Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The US paradox

Page 8 of 9 [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

23 Dec 2012, 9:14 pm

Dox47 wrote:
shrox wrote:
Give us both knives and I'll bet I've got the edge on you, since I can throw and stick one and you probably cannot. But you could learn in about a week.


Really? At a non-defined range, on a moving target, and with lethal or disabling effect? Cause I've got to tell you, I wouldn't want to be the guy that just chucked a knife at someone and missed, had it hit butt end first, or just inflicted a surface wound, and was then at the mercy of his opponent who was smart enough not to throw his weapon away...


You just can't get my point can you? Depending upon any ONE thing as your solution is not smart.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

23 Dec 2012, 9:40 pm

shrox wrote:
You just can't get my point can you? Depending upon any ONE thing as your solution is not smart.


I carry at least one gun and extra ammunition, a folding knife, wear steel toed shoes, and train in Filipino martial arts, so no, I don't depend upon any one thing, but a whole constellation of things, the foremost actually being the organic matter between my ears. Like I occasionally tell people, if you see me hitting someone with my fists (really elbows is more likely, but fists sounds better), than it's safe to assume that I've experienced a long and unlikely series of system and weapon failures.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

24 Dec 2012, 12:24 am

shrox wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
shrox wrote:
Raptor wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Not being allowed to own a gun is slavery now?


Well, it's what separates citizens from mere subjects.
If I have to explain then you wouldn't understand.....


That's pretty offensive as well as very narrow minded.
offensive how?
the reality is that in society some people have more rights than others,why sugur coat it


The idea that I need a gun, or else I am not a citizen. That's offensive.

Give us both guns and we can shoot each other.
Give us both knives and I'll bet I've got the edge on you, since I can throw and stick one and you probably cannot. But you could learn in about a week.


No, the FREEDOM to chose to be armed is what I'm talking about.
Being told by law that I can not (legally) be armed is less than being a citizen.
That's my stand on it, offensive or not.

PS: And about the knife throwing thing: Don't take a knife to a gun fight.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

24 Dec 2012, 2:51 am

Raptor wrote:
No, the FREEDOM to chose to be armed is what I'm talking about.
Being told by law that I can not (legally) be armed is less than being a citizen.
That's my stand on it, offensive or not.

PS: And about the knife throwing thing: Don't take a knife to a gun fight.


You have no freedom to arm yourself with landmines, grenades, missiles, not even a machine gun. The whole 'puny gun = free citizen' sounds no more than a marketing slogan.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

28 Dec 2012, 9:45 pm

01001011 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
No, the FREEDOM to chose to be armed is what I'm talking about.
Being told by law that I can not (legally) be armed is less than being a citizen.
That's my stand on it, offensive or not.

PS: And about the knife throwing thing: Don't take a knife to a gun fight.


You have no freedom to arm yourself with landmines, grenades, missiles, not even a machine gun. The whole 'puny gun = free citizen' sounds no more than a marketing slogan.


Given the emptiness of your other posts on this subject over the past year I guess I can't be too surprised by this one.
:roll:


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

28 Dec 2012, 9:50 pm

01001011 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
No, the FREEDOM to chose to be armed is what I'm talking about.
Being told by law that I can not (legally) be armed is less than being a citizen.
That's my stand on it, offensive or not.

PS: And about the knife throwing thing: Don't take a knife to a gun fight.


You have no freedom to arm yourself with landmines, grenades, missiles, not even a machine gun. The whole 'puny gun = free citizen' sounds no more than a marketing slogan.


Anything the government has so should citizens.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Dec 2012, 5:26 am

Jacoby wrote:
01001011 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
No, the FREEDOM to chose to be armed is what I'm talking about.
Being told by law that I can not (legally) be armed is less than being a citizen.
That's my stand on it, offensive or not.

PS: And about the knife throwing thing: Don't take a knife to a gun fight.


You have no freedom to arm yourself with landmines, grenades, missiles, not even a machine gun. The whole 'puny gun = free citizen' sounds no more than a marketing slogan.


Anything the government has so should citizens.

That's a stupid idea. If Adam Lanza had access to nukes, he would have destroyed the entire state.
If the US didn't have nukes, we'd be vulnerable to states like North Korea.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

30 Dec 2012, 6:10 am

LKL wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
01001011 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
No, the FREEDOM to chose to be armed is what I'm talking about.
Being told by law that I can not (legally) be armed is less than being a citizen.
That's my stand on it, offensive or not.

PS: And about the knife throwing thing: Don't take a knife to a gun fight.


You have no freedom to arm yourself with landmines, grenades, missiles, not even a machine gun. The whole 'puny gun = free citizen' sounds no more than a marketing slogan.


Anything the government has so should citizens.

That's a stupid idea. If Adam Lanza had access to nukes, he would have destroyed the entire state.
If the US didn't have nukes, we'd be vulnerable to states like North Korea.


I wasn't aware that Adam Lanza was a trillionaire with access to weapons grade plutonium.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Dec 2012, 6:13 am

Jacoby wrote:
LKL wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
01001011 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
No, the FREEDOM to chose to be armed is what I'm talking about.
Being told by law that I can not (legally) be armed is less than being a citizen.
That's my stand on it, offensive or not.

PS: And about the knife throwing thing: Don't take a knife to a gun fight.


You have no freedom to arm yourself with landmines, grenades, missiles, not even a machine gun. The whole 'puny gun = free citizen' sounds no more than a marketing slogan.


Anything the government has so should citizens.

That's a stupid idea. If Adam Lanza had access to nukes, he would have destroyed the entire state.
If the US didn't have nukes, we'd be vulnerable to states like North Korea.


I wasn't aware that Adam Lanza was a trillionaire with access to weapons grade plutonium.

Thankfully, weapons-grade plutonium is something that the government has access to, which ordinary citizens do not, contra the statement you made above.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

30 Dec 2012, 7:07 am

You're just being silly now.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Dec 2012, 3:16 pm

Did I misinterpret your statement? You said that citizens should have access to whatever the state has access to, right?
By that logic, if the state has access to nuclear weapons, citizens should have access to nuclear weapons as well.
Maybe you were being hyperbolic? If so, where would you draw the line of weaponry that the state should have access to but citizens should not?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

31 Dec 2012, 6:25 am

LKL wrote:
Did I misinterpret your statement? You said that citizens should have access to whatever the state has access to, right?
By that logic, if the state has access to nuclear weapons, citizens should have access to nuclear weapons as well.
Maybe you were being hyperbolic? If so, where would you draw the line of weaponry that the state should have access to but citizens should not?


Say it were legal to simply go out an buy a nuke. Where would you get one? What would it cost? Would you have to build all the equipment necessary for extracting and purifying the necessary elements, shaping them very precisely, assembling them in the correct fashion? Basically, I'm asking if in the case of nukes a prohibition is actually necessary. Chemical and biological weapons are certainly readily available for a lot less money and trouble, and yet we don't seem to have much of a problem with civilians using them, as they're not terribly useful things for the average civilian, or even the not so average. Building a machinegun, or a grenade, or a flamethrower is garage science, not terribly difficult, but people don't generally do it. Why? Because none of those things is very useful day to day. Regular old guns, on the other hand, are very useful, and more importantly, very practical, and so many people own and use them. Notice that machineguns and other destructive devices were legal and freely available for a time, and the only reason we had problems was because of Prohibition, a government interference that unleashed a decade of misery and criminality for no good reason at all. Ditto the drug war. End that atrocity and see where the crime rate stands, then we'll talk about guns.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

31 Dec 2012, 6:51 am

some people who live in out of the way areas like 19th century cannons to shoot off for fun.which as long as you have a good back stop that should be fairly safe.

as far as a citizen owning nuclear weapons i would say no,because were would they test them safely and where could radio active elements be safely kept.
even if your a borkian connstitutional purest,some level of common sense must appy.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Dec 2012, 9:50 am

vermontsavant wrote:
some people who live in out of the way areas like 19th century cannons to shoot off for fun.which as long as you have a good back stop that should be fairly safe.

as far as a citizen owning nuclear weapons i would say no,because were would they test them safely and where could radio active elements be safely kept.
even if your a borkian connstitutional purest,some level of common sense must appy.


True. The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact with stupidity and craziness.

The most one can extract from the U.S. constitution by way of the 9 th amendment is the right to possess weapons for personal defense. That is defense of one's self and one's family (the blood family is one's own flesh).

A-Bombs are NOT!! !! ! personal defense weapons. They have wide area effects and they cannot be aimed in a straight line toward an attacker. A-Bomb used in war (as they were twice) always have collateral effects that are of dubious morality.

ruveyn



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

31 Dec 2012, 10:08 am

ruveyn wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
some people who live in out of the way areas like 19th century cannons to shoot off for fun.which as long as you have a good back stop that should be fairly safe.

as far as a citizen owning nuclear weapons i would say no,because were would they test them safely and where could radio active elements be safely kept.
even if your a borkian connstitutional purest,some level of common sense must appy.


True. The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact with stupidity and craziness.

The most one can extract from the U.S. constitution by way of the 9 th amendment is the right to possess weapons for personal defense. That is defense of one's self and one's family (the blood family is one's own flesh).

A-Bombs are NOT!! !! ! personal defense weapons. They have wide area effects and they cannot be aimed in a straight line toward an attacker. A-Bomb used in war (as they were twice) always have collateral effects that are of dubious morality.

ruveyn
yes, i cant see any chemical or nuclear weapon being covered by the second amendment because of the ability to keep elements safe.
the difficulty with these legal arguements is very much what is covered by the second amendment.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Dec 2012, 10:18 am

vermontsavant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
some people who live in out of the way areas like 19th century cannons to shoot off for fun.which as long as you have a good back stop that should be fairly safe.

as far as a citizen owning nuclear weapons i would say no,because were would they test them safely and where could radio active elements be safely kept.
even if your a borkian connstitutional purest,some level of common sense must appy.


True. The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact with stupidity and craziness.

The most one can extract from the U.S. constitution by way of the 9 th amendment is the right to possess weapons for personal defense. That is defense of one's self and one's family (the blood family is one's own flesh).

A-Bombs are NOT!! !! ! personal defense weapons. They have wide area effects and they cannot be aimed in a straight line toward an attacker. A-Bomb used in war (as they were twice) always have collateral effects that are of dubious morality.

ruveyn
yes, i cant see any chemical or nuclear weapon being covered by the second amendment because of the ability to keep elements safe.
the difficulty with these legal arguements is very much what is covered by the second amendment.


The second amendment says that the States can have there own well ordered armed militias. Since the reserves are in fact ancillaries of our standing army, the second amendment is for all intents and purposes a dead letter.

It is only the gun nuts who look to the second amendment for a right for individual citizens to keep and bear arms just because they are citizens. The right place to look is the 9 th amendment which says your natural right to self defense shall not be disparaged just because it is not explicitly written into the Constitution.

ruveyn