first, to quote Nettrice...

"1.) Inflammatory material it will be deleted. Inflammatory includes: racial/gender/sexual preference/ethnic/class insensitive words and phrases as well as any and all personal attacks. If you are making a statement, there is no need to involve any of that."

moving on...

"mentally able" means you have not been involuntarily committed or been judicially adjudicated a mental defective. also falling under this category is training and knowledge of firearms.

"law abiding" means you are not a felon and you have not been charged with an act of domestic violence. also falling under this category will be anyone who has had their records expunged.

please familiarize yourself with federal firearms laws, as well as those of your state, county, and city.

moving on...

I support the 2A. I would like to see more law abiding US citizens taking the responsibility of legally arming themselves. especially minorities.

whether it be a rifle or a shotgun for home/property defense or a handgun for home/personal defense (I also support concealed carry, by the way), I believe that we need to maintain this degree of independence.

I feel that on an individual level, you should always have the surest means of defending yourself or your friends/family from violent criminals or dangerous animals, and that on a collective level, you should always have the surest means of defending your home or neighborhood/city/state/country from hostile invasion and tyrannical government.

I don't mean this in a radical way. I have reached this conclusion based on the past and present, and history sometimes repeats itself.

I believe that ppl hold this power in the form of a right thanks to the 2A, and I'm disheartened by the many politicians on both sides of the fence who have made it their life's work to disarm law abiding citizens, while knowing full well that no number of anti-gun laws dissuade criminals from illegally obtaining firearms to use in various crimes. whether it be the Italian or the Jewish mafias, the Bloods or the Crips, or whatever the demographic. they will still get their firearms. capacity restrictions, caliber restrictions, firearms restrictions, ballooned prices, off-limits areas... none of these means of disarmament have an effect on criminals while all of these means produce a gap between the power of the government and the ppl it is supposed to serve.

I personally choose to stand up for 2A rights for all mentally able/law abiding citizens. it would seem that if you don't strongly exercise your rights, you run the risk of losing them. I do not want to see the day when you can no longer own firearms, and will be dependent on the government for protection (especially when there is no legal obligation for the government to protect individuals) and be constantly @ the mercy of a criminal's whims (especially if you're stuck living in a high crime area).

how many law abiding gun owners commit violent crimes every year? how many gun owners licensed for concealed carry commit violent crimes every year? the numbers are minuscule. not even a blip on the radar.

so anti-gun politicians (or individuals even) really don't have a leg to stand on. @ the end of the day/week/month/year/decade/century, they're still blaming the guns instead of the criminals.

am I the only pro-2A member of OKP?

Poll result (32 votes) Yes. All mentally able/law abiding citizens should have full 2A rights. (14 votes) Vote No. Only the government and criminals should possess firearms. (7 votes) Vote Yes, BUT... <elaborate here> (1 votes) Vote No, BUT... <elaborate here> (3 votes) Vote I'm a minority and we need firearms for the revolution. (5 votes) Vote I'm white and I'm afraid of minorities with firearms. (2 votes) Vote

I honestly don't know if I support it or not.

Part of me says, the 2nd Amendment is an outdated amendment from a time where firearms were absolutely necessary to protect oneself. It came from a time when the nation was just beginning, and someone didn't know whether or not the next person approaching them would be friend or foe. Also, people in this country at least, haven't exercised the responsibility as a whole to carry weapons safely.

Another part of me says that people should have the right to protect themselves by any means necessary. Firearms should only be used as a last resort, but it should be an option. It puts people at risk when only a certain segment of the population has firearms, and places the country at greater risk for corruption (moreso than it already is). Plus, other countries (such as Canada) have been able to handle weapons very responsibly with low gun-related crimes.

There's evidence to support and deny the 2nd Amendment, so to be perfectly honest, I don't know where I would stand. I'll tell you this, the representatives FOR the 2nd Amendment are more dangerous than the 2nd Amendment itself, and they cast that right in a negative light. And I'm also interested in how people feel about assault weapons and such, because that's where the next phase of the discussion is going to go...at what line is a certain type of firearm deemed unnecessary.

>I honestly don't know if I support it or not.
>

it's a civil right penned to restrict the government's power over you. why not support it?


>Part of me says, the 2nd Amendment is an outdated amendment
>from a time where firearms were absolutely necessary to
>protect oneself. It came from a time when the nation was just
>beginning, and someone didn't know whether or not the next
>person approaching them would be friend or foe. Also, people
>in this country at least, haven't exercised the responsibility
>as a whole to carry weapons safely.
>

I don't think there was a time where firearms were more necessary than they are now, unless you're counting wars. where are you getting the friend or foe thing?

are you including criminals and lunatics in the "as a whole" category? 'cause if not, then I think that is has been proven time and time again that US citizens should retain their 2A rights.


>Another part of me says that people should have the right to
>protect themselves by any means necessary. Firearms should
>only be used as a last resort, but it should be an option. It
>puts people at risk when only a certain segment of the
>population has firearms, and places the country at greater
>risk for corruption (moreso than it already is). Plus, other
>countries (such as Canada) have been able to handle weapons
>very responsibly with low gun-related crimes.
>

I do agree that firearms should indeed be the last resort.

following that, I must disagree. Canada does not handle weapons responsibly, and certainly not "very" responsibly. you can barely own a firearm in Canada.

in Canada, you must register all firearms (which up until recently the citizens of Canada had to pay to do for all firearms, now only must be done with handguns), you cannot carry concealed, you cannot hunt with handguns (no matter how powerful your revolver and accurate your aim may be), you cannot own a firearm with a barrel shorter than 4.25", you must pay the government lucrative amounts of money to take the courses that qualify you for gun ownership (especially handguns) and then must pay additional money for various certificates of ownership, you cannot own fully automatic weapons, they have terrible laws on "grandfathering" prohibited weapons (you can have one grandfathered to you but you cannot buy one otherwise), you usually have to wait @ least a week to take home a firearm you paid for, you must store your firearm in a locked case with a trigger lock, etc, etc.

all of those measures in Canada would actually be an infringement of the 2A in the US. and an infringement of your civil rights is not a sign of responsibility.

and perhaps you should look @ Canada including other factors. the population and population density. the culture. the availability. the lack of civil rights. violent crime and homicide rates should not be looked over based on the involvement of a firearm.


>There's evidence to support and deny the 2nd Amendment, so to
>be perfectly honest, I don't know where I would stand. I'll
>tell you this, the representatives FOR the 2nd Amendment are
>more dangerous than the 2nd Amendment itself, and they cast
>that right in a negative light. And I'm also interested in how
>people feel about assault weapons and such, because that's
>where the next phase of the discussion is going to go...at
>what line is a certain type of firearm deemed unnecessary.

if the 2A were to be denied, then that is grounds for denying all civil rights, isn't it?

first, I want to say that civil rights are not dangerous to anyone except the government. that aside, what makes the 2A more dangerous than the other amendments?

as for assault weapons, what's the difference between one rifle and another in the hands of a mentally able/law abiding citizen? we already know they're not committing crimes (in fact, I don't think it's even going out on a limb to say that as far as amendment supporters go, 2A supporters are by far the most responsible demographic).

"assault weapon" is a term that gets thrown around and abused and demonized terribly by anti-gun politicians and media. what constitutes an assault weapon, in your opinion? is it even an assault weapon if you're not assaulting folks with it? and why should they be treated any differently under the 2A than any other firearm? it's already known that gun laws do not deter gun crime. they only restrict the civil rights of law abiding US citizens and empower the government that is supposed to serve us and give criminals the upper hand over us (do you think it is a coincidence that the most anti-gun cities often have the highest violent crime/murder rates?). there is already a significant gap in power. @ no point should the government ever have obtained more power than the citizens. wouldn't you agree that this is your country and not your government's country?

---/
--/
-/
/

>>I honestly don't know if I support it or not.
>>
>
>it's a civil right penned to restrict the government's power
>over you. why not support it?
It's not only the government I don't trust...I really don't trust a lot of people. So why would I give people I don't trust (especially with the amount of dumbasses in this country reaching critical mass) a weapon.

>
>>Part of me says, the 2nd Amendment is an outdated amendment
>>from a time where firearms were absolutely necessary to
>>protect oneself. It came from a time when the nation was
>just
>>beginning, and someone didn't know whether or not the next
>>person approaching them would be friend or foe. Also, people
>>in this country at least, haven't exercised the
>responsibility
>>as a whole to carry weapons safely.
>>
>
>I don't think there was a time where firearms were more
>necessary than they are now, unless you're counting wars.
>where are you getting the friend or foe thing?
The friend or foe thing is pretty much history. If you had a plot of land and someone were to come across it, people back then didn't know what that person was gonna do, from delivering a message, to passing through, to planning to take the land, hence the friend/foe

>are you including criminals and lunatics in the "as a whole"
>category? 'cause if not, then I think that is has been proven
>time and time again that US citizens should retain their 2A
>rights.
Criminals are one thing. But how do people know if someone's a lunatic? You would have to include them in the population because people really don't know which side of the sanity fence that people are on these days.


>>Another part of me says that people should have the right to
>>protect themselves by any means necessary. Firearms should
>>only be used as a last resort, but it should be an option.
>It
>>puts people at risk when only a certain segment of the
>>population has firearms, and places the country at greater
>>risk for corruption (moreso than it already is). Plus, other
>>countries (such as Canada) have been able to handle weapons
>>very responsibly with low gun-related crimes.
>>
>
>I do agree that firearms should indeed be the last resort.
Agree on this

>following that, I must disagree. Canada does not handle
>weapons responsibly, and certainly not "very" responsibly. you
>can barely own a firearm in Canada.
Well, I'm gonna be honest and say I'm speaking out of ignorance when it comes to Canada. From what I've heard, ownership of guns aren't really a problem. I've got some cousins and a few friends out in Toronto, Ottawa, and Windsor, and they all have guns, and never really said much about them. But I honestly don't know the red tape involved in the ownership and possession of a firearm in Canada. I'll have to do the research on that.

>in Canada, you must register all firearms (which up until
>recently the citizens of Canada had to pay to do for all
>firearms, now only must be done with handguns), you cannot
>carry concealed, you cannot hunt with handguns (no matter how
>powerful your revolver and accurate your aim may be), you
>cannot own a firearm with a barrel shorter than 4.25", you
>must pay the government lucrative amounts of money to take the
>courses that qualify you for gun ownership (especially
>handguns) and then must pay additional money for various
>certificates of ownership, you cannot own fully automatic
>weapons, they have terrible laws on "grandfathering"
>prohibited weapons (you can have one grandfathered to you but
>you cannot buy one otherwise), you usually have to wait @
>least a week to take home a firearm you paid for, you must
>store your firearm in a locked case with a trigger lock, etc,
>etc.
I didn't know that. I wouldn't say that that's necessarily irresponsible gun control though. I would definitely say that it's way more restrictive in comparison to US gun laws.

>all of those measures in Canada would actually be an
>infringement of the 2A in the US. and an infringement of your
>civil rights is not a sign of responsibility.
I would agree on this

>and perhaps you should look @ Canada including other factors.
>the population and population density. the culture. the
>availability. the lack of civil rights. violent crime and
>homicide rates should not be looked over based on the
>involvement of a firearm.
Well, this is one reason why it's different owning a gun in the US, and why I'm undecided on the issue. You HAVE to take that into account, because that's the population you have to consider when you have a law like this. You have to realize that regardless of the amount of responsible gun owners, there's a segment of the population that will be irresponsible with that right. To me, safety should be more of a priority than gun ownership.

>
>>There's evidence to support and deny the 2nd Amendment, so
>to
>>be perfectly honest, I don't know where I would stand. I'll
>>tell you this, the representatives FOR the 2nd Amendment are
>>more dangerous than the 2nd Amendment itself, and they cast
>>that right in a negative light. And I'm also interested in
>how
>>people feel about assault weapons and such, because that's
>>where the next phase of the discussion is going to go...at
>>what line is a certain type of firearm deemed unnecessary.
>
>if the 2A were to be denied, then that is grounds for denying
>all civil rights, isn't it?
>
>first, I want to say that civil rights are not dangerous to
>anyone except the government. that aside, what makes the 2A
>more dangerous than the other amendments?
It's more dangerous because it's saying that people can arm themselves. Anytime that you say the population can arm themselves, it's dangerous. It's not a bad or good thing, but in comparison to the other amendments, that's the most dangerous one because of the simple fact that it's talking about weapons, which no other amendment does.
But I do agree with your other point, that to deny the 2nd Amendment would open a pandora's box that would really have some dire consequences.

>as for assault weapons, what's the difference between one
>rifle and another in the hands of a mentally able/law abiding
>citizen? we already know they're not committing crimes (in
>fact, I don't think it's even going out on a limb to say that
>as far as amendment supporters go, 2A supporters are by far
>the most responsible demographic).
That I disagree with. To say that 2nd Amendment supporters are the most responsible is a reach. The problem is that you're assuming that a lot of gun owners are thinking along your lines (and from what you've told me, you are a pretty good, law-abiding citizen who knows the proper way to handle a firearm). The sad truth is that there's a huge amount of supporters that don't think along your lines.

>"assault weapon" is a term that gets thrown around and abused
>and demonized terribly by anti-gun politicians and media. what
>constitutes an assault weapon, in your opinion? is it even an
>assault weapon if you're not assaulting folks with it? and why
>should they be treated any differently under the 2A than any
>other firearm?
Assault weapons, in my opinion, are weapons larger than a pistol that are usually used in military combat. There's no need to go deer-hunting with an AK-47, or an UZI. Some weapons aren't designed for "sport", they're designed for military combat.

it's already known that gun laws do not deter
>gun crime. they only restrict the civil rights of law abiding
>US citizens and empower the government that is supposed to
>serve us and give criminals the upper hand over us (do you
>think it is a coincidence that the most anti-gun cities often
>have the highest violent crime/murder rates?).
That's the thing I'm torn about. It's not right that the dumbasses are ruining it for the law-abiding citizens in terms of gun laws. And I don't think that restriction is necessarily the worst thing in the world, because the law-abiding citizens don't really have to worry about that, it's more of an inconveinence (again, I could be wrong, if so check me).
As for the anti-gun cities, I'm gonna go on a limb and assume those are the cities that are the most populated. Anytime you have a large population in the US, it's gonna lead to violent crime, so I don't think the anti-gun cities are a direct reflection of the crime rate.

there is
>already a significant gap in power. @ no point should the
>government ever have obtained more power than the citizens.
>wouldn't you agree that this is your country and not your
>government's country?
I agree wholeheartedly. The goverment, in theory, should act as the voice of the population, and somewhere along the way that's been lost. I don't know if guns are the complete answer, because like I said before, I have very little faith in people because of the rising amount of idiots. But you do pose a good counterpoint, I don't really have a lot of faith in the government either.

I'm still a little torn, but you definitely presented me with a good POV

<<<<------ IT'S YO BABY! (c) Chris Rock

>>>I honestly don't know if I support it or not.
>>>
>>
>>it's a civil right penned to restrict the government's power
>>over you. why not support it?
>It's not only the government I don't trust...I really don't
>trust a lot of people. So why would I give people I don't
>trust (especially with the amount of dumbasses in this country
>reaching critical mass) a weapon.
>

1). civil rights aren't yours to give or take.
2). do you have any stats that would cause one to believe that the 80,000,000+ gun owners in the US are dumbasses? I mean, sure, there are idiots in every demographic, but how significant are your worries in this case?


>>
>>>Part of me says, the 2nd Amendment is an outdated amendment
>>>from a time where firearms were absolutely necessary to
>>>protect oneself. It came from a time when the nation was
>>just
>>>beginning, and someone didn't know whether or not the next
>>>person approaching them would be friend or foe. Also,
>people
>>>in this country at least, haven't exercised the
>>responsibility
>>>as a whole to carry weapons safely.
>>>
>>
>>I don't think there was a time where firearms were more
>>necessary than they are now, unless you're counting wars.
>>where are you getting the friend or foe thing?
>The friend or foe thing is pretty much history. If you had a
>plot of land and someone were to come across it, people back
>then didn't know what that person was gonna do, from
>delivering a message, to passing through, to planning to take
>the land, hence the friend/foe
>

do you have any evidence that you're safer today than "back then"?


>>are you including criminals and lunatics in the "as a whole"
>>category? 'cause if not, then I think that is has been
>proven
>>time and time again that US citizens should retain their 2A
>>rights.
>Criminals are one thing. But how do people know if someone's a
>lunatic? You would have to include them in the population
>because people really don't know which side of the sanity
>fence that people are on these days.
>
>

in order to purchase firearms and obtain a concealed carry license you have to pass some invasive backgrounds checks (sometimes multiple checks). your entire criminal record is available. if you have ever been ruled a "lunatic" by a court, that shows up as well. however, having depression and taking Paxil doesn't make you a lunatic.

if you're about to think of the V-Tech tragedy, then keep in mind that was the government's fuck-up. yes, they fucked up in their own unconstitutional system.


>>>Another part of me says that people should have the right
>to
>>>protect themselves by any means necessary. Firearms should
>>>only be used as a last resort, but it should be an option.
>>It
>>>puts people at risk when only a certain segment of the
>>>population has firearms, and places the country at greater
>>>risk for corruption (moreso than it already is). Plus,
>other
>>>countries (such as Canada) have been able to handle weapons
>>>very responsibly with low gun-related crimes.
>>>
>>
>>I do agree that firearms should indeed be the last resort.
>Agree on this
>

can't stress it enough, actually. a lot of ppl have some imaginary stereotypes of gun owners shooting ppl over the way they looked @ their grl or some shit.


>>following that, I must disagree. Canada does not handle
>>weapons responsibly, and certainly not "very" responsibly.
>you
>>can barely own a firearm in Canada.
>Well, I'm gonna be honest and say I'm speaking out of
>ignorance when it comes to Canada. From what I've heard,
>ownership of guns aren't really a problem. I've got some
>cousins and a few friends out in Toronto, Ottawa, and Windsor,
>and they all have guns, and never really said much about them.
>But I honestly don't know the red tape involved in the
>ownership and possession of a firearm in Canada. I'll have to
>do the research on that.
>

you should talk to them about it some time. they should have good information on the process it took to obtain them legally (unless they don't own them legally).


>>in Canada, you must register all firearms (which up until
>>recently the citizens of Canada had to pay to do for all
>>firearms, now only must be done with handguns), you cannot
>>carry concealed, you cannot hunt with handguns (no matter
>how
>>powerful your revolver and accurate your aim may be), you
>>cannot own a firearm with a barrel shorter than 4.25", you
>>must pay the government lucrative amounts of money to take
>the
>>courses that qualify you for gun ownership (especially
>>handguns) and then must pay additional money for various
>>certificates of ownership, you cannot own fully automatic
>>weapons, they have terrible laws on "grandfathering"
>>prohibited weapons (you can have one grandfathered to you
>but
>>you cannot buy one otherwise), you usually have to wait @
>>least a week to take home a firearm you paid for, you must
>>store your firearm in a locked case with a trigger lock,
>etc,
>>etc.
>I didn't know that. I wouldn't say that that's necessarily
>irresponsible gun control though. I would definitely say that
>it's way more restrictive in comparison to US gun laws.
>

I wouldn't call it irresponsible either. I'd call it ridiculous. it's a classic "we, as the government, know what's best for you" situation. that's not freedom.


>>all of those measures in Canada would actually be an
>>infringement of the 2A in the US. and an infringement of
>your
>>civil rights is not a sign of responsibility.
>I would agree on this
>

so you would agree that the right to keep and bear arms is your civil right?


>>and perhaps you should look @ Canada including other
>factors.
>>the population and population density. the culture. the
>>availability. the lack of civil rights. violent crime and
>>homicide rates should not be looked over based on the
>>involvement of a firearm.
>Well, this is one reason why it's different owning a gun in
>the US, and why I'm undecided on the issue. You HAVE to take
>that into account, because that's the population you have to
>consider when you have a law like this. You have to realize
>that regardless of the amount of responsible gun owners,
>there's a segment of the population that will be irresponsible
>with that right. To me, safety should be more of a priority
>than gun ownership.
>

to me, civil rights should be more of a priority than losing your freedom based on isolated incidents (or even a segment of a demographic).

my 2A rights should no be infringed upon 'cause a criminal (or lunatic) made the front page.


>>
>>>There's evidence to support and deny the 2nd Amendment, so
>>to
>>>be perfectly honest, I don't know where I would stand. I'll
>>>tell you this, the representatives FOR the 2nd Amendment
>are
>>>more dangerous than the 2nd Amendment itself, and they cast
>>>that right in a negative light. And I'm also interested in
>>how
>>>people feel about assault weapons and such, because that's
>>>where the next phase of the discussion is going to go...at
>>>what line is a certain type of firearm deemed unnecessary.
>>
>>if the 2A were to be denied, then that is grounds for
>denying
>>all civil rights, isn't it?
>>
>>first, I want to say that civil rights are not dangerous to
>>anyone except the government. that aside, what makes the 2A
>>more dangerous than the other amendments?
>It's more dangerous because it's saying that people can arm
>themselves. Anytime that you say the population can arm
>themselves, it's dangerous. It's not a bad or good thing, but
>in comparison to the other amendments, that's the most
>dangerous one because of the simple fact that it's talking
>about weapons, which no other amendment does.
>But I do agree with your other point, that to deny the 2nd
>Amendment would open a pandora's box that would really have
>some dire consequences.
>

define "dangerous"? ppl have died in the name of every civil right.

but yes, firearms are dangerous... in the wrong hands. that danger should always be in the back of the government's mind. as well as every criminal in the country. and @ the front of all gun owner's minds.

take the DC/VA area. 5 minutes from DC the murder rate drops off dramatically. do you think this might be due to criminals thinking "hey, no one in DC can own guns but in VA anyone could be carrying."?


>>as for assault weapons, what's the difference between one
>>rifle and another in the hands of a mentally able/law
>abiding
>>citizen? we already know they're not committing crimes (in
>>fact, I don't think it's even going out on a limb to say
>that
>>as far as amendment supporters go, 2A supporters are by far
>>the most responsible demographic).
>That I disagree with. To say that 2nd Amendment supporters are
>the most responsible is a reach. The problem is that you're
>assuming that a lot of gun owners are thinking along your
>lines (and from what you've told me, you are a pretty good,
>law-abiding citizen who knows the proper way to handle a
>firearm). The sad truth is that there's a huge amount of
>supporters that don't think along your lines.
>

a lot of gun owners actually are thinking along my lines. most of them actually. join thehighroad.org or packing.org and do some research. you'll be in contact with hundreds-of-thousands of gun owners across the nation.

there is not a "huge" amount of 2A supporters who are irresponsible and fringe lunatics. there are 80,000,000+ gun owners in the US, which means there are even more guns owned between them all. can you tell me how many law-abiding citizens committed violent crimes last year (or any year)?


>>"assault weapon" is a term that gets thrown around and
>abused
>>and demonized terribly by anti-gun politicians and media.
>what
>>constitutes an assault weapon, in your opinion? is it even
>an
>>assault weapon if you're not assaulting folks with it? and
>why
>>should they be treated any differently under the 2A than any
>>other firearm?
>Assault weapons, in my opinion, are weapons larger than a
>pistol that are usually used in military combat. There's no
>need to go deer-hunting with an AK-47, or an UZI. Some weapons
>aren't designed for "sport", they're designed for military
>combat.
>

1). what do you know about military combat?
2). what do you know about deer hunting?
3). what do you know about AK-47's?
4). what do you know about Uzi's?
5). what do sports have to do with the 2A?

you might be interested in knowing that almost all AK-47's in civilian hands operate just like a hunting rifle (semi-auto). in fact, AK-47's are even chambered for one of the most popular hunting cartridge's on the planet (.308).

6). is your real problem with full auto? do you have any evidence that full auto weapons are a significant source of crime in the US?


> it's already known that gun laws do not deter
>>gun crime. they only restrict the civil rights of law
>abiding
>>US citizens and empower the government that is supposed to
>>serve us and give criminals the upper hand over us (do you
>>think it is a coincidence that the most anti-gun cities
>often
>>have the highest violent crime/murder rates?).
>That's the thing I'm torn about. It's not right that the
>dumbasses are ruining it for the law-abiding citizens in terms
>of gun laws. And I don't think that restriction is necessarily
>the worst thing in the world, because the law-abiding citizens
>don't really have to worry about that, it's more of an
>inconveinence (again, I could be wrong, if so check me).
>As for the anti-gun cities, I'm gonna go on a limb and assume
>those are the cities that are the most populated. Anytime you
>have a large population in the US, it's gonna lead to violent
>crime, so I don't think the anti-gun cities are a direct
>reflection of the crime rate.
>

1). restrictions aren't just inconvenient, they are an infringement on your civil rights. no gun restriction has ever been proven effective.

2). so if you recognize the fact that large populations breed higher crime rates, don't you think that violent criminals should be kept in prison? do you want violent criminals on the streets instead of law-abiding gun owners whose information is in a government database that clearly illustrates their responsibility and ability?


> there is
>>already a significant gap in power. @ no point should the
>>government ever have obtained more power than the citizens.
>>wouldn't you agree that this is your country and not your
>>government's country?
>I agree wholeheartedly. The goverment, in theory, should act
>as the voice of the population, and somewhere along the way
>that's been lost. I don't know if guns are the complete
>answer, because like I said before, I have very little faith
>in people because of the rising amount of idiots. But you do
>pose a good counterpoint, I don't really have a lot of faith
>in the government either.
>
>I'm still a little torn, but you definitely presented me with
>a good POV

no, guns aren't a complete answer. however, if the federal government continues their trend of trampling your civil rights, firearms are the only thing that will help you gain control of your country again, should it go too far. we already know the government does not fear any other amendment (in fact, the 2A is largely to prevent a tyrannical government from evolving), so nothing else is going to get it done.

in the end, I'd rather die in the name of freedom for future generations than live in the shadow of the government (and I'm not so selfish as to shrug my shoulders and stand by if the government tries to turn the US into some fucked up empire on the basis that I could possibly live my life comfortably if I played the sidelines).

---/
--/
-/
/

>it's a civil right penned to restrict the government's power
>over you. why not support it?

are you a member of a well regulated Militia? no? why aren't you supporting the 2nd Amendment?


>I don't think there was a time where firearms were more
>necessary than they are now, unless you're counting wars.

^^^ ignorant of American history


>following that, I must disagree. Canada does not handle
>weapons responsibly, and certainly not "very" responsibly.

Canada has much lower rates of gun-related crime and violence than the US, yet *they're* the one's who don't handle weapons responsibly?

>you
>can barely own a firearm in Canada.

wrong. 22% of Canadian households own a firearm.


>in Canada, you must register all firearms (which up until
>recently the citizens of Canada had to pay to do for all
>firearms, now only must be done with handguns),

in the US, you must register all motor vehicles - how irresponsible!


>you cannot hunt with handguns (no matter how
>powerful your revolver and accurate your aim may be),

what kind of fucking retard hunts with handguns?


> you
>cannot own a firearm with a barrel shorter than 4.25",

oh, the humanity!


> you
>must pay the government lucrative amounts of money to take the
>courses that qualify you for gun ownership (especially
>handguns) and then must pay additional money for various
>certificates of ownership,

hey, sounds like motor vehicle ownership in the US again.


>you usually have to wait @
>least a week to take home a firearm you paid for,

a whole week! my god, how will they survive that long?


>you must
>store your firearm in a locked case with a trigger lock, etc,
>etc.

yeah, how will you kids be able to sneak into your closet and play with your gun that way?


>all of those measures in Canada would actually be an
>infringement of the 2A in the US. and an infringement of your
>civil rights is not a sign of responsibility.

... but they're *not* in the US, so this is a non-argument.


>and perhaps you should look @ Canada including other factors.
>the population and population density. the culture. the
>availability. the lack of civil rights. violent crime and
>homicide rates should not be looked over based on the
>involvement of a firearm.

lack of civil rights? LOL - those poor oppressed Canadians!

and Canada's violent crime and homicide rates are much lower than in the US, so WTF is even your point?



>first, I want to say that civil rights are not dangerous to
>anyone except the government. that aside, what makes the 2A
>more dangerous than the other amendments?

the other amendments aren't packing heat?


>as for assault weapons, what's the difference between one
>rifle and another in the hands of a mentally able/law abiding
>citizen? we already know they're not committing crimes (in

the increased probability of stray shots hitting something other than the target when discharged (not to mention the increased destructive power). also, assault weapons purchased legally find their way to criminals as well as law abiding citizens.



>fact, I don't think it's even going out on a limb to say that
>as far as amendment supporters go, 2A supporters are by far
>the most responsible demographic).

no, it's just talking out of your ass.


>"assault weapon" is a term that gets thrown around and abused
>and demonized terribly by anti-gun politicians and media. what
>constitutes an assault weapon, in your opinion? is it even an
>assault weapon if you're not assaulting folks with it?

is it even an ice pick if you're assaulting folks with it instead of chipping ice?


>and why
>should they be treated any differently under the 2A than any
>other firearm?

why should stinger missiles treated differently?


>it's already known that gun laws do not deter
>gun crime. they only restrict the civil rights of law abiding
>US citizens and empower the government that is supposed to
>serve us and give criminals the upper hand over us (do you
>think it is a coincidence that the most anti-gun cities often
>have the highest violent crime/murder rates?).

do you think is it such a direct causal relationship between the two? don't you think there are other factors at work there besides strictly those two?


>there is
>already a significant gap in power. @ no point should the
>government ever have obtained more power than the citizens.

that's simply not realistic. that is your problem with this issue, you are a complete idealogue.

>wouldn't you agree that this is your country and not your
>government's country?

our government officials aren't US citizens now?

<--------- Harvey BETTER

---/
--/
-/
/

>>it's a civil right penned to restrict the government's
>power
>>over you. why not support it?
>
>are you a member of a well regulated Militia? no? why aren't
>you supporting the 2nd Amendment?
>

we're actually considered members of the militia. you already know that, of course.


>
>>I don't think there was a time where firearms were more
>>necessary than they are now, unless you're counting wars.
>
>^^^ ignorant of American history
>

that's ironic coming from you.


>
>>following that, I must disagree. Canada does not handle
>>weapons responsibly, and certainly not "very" responsibly.
>
>Canada has much lower rates of gun-related crime and violence
>than the US, yet *they're* the one's who don't handle weapons
>responsibly?
>

the US has more gun owners than Canada has residents.


>>you
>>can barely own a firearm in Canada.
>
>wrong. 22% of Canadian households own a firearm.
>

22% of Canadian households hunt.


>
>>in Canada, you must register all firearms (which up until
>>recently the citizens of Canada had to pay to do for all
>>firearms, now only must be done with handguns),
>
>in the US, you must register all motor vehicles - how
>irresponsible!
>
>
>>you cannot hunt with handguns (no matter how
>>powerful your revolver and accurate your aim may be),
>
>what kind of fucking retard hunts with handguns?
>

once again, you demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge regarding firearms.

hunting with revolvers is a huge market. huge.

and today, modern magazine-fed handguns are chambered for 10mm and .50 caliber which are very capable of taking a deer or small bear.


>
>> you
>>cannot own a firearm with a barrel shorter than 4.25",
>
>oh, the humanity!
>

it's their way of making it near impossible to carry concealed.

>
>> you
>>must pay the government lucrative amounts of money to take
>the
>>courses that qualify you for gun ownership (especially
>>handguns) and then must pay additional money for various
>>certificates of ownership,
>
>hey, sounds like motor vehicle ownership in the US again.
>
>
>>you usually have to wait @
>>least a week to take home a firearm you paid for,
>
>a whole week! my god, how will they survive that long?
>

it's unnecessary and inconvenient.


>
>>you must
>>store your firearm in a locked case with a trigger lock,
>etc,
>>etc.
>
>yeah, how will you kids be able to sneak into your closet and
>play with your gun that way?
>

your emotion-based arguments die b4 they leave your fingertips.


>
>>all of those measures in Canada would actually be an
>>infringement of the 2A in the US. and an infringement of
>your
>>civil rights is not a sign of responsibility.
>
>... but they're *not* in the US, so this is a non-argument.
>
>
>>and perhaps you should look @ Canada including other
>factors.
>>the population and population density. the culture. the
>>availability. the lack of civil rights. violent crime and
>>homicide rates should not be looked over based on the
>>involvement of a firearm.
>
>lack of civil rights? LOL - those poor oppressed Canadians!
>
>and Canada's violent crime and homicide rates are much lower
>than in the US, so WTF is even your point?
>

do you think that's due to gun control?


>
>
>>first, I want to say that civil rights are not dangerous to
>>anyone except the government. that aside, what makes the 2A
>>more dangerous than the other amendments?
>
>the other amendments aren't packing heat?
>
>
>>as for assault weapons, what's the difference between one
>>rifle and another in the hands of a mentally able/law
>abiding
>>citizen? we already know they're not committing crimes (in
>
>the increased probability of stray shots hitting something
>other than the target when discharged (not to mention the
>increased destructive power). also, assault weapons purchased
>legally find their way to criminals as well as law abiding
>citizens.
>

1). do you have any stats/info on the increased probability of hitting another target? how often are innocent bystanders shot by full auto weapons in cases of lawful self-defense?

2). by increased destructive power, do you mean they shoot bullets faster? do you have any stats that demonstrate that law-abiding gun owners spray-and-pray when using a full auto weapon?

3). should we repeal the 2A 'cause a microscopic percentage of criminals obtain firearms legally? can you tell someone is a criminal by looking @ them? should we all watch Minority Report for ideas?


>
>
>>fact, I don't think it's even going out on a limb to say
>that
>>as far as amendment supporters go, 2A supporters are by far
>>the most responsible demographic).
>
>no, it's just talking out of your ass.
>

can you prove me wrong?


>
>>"assault weapon" is a term that gets thrown around and
>abused
>>and demonized terribly by anti-gun politicians and media.
>what
>>constitutes an assault weapon, in your opinion? is it even
>an
>>assault weapon if you're not assaulting folks with it?
>
>is it even an ice pick if you're assaulting folks with it
>instead of chipping ice?
>

no, it's a deadly weapon.


>
>>and why
>>should they be treated any differently under the 2A than any
>>other firearm?
>
>why should stinger missiles treated differently?
>
>
>>it's already known that gun laws do not deter
>>gun crime. they only restrict the civil rights of law
>abiding
>>US citizens and empower the government that is supposed to
>>serve us and give criminals the upper hand over us (do you
>>think it is a coincidence that the most anti-gun cities
>often
>>have the highest violent crime/murder rates?).
>
>do you think is it such a direct causal relationship between
>the two? don't you think there are other factors at work there
>besides strictly those two?
>

you mean kind of like how there are other factors @ work when comparing Canada to the US?


>
>>there is
>>already a significant gap in power. @ no point should the
>>government ever have obtained more power than the citizens.
>
>that's simply not realistic. that is your problem with this
>issue, you are a complete idealogue.
>

it might not be realistic, but I'm not being assimilated to become one of the government's subjects.


>>wouldn't you agree that this is your country and not your
>>government's country?
>
>our government officials aren't US citizens now?
>

someone didn't read the Constitution.

---/
--/
-/
/

if you can't work with options #3 and #4 then maybe you shouldn't have replied. just a suggestion.

option #2 is harsh reality.

the last two were kind of jokes to ease some tension in an often emotional-driven discussion.

edit:
"1.) Inflammatory material it will be deleted. Inflammatory includes: racial/gender/sexual preference/ethnic/class insensitive words and phrases as well as any and all personal attacks. If you are making a statement, there is no need to involve any of that." -Nettrice

---/
--/
-/
/

What if nobody had the right? Including our servicemen in prison guard uniforms who patrol the streets? What if defense meant using your body?

Fuck guns, fuck gun rights, and fuck our government for putting our guns on the streets and into the hands of people who make stupid decisions.

-if i had my way
i would've been a killer
i would have given them
violence, violence
and shotguns shotguns
if i had my way-

>What if nobody had the right? Including our servicemen in
>prison guard uniforms who patrol the streets? What if defense
>meant using your body?
>

if nobody had the right, then the US wouldn't exist.

as far law enforcement not having firearms, I think that would be a fascinating, yet extreme experiment. maybe US citizens would suddenly realize they ought to take care of themselves. there is no law that requires law enforcement to protect any individual. the average 911 response is a lot longer than the average death response.


>Fuck guns, fuck gun rights, and fuck our government for
>putting our guns on the streets and into the hands of people
>who make stupid decisions.

can't clap to "fuck guns, fuck gun rights", but there have been a lot of government fuck-ups and dirty deals.

---/
--/
-/
/

who think they have a "right" to carry a gun, deserve the statistical likelihood that that they're only gonna shoot themselves.

I voted blue, (1.) to annoy you, and (2.) because even as it's written, it's still a better choice than red.

>who think they have a "right" to carry a gun, deserve the
>statistical likelihood that that they're only gonna shoot
>themselves.
>

they do have the right. it's not a thought. it's the 2nd Amendment. also, the right is not "granted", it is "preserved" so the government cannot infringe upon it.

also, there is no statistical likelihood that they're going to shoot themselves. 99.99% of law-abiding gun owners did not shoot themselves today.


>I voted blue, (1.) to annoy you, and (2.) because even as it's
>written, it's still a better choice than red.
>

how many times do I have to post Nettrice's rule about inflammatory bullshit?

---/
--/
-/
/

>>who think they have a "right" to carry a gun, deserve the
>>statistical likelihood that that they're only gonna shoot
>>themselves.
>>
>
>they do have the right. it's not a thought. it's the 2nd
>Amendment.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the second amendment. The question is how we are to interpret the second amendment. Do you have a "right" to "bear" thermonuclear weapons? Of course not. That would pose a significant danger to the community, a danger that outweighs your attachment to your own paranoia.

Why didn't our (supposedly) wise and benevolent founding fathers write in thermonuclear weapons as an exception to your right to bear arms? Because they didn't exist back then. But neither did modern automatic weapons.

The second amendment is a very vaguely written statement. Giving the founders the benefit of the doubt, this vagueness was probably intentional, so that we could apply our common sense in interpreting what they mean by "arms," not to mention what they mean by "a well-regulated militia."

>also, the right is not "granted", it is "preserved"
>so the government cannot infringe upon it.
>
>also, there is no statistical likelihood that they're going to
>shoot themselves. 99.99% of law-abiding gun owners did not
>shoot themselves today.

Today? Oh, well, point taken. Well there's the statistics for us. This dude says 99.99% of the gun users were able to make it through the day without shooting themselves in the feet. Those NRA gun safety programs must work like a charm.

>>I voted blue, (1.) to annoy you, and (2.) because even as
>it's
>>written, it's still a better choice than red.
>>
>
>how many times do I have to post Nettrice's rule about
>inflammatory bullshit?

How in the hell is that inflammatory? You need to look around the archives a little. Point (1.) was a joke, and wouldn't be inflammatory anyway. Point (2.) was dead serious, and I stand by it.

>The second amendment is a very vaguely written statement.
>Giving the founders the benefit of the doubt, this vagueness
>was probably intentional, so that we could apply our common
>sense in interpreting what they mean by "arms,"
:
and my interpretation is "whatever keeps you competitive in a battle against the British"...meaning, more specifically: "whatever keeps the people able to defend themselves against corrupt government officials and/or overthrow said corruption"...so it's very clear to me that the 2nd is largely meant to arm the *people* AGAINST their government's military if need be. so while the fine points of "well-regulated militia" can be debated, its CLEAR that it does NOT mean the US Army. Tupac shooting those cops = textbook use of the 2nd...that's why the courts vindicated him.

>>>who think they have a "right" to carry a gun, deserve the
>>>statistical likelihood that that they're only gonna shoot
>>>themselves.
>>>
>>
>>they do have the right. it's not a thought. it's the 2nd
>>Amendment.
>
>Yeah, I'm familiar with the second amendment. The question is
>how we are to interpret the second amendment. Do you have a
>"right" to "bear" thermonuclear weapons? Of course not. That
>would pose a significant danger to the community, a danger
>that outweighs your attachment to your own paranoia.
>

technically, yeah, you do have that right, as the 2A is written. I don't know about you, but I can't afford one.

being independent doesn't make me paranoid. in case you haven't noticed, crime and criminals do exist. so I own and carry firearms.

why do you own a fire extinguisher? why do you buy car insurance? home owner's insurance? are you planning on going up in flames, rolling your car 20 times, or trashing your home? paaaranoooid.


>Why didn't our (supposedly) wise and benevolent founding
>fathers write in thermonuclear weapons as an exception to your
>right to bear arms? Because they didn't exist back then. But
>neither did modern automatic weapons.
>

that's the beauty of it. that's why it doesn't say the right to bear muskets. it's the right to bear arms. do you seriously think the Founding Fathers didn't know that technology would advance tremendously in a couple hundred years?

the whole point is to be able to match force with force. read the Federalist Papers. in fact, it wouldn't hurt to check out the local library and the internet to read up on the Founding Fathers. it will help you realize what the 2A means. if you're not willing, then you're not able, and you're choosing ignorance over enlightenment.


>The second amendment is a very vaguely written statement.
>Giving the founders the benefit of the doubt, this vagueness
>was probably intentional, so that we could apply our common
>sense in interpreting what they mean by "arms," not to mention
>what they mean by "a well-regulated militia."
>

that's the thing, it's not vague @ all. it's exactly as it stands. we the ppl have the right to keep and bear arms. every amendment empowers US citizens and limits the government's power. that's what they're there for (true story).


>>also, the right is not "granted", it is "preserved"
>>so the government cannot infringe upon it.
>>
>>also, there is no statistical likelihood that they're going
>to
>>shoot themselves. 99.99% of law-abiding gun owners did not
>>shoot themselves today.
>
>Today? Oh, well, point taken. Well there's the statistics
>for us. This dude says 99.99% of the gun users were able to
>make it through the day without shooting themselves in the
>feet. Those NRA gun safety programs must work like a charm.
>

yesterday. today. this week. this month. this year. the past 10 years. the past 20 years. so on and so forth. 99.9% of law-abiding gun owners did not shoot themselves and will make it thru their entire lives without shooting themselves. no clue where you go the idea that it's even a semi-common occurrence, let alone a likelihood.

NRA gun safety programs do work quite well. there are many other outlets for firearms training outside of the NRA as well. you should always seek to further your training.


>>>I voted blue, (1.) to annoy you, and (2.) because even as
>>it's
>>>written, it's still a better choice than red.
>>>
>>
>>how many times do I have to post Nettrice's rule about
>>inflammatory bullshit?
>
>How in the hell is that inflammatory? You need to look around
>the archives a little. Point (1.) was a joke, and wouldn't be
>inflammatory anyway. Point (2.) was dead serious, and I stand
>by it.
>

oh it was a joke? I'll work on laughing @ that.

why are you anti-gun? are you even anti-gun? or are you anti-criminal? do you only feel safe when law enforcement is near-by? did you have a bad experience involving firearms? are you afraid of firearms? do you have beef with all the amendments?

---/
--/
-/
/

>>>>who think they have a "right" to carry a gun, deserve the
>>>>statistical likelihood that that they're only gonna shoot
>>>>themselves.
>>>>
>>>
>>>they do have the right. it's not a thought. it's the 2nd
>>>Amendment.
>>
>>Yeah, I'm familiar with the second amendment. The question
>is
>>how we are to interpret the second amendment. Do you have a
>>"right" to "bear" thermonuclear weapons? Of course not.
>That
>>would pose a significant danger to the community, a danger
>>that outweighs your attachment to your own paranoia.
>>
>
>technically, yeah, you do have that right, as the 2A is
>written. I don't know about you, but I can't afford one.

Wait, so you're actually suggesting that citizens have the right to "protect themselves" with nuclear weapons?! I was attempting to reduce your argument to the absurd, but it turns out that you're perfectly okay with the absurd. This is why we refer to people like you as "gun nuts."

And yes, I can afford one, in that I know enough modern physics to know how to build one if the necessary materials were available to me. In fact, anyone with just an undergraduate degree in physics knows enough to build one (a conventional nuclear weapon, at least; thermonuclear weapons are much more complicated in design, but conventional nuclear weapons are just as absurd as thermonuclear weapons).

>being independent doesn't make me paranoid. in case you
>haven't noticed, crime and criminals do exist. so I own and
>carry firearms.

Of course crime and criminals exist. The question is whether you're more likely to use your gun to stop a crime, or more likely to shoot yourself in the foot, or in the head, or worst of all, in some random moment of rage, use the gun that you happen to have laying around to become a criminal yourself.

Of course all these possibilities are rare and unlikely. My only argument is that the "positive" uses of guns, as much as we might like to dream about them, are actually more rare than the negative uses of them. This isn't Dirty Harry.

>why do you own a fire extinguisher?

Actually I don't. I should probably get one.

>why do you buy car
>insurance? home owner's insurance? are you planning on going
>up in flames, rolling your car 20 times, or trashing your
>home? paaaranoooid.

But you're missing the extremely important distinction. I can't use a fire extinguisher, or insurance, to blow my own head off. There's no downside to owning a fire extinguisher or insurance.


>>Why didn't our (supposedly) wise and benevolent founding
>>fathers write in thermonuclear weapons as an exception to
>your
>>right to bear arms? Because they didn't exist back then.
>But
>>neither did modern automatic weapons.
>>
>
>that's the beauty of it. that's why it doesn't say the right
>to bear muskets. it's the right to bear arms. do you seriously
>think the Founding Fathers didn't know that technology would
>advance tremendously in a couple hundred years?
>
>the whole point is to be able to match force with force. read
>the Federalist Papers.

Please don't patronize me. I read the damn Federalist Papers in middle school.

But anyway, if I were to reread them, where would you suggest I start? 84 maybe?

>in fact, it wouldn't hurt to check out
>the local library and the internet to read up on the Founding
>Fathers. it will help you realize what the 2A means. if you're
>not willing, then you're not able, and you're choosing
>ignorance over enlightenment.

*rolls eyes*

>>The second amendment is a very vaguely written statement.
>>Giving the founders the benefit of the doubt, this vagueness
>>was probably intentional, so that we could apply our common
>>sense in interpreting what they mean by "arms," not to
>mention
>>what they mean by "a well-regulated militia."
>>
>
>that's the thing, it's not vague @ all. it's exactly as it
>stands.

Well, you've argued that it gives us the right to bear thermonuclear weapons. If we take that to be the case, then it's worse than vague, it's simply and clearly wrong, and we should throw it out.

>we the ppl have the right to keep and bear arms. every
>amendment empowers US citizens and limits the government's
>power. that's what they're there for (true story).
>
>
>>>also, the right is not "granted", it is "preserved"
>>>so the government cannot infringe upon it.
>>>
>>>also, there is no statistical likelihood that they're going
>>to
>>>shoot themselves. 99.99% of law-abiding gun owners did not
>>>shoot themselves today.
>>
>>Today? Oh, well, point taken. Well there's the statistics
>>for us. This dude says 99.99% of the gun users were able to
>>make it through the day without shooting themselves in the
>>feet. Those NRA gun safety programs must work like a charm.
>>
>
>yesterday. today. this week. this month. this year. the past
>10 years. the past 20 years. so on and so forth. 99.9% of
>law-abiding gun owners did not shoot themselves and will make
>it thru their entire lives without shooting themselves.

99.9%, huh? So 99.99% made it through the day yesterday, but .09% will eventually be in trouble. Okay. So where did you get these statistics? Your ass? My guess is your ass.

>no
>clue where you go the idea that it's even a semi-common
>occurrence, let alone a likelihood.

How likely is it that you'll ever be able to use your gun to avert a crime? My guess is you think it's pretty likely, but you're an idiot, so you probably shouldn't trust your own judgment.

(Okay, maybe that one was a little inflammatory, but it's all in good fun.)

>NRA gun safety programs do work quite well. there are many
>other outlets for firearms training outside of the NRA as
>well. you should always seek to further your training.

Sure, and gun rights advocates have consistently opposed any requirements for safety training. The NRA gun safety programs remind me a lot of the anti-smoking commercials run by tobacco companies, or the salads at McDonald's.

>>>>I voted blue, (1.) to annoy you, and (2.) because even as
>>>it's
>>>>written, it's still a better choice than red.
>>>>
>>>
>>>how many times do I have to post Nettrice's rule about
>>>inflammatory bullshit?
>>
>>How in the hell is that inflammatory? You need to look
>around
>>the archives a little. Point (1.) was a joke, and wouldn't
>be
>>inflammatory anyway. Point (2.) was dead serious, and I
>stand
>>by it.
>>
>
>oh it was a joke? I'll work on laughing @ that.

Good. See, we like to have fun in activist.

>why are you anti-gun?

I dunno. I just don't see the fascination.

>are you even anti-gun?

Mneh. I'm more anti-gun-nut.

>or are you
>anti-criminal?

Some of my best friends are criminals. Actually, the registration on my car is a month overdue, so I guess that makes me a criminal. But if those jack-booted thugs try to come and take me down, shit's gonna happen! And now that you've assured me that I have a right to nuclear weapons, I can tell you that it's gonna be ugly! Look out government! Strav's gonna take back his freedom!

>do you only feel safe when law enforcement is
>near-by?

Actually, in all seriousness, I feel pretty safe in general. I've made it this far without being a victim of any serious violent crime. I'm not worried.

Don't let your dog curb you. Don't let your dog curb you. Curb your doggie, like you oughtta do. But don't let that dog curb you.

>did you have a bad experience involving firearms?

I went hunting once as a kid. Boring as hell.

>are you afraid of firearms?

Actually, no. But this isn't about me, or you. It's about a statistical mean, and the question of where we, as a society, would like to drive that mean.

>do you have beef with all the amendments?

No, only the stupid ones. You know, like the ones that clearly grant idiots the right to thermonuclear weapons. If the second amendment does that, as you say it does, then I'm against it.

obviously it wouldn't apply to nukes

but there's a long distance between Muskets and WMDs

WMDs on your own homeland defeat the purpose of defending it against corruption

grenades and assault weapons do not

would you outlaw Voltron?

>obviously it wouldn't apply to nukes

That's what I would'a thought. But Lou here seems to disagree.

>but there's a long distance between Muskets and WMDs

Absolutely.

>WMDs on your own homeland defeat the purpose of defending it
>against corruption

The question is whether the same can be said of other weapons. And if so, which ones.

>grenades and assault weapons do not

Well, that's the question.

>would you outlaw Voltron?

Good question.

I would not allow Voltron, at least not numbers 1 or 3. (The other Voltrons weren't broadcast in America, at least not when I was a kid. For all I know Voltron 2 could be a puppydog, and I'd certainly allow puppydogs.)

Nor would I allow Decepticons (especially the ones in the Michael Bay movie).

I'm on record as saying that I wouldn't allow thermonuclear weapons, or conventional fission weapons.

Chemical and biological weapons seem similarly beyond the realm of acceptability.

Conventional explosives, beyond the level of fireworks and M-80s, I'd allow only to strictly trained and licensed professionals, for use in construction, demolition, etc.

Fully automatic weapons -- do they count as WMDs? Well, one can destroy masses of people with them, and they don't seem to serve any nonmilitary purpose, so I say we ban them. And most people seem to agree.

Semi-automatic weapons -- this is basically the question at hand. Again, they are relatively dangerous objects, and as far as I can tell, they serve very little purpose when owned by the public. So I say we seriously restrict their sale and enact strong training requirements at the very least. But people will disagree with me on this one. This is precisely my point. We are indeed the people. It's our constitution and it's our job to interpret what it means, and what it should mean.

Hunting rifles, shotguns -- well, they do seem to serve a minor (if dated) purpose, but they also present a (relatively minor) risk, as our eminent Vice President recently learned. Again, some amount of restriction and training seems prudent, but the urgency probably isn't as strong as for the cases above.

Slingshots, BB guns -- I got hit in the ass with a BB when I was a kid. It hurt like a bitch for a few minutes, but didn't puncture the skin. I guess there's always the danger that the kids will shoot their eyes out. But I say, let 'em have their fun. Nothing wrong with a little game of Cowboys and Indians (well...).

So my proposal for a modified, clarified second amendment:

A well regulated (pretend) Posse, being necessary to security from the (pretend) Injuns, the right of the kids to keep and bear BB guns, shall not be infringed.

>>would you outlaw Voltron?
>
>Good question.
>
>I would not allow Voltron, at least not numbers 1 or 3. (The
>other Voltrons weren't broadcast in America, at least not when
>I was a kid. For all I know Voltron 2 could be a puppydog,
>and I'd certainly allow puppydogs.)
:
lol classic answer. so LionVoltron: illegal, VehicleVoltron: illegal, PuppyDogVoltron: legal. See, I would understand the gov not wanting us to have Lion Voltron, but that's why Lou and I would build it underneath our castle and hide the various Lions in the elements. Vehicle Voltron is a bit beyond our technological grasp right now (which is a problem, because the gov is probably only a year away from VV technology -- but LV is at least a competitive answer, and has certain intangibles over VV -- so we're safe from these ethanol-punishers either way -- not to mention Voltron runs on pure half-sentient life force energy in the keys).

>Nor would I allow Decepticons (especially the ones in the
>Michael Bay movie).
:
nor would i allow Michael Bay

>I'm on record as saying that I wouldn't allow thermonuclear
>weapons, or conventional fission weapons.
:
i don't know what conventional fission weapons are, but i agree with nukes.

>Chemical and biological weapons seem similarly beyond the
>realm of acceptability.
:
definitely. they go beyond self-defense, and usually would also defeat the purpose

>Conventional explosives, beyond the level of fireworks and
>M-80s, I'd allow only to strictly trained and licensed
>professionals, for use in construction, demolition, etc.
:
2A isn't meant to protect our demolition rights

>Fully automatic weapons -- do they count as WMDs? Well, one
>can destroy masses of people with them, and they don't seem to
>serve any nonmilitary purpose, so I say we ban them. And most
>people seem to agree.
:
A: i sure wouldn't count them as WMDs, because even if you stand in the center of a crowd and spray 360 degrees, you're still only killing the direct people in your vicinity...much like a small explosive. great for beating 700 Brits with 100 townsmen.
:
B: "they don't seem to serve any nonmilitary purpose" -- exactly. they're designed to kill redcoats.

>Semi-automatic weapons -- this is basically the question at
>hand. Again, they are relatively dangerous objects, and as
>far as I can tell, they serve very little purpose when owned
>by the public.
:
so long as the kings men behave

>So I say we seriously restrict their sale and
>enact strong training requirements at the very least.
:
and let Zarkon, Lotor, and Palpatine decide who's qualified

>But people will disagree with me on this one. This is precisely
>my point. We are indeed the people. It's our constitution
>and it's our job to interpret what it means, and what it
>should mean.
:
but you'll admit, its also very easy to skirt clear words by pulling an "interpretation" card...the key to interpreting this is the Revolutionary war. the fact that our founders (quite recently really) had to fight off their own government.

>Hunting rifles, shotguns -- well, they do seem to serve a
>minor (if dated) purpose, but they also present a (relatively
>minor) risk, as our eminent Vice President recently learned.
>Again, some amount of restriction and training seems prudent,
>but the urgency probably isn't as strong as for the cases
>above.
:
what if the New England Patriots used rocks and blowguns to fight the Manchester Monarchs and their cannons/rifles?

>Slingshots, BB guns -- I got hit in the ass with a BB when I
>was a kid. It hurt like a bitch for a few minutes, but didn't
>puncture the skin.
:
if it went in your eye or ear, your life might be very different today, no?

>I guess there's always the danger that the
>kids will shoot their eyes out.
:
lol ok there it is

>But I say, let 'em have their
>fun. Nothing wrong with a little game of Cowboys and Indians
>(well...).
:
see, not me. i say "don't let your kids play with any guns except water guns" ...but i also say "teach your kids about guns and the responsibility that comes with them" ...guns are very foreign to me, which is why i wouldn't trust myself with one...which is why i'd be throwing rocks at the Marines. and maybe...poison helium balloons at the air force. but that might be illegal (poison helium = chemistry warfare?)

>So my proposal for a modified, clarified second amendment:
>
>A well regulated (pretend) Posse, being necessary to security
>from the (pretend) Injuns, the right of the kids to keep and
>bear BB guns, shall not be infringed.
:
but you left out the biggest danger: the pre-regulated (pretend) TeaTime girls on the other side of the playground.

>>>>>who think they have a "right" to carry a gun, deserve
>the
>>>>>statistical likelihood that that they're only gonna shoot
>>>>>themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>they do have the right. it's not a thought. it's the 2nd
>>>>Amendment.
>>>
>>>Yeah, I'm familiar with the second amendment. The question
>>is
>>>how we are to interpret the second amendment. Do you have
>a
>>>"right" to "bear" thermonuclear weapons? Of course not.
>>That
>>>would pose a significant danger to the community, a danger
>>>that outweighs your attachment to your own paranoia.
>>>
>>
>>technically, yeah, you do have that right, as the 2A is
>>written. I don't know about you, but I can't afford one.
>
>Wait, so you're actually suggesting that citizens have the
>right to "protect themselves" with nuclear weapons?! I was
>attempting to reduce your argument to the absurd, but it turns
>out that you're perfectly okay with the absurd. This is why
>we refer to people like you as "gun nuts."
>

I'm saying technically. the 2A grants you that right. I didn't say it's coming into play. the point of the 2A is to be able to match force with force. so yeah, you should access to whatever YOUR (emphasis on it being yours) government has access to.


>And yes, I can afford one, in that I know enough modern
>physics to know how to build one if the necessary materials
>were available to me. In fact, anyone with just an
>undergraduate degree in physics knows enough to build one (a
>conventional nuclear weapon, at least; thermonuclear weapons
>are much more complicated in design, but conventional nuclear
>weapons are just as absurd as thermonuclear weapons).
>

anyone with an undergraduate degree in physics knows you can't afford to build one unless you're wealthy. did you think about the cost of some of those "materials"?


>>being independent doesn't make me paranoid. in case you
>>haven't noticed, crime and criminals do exist. so I own and
>>carry firearms.
>
>Of course crime and criminals exist. The question is whether
>you're more likely to use your gun to stop a crime, or more
>likely to shoot yourself in the foot, or in the head, or worst
>of all, in some random moment of rage, use the gun that you
>happen to have laying around to become a criminal yourself.
>

shooting yourself isn't a likely occurrence @ all. if you're prone to fits of random rage to the point where you would go on a shooting spree, then guess what? you're a criminal and not mentally able.

where are you getting this shit from?


>Of course all these possibilities are rare and unlikely. My
>only argument is that the "positive" uses of guns, as much as
>we might like to dream about them, are actually more rare than
>the negative uses of them. This isn't Dirty Harry.
>

firearms in the hands of US citizens are for the preservation of life. not the taking of it. chances are, 99 times out of 100, when someone gets shot by a law-abiding citizen, they deserved it. that 1 time out of 100 is what you're basing your opinions on.


>>why do you own a fire extinguisher?
>
>Actually I don't. I should probably get one.
>
>>why do you buy car
>>insurance? home owner's insurance? are you planning on going
>>up in flames, rolling your car 20 times, or trashing your
>>home? paaaranoooid.
>
>But you're missing the extremely important distinction. I
>can't use a fire extinguisher, or insurance, to blow my own
>head off. There's no downside to owning a fire extinguisher
>or insurance.
>
>

YOU'RE missing the extremely important distinction. your right to keep and bear arms is a preserved civil right under the 2A. and come to think of it, isn't it the only amendment that says "shall not be infringed"? wonder how that snuck in there...


>>>Why didn't our (supposedly) wise and benevolent founding
>>>fathers write in thermonuclear weapons as an exception to
>>your
>>>right to bear arms? Because they didn't exist back then.
>>But
>>>neither did modern automatic weapons.
>>>
>>
>>that's the beauty of it. that's why it doesn't say the right
>>to bear muskets. it's the right to bear arms. do you
>seriously
>>think the Founding Fathers didn't know that technology would
>>advance tremendously in a couple hundred years?
>>
>>the whole point is to be able to match force with force.
>read
>>the Federalist Papers.
>
>Please don't patronize me. I read the damn Federalist Papers
>in middle school.
>

no you didn't.


>But anyway, if I were to reread them, where would you suggest
>I start? 84 maybe?
>

start to finish.


>>in fact, it wouldn't hurt to check out
>>the local library and the internet to read up on the
>Founding
>>Fathers. it will help you realize what the 2A means. if
>you're
>>not willing, then you're not able, and you're choosing
>>ignorance over enlightenment.
>
>*rolls eyes*
>

...


>>>The second amendment is a very vaguely written statement.
>>>Giving the founders the benefit of the doubt, this
>vagueness
>>>was probably intentional, so that we could apply our common
>>>sense in interpreting what they mean by "arms," not to
>>mention
>>>what they mean by "a well-regulated militia."
>>>
>>
>>that's the thing, it's not vague @ all. it's exactly as it
>>stands.
>
>Well, you've argued that it gives us the right to bear
>thermonuclear weapons. If we take that to be the case, then
>it's worse than vague, it's simply and clearly wrong, and we
>should throw it out.
>

you apparently do not understand the 2A and are lying about your knowledge of history. you must be able to match force with force. you must be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. the moment you are born you have the right to the best means to do so.

I'm saying technically, yeah, it's part of the 2A. I also know it's not happening. notice the lack of me ranting for a good nuclear weapons company to move into town.


>>we the ppl have the right to keep and bear arms. every
>>amendment empowers US citizens and limits the government's
>>power. that's what they're there for (true story).
>>
>>
>>>>also, the right is not "granted", it is "preserved"
>>>>so the government cannot infringe upon it.
>>>>
>>>>also, there is no statistical likelihood that they're
>going
>>>to
>>>>shoot themselves. 99.99% of law-abiding gun owners did not
>>>>shoot themselves today.
>>>
>>>Today? Oh, well, point taken. Well there's the statistics
>>>for us. This dude says 99.99% of the gun users were able
>to
>>>make it through the day without shooting themselves in the
>>>feet. Those NRA gun safety programs must work like a
>charm.
>>>
>>
>>yesterday. today. this week. this month. this year. the past
>>10 years. the past 20 years. so on and so forth. 99.9% of
>>law-abiding gun owners did not shoot themselves and will
>make
>>it thru their entire lives without shooting themselves.
>
>99.9%, huh? So 99.99% made it through the day yesterday, but
>.09% will eventually be in trouble. Okay. So where did you
>get these statistics? Your ass? My guess is your ass.
>

yeah. there's a staff working 24/7.

actually, you can find this information thru your own research, which I have already encouraged you to do.

I mean, every state keeps these stats. and the DOJ and FBI keeps them on a federal level as well.

since you know how to make a nuclear weapon, then you should also know how to do math.


>>no
>>clue where you go the idea that it's even a semi-common
>>occurrence, let alone a likelihood.
>
>How likely is it that you'll ever be able to use your gun to
>avert a crime? My guess is you think it's pretty likely, but
>you're an idiot, so you probably shouldn't trust your own
>judgment.
>
>(Okay, maybe that one was a little inflammatory, but it's all
>in good fun.)
>

no, you're not likely to use your firearm in self-defense. most ppl will go thru life without that situation coming up. that's a good thing tho.


>>NRA gun safety programs do work quite well. there are many
>>other outlets for firearms training outside of the NRA as
>>well. you should always seek to further your training.
>
>Sure, and gun rights advocates have consistently opposed any
>requirements for safety training. The NRA gun safety programs
>remind me a lot of the anti-smoking commercials run by tobacco
>companies, or the salads at McDonald's.
>
>>>>>I voted blue, (1.) to annoy you, and (2.) because even as
>>>>it's
>>>>>written, it's still a better choice than red.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>how many times do I have to post Nettrice's rule about
>>>>inflammatory bullshit?
>>>
>>>How in the hell is that inflammatory? You need to look
>>around
>>>the archives a little. Point (1.) was a joke, and wouldn't
>>be
>>>inflammatory anyway. Point (2.) was dead serious, and I
>>stand
>>>by it.
>>>
>>
>>oh it was a joke? I'll work on laughing @ that.
>
>Good. See, we like to have fun in activist.
>

I think your humor was clouded over by your close-mindedness and ignorance.


>>why are you anti-gun?
>
>I dunno. I just don't see the fascination.
>

it's not a fascination.


>>are you even anti-gun?
>
>Mneh. I'm more anti-gun-nut.
>

...


>>or are you
>>anti-criminal?
>
>Some of my best friends are criminals. Actually, the
>registration on my car is a month overdue, so I guess that
>makes me a criminal. But if those jack-booted thugs try to
>come and take me down, shit's gonna happen! And now that
>you've assured me that I have a right to nuclear weapons, I
>can tell you that it's gonna be ugly! Look out government!
>Strav's gonna take back his freedom!
>

is this the part of an anti-gun individual's argument when they start twisting things around, exaggerating things, and lose all grip on logic and reality?


>>do you only feel safe when law enforcement is
>>near-by?
>
>Actually, in all seriousness, I feel pretty safe in general.
>I've made it this far without being a victim of any serious
>violent crime. I'm not worried.
>

most victims of violent crime went thru their life without being victims and felt pretty safe too.


>Don't let your dog curb you. Don't let your dog curb you.
>Curb your doggie, like you oughtta do. But don't let that dog
>curb you.
>

...


>>did you have a bad experience involving firearms?
>
>I went hunting once as a kid. Boring as hell.
>
>>are you afraid of firearms?
>
>Actually, no. But this isn't about me, or you. It's about a
>statistical mean, and the question of where we, as a society,
>would like to drive that mean.
>

no, it's not about a statistical mean, but it is about a society. and that society's civil rights.


>>do you have beef with all the amendments?
>
>No, only the stupid ones. You know, like the ones that
>clearly grant idiots the right to thermonuclear weapons. If
>the second amendment does that, as you say it does, then I'm
>against it.
>

...

---/
--/
-/
/

>>>technically, yeah, you do have that right, as the 2A is
>>>written. I don't know about you, but I can't afford one.
>>
>>Wait, so you're actually suggesting that citizens have the
>>right to "protect themselves" with nuclear weapons?! I was
>>attempting to reduce your argument to the absurd, but it
>turns
>>out that you're perfectly okay with the absurd. This is why
>>we refer to people like you as "gun nuts."
>>
>
>I'm saying technically. the 2A grants you that right. I didn't
>say it's coming into play. the point of the 2A is to be able
>to match force with force. so yeah, you should access to
>whatever YOUR (emphasis on it being yours) government has
>access to.

You're sticking to this, huh? So I assume you've been deemed "mentally unfit" to carry a firearm.

>>And yes, I can afford one, in that I know enough modern
>>physics to know how to build one if the necessary materials
>>were available to me. In fact, anyone with just an
>>undergraduate degree in physics knows enough to build one (a
>>conventional nuclear weapon, at least; thermonuclear weapons
>>are much more complicated in design, but conventional
>nuclear
>>weapons are just as absurd as thermonuclear weapons).
>>
>
>anyone with an undergraduate degree in physics knows you can't
>afford to build one unless you're wealthy. did you think about
>the cost of some of those "materials"?

For a conventional nuclear weapon, the only material you'll have any trouble finding is a good-sized chunk of weaponable Uranium, and this is only hard to get because its sale is restricted by federal and international law. Gun control.

But regardless, why does the cost even matter? Would you be okay with Bill Gates defending his estate with nuclear weapons?

>>>being independent doesn't make me paranoid. in case you
>>>haven't noticed, crime and criminals do exist. so I own and
>>>carry firearms.
>>
>>Of course crime and criminals exist. The question is
>whether
>>you're more likely to use your gun to stop a crime, or more
>>likely to shoot yourself in the foot, or in the head, or
>worst
>>of all, in some random moment of rage, use the gun that you
>>happen to have laying around to become a criminal yourself.
>>
>
>shooting yourself isn't a likely occurrence @ all.

Neither is averting a crime! You're stuck on the same absurd strawman as Fox and Jon. I'm not saying that guns are inherently, substantially dangerous. I'm simply saying that their (statistically minor) risks outweigh their (statistically, much more minor) benefits.

>if you're
>prone to fits of random rage to the point where you would go
>on a shooting spree, then guess what? you're a criminal and
>not mentally able.
>
>where are you getting this shit from?

You're the one getting this shit, not me.


>>Of course all these possibilities are rare and unlikely.

^ See? There was no need for you to tell me that people are unlikely to have gun accidents. That was never my point.

>>My
>>only argument is that the "positive" uses of guns, as much
>as
>>we might like to dream about them, are actually more rare
>than
>>the negative uses of them. This isn't Dirty Harry.
>>
>
>firearms in the hands of US citizens are for the preservation
>of life. not the taking of it.

So are you really so childish that I have to explain to you that sometimes things don't work in the way they're intended to work?

>chances are, 99 times out of
>100, when someone gets shot by a law-abiding citizen, they
>deserved it. that 1 time out of 100 is what you're basing your
>opinions on.

Again, these statistics are coming straight from your ass.

I have a right to be lazy here, considering that I don't really care much about the issue. But you seem to have built an entire persona around it. I'm surprised you haven't at least put in the effort of regurgitating some misleading NRA numbers.

>>>why do you own a fire extinguisher?
>>
>>Actually I don't. I should probably get one.
>>
>>>why do you buy car
>>>insurance? home owner's insurance? are you planning on
>going
>>>up in flames, rolling your car 20 times, or trashing your
>>>home? paaaranoooid.
>>
>>But you're missing the extremely important distinction. I
>>can't use a fire extinguisher, or insurance, to blow my own
>>head off. There's no downside to owning a fire extinguisher
>>or insurance.
>
>YOU'RE missing the extremely important distinction. your right
>to keep and bear arms is a preserved civil right under the 2A.
>and come to think of it, isn't it the only amendment that says
>"shall not be infringed"? wonder how that snuck in there...

Yes, again, I'm familiar with the second amendment. I wouldn't be in this thread if I weren't. Again, the question is how we should interpret the second amendment. Any reasonable person will agree that it does not protect our right to nuclear, chemical, biological weapons, conventional heavy explosives, or fully automatic weapons. If you don't want to be a reasonable person, that's okay, this is okayactivist.

But beyond the question of interpretation, there is also the question of whether we need or want this second amendment. This is our country, not the founders'. I don't see exactly why we should define our "inalienable rights" by the word of a bunch of slaveholders.

>>>the whole point is to be able to match force with force.
>>read
>>>the Federalist Papers.
>>
>>Please don't patronize me. I read the damn Federalist
>Papers
>>in middle school.
>
>no you didn't.

Oh, so you want to reduce this to the level of "yeah huh" and "nuh uh." Not a surprise, I guess.



>>>>The second amendment is a very vaguely written statement.
>>>>Giving the founders the benefit of the doubt, this
>>vagueness
>>>>was probably intentional, so that we could apply our
>common
>>>>sense in interpreting what they mean by "arms," not to
>>>mention
>>>>what they mean by "a well-regulated militia."
>>>>
>>>
>>>that's the thing, it's not vague @ all. it's exactly as it
>>>stands.
>>
>>Well, you've argued that it gives us the right to bear
>>thermonuclear weapons. If we take that to be the case, then
>>it's worse than vague, it's simply and clearly wrong, and we
>>should throw it out.
>>
>
>you apparently do not understand the 2A and are lying about
>your knowledge of history.

Nuh uh.

>you must be able to match force
>with force.

Slogans, great.

>>>>in fact, it wouldn't hurt to check out
>>>the local library and the internet to read up on the
>>Founding
>>>Fathers. it will help you realize what the 2A means. if
>>you're
>>>not willing, then you're not able, and you're choosing
>>>ignorance over enlightenment.
>>
>>*rolls eyes*
>>
>
>...
>
>you must be able to overthrow a tyrannical
>government.

If it's about overthrowing a tyrannical government, why do you even care about the laws of that government? You do understand that the Constitution, including the second amendment, is a government document, right?

>the moment you are born you have the right to the
>best means to do so.

Well, the best means to overthrow the US government is not an automatic rifle. Plenty of people have tried. None have succeeded.

>I'm saying technically, yeah, it's part of the 2A. I also know
>it's not happening. notice the lack of me ranting for a good
>nuclear weapons company to move into town.

It's not happening because of laws enacted by reasonable people. The same applies to conventional explosives, grenades, bazookas, uzis. Your right to your own paranoia does not outweigh the rights of the rest of us to a reasonable expectation of safety.


>>>yesterday. today. this week. this month. this year. the
>past
>>>10 years. the past 20 years. so on and so forth. 99.9% of
>>>law-abiding gun owners did not shoot themselves and will
>>make
>>>it thru their entire lives without shooting themselves.
>>
>>99.9%, huh? So 99.99% made it through the day yesterday, but
>>.09% will eventually be in trouble. Okay. So where did you
>>get these statistics? Your ass? My guess is your ass.
>>
>
>yeah. there's a staff working 24/7.
>
>actually, you can find this information thru your own
>research, which I have already encouraged you to do.

That, or you could actually try to make a damn argument. You're the one who cares about this shit, not me.

>I mean, every state keeps these stats. and the DOJ and FBI
>keeps them on a federal level as well.
>
>since you know how to make a nuclear weapon, then you should
>also know how to do math.

Yes, I know how to do math.


>>>no
>>>clue where you go the idea that it's even a semi-common
>>>occurrence, let alone a likelihood.
>>
>>How likely is it that you'll ever be able to use your gun to
>>avert a crime? My guess is you think it's pretty likely,
>but
>>you're an idiot, so you probably shouldn't trust your own
>>judgment.
>>
>>(Okay, maybe that one was a little inflammatory, but it's
>all
>>in good fun.)
>>
>
>no, you're not likely to use your firearm in self-defense.
>most ppl will go thru life without that situation coming up.
>that's a good thing tho.

So what's the point of having the gun if you're not going to use it? Is it anything more than a substitute penis?


>I think your humor was clouded over by your close-mindedness
>and ignorance.

And I think yours was clouded over by you being crazy as a fucking loon.

>>>why are you anti-gun?
>>
>>I dunno. I just don't see the fascination.
>
>it's not a fascination.
>
>>>are you even anti-gun?
>>
>>Mneh. I'm more anti-gun-nut.
>>
>
>...
>
>
>>>or are you
>>>anti-criminal?
>>
>>Some of my best friends are criminals. Actually, the
>>registration on my car is a month overdue, so I guess that
>>makes me a criminal. But if those jack-booted thugs try to
>>come and take me down, shit's gonna happen! And now that
>>you've assured me that I have a right to nuclear weapons, I
>>can tell you that it's gonna be ugly! Look out government!
>>Strav's gonna take back his freedom!
>>
>
>is this the part of an anti-gun individual's argument when
>they start twisting things around, exaggerating things, and
>lose all grip on logic and reality?

I'm just having fun. But you did say that the second amendment gives us the right to nuclear weapons (if we can afford them), and that this right is protected so that we can overthrow the government. So I don't really see what I'm twisting around, or exaggerating.

>>>do you only feel safe when law enforcement is
>>>near-by?
>>
>>Actually, in all seriousness, I feel pretty safe in general.
>
>>I've made it this far without being a victim of any serious
>>violent crime. I'm not worried.
>>
>
>most victims of violent crime went thru their life without
>being victims and felt pretty safe too.

And most people, in general, will never be victims of violent crime. And almost nobody will ever use a gun to avert any sort of crime. And my guess is that exactly nobody will ever use a gun to overthrow the US government.

So what is your fascination with guns?

>>Don't let your dog curb you. Don't let your dog curb you.
>>Curb your doggie, like you oughtta do. But don't let that
>dog
>>curb you.
>>
>
>...

You may play folks cheap,
act all rough and tough,
but a dog can tell
when you're full of stuff.
Them little old mutts
look all scraggly and bad,
but they got more sense
than some people ever had.

Cur dog, fice dog, kerry blue�
just don't let your dog curb you!

>
>>>>technically, yeah, you do have that right, as the 2A is
>>>>written. I don't know about you, but I can't afford one.
>>>
>>>Wait, so you're actually suggesting that citizens have the
>>>right to "protect themselves" with nuclear weapons?! I was
>>>attempting to reduce your argument to the absurd, but it
>>turns
>>>out that you're perfectly okay with the absurd. This is
>why
>>>we refer to people like you as "gun nuts."
>>>
>>
>>I'm saying technically. the 2A grants you that right. I
>didn't
>>say it's coming into play. the point of the 2A is to be able
>>to match force with force. so yeah, you should access to
>>whatever YOUR (emphasis on it being yours) government has
>>access to.
>
>You're sticking to this, huh? So I assume you've been deemed
>"mentally unfit" to carry a firearm.
>

you're claiming I'm mentally unfit because I understand the intent of the 2A?


>>>And yes, I can afford one, in that I know enough modern
>>>physics to know how to build one if the necessary materials
>>>were available to me. In fact, anyone with just an
>>>undergraduate degree in physics knows enough to build one
>(a
>>>conventional nuclear weapon, at least; thermonuclear
>weapons
>>>are much more complicated in design, but conventional
>>nuclear
>>>weapons are just as absurd as thermonuclear weapons).
>>>
>>
>>anyone with an undergraduate degree in physics knows you
>can't
>>afford to build one unless you're wealthy. did you think
>about
>>the cost of some of those "materials"?
>
>For a conventional nuclear weapon, the only material you'll
>have any trouble finding is a good-sized chunk of weaponable
>Uranium, and this is only hard to get because its sale is
>restricted by federal and international law. Gun control.
>

yeah, the price of uranium would plummet without restrictions.


>But regardless, why does the cost even matter? Would you be
>okay with Bill Gates defending his estate with nuclear
>weapons?
>

yeah. as long as he's trained and responsible. he's not infringing on my freedom.

you have trust issues, don't you?


>>>>being independent doesn't make me paranoid. in case you
>>>>haven't noticed, crime and criminals do exist. so I own
>and
>>>>carry firearms.
>>>
>>>Of course crime and criminals exist. The question is
>>whether
>>>you're more likely to use your gun to stop a crime, or more
>>>likely to shoot yourself in the foot, or in the head, or
>>worst
>>>of all, in some random moment of rage, use the gun that you
>>>happen to have laying around to become a criminal yourself.
>>>
>>
>>shooting yourself isn't a likely occurrence @ all.
>
>Neither is averting a crime! You're stuck on the same absurd
>strawman as Fox and Jon. I'm not saying that guns are
>inherently, substantially dangerous. I'm simply saying that
>their (statistically minor) risks outweigh their
>(statistically, much more minor) benefits.
>

you are vastly more likely to use your gun to stop a violent crime than you are to shoot yourself with your own firearm.


>>if you're
>>prone to fits of random rage to the point where you would go
>>on a shooting spree, then guess what? you're a criminal and
>>not mentally able.
>>
>>where are you getting this shit from?
>
>You're the one getting this shit, not me.
>
>

you hate logic AND freedom.


>>>Of course all these possibilities are rare and unlikely.
>
>^ See? There was no need for you to tell me that people are
>unlikely to have gun accidents. That was never my point.
>
>>>My
>>>only argument is that the "positive" uses of guns, as much
>>as
>>>we might like to dream about them, are actually more rare
>>than
>>>the negative uses of them. This isn't Dirty Harry.
>>>
>>
>>firearms in the hands of US citizens are for the
>preservation
>>of life. not the taking of it.
>
>So are you really so childish that I have to explain to you
>that sometimes things don't work in the way they're intended
>to work?
>

sore loser?


>>chances are, 99 times out of
>>100, when someone gets shot by a law-abiding citizen, they
>>deserved it. that 1 time out of 100 is what you're basing
>your
>>opinions on.
>
>Again, these statistics are coming straight from your ass.
>
>I have a right to be lazy here, considering that I don't
>really care much about the issue. But you seem to have built
>an entire persona around it. I'm surprised you haven't at
>least put in the effort of regurgitating some misleading NRA
>numbers.
>

http://www.gunfacts.info/


>>>>why do you own a fire extinguisher?
>>>
>>>Actually I don't. I should probably get one.
>>>
>>>>why do you buy car
>>>>insurance? home owner's insurance? are you planning on
>>going
>>>>up in flames, rolling your car 20 times, or trashing your
>>>>home? paaaranoooid.
>>>
>>>But you're missing the extremely important distinction. I
>>>can't use a fire extinguisher, or insurance, to blow my own
>>>head off. There's no downside to owning a fire
>extinguisher
>>>or insurance.
>>
>>YOU'RE missing the extremely important distinction. your
>right
>>to keep and bear arms is a preserved civil right under the
>2A.
>>and come to think of it, isn't it the only amendment that
>says
>>"shall not be infringed"? wonder how that snuck in there...
>
>Yes, again, I'm familiar with the second amendment. I
>wouldn't be in this thread if I weren't. Again, the question
>is how we should interpret the second amendment. Any
>reasonable person will agree that it does not protect our
>right to nuclear, chemical, biological weapons, conventional
>heavy explosives, or fully automatic weapons. If you don't
>want to be a reasonable person, that's okay, this is
>okayactivist.
>

if the government has it, and you don't, how are you free? you're not. you're operating under a tyrannical government's whims.

nuclear, chemical, biological, explosives... I can see you pitching a fit over those.

but fully automatic firearms? if you're a law-abiding gun owner, what difference does it make if you fire one shot between trigger resets or 30? there isn't one.

once again, you have some serious trust issues. logic issues. and freedom issues.

trust: law-abiding gun owners go thru very thorough background checks to purchase a firearm. this is called a NICS check. you must also fill out multiple forms depending on what you're purchasing. full auto weapons require even more government intrusion. gun owners and concealed license holders are certified safe. your entire argument revolves around the few exceptions. some black folks killed 5 ppl in a drive-by lastnight. let's ban black folks from the US. or @ least make them where chains. not humane enough? okay we'll put them in concentration camps.

logic: you're on grade school level here. if someone steals the teacher's stamp and no one fesses up then everyone gets detention, right? 'cause if one person will do it, everyone else will too. do you know what % of US citizens commit violent crimes every year?

freedom: you are not free if you cannot defend you and your luvd ones with the best means necessary. these means are called firearms. without them, you must rely on the government. relying on the government means dependence. dependence means you're below the government. being below the government makes you a slave.

that is how I feel.


>But beyond the question of interpretation, there is also the
>question of whether we need or want this second amendment.
>This is our country, not the founders'. I don't see exactly
>why we should define our "inalienable rights" by the word of a
>bunch of slaveholders.
>

any politician who doesn't trust a law-abiding/mentally able citizen to own and use firearms is a slaveholder, in my opinion.

and you're right, this is our country. "We the ppl" may ring a bell. the government didn't write the US Constitution.


>>>>the whole point is to be able to match force with force.
>>>read
>>>>the Federalist Papers.
>>>
>>>Please don't patronize me. I read the damn Federalist
>>Papers
>>>in middle school.
>>
>>no you didn't.
>
>Oh, so you want to reduce this to the level of "yeah huh" and
>"nuh uh." Not a surprise, I guess.
>
>
>

I just can't clap to lying. you did not read the Federalist Papers in jr. high.


>>>>>The second amendment is a very vaguely written statement.
>
>>>>>Giving the founders the benefit of the doubt, this
>>>vagueness
>>>>>was probably intentional, so that we could apply our
>>common
>>>>>sense in interpreting what they mean by "arms," not to
>>>>mention
>>>>>what they mean by "a well-regulated militia."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>that's the thing, it's not vague @ all. it's exactly as it
>>>>stands.
>>>
>>>Well, you've argued that it gives us the right to bear
>>>thermonuclear weapons. If we take that to be the case,
>then
>>>it's worse than vague, it's simply and clearly wrong, and
>we
>>>should throw it out.
>>>
>>
>>you apparently do not understand the 2A and are lying about
>>your knowledge of history.
>
>Nuh uh.
>
>>you must be able to match force
>>with force.
>
>Slogans, great.
>
>>>>>in fact, it wouldn't hurt to check out
>>>>the local library and the internet to read up on the
>>>Founding
>>>>Fathers. it will help you realize what the 2A means. if
>>>you're
>>>>not willing, then you're not able, and you're choosing
>>>>ignorance over enlightenment.
>>>
>>>*rolls eyes*
>>>
>>
>>...
>>
>>you must be able to overthrow a tyrannical
>>government.
>
>If it's about overthrowing a tyrannical government, why do you
>even care about the laws of that government? You do
>understand that the Constitution, including the second
>amendment, is a government document, right?
>

wrong.


>>the moment you are born you have the right to the
>>best means to do so.
>
>Well, the best means to overthrow the US government is not an
>automatic rifle. Plenty of people have tried. None have
>succeeded.
>

wrong again.


>>I'm saying technically, yeah, it's part of the 2A. I also
>know
>>it's not happening. notice the lack of me ranting for a good
>>nuclear weapons company to move into town.
>
>It's not happening because of laws enacted by reasonable
>people. The same applies to conventional explosives,
>grenades, bazookas, uzis. Your right to your own paranoia
>does not outweigh the rights of the rest of us to a reasonable
>expectation of safety.
>
>

you can own explosives, grenades, bazookas, and Uzis. legally. you're the paranoid one, thinking every gun owner in the US can snap @ any second and go on a shooting spree.


>>>>yesterday. today. this week. this month. this year. the
>>past
>>>>10 years. the past 20 years. so on and so forth. 99.9% of
>>>>law-abiding gun owners did not shoot themselves and will
>>>make
>>>>it thru their entire lives without shooting themselves.
>>>
>>>99.9%, huh? So 99.99% made it through the day yesterday,
>but
>>>.09% will eventually be in trouble. Okay. So where did
>you
>>>get these statistics? Your ass? My guess is your ass.
>>>
>>
>>yeah. there's a staff working 24/7.
>>
>>actually, you can find this information thru your own
>>research, which I have already encouraged you to do.
>
>That, or you could actually try to make a damn argument.
>You're the one who cares about this shit, not me.
>

so once again, you're playing the inflammatory bullshit card.


>>I mean, every state keeps these stats. and the DOJ and FBI
>>keeps them on a federal level as well.
>>
>>since you know how to make a nuclear weapon, then you should
>>also know how to do math.
>
>Yes, I know how to do math.
>
>
>>>>no
>>>>clue where you go the idea that it's even a semi-common
>>>>occurrence, let alone a likelihood.
>>>
>>>How likely is it that you'll ever be able to use your gun
>to
>>>avert a crime? My guess is you think it's pretty likely,
>>but
>>>you're an idiot, so you probably shouldn't trust your own
>>>judgment.
>>>
>>>(Okay, maybe that one was a little inflammatory, but it's
>>all
>>>in good fun.)
>>>
>>
>>no, you're not likely to use your firearm in self-defense.
>>most ppl will go thru life without that situation coming up.
>>that's a good thing tho.
>
>So what's the point of having the gun if you're not going to
>use it? Is it anything more than a substitute penis?
>
>

this pretty much sums you up. you could've just made the penis joke in your first reply and never clicked the topic again.

but yeah, I guess I wouldn't carry a sidearm if my penis could shoot bullets @ 1300 fps.


>>I think your humor was clouded over by your close-mindedness
>>and ignorance.
>
>And I think yours was clouded over by you being crazy as a
>fucking loon.
>

yeah. I'm crazy as they come. that is why I train every government agency in the US. 'cause they luv that crazy vibe I put out.


>>>>why are you anti-gun?
>>>
>>>I dunno. I just don't see the fascination.
>>
>>it's not a fascination.
>>
>>>>are you even anti-gun?
>>>
>>>Mneh. I'm more anti-gun-nut.
>>>
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>>>or are you
>>>>anti-criminal?
>>>
>>>Some of my best friends are criminals. Actually, the
>>>registration on my car is a month overdue, so I guess that
>>>makes me a criminal. But if those jack-booted thugs try to
>>>come and take me down, shit's gonna happen! And now that
>>>you've assured me that I have a right to nuclear weapons, I
>>>can tell you that it's gonna be ugly! Look out government!
>
>>>Strav's gonna take back his freedom!
>>>
>>
>>is this the part of an anti-gun individual's argument when
>>they start twisting things around, exaggerating things, and
>>lose all grip on logic and reality?
>
>I'm just having fun. But you did say that the second
>amendment gives us the right to nuclear weapons (if we can
>afford them), and that this right is protected so that we can
>overthrow the government. So I don't really see what I'm
>twisting around, or exaggerating.
>
>>>>do you only feel safe when law enforcement is
>>>>near-by?
>>>
>>>Actually, in all seriousness, I feel pretty safe in
>general.
>>
>>>I've made it this far without being a victim of any serious
>>>violent crime. I'm not worried.
>>>
>>
>>most victims of violent crime went thru their life without
>>being victims and felt pretty safe too.
>
>And most people, in general, will never be victims of violent
>crime. And almost nobody will ever use a gun to avert any
>sort of crime. And my guess is that exactly nobody will ever
>use a gun to overthrow the US government.
>
>So what is your fascination with guns?
>

okay. you want to call it a fascination? call it the fascination of being able to protect yourself and your luvd ones.


>>>Don't let your dog curb you. Don't let your dog curb you.
>>>Curb your doggie, like you oughtta do. But don't let that
>>dog
>>>curb you.
>>>
>>
>>...
>
>You may play folks cheap,
>act all rough and tough,
>but a dog can tell
>when you're full of stuff.
>Them little old mutts
>look all scraggly and bad,
>but they got more sense
>than some people ever had.
>
>Cur dog, fice dog, kerry blue�
>just don't let your dog curb you!
>
>
>

this was my last reply to you.

---/
--/
-/
/

>>
>>>>>technically, yeah, you do have that right, as the 2A is
>>>>>written. I don't know about you, but I can't afford one.
>>>>
>>>>Wait, so you're actually suggesting that citizens have the
>>>>right to "protect themselves" with nuclear weapons?! I
>was
>>>>attempting to reduce your argument to the absurd, but it
>>>turns
>>>>out that you're perfectly okay with the absurd. This is
>>why
>>>>we refer to people like you as "gun nuts."
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm saying technically. the 2A grants you that right. I
>>didn't
>>>say it's coming into play. the point of the 2A is to be
>able
>>>to match force with force. so yeah, you should access to
>>>whatever YOUR (emphasis on it being yours) government has
>>>access to.
>>
>>You're sticking to this, huh? So I assume you've been
>deemed
>>"mentally unfit" to carry a firearm.
>
>you're claiming I'm mentally unfit because I understand the
>intent of the 2A?

No, because you're refusing to admit to even the slightest subtlety in the situation. You make the shockingly irrational claim that the second amendment protects your legal right to every single conceivable weapon, no matter how destructive. Worse than that, you don't even seem to understand how bizarre it is for you to make such a claim. In all seriousness and honesty, though I'm not particularly afraid of guns or gun owners or even criminals, I am afraid of people who approach important political matters with as little rationality as you are showing. The very fact that "we are the people," that we are the government, means that people like you with such naive and dogmatic motives pose more threat to the American people than any number of guns. You, with your lack of seriousness, endanger my freedom.


>>But regardless, why does the cost even matter? Would you be
>>okay with Bill Gates defending his estate with nuclear
>>weapons?
>>
>
>yeah. as long as he's trained and responsible. he's not
>infringing on my freedom.
>
>you have trust issues, don't you?

See?! I'm simply flabbergasted. You at least understand, don't you, that this is not the common response? Normally, in these debates, the gun nuts find some way to make a distinction, that nuclear weapons are not the same sorts of objects as guns. That's all I was expecting you to do.

See, I was trying to have a rational debate with you, by starting out by finding our common ground. Obviously BB guns are okay, obviously nuclear weapons are not okay, then we discuss the finer points to try to elucidate where we think the line should go in between. But by refusing to accept that there's any point, anywhere, that we as citizens can admit our limitations and defer to the public well-being, you remove the very possibility of sensible discussion.


>>>shooting yourself isn't a likely occurrence @ all.
>>
>>Neither is averting a crime! You're stuck on the same
>absurd
>>strawman as Fox and Jon. I'm not saying that guns are
>>inherently, substantially dangerous. I'm simply saying that
>>their (statistically minor) risks outweigh their
>>(statistically, much more minor) benefits.
>
>you are vastly more likely to use your gun to stop a violent
>crime than you are to shoot yourself with your own firearm.

You haven't made that argument. You've simply stated it as fact.

You're also forgetting the cases where law-abiding citizens obtain guns legally and then cease to abide by the law.

You know, the third leading cause of death among pregnant women is murder. And no, pregnant women aren't being targeted disproportionately by home-invaders. They're being killed by prospective fathers who freak out over the idea of new responsibilities, and who happen to have the tools available to do something they'd have resisted if forced to think it over a little longer.

>>>if you're
>>>prone to fits of random rage to the point where you would
>go
>>>on a shooting spree, then guess what? you're a criminal and
>>>not mentally able.
>>>
>>>where are you getting this shit from?
>>
>>You're the one getting this shit, not me.
>
>you hate logic AND freedom.

I never said gun owners are likely to go into fits of random rage. But you can't dispute the fact that mentally-fit, law-abiding people can fuck up on occasion. You also can't (honestly) dispute the fact that legal gun owners are extremely unlikely to ever use their weapons to protect themselves.


>>>firearms in the hands of US citizens are for the
>>preservation
>>>of life. not the taking of it.
>>
>>So are you really so childish that I have to explain to you
>>that sometimes things don't work in the way they're intended
>>to work?
>
>sore loser?

I have no idea what you're even trying to get at with that one.

>>>chances are, 99 times out of
>>>100, when someone gets shot by a law-abiding citizen, they
>>>deserved it. that 1 time out of 100 is what you're basing
>>your
>>>opinions on.
>>
>>Again, these statistics are coming straight from your ass.
>>
>>I have a right to be lazy here, considering that I don't
>>really care much about the issue. But you seem to have
>built
>>an entire persona around it. I'm surprised you haven't at
>>least put in the effort of regurgitating some misleading NRA
>>numbers.
>
>http://www.gunfacts.info/

Ah, exactly. Now try to step up and find some honest data, from unbiased sources. Somehow, I have a hard time trusting this guy with numbers:

http://www.gunfacts.info/images/GSmith029.jpg



>>>>>why do you own a fire extinguisher?
>>>>
>>>>Actually I don't. I should probably get one.
>>>>
>>>>>why do you buy car
>>>>>insurance? home owner's insurance? are you planning on
>>>going
>>>>>up in flames, rolling your car 20 times, or trashing your
>>>>>home? paaaranoooid.
>>>>
>>>>But you're missing the extremely important distinction. I
>>>>can't use a fire extinguisher, or insurance, to blow my
>own
>>>>head off. There's no downside to owning a fire
>>extinguisher
>>>>or insurance.
>>>
>>>YOU'RE missing the extremely important distinction. your
>>right
>>>to keep and bear arms is a preserved civil right under the
>>2A.
>>>and come to think of it, isn't it the only amendment that
>>says
>>>"shall not be infringed"? wonder how that snuck in there...
>>
>>Yes, again, I'm familiar with the second amendment. I
>>wouldn't be in this thread if I weren't. Again, the
>question
>>is how we should interpret the second amendment. Any
>>reasonable person will agree that it does not protect our
>>right to nuclear, chemical, biological weapons, conventional
>>heavy explosives, or fully automatic weapons. If you don't
>>want to be a reasonable person, that's okay, this is
>>okayactivist.
>
>if the government has it, and you don't, how are you free?

Well, I can vote. I can get an education. I can read what I want to read, I can teach what I want to teach. I can protest. I am allowed legal representation. I get to pay taxes, and I get to expect a return on that investment. But voting is most important, and running for office. If there were more people like you out there, of the opinion that the rich have a right to protect themselves with nuclear weapons, then I would have as much right as any other citizen to influence the public discourse and see to it that these lunatics don't take over.

>you're not. you're operating under a tyrannical government's
>whims.

And you're saying *I* have problems with trust.

>nuclear, chemical, biological, explosives... I can see you
>pitching a fit over those.
>
>but fully automatic firearms? if you're a law-abiding gun
>owner, what difference does it make if you fire one shot
>between trigger resets or 30? there isn't one.

Well, there is the issue of innocent bystanders.

There's also the problem of legally-acquired weapons reaching the hands of the evildoers. Yeah, you can say, if they're evil, they'll get the guns somehow. But the question is how easy it is for them to do it.

>once again, you have some serious trust issues. logic issues.
>and freedom issues.
>
>trust: law-abiding gun owners go thru very thorough background
>checks to purchase a firearm. this is called a NICS check.

Very good. And let's not forget that you've said already in this thread that you think these checks violate the second amendment.

I'm trying to argue for common-sense gun control. I support background checks, you oppose them. Yet you're citing them in an argument against common-sense gun control. And you say I have logic issues!

>you
>must also fill out multiple forms depending on what you're
>purchasing. full auto weapons require even more government
>intrusion.

Government intrusion? So I take it that, again, you're citing the existence of something that you'd actually like to do away with.

>gun owners and concealed license holders are
>certified safe.

Well, so are airplanes, and their pilots. Of course they aren't always safe, and if they didn't serve such an important purpose, then nobody would use them. Certain guns are similarly unsafe (in similarly rare instances), but they *don't* serve any purpose. Yet people are attached to them.

>your entire argument revolves around the few
>exceptions. some black folks killed 5 ppl in a drive-by
>lastnight. let's ban black folks from the US. or @ least make
>them where chains. not humane enough? okay we'll put them in
>concentration camps.

You can objectify people if you like (for the sake of argument). I prefer to objectify objects.

>logic: you're on grade school level here.

Well, just to point out, logic is my business. And I'm way past grade school level in that business. But whatever.

>if someone steals
>the teacher's stamp and no one fesses up then everyone gets
>detention, right?

I don't see the analogy. But then again, I'm at grade school level, so you'll have to help me out.

>'cause if one person will do it, everyone
>else will too.

Huh? Oh, I bet this is another strawman, right?

>do you know what % of US citizens commit
>violent crimes every year?

Enlighten us. Also, let us know what % of US citizens use guns to avert violent crimes. By definition, it sort of has to be less.

>freedom: you are not free if you cannot defend you and your
>luvd ones with the best means necessary. these means are
>called firearms. without them, you must rely on the
>government. relying on the government means dependence.
>dependence means you're below the government. being below the
>government makes you a slave.
>
>that is how I feel.

From my angle, it looks more like you're a slave to your own fears. Who do you think is coming after you? And why do you feel compelled to respond in kind?

>>But beyond the question of interpretation, there is also the
>>question of whether we need or want this second amendment.
>>This is our country, not the founders'. I don't see exactly
>>why we should define our "inalienable rights" by the word of
>a
>>bunch of slaveholders.
>>
>
>any politician who doesn't trust a law-abiding/mentally able
>citizen to own and use firearms is a slaveholder, in my
>opinion.
>
>and you're right, this is our country. "We the ppl" may ring a
>bell. the government didn't write the US Constitution.

Well, they did. They wrote the Constitution, and we wrote the Constitution. We are the government. As much as we may despise the actions of particular governmental institution (and I personally despise the current executive administration as much as just about anything else in the world), we must recognize that we share with them a common tradition. And it is this tradition that defines America, and defines our freedom. We're all in this together. You weren't impressed by Langston Hughes. How about John Donne?

http://isu.indstate.edu/ilnprof/ENG451/ISLAND/text.html


>>>>>the whole point is to be able to match force with force.
>>>>read
>>>>>the Federalist Papers.
>>>>
>>>>Please don't patronize me. I read the damn Federalist
>>>Papers
>>>>in middle school.
>>>
>>>no you didn't.
>>
>>Oh, so you want to reduce this to the level of "yeah huh" and
>>"nuh uh." Not a surprise, I guess.
>
>I just can't clap to lying. you did not read the Federalist
>Papers in jr. high.

Why are you so annoyed by this assertion? Aren't the Federalist Papers pretty standard middle school/high school fare?



>>>you must be able to overthrow a tyrannical
>>>government.
>>
>>If it's about overthrowing a tyrannical government, why do you
>>even care about the laws of that government? You do
>>understand that the Constitution, including the second
>>amendment, is a government document, right?
>
>wrong.

Shockingly enough, that isn't the strangest statement you've made so far in this conversation. It's bizarre, but it's got competition.

>>>the moment you are born you have the right to the
>>>best means to do so.
>>
>>Well, the best means to overthrow the US government is not an
>>automatic rifle. Plenty of people have tried. None have
>>succeeded.
>
>wrong again.

Wait, so somebody was able to overthrow the US government using an automatic rifle?! Do tell.


>>>I'm saying technically, yeah, it's part of the 2A. I also
>>know
>>>it's not happening. notice the lack of me ranting for a
>good
>>>nuclear weapons company to move into town.
>>
>>It's not happening because of laws enacted by reasonable
>>people. The same applies to conventional explosives,
>>grenades, bazookas, uzis. Your right to your own paranoia
>>does not outweigh the rights of the rest of us to a reasonable
>>expectation of safety.
>
>you can own explosives, grenades, bazookas, and Uzis. legally.

Ah, but you've already said they're restricted in a way that violates what you consider to be your second amendment rights.

>you're the paranoid one, thinking every gun owner in the US
>can snap @ any second and go on a shooting spree.

When did I ever say anything like that?!


>>>>.09% will eventually be in trouble. Okay. So where did you
>>>>get these statistics? Your ass? My guess is your ass.
>>>>
>>>
>>>yeah. there's a staff working 24/7.
>>>
>>>actually, you can find this information thru your own
>>>research, which I have already encouraged you to do.
>>
>>That, or you could actually try to make a damn argument.
>>You're the one who cares about this shit, not me.
>
>so once again, you're playing the inflammatory bullshit card.

What in the hell was inflammatory about that statement?! I was simply pointing out the unavoidable fact that you haven't provided this debate with anything other than slogans. You've even quoted numbers on a few occasions, but they've been completely meaningless, totally divorced from any attempt at the facts.


>>>no, you're not likely to use your firearm in self-defense.
>>>most ppl will go thru life without that situation coming up.
>>>that's a good thing tho.
>>
>>So what's the point of having the gun if you're not going to
>>use it? Is it anything more than a substitute penis?
>
>
>this pretty much sums you up. you could've just made the penis
>joke in your first reply and never clicked the topic again.
>
>but yeah, I guess I wouldn't carry a sidearm if my penis could
>shoot bullets @ 1300 fps.

I asked you a direct question, and you avoided it by pretending to be offended by an assumed answer that you've heard a thousand times before.

>>>I think your humor was clouded over by your close-mindedness
>>>and ignorance.
>>
>>And I think yours was clouded over by you being crazy as a
>>fucking loon.
>>
>
>yeah. I'm crazy as they come. that is why I train every
>government agency in the US. 'cause they luv that crazy vibe I
>put out.

Really? I assume, as they're international, that this doesn't include the International Atomic Energy Agency. That'd be a disaster waiting to happen.


>>>>>do you only feel safe when law enforcement is
>>>>>near-by?
>>>>
>>>>Actually, in all seriousness, I feel pretty safe in
>>general.
>>>
>>>>I've made it this far without being a victim of any serious
>>>>violent crime. I'm not worried.
>>>>
>>>
>>>most victims of violent crime went thru their life without
>>>being victims and felt pretty safe too.
>>
>>And most people, in general, will never be victims of violent
>>crime. And almost nobody will ever use a gun to avert any
>>sort of crime. And my guess is that exactly nobody will ever
>>use a gun to overthrow the US government.
>>
>>So what is your fascination with guns?
>
>okay. you want to call it a fascination? call it the
>fascination of being able to protect yourself and your luvd
>ones.

From what?


>>>>Don't let your dog curb you. Don't let your dog curb you.
>>>>Curb your doggie, like you oughtta do. But don't let that
>>>dog
>>>>curb you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>...
>>
>>You may play folks cheap,
>>act all rough and tough,
>>but a dog can tell
>>when you're full of stuff.
>>Them little old mutts
>>look all scraggly and bad,
>>but they got more sense
>>than some people ever had.
>>
>>Cur dog, fice dog, kerry blue�
>>just don't let your dog curb you!
>>
>>
>>
>
>this was my last reply to you.

We'll see.