Forums » Off-Topic
Mmm.. self-defense ICBM..
I would -so- want one...
break19
I would -so- want one...
break19
More Marines die from vehicle related activities than combat every year. My command spends more time preaching to me the virtues of safe driving and the error of alcohol use than it does teaching combat.
That's right Bin Laden and friends, only Marines can kill this many Marines. Your guns and bombs are pitiful. Gun owners in the US kill even fewer Marines than Osama.
Gun control? It just needs to be realistic. Does anyone in the nation need to own an assault rifle? Fuck no. Those are my job, and their only purpose is to kill other men. How about handguns? These are what I'd like to see banned. The only reason to have a handgun is to conceal it, and the only reason to conceal is to do something underhanded. Manual action rifles and shotguns don't need laws against them as far as I am concerned.
There, done. Realistic gun control that respects your right to bear arms, NOT some unspoken right to take lives.
That's right Bin Laden and friends, only Marines can kill this many Marines. Your guns and bombs are pitiful. Gun owners in the US kill even fewer Marines than Osama.
Gun control? It just needs to be realistic. Does anyone in the nation need to own an assault rifle? Fuck no. Those are my job, and their only purpose is to kill other men. How about handguns? These are what I'd like to see banned. The only reason to have a handgun is to conceal it, and the only reason to conceal is to do something underhanded. Manual action rifles and shotguns don't need laws against them as far as I am concerned.
There, done. Realistic gun control that respects your right to bear arms, NOT some unspoken right to take lives.
Wrong, Aramarth. Except your comment about Marines.
If you were planning to mug someone, and you thought maybe they had a handgun concealed on them, you'd probably think twice. And that's the point.
And what about the assault rifle? Some people just like guns, myself included. I don't currently own a gun, but I'd like to. I want a handgun and I want to learn how to use it well. I probably won't carry it concealed, but I'd like it available to me. They're small and practical, why should they be kept out of the hands of law-abiding citizens so that only criminals have them? I also want some bigger guns like assault rifles just for show and target shooting. Why should I not have them? It is violent crime that should be (and is) illegal, not the tools.
Before you respond to that, it's been hashed to death already; I suggest closer reading of the previous couple pages of posts.
If you were planning to mug someone, and you thought maybe they had a handgun concealed on them, you'd probably think twice. And that's the point.
And what about the assault rifle? Some people just like guns, myself included. I don't currently own a gun, but I'd like to. I want a handgun and I want to learn how to use it well. I probably won't carry it concealed, but I'd like it available to me. They're small and practical, why should they be kept out of the hands of law-abiding citizens so that only criminals have them? I also want some bigger guns like assault rifles just for show and target shooting. Why should I not have them? It is violent crime that should be (and is) illegal, not the tools.
Before you respond to that, it's been hashed to death already; I suggest closer reading of the previous couple pages of posts.
When citizens start hearing, from those employed by the citizens as soldiers, and not as domestic overlords, that "assault rifles" are the exclusive domain of soldiers, the citizens would be right to get a tad hot under the collar.
Of course their purpose is to kill other men. That hardly precludes their having a lawful civilian use. Ditto for handguns.
FYI, "bearing arms" has largely been about recourse to self-defense, not hunting. And self-defense is all about a right, in the appropriate circumstances, to take lives.
Of course their purpose is to kill other men. That hardly precludes their having a lawful civilian use. Ditto for handguns.
FYI, "bearing arms" has largely been about recourse to self-defense, not hunting. And self-defense is all about a right, in the appropriate circumstances, to take lives.
I think you guys are missing the point re: Second Amendment.
When the founding fathers conceived of this "Right", the most powerful weapon known was the cannon, and the second-most was the handheld musket.
The point of the second amendment is that the general population has the right to be well-armed, achieving a dual purpose: making it difficult for any foreign power to invade, and making it just as difficult for their own government to impose any kind of tyrannical rule. Essentially, allowing the general populace to overthrow the government any damn time they liked. Remember, at the time this was conceived, we just fought a bitter war against a tyrant who could give two shits about the New World.
It's tougher to legislate away freedoms when you know the populace is well-trained in the use of firearms, putting teeth behind the concept of "governing at the consent of the governed."
Of course, the founding fathers lived in simpler times, where there was no machine gun, no flamethrower, no RPG, no atomic weaponry. Obviously you can't allow your next door neighbor to play with surface-to-surface missiles.
I think the founding fathers would agree that, even though banning things like assault weapons makes sense, there still needs to be that "ultimate check and balance" on government, enforced by the ability of the average citizen to say "no" to force. Imposing tyranny on a populace is difficult when they have the means to fight back, enough that imposing martial law would be essentially impossible if resisted by the populace.
That's the essence of the second amendment: it preserves the ability of our citizenry to initiate revolution against a tyrannical government if all political measures fail. Like I said, the "ultimate check and balance."
When the founding fathers conceived of this "Right", the most powerful weapon known was the cannon, and the second-most was the handheld musket.
The point of the second amendment is that the general population has the right to be well-armed, achieving a dual purpose: making it difficult for any foreign power to invade, and making it just as difficult for their own government to impose any kind of tyrannical rule. Essentially, allowing the general populace to overthrow the government any damn time they liked. Remember, at the time this was conceived, we just fought a bitter war against a tyrant who could give two shits about the New World.
It's tougher to legislate away freedoms when you know the populace is well-trained in the use of firearms, putting teeth behind the concept of "governing at the consent of the governed."
Of course, the founding fathers lived in simpler times, where there was no machine gun, no flamethrower, no RPG, no atomic weaponry. Obviously you can't allow your next door neighbor to play with surface-to-surface missiles.
I think the founding fathers would agree that, even though banning things like assault weapons makes sense, there still needs to be that "ultimate check and balance" on government, enforced by the ability of the average citizen to say "no" to force. Imposing tyranny on a populace is difficult when they have the means to fight back, enough that imposing martial law would be essentially impossible if resisted by the populace.
That's the essence of the second amendment: it preserves the ability of our citizenry to initiate revolution against a tyrannical government if all political measures fail. Like I said, the "ultimate check and balance."
LeberMeat, have you ever fired a Revolutionary War era--much less a Civil War era--cannon? If civilians could own one of those, then I'd say the Founding Fathers were comfortable entrusting the common populace with some pretty heavy weapons. Actually, they're still perfectly legal for civilian ownership in many states--not sure if the ATF requires their registry as a destructive device or not, though. A new 12 pounder of the type used by the Union Army will run you around $40,000.
If the goal of the Second Amendment is to enable a resistance to actively oppressive rule, we'd better start legalizing man portable surface to air missiles and the essentials components of IEDs. Worked for the Afghans and the Iraqis.
If the goal of the Second Amendment is to enable a resistance to actively oppressive rule, we'd better start legalizing man portable surface to air missiles and the essentials components of IEDs. Worked for the Afghans and the Iraqis.
Dig it. (Seen a civil-war-era cannon fired with real cannonball and everything. Lackluster compared to a grenade detonation; but I would not have liked to be on the receiving end of the shot.) But, all we really need is "deterrent." Enough to make any tyrant-in-waiting think long and hard before launching his(her) plan for domination. We don't need to issue semiautomatic weapons, stinger missiles, and fuel-air explosives at high school graduation, we just need enough armed populace to make it impossible for the country to be taken in a military coup.
Regarding Smitty's initial premise: So as supporters for less gun control, how do you reconcile what seem to be great success from gun control in other countries?
I think that those other countries have a far more homogeneous population, with less racial, religious, poverty, and drug-induced crime. I'd wager that you could make the case that the "gun problem" in America isn't really a gun problem, it's more of an offshoot of the drugs and poverty problem.
I haven't seen the stats, but I'd further wager that most of the gun crime in America occurs in areas of dense population, which is why Alaska has a relatively tiny gun problem, according to your statistics.
If we lived in the bronze ages, we'd see a similar correlation between "Spear Violence", drugs, poverty, and population density. If we lived in the 31st century, I'm sure we'd see the same correlation between "Phaser Set on Kill Violence", drugs, poverty, and population density. The handgun is just a means to an end, even if outlawing it is somehow effective, there would still be deadly violence, it would just be with lower-tech weaponry, even if it eventually devolves to bare fists.
Smitty: The root of gun violence is not the gun, it is the societal environment that spawns the need for the gun. Stick that in your thesis and smoke it.
Regarding Smitty's initial premise: So as supporters for less gun control, how do you reconcile what seem to be great success from gun control in other countries?
I think that those other countries have a far more homogeneous population, with less racial, religious, poverty, and drug-induced crime. I'd wager that you could make the case that the "gun problem" in America isn't really a gun problem, it's more of an offshoot of the drugs and poverty problem.
I haven't seen the stats, but I'd further wager that most of the gun crime in America occurs in areas of dense population, which is why Alaska has a relatively tiny gun problem, according to your statistics.
If we lived in the bronze ages, we'd see a similar correlation between "Spear Violence", drugs, poverty, and population density. If we lived in the 31st century, I'm sure we'd see the same correlation between "Phaser Set on Kill Violence", drugs, poverty, and population density. The handgun is just a means to an end, even if outlawing it is somehow effective, there would still be deadly violence, it would just be with lower-tech weaponry, even if it eventually devolves to bare fists.
Smitty: The root of gun violence is not the gun, it is the societal environment that spawns the need for the gun. Stick that in your thesis and smoke it.
even if outlawing [the handgun] is somehow effective, there would still be deadly violence, it would just be with lower-tech weaponry, even if it eventually devolves to bare fists
Ooo, Leber approaches the root of why removing all guns from a society would be an inherently immoral act!
Lackluster compared to a grenade detonation
You do understand that many cannonballs and shells were not solid shot, but rather filled with an explosive charge that would make a hand grenade look like a cheap firecracker, right?
Ooo, Leber approaches the root of why removing all guns from a society would be an inherently immoral act!
Lackluster compared to a grenade detonation
You do understand that many cannonballs and shells were not solid shot, but rather filled with an explosive charge that would make a hand grenade look like a cheap firecracker, right?
Not all of them, Lecter, but yep, you're right. And I would definitely not want to be on the receiving end of grape-shot either. They did some pretty inventive things with cannons.
Oh, and this is extra cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twNPXskWdGg
Plus, it has one of the greatest pieces of film music ever.
Oh, and this is extra cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twNPXskWdGg
Plus, it has one of the greatest pieces of film music ever.
Yes. Also:
Even though I've just had a good chastising for opening my mouth without a well-formed thought behind it, I find myself drawn to yet another chance to show off my ineptitude. Accursed brain just won't turn off.
Even if I could snap my fingers and send all of our created weapons into limbo, the act is pointless. Humans will still be "armed" in a literal sense.
Our basic weapon, the fist, is built directly into our body by Nature, God, the Creator, take your pick. The fist's existence gives us the right to defend ourselves as a natural law. To remove that is to deny a human a natural component of being human, and denying a human their natural humanity is immoral. Likewise, anything that restricts the reasonable use of our right to defend ourselves is immoral. Given the scientific evidence I came across as to the effectiveness of guns in providing self-defense, I am left to conclude that any blanket ban law would be immoral as guns are the most effective means of self-defense.
If that's not good enough, there's an excellent argument to be found elsewhere, complete with citations and sources. Lecter's simply been waiting for one of us to take initiative and actually read the dang thing (which would have been quite a boon for me in another thread). Bravo, Lecter. Well played.
Even if I could snap my fingers and send all of our created weapons into limbo, the act is pointless. Humans will still be "armed" in a literal sense.
Our basic weapon, the fist, is built directly into our body by Nature, God, the Creator, take your pick. The fist's existence gives us the right to defend ourselves as a natural law. To remove that is to deny a human a natural component of being human, and denying a human their natural humanity is immoral. Likewise, anything that restricts the reasonable use of our right to defend ourselves is immoral. Given the scientific evidence I came across as to the effectiveness of guns in providing self-defense, I am left to conclude that any blanket ban law would be immoral as guns are the most effective means of self-defense.
If that's not good enough, there's an excellent argument to be found elsewhere, complete with citations and sources. Lecter's simply been waiting for one of us to take initiative and actually read the dang thing (which would have been quite a boon for me in another thread). Bravo, Lecter. Well played.
^^^Thank the Gods someone finally got it.
While it is not perfectly true, most little old ladies and wheelchair bound individuals who carry guns would agree with the statement: "God made men; Sam Colt made them equal."
Taking away from an average citizen the right to carry, much less own, a handgun leaves them at the mercy of any larger, more aggressive person out there. And last I checked, the gym was a very, very popular place for inmates to spend their oodles of free time.
While it is not perfectly true, most little old ladies and wheelchair bound individuals who carry guns would agree with the statement: "God made men; Sam Colt made them equal."
Taking away from an average citizen the right to carry, much less own, a handgun leaves them at the mercy of any larger, more aggressive person out there. And last I checked, the gym was a very, very popular place for inmates to spend their oodles of free time.