Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Btw, does Obama officially suck?Follow

#227 Jul 26 2012 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Well, according to our president the 2nd Amendment is a mere "tradition" and is all about sports and hunting.... Smiley: rolleyes

In the speech you linked he didn't say that.

a man hear what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...lalala Smiley: rolleyes



Ummmm
Here's my rough transcript interpretation:
traditions of gun ownership that have been pased on from generation to generation..
That hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage


He wasn't talking about the second amendment when he said those things.

I would argue that our freedom of speech is a much more important safeguard against tyranny than our right to (panda)bear arms.






Edited, Jul 26th 2012 5:39pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#228 Jul 26 2012 at 8:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As noted elsewhere, all the shotguns and assault rifles in the world won't make a difference against a modern military. Well, I suppose if you had all the ones in the world, the military wouldn't have any. That might help a little.

The Libyan rebels weren't lacking for small arms. Hell, they had truck mounted anti-aircraft weapons, real machine guns and RPGs. They still got their asses kicked until other nations used their air power to ground the Libyan air force and destroy their armor and artillery. Unless you want to swing the balance to a modern uprising having easy access to weapons capable of taking out the 1st Armored Division (a tougher nut to crack than the Libyan forces, I reckon), using the 2nd Amendment to legitimize the weapons used in these massacres is a bit silly.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#229 Jul 26 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
Elinda wrote:
I would argue that our freedom of speech is a much more important safeguard against tyranny than our right to bare arms.


See if any restaurants tell me I can't wear sleeveless shirts anymore...
#230 Jul 26 2012 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
Did Kelvy join a militia after finding his version of Jesus?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#231 Jul 26 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I would argue that our freedom of speech is a much more important safeguard against tyranny than our right to bare arms.


See if any restaurants tell me I can't wear sleeveless shirts anymore...

No one wants to have to see that while they're eating.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#232 Jul 26 2012 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Did Kelvy join a militia after finding his version of Jesus?

Onward Christian soldiers.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#233 Jul 26 2012 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
Elinda wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I would argue that our freedom of speech is a much more important safeguard against tyranny than our right to bare arms.


See if any restaurants tell me I can't wear sleeveless shirts anymore...

No one wants to have to see that while they're eating.


/whoosh
#234 Jul 26 2012 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I would argue that our freedom of speech is a much more important safeguard against tyranny than our right to bare arms.


See if any restaurants tell me I can't wear sleeveless shirts anymore...

No one wants to have to see that while they're eating.


/whoosh

I was wearing my whoosh hat!! - hahahaha.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#235 Jul 26 2012 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Elinda wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I would argue that our freedom of speech is a much more important safeguard against tyranny than our right to bare arms.


See if any restaurants tell me I can't wear sleeveless shirts anymore...

No one wants to have to see that while they're eating.


/whoosh

I was wearing my whoosh hat!! - hahahaha.


Dear God it's actually a thing...

Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#236 Jul 26 2012 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
602 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I would argue that our freedom of speech is a much more important safeguard against tyranny than our right to bare arms.


See if any restaurants tell me I can't wear sleeveless shirts anymore...

No one wants to have to see that while they're eating.


/whoosh

I was wearing my whoosh hat!! - hahahaha.


Dear God it's actually a thing...

Smiley: oyvey


So...do you just google random parts of posts, or was that something you've been holding on to for a while?
#237 Jul 26 2012 at 10:07 AM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
Siesen wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I would argue that our freedom of speech is a much more important safeguard against tyranny than our right to bare arms.


See if any restaurants tell me I can't wear sleeveless shirts anymore...

No one wants to have to see that while they're eating.


/whoosh

I was wearing my whoosh hat!! - hahahaha.


Dear God it's actually a thing...

Smiley: oyvey


So...do you just google random parts of posts, or was that something you've been holding on to for a while?


When somebody throws out a term like "whoosh hat" how do you not google it?
#238 Jul 26 2012 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Siesen wrote:
So...do you just google random parts of posts?


Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#239 Jul 26 2012 at 10:16 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Jophiel wrote:
As noted elsewhere, all the shotguns and assault rifles in the world won't make a difference against a modern military. Well, I suppose if you had all the ones in the world, the military wouldn't have any. That might help a little.
The Libyan rebels weren't lacking for small arms.

Is this a red herring?
What is the alternative? Leave it up to chance and simply hope that human government is not going to abuse power exponentially? This has happened in human history; when?
I am not advocating militarism; but it doesn't seem to be a stretch of logic to state that a well armed militia (and this does NOT mean the state run National Guard) should be a good preliminary defense against the rising tide of human corruption.
Are we in denial that stuff actually happens? or are we stuck on the fairy-tale of "it can't happen here"?
It is happening.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#240 Jul 26 2012 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
but it doesn't seem to be a stretch of logic to state that a well armed militia (and this does NOT mean the state run National Guard) should be a good preliminary defense against the rising tide of human corruption.


Sounds like a great recipe for increased gun violence and mass murder. Stemming government takeover, not so much.

As usual, Kelvy sounds so off-his-rocker that I have to think he's trolling.
#241 Jul 26 2012 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
but it doesn't seem to be a stretch of logic to state that a well armed militia (and this does NOT mean the state run National Guard) should be a good preliminary defense against the rising tide of human corruption.


Sounds like a great recipe for increased gun violence and mass murder. Stemming government takeover, not so much.

As usual, Kelvy sounds so off-his-rocker that I have to think he's trolling.


Higher percentages of lawful citizens being gun owners has been shown to radically curb gun violence.
#242 Jul 26 2012 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
but it doesn't seem to be a stretch of logic to state that a well armed militia (and this does NOT mean the state run National Guard) should be a good preliminary defense against the rising tide of human corruption.


Sounds like a great recipe for increased gun violence and mass murder. Stemming government takeover, not so much.

As usual, Kelvy sounds so off-his-rocker that I have to think he's trolling.


Higher percentages of lawful citizens being gun owners has been shown to radically curb gun violence.


That's some data that I'd love to see.
#243 Jul 26 2012 at 10:54 AM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
but it doesn't seem to be a stretch of logic to state that a well armed militia (and this does NOT mean the state run National Guard) should be a good preliminary defense against the rising tide of human corruption.


Sounds like a great recipe for increased gun violence and mass murder. Stemming government takeover, not so much.

As usual, Kelvy sounds so off-his-rocker that I have to think he's trolling.


Higher percentages of lawful citizens being gun owners has been shown to radically curb gun violence.


That's some data that I'd love to see.


Switzerland would like to have a word with you.

Edit: Wait a minute. How did I end up pulling that card in this thread instead of the thread about gun crimes?

Edit 2: Yes, I know the link is wikipedia, but it was the first link to pop up on a google search and I'm at work so I don't have a ton of time to dedicate to looking into it. I'll find more reliable info when I get home and post it.

These two links also paint a similar picture.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 12:04pm by Bigdaddyjug
#244 Jul 26 2012 at 11:01 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
Wait a minute. How did I end up pulling that card in this thread instead of the thread about gun crimes?

you're welcome! Smiley: cool

However, I still reiterate that 2nd Amendment isn't about protection against everyday crime but against the "Well Regulated Militia".
Essentially I interpret the 2nd as "Because of the presence of a state run military- The PEOPLE should always be able to have protection from it, by use of arms".

So I also don't think that it is far-fetched that this right is chiseled away at at every opportunity by those involved in the governmental circles.



Edited, Jul 26th 2012 1:03pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#245 Jul 26 2012 at 11:08 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
As noted elsewhere, all the shotguns and assault rifles in the world won't make a difference against a modern military. Well, I suppose if you had all the ones in the world, the military wouldn't have any. That might help a little.
The Libyan rebels weren't lacking for small arms.

Is this a red herring?
What is the alternative? Leave it up to chance and simply hope that human government is not going to abuse power exponentially? This has happened in human history; when?
I am not advocating militarism; but it doesn't seem to be a stretch of logic to state that a well armed militia (and this does NOT mean the state run National Guard) should be a good preliminary defense against the rising tide of human corruption.
Are we in denial that stuff actually happens? or are we stuck on the fairy-tale of "it can't happen here"?
It is happening.


Why do you exclude the national guard?

If your're advocating for a peoples militia that is actually armed to be effective, you are advocating for militarism.

What do you mean when you say 'rising tide of human corruption'? Are you saying that Americans in general have gotten more corrupt? Can you define what you mean by corrupt?




Edited, Jul 26th 2012 7:13pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#246 Jul 26 2012 at 11:08 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,826 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Quote:
Wait a minute. How did I end up pulling that card in this thread instead of the thread about gun crimes?

you're welcome! Smiley: cool

However, I still reiterate that 2nd Amendment isn't about protection against everyday crime but against the "Well Regulated Militia".
Essentially I interpret the 2nd as "Because of the presence of a state run military- The PEOPLE should always be able to have protection from it, by use of arms".

So I also don't think that it is far-fetched that this right is chiseled away at at every opportunity by those involved in the governmental circles.



Edited, Jul 26th 2012 1:03pm by Kelvyquayo


While I agree with your passion over the 2nd Amendment, I disagree with your interpretation of it. At the time the Consitution was written, people owning guns was necessary to protect them from Native raids, outlaws, and random rebellions. I think that the spirit of the Amendment is that an armed populace was supposed to be ready to be called up into a standing army when needed.
#247 Jul 26 2012 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:


These two links also paint a similar picture.

What picture is that? I'm not seeing it.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#248 Jul 26 2012 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Is this a red herring?

No, it's a statement of fact. Small arms have provably failed to overthrow lesser modern militaries than ours. Saying we need a bunch of them shuffling around the civilian populace in order to stop the military makes no sense based on the available evidence.

What's the alternative? Beats me. But if the goal is stopping an armored column or maintaining control of a city against helicopter gunships, it's not more small arms. Maybe we should think of something else in that case beyond "More guns for everyone!"

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 12:28pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#249 Jul 26 2012 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Switzerland would like to have a word with you.

Edit: Wait a minute. How did I end up pulling that card in this thread instead of the thread about gun crimes?

Edit 2: Yes, I know the link is wikipedia, but it was the first link to pop up on a google search and I'm at work so I don't have a ton of time to dedicate to looking into it. I'll find more reliable info when I get home and post it.

These two links also paint a similar picture.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 12:04pm by Bigdaddyjug


Cursory googling shows some problems with your point.

First, it's worth noting that your wikipedia links are problematic. The list of firearm related death rates (and note, that's only covering death, not gun violence) has some very outdated stats. For example, #1 on that list, South Africa, reflects data that's 12 years old. Since then, their numbers have changed, reportedly due to more stringent gun laws.

Regarding Switzerland, you'll note that the US has nearly double the amount of legally owned weapons, and seems to be widely cited as first among 1st world countries in regards to rates of gun violence. It's apples to oranges, however. Switzerland has much more stringent gun control laws, and ownership seems to be related to a very ingrained notion of civic duty that doesn't exist here (not to mention, a long history of pacifism). While it may work for them, the idea that this system could be implemented in the United States strikes me as far fetched, at best.

At any rate, many seem to be looking to curb their own ownership. I believe they just struck down an initiative, but the movement to further restrict gun access seems to be gaining steam. Switzerland reportedly has the highest gun violence rates in Western Europe, vying with Finland (another country with more lax ownership laws) annually.

But ultimately, I really just don't think that using a single country as an example is statistically significant enough to make your initial claim.


Edited, Jul 26th 2012 1:31pm by Eske

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 1:34pm by Eske
#250 Jul 26 2012 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
Except everything in my links contradicts most of your post. But why would I expect you not to ignore statistics?

Oh, and one of the reasons for the lower number of guns in Switzerland is, from what I could find, is that they don't draft women into the military, meaning they don't get a military issued weapon that they get to keep after their term of service is over.

How about a situation showing the reverse? A place where much stricter gun control laws has not made a dent in gun violence? Because Chicago is a prime example of that.

What it boils down to is that law abiding citizens don't use guns to commit crimes. Criminals use guns to commit crimes. If you outlaw guns, the criminals will either find ways to get them illegally (Chicago) or they'll resort to some other way of committing the crimes.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 12:53pm by Bigdaddyjug

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 12:56pm by Bigdaddyjug
#251 Jul 26 2012 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Except everything in my links contradicts most of your post. But why would I expect you not to ignore statistics?

you didn't link statistics. You linked two data-sets.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 265 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (265)