The 2nd Amendment

Indie

And again there is the implication that there is no alternative to the violence and dead that awaits you in US society - the implication being that what you need is a gun.



But the things you mention are in the main social and medical problems that can be lessened through treatment or with educational and environmental help.



Rape can be linked to mental problems such as a lack of empathy or to social conditioning (being taught to see women as sexual objects). In most cases rape victims know their attacker (“By some estimates, over 70% of rape victims know their attackers. The rapist may be a relative, friend, co-worker, date or other acquaintance”) In such circumstances, unless the victim has the gun ready at all times whenever someone is with them I’m not sure how effective having a gun is?



In child abuse case (and molesting is just one type of abuse) the most common perpetrator is a ‘trusted’ family member or friend, and many who abuse were abused themselves. And again in such circumstances, unless the child is going to be armed with a gun I’m not sure how effective a gun is?



And psychopaths and serial killers all have mental problems. And one way to counter that (and one you seemed to be rejecting) is for anyone with a gun to have to submit to a psychological evaluation.



It could also be countered through social programmes (educational, healthcare etc) that that screened for and then assisted people with mental problems.
As in most things prevention is a lot better than waiting until something bad happens.



*


Oh and please don’t come back with that tired excuse for an argument that I’m talking about some utopia where there is no crime, the things I mention are done in many countries and all I’m saying is that if things were done to lessen the fear that often seems to be behind some peoples desire for guns then sensible discussion could take place on how to improve things.

 

Deviate

AGAIN more EVASION

I specifically you what you would do if you lost your case and were asked to hand over the weapon.

But by refusing you would be in breech of the law I mentioned.

 

Deviate

AGAIN - if you just read my theories you’d understand that, I’m about trying to stop authoritarian government. To me the problem is that I think many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment. That could be done politically but only if they were willing to ditch the views that help the establishment to stay in power and realign the political system so that it is not a threat to its people.

To quote – For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of?

Think about US history, did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police; do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

Here is the long version –

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

 

Deviate

Again the individualistic mentality and the fear/threat response –

To repeat - The gun control in the scenario would have come in through the democratic process. The response is classic ‘individualist’, in other words the belief that the pro-gunners individual ‘right’ trumps any community wishes or actions, brought in for the betterment of the community.

The other is intimidation - basically it is about threatening that if gun control measures are brought in, some pro-gunners at least will make society pay.

 

Essentially you are saying don't question your theories?

The question I posed, "You previously brought up the need for social, economic, and political changes to eliminate/reduce crime. I'm curious as to what social, economic, or political changes would have an effect on rapists, child molesters, psychopaths, like a serial killer?", in response to an earlier post of yours, does not propose guns as a possible solution but only asks you to elaborate on the social, economic, or political changes you feel would eliminate/reduce those particular types of crime?

Can violent crime be eliminated totally? And even if it could be reduced, are you then saying that there is some acceptable amount that we should accept rather than take any precautionary measures?

I wonder if any others find you to be a difficult, if not impossible, person to discuss rationally and reasonably the reality that exists in the world we live in?

 

Balbus,

your delusions are getting in the way of you even properly comprehending what I am writing.

Let me ask you something. Do you know what an appeal is? It takes place after a court ruling. Now, how am I going to appeal the court if I refuse to follow their original order? Can we please inject some common sense into this discussion?

Yes if that completely impossible hypothetical situation came about, I would hand them over and fight the gov't politically. I would also go to the black market and buy more guns, but that's another topic. And you have to understand that a gun confiscation would NEVER EVER go down like that here. You are not grounded in reality if you believe that.

As far are your claim to my fear/threat response let me ask you another question. Why do you think Americans have gone out and purchased unprecedented amounts of guns and ammo in the past few months. So they can just turn around and hand them over to the gov't?

 

And once again, the democratic process does not apply to the 2nd amendment. Unless you were to get 2/3 of the states on board to repeal it.

 

It's not about disagreeing with me, it's about disagreeing with the Constitution. And that's how I feel about it, it's completely idiotic and traitorous to want the feds to come take away AR15s based on the fact they hold 30 rounds. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Sorry if that offends you.. but you have your opinions, I can have mine also.

 

Fair enough. I think Deviate was a bit tipsy that night, to be honest.

P.S: o.d.o.n

 

Indie

OH hell man I keep asking you to critic my theories in a rational and reasonable way, but you seem to find that impossible.

And I responded Post 481

But the things you mention are in the main social and medical problems that can be lessened through treatment or with educational and environmental help.

To quote post 481 again

Oh and please don’t come back with that tired excuse for an argument that I’m talking about some utopia where there is no crime, the things I mention are done in many countries and all I’m saying is that if things were done to lessen the fear that often seems to be behind some peoples desire for guns then sensible discussion could take place on how to improve things.

To quote post 481 again

all I’m saying is that if things were done to lessen the fear that often seems to be behind some peoples desire for guns then sensible discussion could take place on how to improve things.

I wonder if any others find you to be a difficult, if not impossible, person to discuss rationally and reasonably the reality that exists in the world we live in?

Hey I keep asking you to raise rational and reasonable argument it’s not my fault you can’t.

Oh and before you give your usual comeback of you have – please indicate where they are supposed to be?

 

[FONT=&quot]Deviate[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]See that wasn’t hard why didn’t just say that in the first place instead of all that stuff about shooting and killing? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Are you saying you would break the law and buy another prohibited weapon? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It wasn’t reality it was a scenario, and as I’ve said things can change.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Seems like they are motivated by fear what is your take? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Ratification requires 3/4 of the States.

 

Bal,

Why do you find it necessary to become irrationally defensive when asked a question? I posed no criticism in my question, and you could easily have responded to it civilly, but that seems to be a quality you lack.

The U.S. form of government is/was founded on the principle of individuals having rights, freedom, liberty, property, etc., with governments local, State, and Federal at each level given responsibility by the people to protect their rights, freedoms, liberty, and property. None of the government, Federal, State, or even local are the source of providing what they are given responsibility to protect, and that seems to conflict greatly with your more collectivist view of HOW a government should work. That is not to say that local communities, or even States could not employ collectivist means of governance with the consent of those they govern.

In 1786, when the population was around 3 million, George Mason made a speech at the Virginia ratifying convention, which clearly describes much of what has come to pass which provides the basis of most political debate today. As I've pointed out before, "It is ascertained by history, that there never was a Government, over a very extensive country, without destroying the liberties of the people: History also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shew us, that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic Governments ever so extensive t a country; but that popular Governments can only exist in small territories —Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support t a contrary opinion?", is but one of several portions of his speech which I find relative to the consequences we, as a people endure today. My point is that it is the responsibility of people to find their niche in one of the many societies that exist, and not a responsibility of a Centralized government which is totally incapable of knowing or understanding all the facts pertaining to each and every individual in a large and diverse population.

Relative to the 2nd amendment, if say Chicago, or New York city, would like to ban guns partially or even completely, and their voting population gave their consent, then those who disagree with the law would still retain their freedom to move themselves and/or their business elsewhere. No individual is forced to exercise their rights, and no individual(s) should be forced to provide rights to others which they have not taken from them.

 

Because if they forcefully enter my home to steal my constitutionally protected property, and start shooting at my dogs (who would be going for their necks so that is inevitable).. then I will defend my property and family. It's pretty simple; I operate on simple principles. Bring war to my domain and I will return it, I don't give a fuck who you are.


[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Uh, yeah.

"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right."
-Henry David Thoreau

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]So maybe this is why DHS purchased 1.6 billion rounds and 2,700 armored vehicles for use on US streets?

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

My take is we are still tough and we still love our freedom. We have a history of self sustainability and self determination - we were not ok with what you have been living under in England for hundreds of years. Which is why we came here, kicked you guys out, and formed our own country.

 

Ah, I stand corrected. Could've sworn it was 2/3.

Even better :cheers2:

 

Bal, why didn't you tell us you have family in the US?

http://www.examiner.com/article/des...epeal-of-second-amendment-death-of-gun-owners

 

But the problem is that it only takes a simple majority to misinterpret the Constitution in order to impose regulations created by unelected, political appointees over the population.

And it does only take 2/3 of both houses of congress, or 2/3 of the States to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

I would recommend ignoring scenarios presented by Balbus as they not only seldom, if ever reflect reality, and are used only for the purpose of goading those who respond into responding with something he can use against them. When scenarios become reality we must then each and every one of us determine how to best deal with them with the means we have available.

Here's an interesting story, I was made aware of in an email received from a family member who lives walking distance from where it occurred, from the Huffington Post, which I assume is believable by most here being it is not supported by the Koch brothers. The story is even more interesting if you google and find additional details relating to the Mother, Sister, and Aunt of the older teen. The Mother of the 13 month old boy obviously felt safe and unafraid as it would appear she was unarmed, and since she had previously lost a son to violence, though in that case he was the attacker, who ended up on the wrong end of the knife he was attacking with, she should feel much safer unarmed in the future based on the law of averages.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...-west-dead-georgia-baby-killed_n_2931273.html

 

I think Bal made it clear in a previous post that he wouldn't resort to violence, UNLESS it became necessary to fulfill his needs. In other words, forced by a greedy society who would not provide what he feels entitled to?

 

Please Santa, bring me a tank, some stinger missiles, an M-60, some land mines, and a couple of drones to protect my home from these second amendment nut jobs. No limits on the 2nd!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUuHn1-QMRk"]Jim Carrey Cold Dead Hand - YouTube