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

a new gun study

Page 3 of 5 [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 Jul 2015, 11:28 am

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I don't care about studies even tho most are in our favor, the constitution is clear in its intent. We must be able to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, period. End of story.
ah, you must be a 1 man militia then. interesting.


The idea that citizens can defend themselves often gets mocked by statists but if some rice farmers and goat herders give the best of our military which is the strongest in the history of the world so much trouble then armed resistance by Americans citizens would be a piece of cake if that is what it came down to. Look at the revolutions of the last couple years, most of these place these people didn't have anything other rocks and Moltovs to throw at their occupiers. The government gets overthrown once the soldiers see that they are fighting against their own people. They take an oath to protect our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, not to Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. Just the threat would work.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

17 Jul 2015, 11:31 am

Jacoby wrote:
I don't care about studies even tho most are in our favor, the constitution is clear in its intent. We must be able to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, period. End of story.

Indeed! Don't like the Second Amendment, repeal or amend it. Until then, it is the supreme law on the matter in the United States.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 11:32 am

Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I don't care about studies even tho most are in our favor, the constitution is clear in its intent. We must be able to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, period. End of story.
ah, you must be a 1 man militia then. interesting.


The idea that citizens can defend themselves gets mocked by statists but if some rice farmers and goat herders give the best of military so much trouble then armed resistance by Americans citizens would be a peace of cake. Look at the revolutions of the last couple years, most of these place these people didn't have anything other rocks and Moltovs to throw at their occupiers. The government gets overthrown once the soldiers see that they are fighting against their own people. They take an oath to protect our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, not to Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
I was referencing the first 4 words of the second amendment, the ones that gun-rights activists (like the ones in this thread)seem to skate over. the 2nd amendment preserves the right to bear arms as part of a regulated militia, not people unto themselves.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 Jul 2015, 11:43 am

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I don't care about studies even tho most are in our favor, the constitution is clear in its intent. We must be able to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, period. End of story.
ah, you must be a 1 man militia then. interesting.


The idea that citizens can defend themselves gets mocked by statists but if some rice farmers and goat herders give the best of military so much trouble then armed resistance by Americans citizens would be a peace of cake. Look at the revolutions of the last couple years, most of these place these people didn't have anything other rocks and Moltovs to throw at their occupiers. The government gets overthrown once the soldiers see that they are fighting against their own people. They take an oath to protect our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, not to Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
I was referencing the first 4 words of the second amendment, the ones that gun-rights activists (like the ones in this thread)seem to skate over. the 2nd amendment preserves the right to bear arms as part of a regulated militia, not people unto themselves.


Do you really want to do this old song and dance?

A well regulated militia is one, not a requirement or restriction put on citizens but rather it restricts our government on our right to establish well regulated militia. Two, a well regulated in modern terms means well equipped and trained meaning our government couldn't say they were not allowed to do that. The militia was made up of individuals who were called to arms when needed, it wasn't "regulated" by the government in the modern sense in any way. Our right as a citizen to bear arms guarantees this right.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

17 Jul 2015, 11:49 am

Fugu wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
why would vaccines exist if prevention wasn't within the purview of medical science.
:roll: :roll:
An apples to oranges comparison.
Well, it's not like I didn't see it coming....
if you wanted to give up, you could have just said so. you claimed that prevention wasn't the business of medical science, I gave an example that refuted your claim. it's hardly apples to oranges.

Give up?
:lol:
Please. :roll:
Go back and look at all the gun control threads we've had here over the years and find just one valid point any one of you has made. You lost before you even started in this thread.


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


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 11:49 am

Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
I was referencing the first 4 words of the second amendment, the ones that gun-rights activists (like the ones in this thread)seem to skate over. the 2nd amendment preserves the right to bear arms as part of a regulated militia, not people unto themselves.


Do you really want to do this old song and dance?

A well regulated militia is one, not a requirement or restriction put on citizens but rather it restricts our government on our right to establish well regulated militia. Two, a well regulated in modern terms means well equipped and trained meaning our government couldn't say they were not allowed to do that. The militia was made up of individuals who were called to arms when needed, it wasn't "regulated" by the government in the modern sense in any way. Our right as a citizen to bear arms guarantees this right.
I'm not saying that it should be regulated by the government, but it does say that the right to bear arms comes with the onus of civil defense by the people.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 11:51 am

Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
why would vaccines exist if prevention wasn't within the purview of medical science.
:roll: :roll:
An apples to oranges comparison.
Well, it's not like I didn't see it coming....
if you wanted to give up, you could have just said so. you claimed that prevention wasn't the business of medical science, I gave an example that refuted your claim. it's hardly apples to oranges.

Give up?
:lol:
Please. :roll:
Go back and look at all the gun control threads we've had here over the years and find just one valid point any one of you has made. You lost before you even started in this thread.
you've not made any refutation of what I said, nor have you bothered to back up your claims. why are you bothering to debate in the first place if all you offer is white noise comments like " :roll: :roll: apples to oranges"



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 Jul 2015, 11:55 am

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
I was referencing the first 4 words of the second amendment, the ones that gun-rights activists (like the ones in this thread)seem to skate over. the 2nd amendment preserves the right to bear arms as part of a regulated militia, not people unto themselves.


Do you really want to do this old song and dance?

A well regulated militia is one, not a requirement or restriction put on citizens but rather it restricts our government on our right to establish well regulated militia. Two, a well regulated in modern terms means well equipped and trained meaning our government couldn't say they were not allowed to do that. The militia was made up of individuals who were called to arms when needed, it wasn't "regulated" by the government in the modern sense in any way. Our right as a citizen to bear arms guarantees this right.
I'm not saying that it should be regulated by the government, but it does say that the right to bear arms comes with the onus of civil defense by the people.


Our right to bear arms individually is necessary for our ability to form militi, militia is made of individuals called to arms by their fellow citizens to defend their homes and families. The point is that the 2nd amendment exists to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, it's not for sport or for hunting or for collecting. The "you don't need that" argument falls on its face right there.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 12:02 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Our right to bear arms individually is necessary for our ability to form militi, militia is made of individuals called to arms by their fellow citizens to defend their homes and families. The point is that the 2nd amendment exists to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, it's not for sport or for hunting or for collecting. The "you don't need that" argument falls on its face right there.
right, at the time it was far more likely that the government could become the enemy, but these days we have this nifty thing called 'civilization' that makes it overwhelmingly unlikely that there will be a literal mustache-twirling madman in power over the US.
(yes I know this is a strawman before you point that out)



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

17 Jul 2015, 12:11 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I don't care about studies even tho most are in our favor, the constitution is clear in its intent. We must be able to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, period. End of story.
ah, you must be a 1 man militia then. interesting.


The idea that citizens can defend themselves gets mocked by statists but if some rice farmers and goat herders give the best of military so much trouble then armed resistance by Americans citizens would be a peace of cake. Look at the revolutions of the last couple years, most of these place these people didn't have anything other rocks and Moltovs to throw at their occupiers. The government gets overthrown once the soldiers see that they are fighting against their own people. They take an oath to protect our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, not to Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
I was referencing the first 4 words of the second amendment, the ones that gun-rights activists (like the ones in this thread)seem to skate over. the 2nd amendment preserves the right to bear arms as part of a regulated militia, not people unto themselves.

The U.S. Supreme Court determined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" (emphasis mine).


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 Jul 2015, 12:13 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Our right to bear arms individually is necessary for our ability to form militi, militia is made of individuals called to arms by their fellow citizens to defend their homes and families. The point is that the 2nd amendment exists to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, it's not for sport or for hunting or for collecting. The "you don't need that" argument falls on its face right there.
right, at the time it was far more likely that the government could become the enemy, but these days we have this nifty thing called 'civilization' that makes it overwhelmingly unlikely that there will be a literal mustache-twirling madman in power over the US.
(yes I know this is a strawman before you point that out)


You have inflated view of civilization if you think that, the Germans were at the forefront of culture and science and we all know the evil that befell that country. It can happen anywhere, look at the birthplace of western civilization right now if you don't believe that. Post 9/11 I can't believe anybody would say that.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 12:27 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court determined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" (emphasis mine).
you've rewritten that sentence a bit as it's what one of the respondants argued, but that's accurate enough, though the opinion does recognize that the right for individual bearing of arms flows from the requirement for a militia.

Quote:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

17 Jul 2015, 12:32 pm

Fugu wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court determined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" (emphasis mine).
you've rewritten that sentence a bit as it's what one of the respondants argued, but that's accurate enough, though the opinion does recognize that the right for individual bearing of arms flows from the requirement for a militia.

Quote:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

We also need to understand what the phrase "well regulated Militiia" meant in its original and contemporaneous context. Wikipedia.org does a fair job in citing Court descriptions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... militia.22 ).

For example:

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Last edited by AspieUtah on 17 Jul 2015, 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 12:35 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Our right to bear arms individually is necessary for our ability to form militi, militia is made of individuals called to arms by their fellow citizens to defend their homes and families. The point is that the 2nd amendment exists to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, it's not for sport or for hunting or for collecting. The "you don't need that" argument falls on its face right there.
right, at the time it was far more likely that the government could become the enemy, but these days we have this nifty thing called 'civilization' that makes it overwhelmingly unlikely that there will be a literal mustache-twirling madman in power over the US.
(yes I know this is a strawman before you point that out)


You have inflated view of civilization if you think that, the Germans were at the forefront of culture and science and we all know the evil that befell that country. It can happen anywhere, look at the birthplace of western civilization right now if you don't believe that. Post 9/11 I can't believe anybody would say that.
I can't find any information on pre-ww2 culture so I'll leave that sitting. as for the post 911 comment, I would ask you if you think that the US military would allow themselves to be used to subjugate their own country with 0 dissent, especially in an age where a significant portion of the populace have camera phones and access to youtube/twitter et c. The space where such an action could be hidden has been shrinking steadily over the past ~20 years



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 Jul 2015, 12:48 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Our right to bear arms individually is necessary for our ability to form militi, militia is made of individuals called to arms by their fellow citizens to defend their homes and families. The point is that the 2nd amendment exists to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, it's not for sport or for hunting or for collecting. The "you don't need that" argument falls on its face right there.
right, at the time it was far more likely that the government could become the enemy, but these days we have this nifty thing called 'civilization' that makes it overwhelmingly unlikely that there will be a literal mustache-twirling madman in power over the US.
(yes I know this is a strawman before you point that out)


You have inflated view of civilization if you think that, the Germans were at the forefront of culture and science and we all know the evil that befell that country. It can happen anywhere, look at the birthplace of western civilization right now if you don't believe that. Post 9/11 I can't believe anybody would say that.
I can't find any information on pre-ww2 culture so I'll leave that sitting. as for the post 911 comment, I would ask you if you think that the US military would allow themselves to be used to subjugate their own country with 0 dissent, especially in an age where a significant portion of the populace have camera phones and access to youtube/twitter et c. The space where such an action could be hidden has been shrinking steadily over the past ~20 years



What pre-WW2 information are you looking for?

As for your question, that was kind of the point I was making about the overwhelming force of the US military and law enforcement apparatus not making a difference. Americans could overthrow the entire US government without firing a shot if we rose up together, it is the credible threat that matters.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 12:48 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Fugu wrote:
you've rewritten that sentence a bit as it's what one of the respondants argued, but that's accurate enough, though the opinion does recognize that the right for individual bearing of arms flows from the requirement for a militia.

We also need to understand what the phrase "well regulated Militiia" meant in its original and contemporaneous context. Wikipedia.org does a fair job in citing Court descriptions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... militia.22 ).

For example:

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
That's a useful site, though it makes me wonder whether it would help if there were something of a translation into today's language for such documents.