Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by BlueTalon, Mar 2, 2006.
The way to make an off-topic remark on-topic...
Although I'm a moderate on gun control, favoring strict registration procedures and strong punishments, but not against gun ownership per se, I don't think the Constitution resolves the issue, and I've never quite understood that argument.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
How is the individual gun owner part of a well regulated militia? I could see that being used to argue that National Guardsmen should be allowed to keep and bear arms, but I don't see what it has to do with gun collectors, for example.
If the "Screaming Radical Religious Savage Maniacs" we are at war with now should somehow come to our streets you will see that MILITIA, they will be there, GUNS BLAZING.
They may even save a liberal from "Decapitation"
Actually, Harry, you really don't know that. Also, according to the Christian Science Monitor, in Saddam's Iraq gun owership was at the same level as gun ownership here. That fact neither protected the people from Saddam or from the American invasion.
Most of the people didn't want to be protected from the Americans, they were cheering them when they pulled the Saddam statue down.
The people that owned guns under Saddams rule did as we do, we don't go out shooting at our Government, the People of Iraq didn't either, they like us knew better, the police and the army would kill them just as our police and army would kill us.
I am pro-gun ownership, but don't know if I see a 2nd amendment basis for gun rights. The two arguments I could make FOR are:
-The amendment says "the right of the PEOPLE" rather than "the right of the STATES".
-When the constitution was being originally drafted, the language of the 2nd amendment was going to be inserted into Article 1, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, near a section enumerating individual rights (prohibition on bills of attainder, suspension of habeas corpus, etc). But the forefathers didn't want to start listing individual rights because they thought other, unlisted rights, would not be protected. That's why they decided to write the Bill of Rights.
In a liberal society the people need guns to protect themselves, Liberals are soft on criminals.
Many times the Liberal wants to release the criminal and put the cop in jail.
With people like that around I want my gun.
In your ideal conservative society, the criminal and the government are the same. How do you protect yourself then?
When freedom is outlawed only outlaws will be free....Tom Robbins
"Never pet a burning dog." -WarCraft II
Seriously, what? I'm not even sure which side of the argument your quote supports.
The Chinese Red Army have, for decades, taken into account the fact that American civilians were rather heavily armed, and have used it in their risk assessment for scenario planning relative to a theoretical war with the US.
Hopefully, the US government also takes this into consideration about their own civilians.
I'm not challenging you since I have no reason to think you'd make this up, but is this general knowledge? I'd think China's war planning would be very secretive, and I have a gut feeling like the source here might be gun-right supporters in this country.
I don't know about China, but I do know that Japan was wary of the American gun-toting population during WWII, which is one of the reasons they never invaded the continental mainland.
Neither, this issue is too complicated on both sides, while I support the constitution and all of its amendments, do not understand the need for semi automatic weapons or assault rifles. I support people's right to own guns and carry them if deemed competent. This is one amendment that may have intended for one reason and now has gotten bastardized by lobbyists and completely misconstrued in its intent. My major concern is that there has been no ability to stop cheap illegal weapons in america who are possessed by criminals, who have no right to own them.
THE LIBERALS AND ANTI GUN FREAKS WILL NEVER BELIEVE THIS CHINA THING.
THE MUSH BRAINS STILL CAN'T GET IT THROUGH THEIR AIR HEADS THAT THE BAD GUY WILL ALWAYS HAVE HIS GUN NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF GOOFY LAWS THEY COME UP WITH.
WE HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS NOW THAT WOULD HELP IN REDUCING CRIME AND GETTING ILLEGAL GUNS OFF THE STREETS, AS SOON AS WE TRY TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS THE "WHACK JOB LIBERAL PONY TAILED LAWYERS" CLAIM WE ARE VIOLATING THE BAD GUYS CIVIL LIBERTIES.
WASHINGTON DC IS A GOOD EXAMPLE, THEY HAVE STRICT GUN LAWS, MANY HONEST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ARE FORBIDDEN TO OWN GUNS, PERMITS FOR CONCEALED WEAPONS ARE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET (ISN'T WASHINGTON CONSIDERED THE MURDER CAPITAL) NOW LOOK UP THE RECORD OF "ILLEGAL GUN CRIMES" IN WASHINGTON THEN LOOK UP THE SAME RECORDS FOR THE STATE OF MAINE (LEGAL GUN COUNTRY).
IF ONE OF THE CRIMINAL MAGGOTS FROM WASHINGTON COMES TO MAINE AND TRYS TO BREAK INTO A HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT HE WILL BE DEAD BEFORE HE CAN GET HIS LEG IN THE WINDOW, SHOT DEAD, BY A LEGAL WEAPON.
I'm all for guns, but that doesn't make the China thing more or less true. I'm more curious about the source for its own sake, it just seems like so little info comes from the Chinese government unless its propoganda.
"Never have sex with a woman crazier than yourself" - DH44
I'm all for private ownership of guns, with the exception of semi-automatic and automatic weapons.
They are used solely for hunting humans, and shouldn't be available to non-military.
The day we have a Red Dawn attack, as some here seem to think is coming, or a Normandy invasion on our shores, boy, won't my face be red.
But I'll the the first minuteman on the beach to defend.
No, it's an urban legend that's been spread for years now by gun freaks and the Conservative party. It's on the same level as the college guy sodomized by his roommate while knocked out with ether, and the pop rocks thing.
I know a guy who claims to have seen the plans.
I agree, there is a lot of bullsh!t out there, I can't see a country like China being concerned with Americans hand guns. The days of the foot soldier from a powerful country going from house to house kicking in doors I believe is over, if it does come to war it will be Nukes.
Could the Old Wino sitting on the corner with a sign that says "The End Is Near" be right?
Or bacterial agents. Either way, if and when that happens, this country's population (and the world's also) will take a major hit, and it's nothing that a well-armed citizenry can prevent.
Separate names with a comma.