go-bag". Enough food, shelter, protection (including the small arsenal which prompted my interest in this thread), water (purication & storage) , ammo (including some for the most common firearms that I personally don't use/have), fuel (diesel, gasoline, kerosene, propane, ethanol), generators, clothes, personal hygiene, a metric fuckton of medication for long-term storage...

But back to the main point, is that idk, my views are that my country has been using firearms since their invention, and that even the founding fathers knew (and probably hoped) that we would develop much better firearms than muskets and howitzers FFS... Now we got AK-47's and Minute~Man rockets. Our military, that is, and gun laws are only getting stricter and stricter pretty much everywhere except the Lower 48, they're cracking down or at least they say they are.

Arci said:
I'll give up my guns when the police give up theirs
Click to expand...

Amen. Just like the world with nuclear weapons.
 
Bardeaux said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay.....but you did state this:
Bardeaux said:
Fact: Mao personally strangled 100 million himself with his bare hands
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for this number or is it hyperbole or some sort of colorful murderous metaphor? I mean, honestly, I dont care about the numbers because there is nothing to be won here.
 
^Oh, that. That was sarcasm, to exaggerate the already exaggerated claims surrounding Mao and gun control debate rhetoric. When his regime took power, it was probably the armed masses taking revenge on their former landlords and others that contributed to such a high death toll.

Arci said:
I'll give up my guns when the police give up theirs
Click to expand...

This just perpetuates an arms race between criminals and law enforcement. Both of which require ordinary citizens to arm themselves to compensate. With an end result of everybody pointing guns at everyone at all times just to feel safe. Seems legit.
 
Bardeaux said:
^Oh, that. That was sarcasm, to exaggerate the already exaggerated claims surrounding Mao and gun control debate rhetoric. When his regime took power, it was probably the armed masses taking revenge on their former landlords and others that contributed to such a high death toll.
Click to expand...
I thought that may be it but sometimes I dont always pick up on the nuanced trolling of Droppers.
 
Bardeaux said:
I'm pretty sure that's what the well established militia portion of the amendment is referring to.
Click to expand...
that's not the text. the text is "A well regulated Militia..."

even the founding fathers knew that an armed citizenry needed regulation - they make specific mention of it in the text of the amendment*

alasdair

* gun nuts, feel free to talk about how the founding fathers got it spot on, but ignore that bit completely, of course :\
 
alasdairm said:
maybe - unlike you he's not some communist who believes in limiting the 2nd amendment...

blah blah blah.

alasdair
Click to expand...
Or you could just read my post to see what I mean.

To your next post, a well regulated militia is not an overly regulated militia nor a standing army.

An aside since you're talking about citizens having access to nuclear and biological weapons: Have you heard about the scandal involving the secret (off the record black ops) transfer of a nuke to South Carolina. (Sen. Lindsey Graham on the same day remarked South Caroline would get nuked if America didn't go to war with Syria...) and the firing of the two nuke commanders the same day? Maybe they were fired because they couldn't "follow orders". In relation to the topic of this thread, yes I trust the decisions of the collective of a large population over the decisions of the few and powerful. Please explain why you're playing devil's advocate to this position, does my shining heart of liberty annoy you?
 
to me, a well-regulated militia is just that. a well-regulated militia. no more. no less.

ime, few of these gun nuts care two shits about the constitution - they just have a huge gun boner and their interpretation of the letter 2nd amendment lets them masturbate publicly with their replacement penises. the whole time, they cynically sneer at the spirit of the document the talk about holding so dear.

just my opinion, of course.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
to me, a well-regulated militia is just that. a well-regulated militia. no more. no less.

ime, few of these gun nuts care two shits about the constitution - they just have a huge gun boner and their interpretation of the letter 2nd amendment lets them masturbate publicly with their replacement penises. the whole time, they cynically sneer at the spirit of the document the talk about holding so dear.

just my opinion, of course.

alasdair
Click to expand...
Well, good way to deflect my post I guess. It's a good thing that your complaint of "gun nuts" doesn't include me because I care very much about the constitution. I guess I should also state that it's a bit of a stretch to call me a gun nut as I don't have any guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top