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

The gun thread, reloaded.

Droppersneck said:
Using guns for home defense isnt even why the constitution allows them. The only reason we need the 2nd is to protect against a tyrannical government per the founding fathers. An assault weapon would be a very basic tool in the event.
Click to expand...

Source?

I can source an excerpt from the same document that renders this explicitly illegal and punishable by death.



States rights are one of the most important things we have in this country. As long as nothing is being done federally I am cool with it tbh
Click to expand...

Right, but does it matter which government is doing it? I'm not seeing how states negating a constitutional right is alright, but the federal government negating a constitutional right is tyranny. The US constitution is to be abided by all states, not just ones that choose to. See: the US civil war.
 
Bardeaux said:
Source?

I can source an excerpt from the same document that renders this explicitly illegal and punishable by death.





Right, but does it matter which government is doing it? I'm not seeing how states negating a constitutional right is alright, but the federal government negating a constitutional right is tyranny. The US constitution is to be abided by all states, not just ones that choose to. See: the US civil war.
Click to expand...

Im not posting the 2nd amendment look it up. I think it should be up to the states. If the population of the state wants a limited 2nd amendment so be it.
 
alasdairm said:
those who support the loosest interpretation of the 2nd amendment feel that the solution to the societal problem of gun crime is more guns. that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. (that's a rather simplistic paraphrasing, i agree, but it's to make a point.)

the 2nd amendment says "Arms" but the framers chose not to define what that meant. we can interpret what the framers meant any way we like - especially to fit our own agenda - but i think that the framers would be comfortable with a state defining for itself what "Arms"? don't you?

alasdair
Click to expand...

RPGs and Nukes for citizens is what they meant. Its to prevent another empire from controlling us. To fight tyranny. While I don't think we (who?) should let any ordinary Joe hold a nuke (or the give the ability to set it off), they didn't see such increases in capability. Yes they had single shot rifles back then. They didn't see all this coming. I still think they had the right idea. Arms is whatever the top dog has. Anyone should be able to have them.

True I can argue against what I've said.

Ideally, anyone should be able to have them. In practice, I'm not so sure it works, so far. Not at all really, but it's almost as if I would rather see people die than be wrong, and I think what New York has done is wrong. Not to imply that keeping these guns legal would make more people die, exactly. Then again, ease of access...

Still I want to fight it. Putting this through my brain makes me want to, if it was there/able to be seen how to implement, join an organization opposed to the oppressive movement, which is what I consider what the government in New York has done. I'd sooner die than give up my right to fight at the level of the largest military, if I so choose and can.

This is also an ideal. In reality I'd probably adapt to live, but fight peacefully as long as I can (ideally). I guess that is an admirable way, as well. But then I also come back to, well, contingency. Invasions of all kinds. Sudden breakdown of society, I would rather have access (and those places where automatic/semi-auto weapons and whatnot are more legal would have access, but not New York).
 
Last edited:
mr.smiley said:
This I know from experience, as Iv operated the M2 for my profession.
Click to expand...

Wait... Aren't you the same guy who was saying he busts his guts to earn LESS than someone flipping burgers? And this career involves firing a .50 calibre machine gun? What is it that you do exactly?
 
Droppersneck said:
Lol I can legally carry my guns concealed into the bar here
Click to expand...

Where in the bar exactly do you conceal them?

Jokes aside, as an outsider looking in: that doesn't sound like "freedom" to me, that sounds quite literally insane. Like, you are a crazy person and only crazy people would let people carrying guns into any public space like that, much less one where they serve liquor. I know that you won't in any way get where I'm coming from when I say that but I just thought I should point out how the vistas of the planet you inhabit look from down here on Planet Earth :)
 
Bardeaux said:
How much crime is committed using assault weapons and how many "common men" use them as home defense weapons?

The capacity for damage involved is outweighing actual every day crime in this case. If you're defending your home with an AR-15 or an AK you're extremely irresponsible. Unless it's an armored horde of paramilitary forces invading your home there's no reason to use a weapon that will cut through walls like a hot knife through butter at 200 rpm.

New Yorkers' 2nd amendment is still in tact. The amendment doesn't specify which arms are acceptable. Obviously all of them can't be legal.
Click to expand...

Second that.

It is not a juridical problem, but an ideological one, that manifested itself when the first Spanish and English retards invaded the beautiful country in the 16th century and declared it despotically as their own because the native (real) Americans were helpless against the hand guns/cannons, that originated in China. Since then, ridiculously enough, personal arms count as means of "protecting ones freedom", although they were exclusively used to destroy the latter. Propaganda at its best. That people still believe in "safety through guns" - bullshit goes beyond my comprehension. Every person with a gun is a coward or a retard.
 
bit_pattern said:
Wait... Aren't you the same guy who was saying he busts his guts to earn LESS than someone flipping burgers? And this career involves firing a .50 calibre machine gun? What is it that you do exactly?
Click to expand...

Its not a career. Its a contract. What I make equals out to about 2.50 an hour. But thats a different thread.

Ziiirp said:
Since then, ridiculously enough, personal arms count as means of "protecting ones freedom", although they were exclusively used to destroy the latter. Propaganda at its best. That people still believe in "safety through guns" - bullshit goes beyond my comprehension. Every person with a gun is a coward or a retard.
Click to expand...

I love this, you cant just claim that without guns America would be better off. There are countries out there who raise their little kids to hate our guts for no reason, all because the freedoms that you all enjoy. Its so easy for the more liberal side of views to say if we didn't have weapons and didn't step on toes we would be left alone...that's a nice dream but its still a fairytale dream.
They seem to forget we are a world power and what we used to stand for as a nation.

A great Japanese Admiral was quoted "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

How would that be true without armed citizens? You think he was talking about American troops? No. He was talking about the American people back then because they had a sense of patriotism, loyalty and love for country.
Those who also spit at the idea of guns will also be the loudest for someone to come defend their homes in times of real crises. Yet no one seems to realize that Americas military is going through a change currently. We call it the pussification. "Mothers of America"(an organization not everyone's mom) has pushed and pushed for better treatment and no hazing. Not realizing that, without that...infantrymen are not the angry pent up dogs waiting to be unleashed. Its hard for people to comprehend the need for such activities because they have never been put in that kind of situation.

I will not rely on others to provide my security from an aggressor, foreign or domestic.

We have lost sight of this. So guns are now used as a scapegoat for our small time governments being unable to prevent/reduce violent crime.
 
Ziiirp said:
Every person with a gun is a coward or a retard.
Click to expand...

You would have looked good ending this paragraph one sentence earlier.

I will not rely on others to provide my security from an aggressor, foreign or domestic.
Click to expand...

This is fearmongering, which taints your whole argument because anti-gun folks will think, accordingly, that you're a zealous psycho who fantasizes about situations in which the guy with the gun becomes the hero.

Personally, I don't think there's any need for private citizens to own downgraded military hardware. If you can't hit something with a rifle bullet on the first shot, then on what rational basis should you deserve the right to keep trying until the mag is empty?

I've been trained to shoot since before I could tie my own shoes, and since my family spent most of the 20th century living under occupation I was taught by people who did trade gunfire with foreign aggressors. When we were in the field, shooting, there was never any rhetoric. Guns were not even a topic for discussion at any time other than when I was lying on my belly looking down the sights. When we walked off the range and back into civil society, gun talk became a taboo. There was simply the unspoken understanding that there was much more to learn about other people than how to kill them. When I grew older and got actual military training in marksmanship, the rules were more or less the same: lock the guns up when they're not in use, they're a responsibility not a right. I think that's a lesson that's worth learning, especially in contemporary America where dozens of homocides are commited daily because it's easier for some people to pull a trigger than to actually deal with people.
 
Droppersneck said:
Im not posting the 2nd amendment look it up. I think it should be up to the states. If the population of the state wants a limited 2nd amendment so be it.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty short amendment, I know the exact wording.

On both points, it doesn't leave this decision up to individual states and it doesn't permit the overthrow of any government, state or federal. Sedition is explicitly outlawed in the preamble. Not to say revolutionaries need legal permission to overthrow their government, but to hold the 2nd amendment up as a legal loophole for treason is inaccurate.

mr.smiley said:
A great Japanese Admiral was quoted "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

How would that be true without armed citizens? You think he was talking about American troops? No. He was talking about the American people back then because they had a sense of patriotism, loyalty and love for country.
Click to expand...

Not to be a stickler, but the Yamamoto quote is most likely a fabrication. The US navy was the largest impediment to a Japanese invasion.
 
Last edited:
If the feds banned every weapon aside from muskets they would still technically be providing a right to bear arms. It's bizarre how staunch some people are in the cultural dichotomy between the 2nd amendment and its infringement. It's obviously not a black and white issue.
 
bit_pattern said:
Where in the bar exactly do you conceal them?

Jokes aside, as an outsider looking in: that doesn't sound like "freedom" to me, that sounds quite literally insane. Like, you are a crazy person and only crazy people would let people carrying guns into any public space like that, much less one where they serve liquor. I know that you won't in any way get where I'm coming from when I say that but I just thought I should point out how the vistas of the planet you inhabit look from down here on Planet Earth :)
Click to expand...
I am not going to lie it is a bit ridiculous and unnecessary but it is a funny law. TN passed it a few years back to where if you are not drinking you can legally conceal carry so long as you are a permit holder and the bar allows it.

-No Bardo it is not a living breathing document. Preamble shmeamble

-Lol aladairm dont you think the "why shouldnt you be able to have a nuke" argument is a bit tired..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top