• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Embarrassed
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Grumpy
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
    Results 11 to 19 of 19

    News Center - Thread: assault weapons ban

    1. #11
      tango's Avatar
      tango is offline Bronze Member
      Valued Contributor
      Married
      ... and you shall live ...
       
      Mood:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Location
      Elsewhere
      Posts
      8,320
      CH Cash
      8,782
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (28,755,278 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      35,711
      Level
      50
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      20%
      Rep Power
      861
      Quote Originally Posted by Bluezone777 View Post
      The second amendment isn't about self defense either at least not from the thief or the criminal. It's the right to defend oneself from one's own government if they should ever decide to become tyrants. One mistake people make is they read these amendments from the perspective of a 21st century person when in fact they need to be read from the perspective from a 18th century person. That is the amendment's initial audience and was written with them in mind as to how it was conveyed. These were a people who just toppled a tyrannical government and won their freedom and the first thing they ensured was that the people would have the right to defend itself from its own government. It's rather telling that the amendment giving men the right to bare arms immediately follows the 1st amendment. I figure it as the main goal of government should be to ensure that people are free to express themselves without undue influence of the government and the second amendment's purpose is for this people to be able to defend themselves from anyone who would try to steal away the first amendment. If the second falls, the first will fall next and with it go all your freedoms.

      The real problem is that America as a whole insists on remaining godless and as long as it does, things will only become worse. The day this nation of ours repents is the day things begin to turn around for the better. These shootings are but one of the many rotten fruits associated with a godless country that has turned its back on God and insists on being disobedient to His Word.
      True, although "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is sufficiently broad in scope that it makes no sense at all to argue whether any given individual needs 10 rounds, 20 rounds, an AR-15 or whatever else. If you're going to defend yourself from your own government you need adequate firepower to do so. Just how much firepower is required is a matter of much speculation. I read an interesting article some months back about what a second civil war might look like which played out two scenarios - one in which a Democrat-controlled government essentially went to war on Republican-leaning gun owners; the other in which a Republican-controlled government essentially went to war on Democrat-controlled gun-free areas, and concluded in both cases the gun owners would probably win. At face value it seems absurd to think that a bunch of hunters in rural Wisconsin could defeat a government tank regiment but, as the article said, if you're fighting tanks with hunting rifles you don't engage in head-on combat. Instead you hide in the woods, that you know well and the invading force doesn't know as well. You attack supply lines. You wait until the tank commander opens the hatch and then drop him with your hunting rifle from 300 yards away. It's the same tactic used all over the world, a basic war of attrition against an enemy that has notionally superior firepower but is fighting an asymmetric battle.

      It's interesting the way you commented on the 2nd amendment defending the first. It could also work the other way around - if the first amendment falls the second may not be far behind. Already the mainstream media plays up any incidents involving a gun while playing down any incidents involving a law-abiding gun owner preventing or stopping a crime and any incidents involving weapons other than guns.

      Even looking at the horrific recent attacks, the response is totally disproportionate. If the focus is on saving lives we should be banning automobiles rather than vaguely defined "assault rifles". If someone goes on a stabbing spree we don't hear about "assault knives", the gangland violence in which young black men kill each other with depressing regularity barely gets a mention (yet if white men killed a fraction of the number of black men the howling about racist violence would almost certainly be deafening) and so on.

      Sadly it seems those on the left would rather sensationalise the things that suit their agenda and ignore everything else.

      Incidentally the 2nd Amendment doesn't give the right to bear arms, it acknowledges the right and says it shall not be infringed.
      "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley

      "If you love me, obey my commandments" - Jesus Christ

      The Bible comes as a complete package. If we want to pluck verses out of context so make them mean what we want them to mean, if we want to ignore the passages that are inconvenient to our outlook, we should be intellectually honest enough to throw our Bibles in the trash and admit we are following Crowley and not Christ.

    2. #12
      tango's Avatar
      tango is offline Bronze Member
      Valued Contributor
      Married
      ... and you shall live ...
       
      Mood:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Location
      Elsewhere
      Posts
      8,320
      CH Cash
      8,782
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (28,755,278 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      35,711
      Level
      50
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      20%
      Rep Power
      861
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      Yup. At least that's what my Early American History class prof taught..... The American Revolution was POSSIBLE only because every American male over the age of 10 had a gun - and could use it (well). The first thing any dictator does is try to eliminate guns in the hands of the people. You'd think this would be in vain in this modern world, but consider the Cuban revolution or the Hungry Rebellion, even now... The Second Amendment was not about hunting or self - defense or sport (although those were the uses for all those guns, once a UNIVERSAL American possession), the reason was a "check" on government, part of the whole "checks and balances" mentality of our founding, part of the whole "Government is something to fear" mentality that is quite a (unique) aspect of our nation.



      .
      If I recall one of the Japanese commanders during WWII had talked of launching a full scale invasion of the US but decided against it based on the firepower they would be facing as just about every citizen stood their ground to repel the invaders.

      In this day and age the chances are that any attempt to repel an invading army would be decried as racist.
      "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley

      "If you love me, obey my commandments" - Jesus Christ

      The Bible comes as a complete package. If we want to pluck verses out of context so make them mean what we want them to mean, if we want to ignore the passages that are inconvenient to our outlook, we should be intellectually honest enough to throw our Bibles in the trash and admit we are following Crowley and not Christ.

    3. Likes Josiah liked this post
    4. #13
      tango's Avatar
      tango is offline Bronze Member
      Valued Contributor
      Married
      ... and you shall live ...
       
      Mood:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Location
      Elsewhere
      Posts
      8,320
      CH Cash
      8,782
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (28,755,278 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      35,711
      Level
      50
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      20%
      Rep Power
      861
      Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
      The second amendment gives the right to have a well regulated militia which can keep and bear arms. It does not say a well armed individual has the right to bear arms.
      In other words, the 2nd Amendment gives the States the right to have an armory in which the regulated militia of individual citizens (brought together to fight) will acquire the weapons to defend the homeland.
      The key is well regulated militia.
      Unfortunately, the first phrase is ignored and thus interpreted that unregulated individuals have the right to freely acquire weapons. Such an interpretation has allowed citizens to stockpile weapons for their own kingdom rather than to defend the homeland. It actually goes against the intent of the founders.
      I'm not sure the second amendment can be seen to be giving any rights, merely respecting rights that already exist. It says "the right... shall not be infringed" rather than "in order to achieve this, the people are allowed to do that".

      If "the people" collectively are allowed to keep and bear arms that means that individuals must be allowed to keep and bear arms. Because, you know, "the people" in the plural are made up of individual people. You could conceivably argue that the intent was to have lots of small local militia groups that each kept their own stash of weapons rather than individuals having and specific claim to specific arms but that would make little sense if trying to defend against a tyrannical government. If all the guns are stored in one location all the tyrant needs to do is round people up before they can get to the guns and immediately gain an advantage. To argue that the militia is regulated at state level and there is a single weapons cache managed by the state really makes no sense at all - much has been said about the problems caused to the viability of defending your own home if you are required to lock a firearm and ammunition in separate boxes so it's inconceivable that gathering the militia means trying to get them all to the state capital before they can do anything useful to defend themselves.

      If the people they want to round up are armed in their own homes, with their own weapons, the government has to consider that its agents may face firepower equal or superior to anything they can muster. That alone gives cause to stop and think about the mission, if you're the one being sent into the field by a tyrant.

      Your last paragraph makes little sense - if "the homeland" is essentially a conglomeration of the "kingdoms" of individual owners of firearms then defending one is, by definition, defending the other. If I'm defending my own little patch of land, I'm defending a part of "the homeland", whether "the homeland" is taken to mean the country, the state, the town, or just my own home.

      Interestingly the second amendment doesn't seem to say much about who should regulate the militia. If the purpose was to make sure that a government didn't become overbearing then it's hard to see how regulation by any level of government would make any sense, which rather begs the question of who or what should do the regulating. It might be argued that it should be regulated at state level against an overbearing federal government but, if the purpose is to prevent a government from overreaching the authority granted to it, it leaves the people open to abuse by a tyrannical government at state or lower level.
      "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley

      "If you love me, obey my commandments" - Jesus Christ

      The Bible comes as a complete package. If we want to pluck verses out of context so make them mean what we want them to mean, if we want to ignore the passages that are inconvenient to our outlook, we should be intellectually honest enough to throw our Bibles in the trash and admit we are following Crowley and not Christ.

    5. Likes Josiah liked this post
    6. #14
      MennoSota's Avatar
      MennoSota is offline Bronze Member
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      7,100
      CH Cash
      29,738
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      24,696
      Level
      43
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      35.82%
      Rep Power
      578
      Quote Originally Posted by tango View Post
      I'm not sure the second amendment can be seen to be giving any rights, merely respecting rights that already exist. It says "the right... shall not be infringed" rather than "in order to achieve this, the people are allowed to do that".

      If "the people" collectively are allowed to keep and bear arms that means that individuals must be allowed to keep and bear arms. Because, you know, "the people" in the plural are made up of individual people. You could conceivably argue that the intent was to have lots of small local militia groups that each kept their own stash of weapons rather than individuals having and specific claim to specific arms but that would make little sense if trying to defend against a tyrannical government. If all the guns are stored in one location all the tyrant needs to do is round people up before they can get to the guns and immediately gain an advantage. To argue that the militia is regulated at state level and there is a single weapons cache managed by the state really makes no sense at all - much has been said about the problems caused to the viability of defending your own home if you are required to lock a firearm and ammunition in separate boxes so it's inconceivable that gathering the militia means trying to get them all to the state capital before they can do anything useful to defend themselves.

      If the people they want to round up are armed in their own homes, with their own weapons, the government has to consider that its agents may face firepower equal or superior to anything they can muster. That alone gives cause to stop and think about the mission, if you're the one being sent into the field by a tyrant.

      Your last paragraph makes little sense - if "the homeland" is essentially a conglomeration of the "kingdoms" of individual owners of firearms then defending one is, by definition, defending the other. If I'm defending my own little patch of land, I'm defending a part of "the homeland", whether "the homeland" is taken to mean the country, the state, the town, or just my own home.

      Interestingly the second amendment doesn't seem to say much about who should regulate the militia. If the purpose was to make sure that a government didn't become overbearing then it's hard to see how regulation by any level of government would make any sense, which rather begs the question of who or what should do the regulating. It might be argued that it should be regulated at state level against an overbearing federal government but, if the purpose is to prevent a government from overreaching the authority granted to it, it leaves the people open to abuse by a tyrannical government at state or lower level.
      The people will never have firepower equal to or better than the US military. It is a foolish notion that can only result in total annihilation of those bent on resistance.
      Better to entrust your life to the one who holds the keys over life and death. Then love your enemy even if you lose your life in the process.

    7. Likes psalms 91 liked this post
    8. #15
      tango's Avatar
      tango is offline Bronze Member
      Valued Contributor
      Married
      ... and you shall live ...
       
      Mood:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Location
      Elsewhere
      Posts
      8,320
      CH Cash
      8,782
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (28,755,278 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      35,711
      Level
      50
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      20%
      Rep Power
      861
      Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
      The people will never have firepower equal to or better than the US military. It is a foolish notion that can only result in total annihilation of those bent on resistance.
      Better to entrust your life to the one who holds the keys over life and death. Then love your enemy even if you lose your life in the process.
      The second amendment isn't really about whether we trust in God or not, it's about the concept that we should be in a place to restrain government overreach if we choose to do so. The discussion here isn't about whether we should entrust our lives to God and, to be honest, even that is the kind of argument that is often used where the speaker finds it suits their theology and not elsewhere. It's curious how people insist we shouldn't carry firearms because we should trust God to protect us, even when they lock their doors at night rather than trust God to protect them and go to work rather than trusting God to provide for them. The discussion about whether or not to exercise a particular right is very different to the discussion of whether or not the right should exist at all. But that aside, back to the topic of firearms....

      Even having vastly superior firepower doesn't guarantee a quick victory, nor indeed does it offer an absolute guarantee of victory at all. Just look at the times over the years that various armies have tried to take or even control an area like Afghanistan. Look at the Arab-Israeli wars and how the Israeli army, vastly outnumbered and sometimes fighting on multiple fronts, still repelled the Arab armies.

      The other issue is that even the threat of total annihilation means little to people who are happy to become martyrs to their cause. I don't know how many pro-2A people would actually be willing to lay down their lives (other than that it's probably safe to say the number who would actually do it is far fewer than the number who say they would do it), but the ones who are willing to die are typically far more dangerous than the ones who are not. This is demonstrated pretty well by how much harder it is to detect and stop a suicide attacker than to stop a comparable attacker who isn't looking to die in the course of their attack.
      "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley

      "If you love me, obey my commandments" - Jesus Christ

      The Bible comes as a complete package. If we want to pluck verses out of context so make them mean what we want them to mean, if we want to ignore the passages that are inconvenient to our outlook, we should be intellectually honest enough to throw our Bibles in the trash and admit we are following Crowley and not Christ.

    9. #16
      psalms 91's Avatar
      psalms 91 is offline Silver Member
      Moderator
      Supporting Member
      70
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Location
      Pa
      Posts
      14,274
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      46,533
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (5,184,101 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      66,305
      Level
      63
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      52.44%
      Rep Power
      681
      Amazing how a discussion of limiting a certain type of weapon in order to decrese the amount of people killed in an incident evolves into disarming the population. As for firepower I want to see the man or woman that can stand against a machine gun, hand grenade, bomb, with an assault rifle and I want to see who can hide when they possess ground penetrating radar helicopters and so many other things to help them find who or what they are looking for
      Isaiah 40:31

    10. #17
      Bluezone777's Avatar
      Bluezone777 is offline Rookie Member
      36
      Single
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2019
      Location
      SW Florida
      Posts
      39
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      179
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      1,572
      Level
      13
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      35.7%
      Rep Power
      59
      Victory isn't always about overpowering your enemy as it can be about stripping your opponent of their will to continue. If they have no will to continue, you can defeat them even if they in theory should have been able to overpower you. History is full of examples of people using this to win wars they should have otherwise not have won.

      The assault weapons ban of 94-04 was tested and shown to have had no effect on crime during the time it was in effect. In fact, the Columbine shooters used weapons that were listed as banned by this law in their attack while the ban was in effect yet it did not hinder nor stop them from acquiring and using those weapons.

      The only thing a gun ban of any kind will do is create a lucrative criminal enterprise and in fact make the problem worse not better.

    11. #18
      tango's Avatar
      tango is offline Bronze Member
      Valued Contributor
      Married
      ... and you shall live ...
       
      Mood:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Location
      Elsewhere
      Posts
      8,320
      CH Cash
      8,782
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (28,755,278 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      35,711
      Level
      50
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      20%
      Rep Power
      861
      Quote Originally Posted by psalms 91 View Post
      Amazing how a discussion of limiting a certain type of weapon in order to decrese the amount of people killed in an incident evolves into disarming the population. As for firepower I want to see the man or woman that can stand against a machine gun, hand grenade, bomb, with an assault rifle and I want to see who can hide when they possess ground penetrating radar helicopters and so many other things to help them find who or what they are looking for
      Firstly, banning particular weapon types won't do much to decrease the number of people killed. It's clear there's an agenda that is little to do with public safety. AR-15 style rifles are used in such a small percentage of homicides that there's little point focusing so much energy on banning them. Trying to ban "high capacity magazines", which is often little more than leftist speak for standard capacity magazines, is similarly pointless given how fast even a slightly trained gun owner can reload a handgun. And endlessly going after the people who didn't commit a crime and have no intention of committing a crime isn't generally regarded as an effective way to reduce crime.

      Apparently statistics from Florida suggest that people with a license to carry firearms are something like six times less likely to commit a crime as police officers. Going after lawful gun owners really isn't going to help here - it really is comparable to trying to rein in drunk drivers by taking cars away from people who have never driven under the influence.

      The technology available to helicopters is all well and good but unless the government is willing to inflict huge collateral damage on innocent civilians it doesn't help much. Thermal imaging can show that a human is in the woods. It can't tell whether the human is someone minding their own business taking a walk in the woods, or a member of a militia group with a recently banned AR-15 and every intention of firing on the helicopter. The military would have the exact same problem it has faced in conflict zones around the world - when militia groups use places like schools and hospitals and churches as cover the military has to either fight with its hands tied or cause enormous and politically unacceptable collateral damage.

      If you want to see what it looks like, look at just about any recent conflict in the Middle East.
      "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley

      "If you love me, obey my commandments" - Jesus Christ

      The Bible comes as a complete package. If we want to pluck verses out of context so make them mean what we want them to mean, if we want to ignore the passages that are inconvenient to our outlook, we should be intellectually honest enough to throw our Bibles in the trash and admit we are following Crowley and not Christ.

    12. #19
      tango's Avatar
      tango is offline Bronze Member
      Valued Contributor
      Married
      ... and you shall live ...
       
      Mood:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Location
      Elsewhere
      Posts
      8,320
      CH Cash
      8,782
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (28,755,278 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      35,711
      Level
      50
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      20%
      Rep Power
      861
      Quote Originally Posted by Bluezone777 View Post
      Victory isn't always about overpowering your enemy as it can be about stripping your opponent of their will to continue. If they have no will to continue, you can defeat them even if they in theory should have been able to overpower you. History is full of examples of people using this to win wars they should have otherwise not have won.

      The assault weapons ban of 94-04 was tested and shown to have had no effect on crime during the time it was in effect. In fact, the Columbine shooters used weapons that were listed as banned by this law in their attack while the ban was in effect yet it did not hinder nor stop them from acquiring and using those weapons.

      The only thing a gun ban of any kind will do is create a lucrative criminal enterprise and in fact make the problem worse not better.
      "To win without fighting is the highest excellence" - Sun Tzu

      The Columbine shooters also used pipe bombs. Last time I checked you can't get those from Walmart. As has been said before, you'd almost be forgiven for thinking criminals don't obey the law.
      "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley

      "If you love me, obey my commandments" - Jesus Christ

      The Bible comes as a complete package. If we want to pluck verses out of context so make them mean what we want them to mean, if we want to ignore the passages that are inconvenient to our outlook, we should be intellectually honest enough to throw our Bibles in the trash and admit we are following Crowley and not Christ.

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •