Handguns in NYC

[waywardgs]

Anyone know anything about the process to obtain a pistol permit in NYC? Just moved here and I know there are a few gun folks on this board... anyone have any experience with big apple laws? I know you can get an out of county permit, but those don't apply to NYC- what's the easiest way to make the transition?

[Reawing]

Growing up in NYC, I know for a fact it is nearly impossible to own a handgun in the city. There is only one firing range in the whole city. They simply will not issue you a permit unless you have a legit reason to own a handgun. Self-defense doesn't count. You essentially have to be in law enforcement. Generally speaking, New Yorkers hate guns, especially handguns. If you ever meet a civilian with a handgun in NYC, its likely not legal.

[Drew]

Be a cop or possibly ex-cop. That's essentially it.

[waywardgs]

So state transfers are a no-go?

[waywardgs]

A lot different than Chicago where drunk cops would pull their guns at a bar at the drop of a hat.

[Stanley Burrell]

http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/new-york-giants-plaxico-burress-1-wjrmp1z4wg-800x600.jpg

You could also drive for like three minutes on the Saw Mill over to the Sports Authority at the Cross County mall.

[Reawing]

So state transfers are a no-go?

Yeah, its not gonna happen. Sorry man. I went to school in Wisconsin where the only law is a two day waiting period and picked up a gun and I know that if I ever move home I am going to have to sell it.

[TheEschaton]

Yeah, civilians are basically not allowed to own a gun within the five boroughs. I checked, when I moved here. Transfers are allowed in very, very, very limited circumstances, like you're a former cop from Madison, or something.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Speaking of guns and gun ranges... Daddy loving his new gun:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/IMG_0430.jpg

I won the bet with who could kill Osama the worst.. when my first shot went right between the eyes. Not bad for 35 yards.

[TheEschaton]

But luckily for you, they let almost anyone be NYPD, you can do that. :P

[4a6c1]

So I'm assuming that no one ever dies of gunshot wounds in NYC since it has such perfect utopian laws.

[Reawing]

So I'm assuming that no one ever dies of gunshot wounds in NYC since it has such perfect utopian laws.

Actually, its one of the safest large cities in the country, including gun-violence. While illegal handguns certainly do exist in the city, I managed to go 18 years without ever seeing one except in the hands of the authorities. Nobody said NYC has utopian gun laws...just that we have less gun crime due to our gun laws.

From Wikipedia:

"As of 2005, New York City has the lowest crime rate among the ten largest cities in the United States.[12] Since 1991, the city has seen a continuous fifteen-year trend of decreasing crime. Neighborhoods that were once considered dangerous are now much safer. Violent crime in the city has dropped by 75% in the last twelve years and the murder rate in 2005 was at its lowest level since 1963: there were 539 murders that year, for a murder rate of 6.58 per 100,000 people, compared to 2,245 murders in 1990. Among the 182 U.S. cities with populations of more than 100,000, New York City ranked 136th in overall crime (with about the same crime rate as Boise, Idaho).[13]

In 2006, as part of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control efforts, the city approved new legislation regulating handgun possession and sales. The new laws established a gun offender registry, required city gun dealers to inspect their inventories and file reports to the police twice a year, and limited individual handgun purchases to once every 90 days. The regulations also banned the use and sale of kits used to paint guns in bright or fluorescent colors, on the grounds that such kits could be used to disguise real guns as toys."

[Reawing]

Waywardgs,

Did a little research for you. It seems like it may be possible but extremely difficult to legally own a handgun. This guy seems to know what he is talking about.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/291348.html

[Clove]

Actually, its one of the safest large cities in the country, including gun-violence. While illegal handguns certainly do exist in the city, I managed to go 18 years without ever seeing one except in the hands of the authorities. Nobody said NYC has utopian gun laws...just that we have less gun crime due to our gun laws.

From Wikipedia:NYC has less crime. Correlation/=causation. DC had very strict gun control laws simultaneous with an extremely high violent crime rate.

[Reawing]

NYC has less crime. Correlation/=causation. DC had very strict gun control laws simultaneous with an extremely high violent crime rate.

Well, I'd be just as happy if NYC's lack of crime is caused by the character of its people too. :thanx:

[Parkbandit]

Well, I'd be just as happy if NYC's lack of crime is caused by the character of its people too. :thanx:

So NYC's crime rates are reduced because the government took guns away and forced people to be nice.

[Reawing]

So NYC's crime rates are reduced because the government took guns away and forced people to be nice.

It's still Kwanzaa, PB. And for the record, we didn't need guns to begin with. 3 star dining beats out hunting for your own food.

Edit: There are plenty of legal guns in NY. We need them to protect against terrorists. They are just are in the hands of law enforcement instead of retards who think its a good idea to bring a loaded handgun on a crowded subway.

[Stanley Burrell]

So I'm assuming that no one ever dies of gunshot wounds in NYC since it has such perfect utopian laws.

Exactly.

50 Cent got shot like eighty times BUT LIVED because of perfect Utopian, Teleological non-utilitarian laws.

P.S. Jihna <3's the rap muziks.

[4a6c1]

Why is he called 50 cent?

Also.

Only law abiding citizens follow laws. Criminals will always find guns illegaly.

[TheEschaton]

Yeah, but making guns illegal makes it hard, even impossible, for lazy people to get them, and according to most of the prevalent stereotypes, criminals are all lazy good-for-nothings. ;)

[Nuc]

You can also get a gun if you work on Wall Street!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ahD2WoDAL9h0

[Methais]

Yeah, but making guns illegal makes it hard, even impossible, for lazy people to get them, and according to most of the prevalent stereotypes, criminals are all lazy good-for-nothings. ;)

Not only that, but they'll promptly and politely put your stuff back and leave your house if you catch them robbing it and ask them to stop.

[Parkbandit]

You can also get a gun if you work on Wall Street!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ahD2WoDAL9h0

BUT WHAT ABOUT MAIN STREET!!!

[Stanley Burrell]

Why is he called 50 cent?

No clue.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, but making guns illegal makes it hard, even impossible, for lazy people to get them, and according to most of the prevalent stereotypes, criminals are all lazy good-for-nothings. ;)

I see the smiley face on the end.. but let's be honest, obtaining a gun doesn't take a criminal any effort at all, since they don't care if they are legal or not.

[TheEschaton]

Have you ever tried to buy an illegal gun? Do you think there's just illegal gun dealers on every street corner in the hood?

I'm sure you don't, because that would be small-minded and ignorant of you.

[Sean of the Thread]

I could get a gun at almost anytime anywhere with little to no effort whatsoever here.

I imagine it would be just as easy everywhere.

[Stanley Burrell]

In general, if you live in the city, there's things to do, and you'd have to be a fag to suddenly say (and want) to grab a firearm and start blasting shit.

I live in the suburbs now and since that's infuriating enough in and of itself, it sort of makes wanting to go kill stuff more plausible, so I think it's good that if you live in claustrophobic white picket-fenced suburbia you should be able to empty a clip since you can't hit golf balls off the top of Chelsea Pier's range or go to a Broadway show or buy a fucking pretzel with mustard or whatever.

But if you're in Manhattan, of all places, and you feel compelled to pull the trigger, that probably speaks to why guns aren't allowed in the city in the first place. You can't even legally own a BB gun in the city, which I'm drawn on, because if you're a young kid, you should be allowed to shoot cans or people's pets with a pellet rifle. I don't know.

[4a6c1]

Have you ever tried to buy an illegal gun? Do you think there's just illegal gun dealers on every street corner in the hood?

I'm sure you don't, because that would be small-minded and ignorant of you.

It's pretty easy to get an illegal gun in any state.

1 Steal it.

2 Buy it from an uninformed registered user.

3 Buy it from a shady gun show.

4 Build it.

etc. etc. etc.

I'm guessing the criminals in NYC just drive to Jersey for their goods. :)

[Reawing]

I'm guessing the criminals in NYC just drive to Jersey for their goods. :)

Virginia usually.

[Cephalopod]

4 Build it.



...hmm.

[4a6c1]

No...

Do not break the law. I will tell on you. :yes:

[Parkbandit]

Have you ever tried to buy an illegal gun? Do you think there's just illegal gun dealers on every street corner in the hood?

I'm sure you don't, because that would be small-minded and ignorant of you.

I could go to NYC today and purchase a gun. Period.

If you would like to buy my plane ticket (non-stop, round trip) and put me up in a quality hotel.. I'll make whatever bet you would like to wager.

Thinking it's difficult is small minded and ignorant.

[Parker]

In fact, I'd be surprised if it took more than 3 hours to find a seller and purchase the gun. In any city in the country.

[Clove]

I'm guessing the criminals in NYC just drive to Jersey for their goods. :)


Virginia usually.So true. It's a PITA to get a firearm in Jersey too... but Virginia is your pal!

[4a6c1]

So basically you have a situation where extremely restrictive laws do not allow law abiding civilians to attain a registered/fingerprinted weapon but anybody willing to break the law can drive a few hours away and get one illegally anyway?

So now all the guns are in the hands of the criminals?

New York is fucking brilliant.

[Reawing]

So basically you have a situation where extremely restrictive laws do not allow law abiding civilians to attain a registered/fingerprinted weapon but anybody willing to break the law can drive a few hours away and get one illegally anyway?

So now all the guns are in the hands of the criminals?

New York is fucking brilliant.

So brilliant in fact that the Mayor announced yet again another year of violent crime reduction.

[Clove]

So brilliant in fact that the Mayor announced yet again another year of violent crime reduction.Is that due to the changes to gun control alone, or is that due to other changes (alone or in combination with gun control)?

Restricting gun ownership does not result in a lower violent crime rate in every community its enacted in.

Correlation/=Causation.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/11/crime-rates-shown-to-be-falling.html

[Reawing]

Is that due to the changes to gun control alone, or is that due to other changes (alone or in combination with gun control)?

Restricting gun ownership does not result in a lower violent crime rate in every community its enacted in.

Correlation/=Causation.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/11/crime-rates-shown-to-be-falling.html

There haven't been many changes to gun control in NYC recently. It as always been very difficult to purchase a gun there. I'm not sure exactly what to attribute the lower crime rates to, but less crime is always good.

That said, it is hard to argue with the following statement: Restricting handguns to law enforcement and ONLY law enforcement would reduce violent gun crimes. It would put many of the gun manufacturers out of business resulting in an inability for criminals to find them. I know a lot of people love the 2nd Amendment, but I haven't seen many of you training in your local well-regulated militias which of course are necessary in modern America for the security of the states. (A little heavy on the sarcasm?)

[Clove]

That said, it is hard to argue with the following statement: Restricting handguns to law enforcement and ONLY law enforcement would reduce violent gun crimes. It would put many of the gun manufacturers out of business resulting in an inability for criminals to find them. I know a lot of people love the 2nd Amendment, but I haven't seen many of you training in your local well-regulated militias which of course are necessary in modern America for the security of the states. (A little heavy on the sarcasm?)I think you could argue with that statement (unless you mean "restricting handguns to law enforcement only" to apply nationwide or worldwide). It may reduce violent gun crime, however how much? Significantly? Would it reduce violent crime, period? Or do you not care if you get stabbed or bludgeoned to death (as long as a handgun wasn't used)?

Why do you assume it would put many handgun manufacturers out of business? Police are big customers and so is the rest of the world. As long as firearms exist, people will obtain them. I'd rather law abiding citizens have the option to access them so long as that is the case (unless you can guarantee a uniformed officer with said handgun can teleport to me in my time of need).

[Reawing]

I think you could argue with that statement (unless you mean "restricting handguns to law enforcement only" to apply nationwide or worldwide). It may reduce violent gun crime, however how much? Significantly? Would it reduce violent crime, period? Or do you not care if you get stabbed or bludgeoned to death (as long as a handgun wasn't used)?

Why do you assume it would put many handgun manufacturers out of business? Police are big customers and so is the rest of the world. As long as firearms exist, people will obtain them. I'd rather law abiding citizens have the option to access them so long as that is the case (unless you can guarantee a uniformed officer with said handgun can teleport to me in my time of need).

If there is less legal demand for handguns, there is less manufacturing of handguns. I can't tell you for certain that violent crimes or murders would go down with less guns on the street, but I can tell you that guns contribute to a lot of violent crime and that many crimes could have been prevented with better gun control, especially of assault rifles and stuff that no civilian really need have. While one can make an argument for a handgun (I think one can make a good-faith argument on handguns), you can't tell me any civilian has a need for an AK-47.

[Kuyuk]

Squirrels are vicious down here.

[4a6c1]

you can't tell me any civilian has a need for an AK-47.

SHUT YOUR FACE

[ZeP]

you can't tell me any civilian has a need for an AK-47.


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.

I see the word necessary in there!

[Clove]

If there is less legal demand for handguns, there is less manufacturing of handguns.That's an interesting position. I can't say that I agree with it but that doesn't matter because "less demand" is not tantamount to "manufacturers going out of business".

I can't tell you for certain that violent crimes or murders would go down with less guns on the street, but I can tell you that guns contribute to a lot of violent crime and that many crimes could have been prevented with better gun control, especially of assault rifles and stuff that no civilian really need have.I'm just not sure if the crimes that involve guns today would go away simply because guns were more controlled. How many of those crimes were committed with legal guns in the first place? How many would have occurred with a different weapon (had a firearm not been available) etc.


While one can make an argument for a handgun (I think one can make a good-faith argument on handguns), you can't tell me any civilian has a need for an AK-47.Why is a "need" necessary to allow it? Does a civilian need a bayonet collection? Or what about exotic, dangerous pets? What about cigarettes (I'd feel safe wagering that they've killed far more people than firearms)? Alcohol? Does a civilian need a high performance sports car?

My father owns an AK-47 and (and a good deal of other hand guns and rifles). They've only ever shot paper (he doesn't even hunt). Why should he (or other responsible adults like him) be prevented from owning a firearm simply because they like them?

[Methais]

This is one (big) reason why owning handguns is necessary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPvmIxu-LSA

[Keller]

I see the smiley face on the end.. but let's be honest, obtaining a gun doesn't take a criminal any effort at all, since they don't care if they are legal or not.

I agree, it literally takes no effort at all.

[Keller]

I could go to NYC today and purchase a gun. Period.

If you would like to buy my plane ticket (non-stop, round trip) and put me up in a quality hotel.. I'll make whatever bet you would like to wager.

Thinking it's difficult is small minded and ignorant.

I will reimburse you the cost of the airfare to NYC only if you purchase a handgun illegally in New York City. You will have 30 minutes to get to the city, an hour to buy the gun, and then another 10 minutes to take a picture with your iPhone and post it to the PC. So 1hr40 minutes from landing to posting.

I will send the money to Kranar or another "escrow" holder that is mutually acceptable.

[Clove]

Now, now, Keller don't be a dick. Give him 3 hours at least. He shouldn't have to rush.

[Sean]

I just wanna see PB go upto Harlem and ask someone where he can get a gun. I'm not willing to pay to see it though.

[Keller]

Now, now, Keller don't be a dick. Give him 3 hours at least. He shouldn't have to rush.

It won't take any effort at all. I felt an hour was generous.

[Parkbandit]

It won't take any effort at all. I felt an hour was generous.

Welcome back!

So surprising you choose to respond to my posts... which reminds me, we need to raise the Stalker Alert Level to DefCon 4.

You realize that if I go to NYC, it won't be to see you, right?

[Parkbandit]

Now, now, Keller don't be a dick.

Talk about your Mission Impossibles....

[Reawing]

Why is a "need" necessary to allow it? Does a civilian need a bayonet collection? Or what about exotic, dangerous pets? What about cigarettes (I'd feel safe wagering that they've killed far more people than firearms)? Alcohol? Does a civilian need a high performance sports car?

My father owns an AK-47 and (and a good deal of other hand guns and rifles). They've only ever shot paper (he doesn't even hunt). Why should he (or other responsible adults like him) be prevented from owning a firearm simply because they like them?

I'm glad your dad enjoys his AK and doesn't commit violent crimes with it. But where is the line? Should people be allowed to have guided missile collections? How about nuclear attack submarine collections? What if they aren't involved in criminal activity, but they just think its really awesome to drive a loaded tank around? Government has a responsibility to look out for the public welfare. Assualt rifles, while they may be extremely cool (you'll find no argument from me there) are dangerous and some people use them for nefarious purposes. Nobody needs them except swat teams and the military. Given these facts, why would a government that cares about the public's welfare allow an item to be sold to civilians that does not have a practical application but has significant downsides to the population? An assault rifle in capable hands is far more deadly to a far greater number of people than an exotic pet, a bayonet collection or a sports car. With things like alcohol and cigarettes, that is people killing themselves. I have no problem with people killing themselves. Its dumb, but at least they are only hurting themselves.

[Clove]

An assault rifle in capable hands is far more deadly to a far greater number of people than an exotic pet, a bayonet collection or a sports car. With things like alcohol and cigarettes, that is people killing themselves. I have no problem with people killing themselves. Its dumb, but at least they are only hurting themselves.Second hand smoke (cigarettes) drunk driving (alcohol, sports cars).

Yes an assault rifle in capable hands used illegally poses a significant threat to society; do you think someone intending to use one for such purposes cares if it's legal or not? Therefore making them illegal poses no purpose except to exclude responsible, law abiding citizens from owning one.

Nuclear submarines and guided missiles utilize defense technology that should not be accessible by the public because it could be exploited by our enemies.

[CrystalTears]

With things like alcohol and cigarettes, that is people killing themselves. I have no problem with people killing themselves. Its dumb, but at least they are only hurting themselves.
So people who drink and drive are only hurting themselves? People who smoke around others is only hurting themselves? You really want to go there?

[Kithus]

People who smoke around others is only hurting themselves? You really want to go there?

Hey if you don't like my cigarette smoke, get the fuck out of my house. Its about the only damned place in Massachusetts I'm allowed to smoke anymore.

[CrystalTears]

Hey if you don't like my cigarette smoke, get the fuck out of my house. Its about the only damned place in Massachusetts I'm allowed to smoke anymore.
You have every right to damage the lungs of your guests for going into a smoker's house. ;)

[Clove]

You have every right to damage the lungs of your guests for going into a smoker's house. ;)Just like we have the right to shoot people who come into our houses :D

[AnticorRifling]

I will reimburse you the cost of the airfare to NYC only if you purchase a handgun illegally in New York City. You will have 30 minutes to get to the city, an hour to buy the gun, and then another 10 minutes to take a picture with your iPhone and post it to the PC. So 1hr40 minutes from landing to posting.

I will send the money to Kranar or another "escrow" holder that is mutually acceptable.


I heard the internet doesn't work in NYC so the only way to buy an illegal handgun is by being on the street.

[radamanthys]

I'm glad your dad enjoys his AK and doesn't commit violent crimes with it. But where is the line? Should people be allowed to have guided missile collections? How about nuclear attack submarine collections? What if they aren't involved in criminal activity, but they just think its really awesome to drive a loaded tank around? Government has a responsibility to look out for the public welfare. Assualt rifles, while they may be extremely cool (you'll find no argument from me there) are dangerous and some people use them for nefarious purposes. Nobody needs them except swat teams and the military. Given these facts, why would a government that cares about the public's welfare allow an item to be sold to civilians that does not have a practical application but has significant downsides to the population? An assault rifle in capable hands is far more deadly to a far greater number of people than an exotic pet, a bayonet collection or a sports car. With things like alcohol and cigarettes, that is people killing themselves. I have no problem with people killing themselves. Its dumb, but at least they are only hurting themselves.

One of the original intents of the right was to ensure that the civilian population had power to rebel against a tyrannical government. Limitation of the right to bear arms is a limitation of the power of the populous. It's interesting that the 'power to the people party' fights so hard to limit the power they so typically fight to protect.

[EasternBrand]

One of the original intents of the right was to ensure that the civilian population had power to rebel against a tyrannical government. Limitation of the right to bear arms is a limitation of the power of the populous. It's interesting that the 'power to the people party' fights so hard to limit the power they so typically fight to protect.

The point of the constitutional framework is to ensure that tyrannical governments don't arise in the first place. Reading the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny is fine, but only insofar as it limits the power of the government, not as it speaks to a right of insurrection. None of the privileges or rights in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are absolute. The line for limits can't just be technology that would provide a leg up to our enemies, as Clove implied; if it were, land mines and grenade launchers should be lawful to possess.

If you're going to use original intent to solve the question, then the key is the definition of the word "arms." Any other weaponry, e.g., heavy ordnance, vehicles, etc., can freely be limited and is not covered by the Second Amendment. The question would then be whether or not assault rifles fall into the category of arms. My guess is that they would, even though I might prefer a different answer for policy reasons. Still, there are valid arguments that they don't.

[Clove]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with landmines or grenade launchers either. People would stop throwing shit on my lawn, among other things.

And while the 2nd Amendment isn't meant to be taken as a license for rebellion; the Declaration of Independence sure is...


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. I've always found it interesting that they used the word "safety" along with happiness in this clause.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm just glad these documents weren't written by people using twitter or facebook or some other bullshit.

We teh ppl, lulz, k, thx, frdom.

[radamanthys]

The point of the constitutional framework is to ensure that tyrannical governments don't arise in the first place. Reading the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny is fine, but only insofar as it limits the power of the government, not as it speaks to a right of insurrection. None of the privileges or rights in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are absolute. The line for limits can't just be technology that would provide a leg up to our enemies, as Clove implied; if it were, land mines and grenade launchers should be lawful to possess.

If you're going to use original intent to solve the question, then the key is the definition of the word "arms." Any other weaponry, e.g., heavy ordnance, vehicles, etc., can freely be limited and is not covered by the Second Amendment. The question would then be whether or not assault rifles fall into the category of arms. My guess is that they would, even though I might prefer a different answer for policy reasons. Still, there are valid arguments that they don't.

Why would one not expect military arms to fall under the purview of a militia?

[TheEschaton]

The right to alter or abolish doesn't necessarily imply a right to violent insurrection.

[Clove]

The right to alter or abolish doesn't necessarily imply a right to violent insurrection.And yet that's exactly what they did. I'd say that's a pretty strong implication.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."Throw off"? That seems pretty definitively violent.

[Keller]

Welcome back!


Thanks, Kiddo!

[Methais]

An assault rifle in capable hands is far more deadly to a far greater number of people than an exotic pet, a bayonet collection or a sports car. With things like alcohol and cigarettes, that is people killing themselves. I have no problem with people killing themselves. Its dumb, but at least they are only hurting themselves.

ORLY?
http://www.triguinness.com/BlogImages/MexicoCarCrash.jpg

Imagine what a sports car would have done.

Also, did you know you can kill someone with such things as a pencil (sharpened and unsharpened), a fork, a spoon, a ziploc bag, a nailgun, a hammer, a piece of paper, a glass window, a block of cheese, etc.? Maybe we should outlaw all those things too, just to be on the safe side.

You can also kill someone with your bare hands. Better put a lock on that too.

[Kithus]

Also, did you know you can kill someone with such things as a pencil (sharpened and unsharpened), a fork, a spoon, a ziploc bag, a nailgun, a hammer, a piece of paper, a glass window, a block of cheese, etc.? Maybe we should outlaw all those things too, just to be on the safe side.

You can also kill someone with your bare hands. Better put a lock on that too.

It requires a little (or a lot) more effort to kill someone with the items you listed than with an assault rifle. That said I can't justify it being near impossible to legally procure a handgun. Nor do I feel firearms specifically designed for hunting should be especially difficult to procure. I see no good reason not to restrict other types of firearms to appropriate police and military personnel.

[Clove]

It requires a little (or a lot) more effort to kill someone with the items you listed than with an assault rifle.Actually it's a good deal easier to kill someone with some of the items listed. Accurately firing an assault rifle requires training and discipline. Just sayin'.

[AnticorRifling]

It requires a little (or a lot) more effort to kill someone with the items you listed than with an assault rifle. Let's go get drunk. I'll give you one of my rifles, I'll get in my milk truck, we'll see who kills who first.

[Reawing]

You know what? You gun lovers are right. Everyone should be allowed to carry assault rifles and concealed handguns. We shouldn't keep track of it either. Its a fundamental right to carry a deadly weapon that's only legitimate use is to kill. The 2nd Amendment says so.

[Clove]

The only legitimate use of a sword is to kill. The only legitimate use of rat poison is to kill. This whole "it's only use is to kill" (not correct many gun owners only use them for target shooting, gosh they even have Olympic sports devoted to it) is such a ridiculous argument.

Let me ask you something Reawing, if you owned a legal firearm would you be worried that its possession would transform you into a murderous criminal?

I said nothing about driving drunk or second hand smoke. I support laws against those things. I said I don't care if people kill themselves with alcohol and cigarettes. (neg rep)I know you didn't say anything about either of those things, which is why I had to bring them up, since you said that cigarettes and alcohol are people killing themselves which is an over-simplification (at best) and false (at worst).

The simple fact is there is no reason why responsible people shouldn't own firearms. Many of my coworkers and some of my neighbors own them and I'm not bothered by this in the least. I don't personally own one but I was raised with them. I do however own a fine rapier which has no legitimate use but to kill and I assure you it kills faster than a handgun or rifle at close range.

[Geshron]

Let's go get drunk. I'll give you one of my rifles, I'll get in my milk truck, we'll see who kills who first.

You have rifles and a milk truck? Could you be my cool uncle or something?

[Clove]

You have rifles and a milk truck? Could you be my cool uncle or something?Actually I think they used his milk truck in Terminator 2.

[Reawing]

The only legitimate use of a sword is to kill. The only legitimate use of rat poison is to kill. This whole "it's only use is to kill" (not correct many gun owners only use them for target shooting, gosh they even have Olympic sports devoted to it) is such a ridiculous argument.

Let me ask you something Reawing, if you owned a legal firearm would you be worried that its possession would transform you into a murderous criminal?
I know you didn't say anything about either of those things, which is why I had to bring them up, since you said that cigarettes and alcohol are people killing themselves which is an over-simplification (at best) and false (at worst).

The simple fact is there is no reason why responsible people shouldn't own firearms. Many of my coworkers and some of my neighbors own them and I'm not bothered by this in the least. I don't personally own one but I was raised with them. I do however own a fine rapier which has no legitimate use but to kill and I assure you it kills faster than a handgun or rifle at close range.

Clove,

I own a legal firearm. Its a Ruger .22 rifle. I don't need it, I own it because I can and I am a responsible gun owner. Two or three times a year I take it out and shoot a few targets. That said, I don't trust any of you to own a gun. I'd gladly give mine up if personal firearms were outlawed. They are deadly weapons and in the modern world, people do not need deadly weapons that can and do kill people (on purpose and accidentily) all the time. There is a huge difference between and easily modified Glock that can hold 20 rounds and a rapier.

As for cigarettes and alcohol, too much alcohol can cause liver failure and several other serious medical conditions not to mention in about 20 percent of people in causes dependency/addiction. There is obviously a problem with drunk driving, but we need cars and Prohibition failed. We don't need guns. Cigarettes, smoked legally and not in the company of non-smokers, are also extremely dangerous due to the increased risk of lung cancer and emphezema (sp?) I think people who smoke around non-smokers should be charged with some sort of misdemeanor assault. In NYC, smoking is banned almost everywhere except in your own home and the street.

[EasternBrand]

Why would one not expect military arms to fall under the purview of a militia?

Because the Second Amendment has more to do with restrictions against people than against well-regulated militias.

[Methais]

I think people who smoke around non-smokers should be charged with some sort of misdemeanor assault.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/Worf_notagain2.gif

[Clove]

Clove,

I own a legal firearm. Its a Ruger .22 rifle. I don't need it, I own it because I can and I am a responsible gun owner. Two or three times a year I take it out and shoot a few targets. That said, I don't trust any of you to own a gun. I'd gladly give mine up if personal firearms were outlawed. Therein lies our impasse. I trust myself to own and handle deadly weapons responsibly. I also trust that the majority are responsible enough to own and handle deadly weapons. I trust the ability of a free society to safeguard itself more than I do any government or police organization (no matter how well meaning). It's a simple question of numbers. I live in community with excellent police that respond quickly and professionally but whenever there's trouble in my neighborhood it is my neighbors who are the first to respond. The good people always outnumber the bad which is why keeping them empowered is an important concern.


There is a huge difference between and easily modified Glock that can hold 20 rounds and a rapier.Yes, a rapier never needs reloading.


As for cigarettes and alcohol, too much alcohol can cause liver failure and several other serious medical conditions not to mention in about 20 percent of people in causes dependency/addiction. There is obviously a problem with drunk driving, but we need cars and Prohibition failed. We don't need guns. Cigarettes, smoked legally and not in the company of non-smokers, are also extremely dangerous due to the increased risk of lung cancer and emphezema (sp?) I think people who smoke around non-smokers should be charged with some sort of misdemeanor assault. In NYC, smoking is banned almost everywhere except in your own home and the street.That's all well and good but I rarely hear gun-control advocates place a proportionate emphasis on cigarette and alcohol use which is easily as damaging to society as gun misuse.


There is obviously a problem with drunk driving, but we need cars and Prohibition failed.As Prohibition fails so does attempts at gun control. It doesn't stop their manufacture or their possession it only forces its possession to the police and least responsible, law abiding members of society.

[AnticorRifling]

Clove,

I own a legal firearm. Its a Ruger .22 rifle. I don't need it, I own it because I can and I am a responsible gun owner. Two or three times a year I take it out and shoot a few targets. That said, I don't trust any of you to own a gun. I'd gladly give mine up if personal firearms were outlawed. They are deadly weapons and in the modern world, people do not need deadly weapons that can and do kill people (on purpose and accidentily) all the time. There is a huge difference between and easily modified Glock that can hold 20 rounds and a rapier.

As for cigarettes and alcohol, too much alcohol can cause liver failure and several other serious medical conditions not to mention in about 20 percent of people in causes dependency/addiction. There is obviously a problem with drunk driving, but we need cars and Prohibition failed. We don't need guns. Cigarettes, smoked legally and not in the company of non-smokers, are also extremely dangerous due to the increased risk of lung cancer and emphezema (sp?) I think people who smoke around non-smokers should be charged with some sort of misdemeanor assault. In NYC, smoking is banned almost everywhere except in your own home and the street. There is so much lol in this post.

First you're wicked .22 rifle that you shoot 2 or 3 times a year. Great so you've got "some" familiarity with a fire arm. Unfortunately you don't use it enough to be clutch with is so I'd be scared if you ever had to use it in a stressful situation, you could easily be "one of those gun owners" but I don't know since I don't know you. And by "one of those gun owners" I mean the ones that have some knowledge, some training, and feel confident enough that should the need arise they can use their weapon, but in reality they know just enough to be dangerous, will probably fumble it up and do as much harm as good. But you don't trust any of us? You don't know any of us, good job passing judgment....wait who the shit is us?

A glock that can be modified to hold 20 rounds vs a small, silent, always on weapon? Yeah apples and firetrucks they're both red but that's where it stops.

We don't need guns. That's hilarious. That's pages of back and forth waiting to happen, has happened, died, got hit with a defib, rehashed, etc. etc. etc. I'll just say you're wrong.

[AnticorRifling]

You know what? You gun lovers are right. Everyone should be allowed to carry assault rifles and concealed handguns. We shouldn't keep track of it either. Its a fundamental right to carry a deadly weapon that's only legitimate use is to kill. The 2nd Amendment says so. That's exactly what we said. We said everyone! Oh wait no, that's you getting ass hurt someone doesn't agree with your thinking. Regulation is fine, complete banning is not. There is a difference. Unfortunately both sides are way too passionate to be agreeable and see that it's ok to meet the fucking middle.

The only legitimate use is to kill. You're right it couldn't possible have a use like defending life, protecting family, etc. The "bad guys" will get theirs regardless of the laws passed, it's those of us that respect and abide by the law that are hurt in the denial to properly possess and utilize.

[AnticorRifling]

You have rifles and a milk truck? Could you be my cool uncle or something?

Lol milk truck = bright white scion xB (2006 the boxy fucker).

And rifles, yeah I've got a few because apparently I'm a horrible person.

[AnticorRifling]

Nor do I feel firearms specifically designed for hunting should be especially difficult to procure. I see no good reason not to restrict other types of firearms to appropriate police and military personnel.

You know the difference between a good high powered hunting rifle and an assault rifle? One's black. It's racist. I wish I was kidding (ok I am about it being racist). Give me my remington 700 .300win mag or my savage 12vss in .308 and put it next to my HK 91, or DPMS panther .308, or any of my .223s, or the FN-FAL, or well you get the idea... Guess which ones are more deadly (in my opinion) because they allow me greater accuracy and sexy knockdown power and energy transfers at long distance? Hint: It's not the assault rifles.


I guess the important thing is my Springfield in .30-06 is fine because it's got a wood stock.

I still think it goes back to the user. If guns kill people then pencils misspell words.

[Parkbandit]

Clove,

I own a legal firearm. Its a Ruger .22 rifle. I don't need it, I own it because I can and I am a responsible gun owner. Two or three times a year I take it out and shoot a few targets. That said, I don't trust any of you to own a gun. I'd gladly give mine up if personal firearms were outlawed. They are deadly weapons and in the modern world, people do not need deadly weapons that can and do kill people (on purpose and accidentily) all the time. There is a huge difference between and easily modified Glock that can hold 20 rounds and a rapier.

As for cigarettes and alcohol, too much alcohol can cause liver failure and several other serious medical conditions not to mention in about 20 percent of people in causes dependency/addiction. There is obviously a problem with drunk driving, but we need cars and Prohibition failed. We don't need guns. Cigarettes, smoked legally and not in the company of non-smokers, are also extremely dangerous due to the increased risk of lung cancer and emphezema (sp?) I think people who smoke around non-smokers should be charged with some sort of misdemeanor assault. In NYC, smoking is banned almost everywhere except in your own home and the street.

20 round Glocks are for pussies. I have a 32... 33 if you load it correctly.

[Parkbandit]

Lol milk truck = bright white scion xB (2006 the boxy fucker).

First "Glee", now this?

Let me know where you will be later today.. I'll have someone stop by and pick up your Man-card.

[AnticorRifling]

How'd that Big Brother season finale turn out? Just sayin'.

[Parkbandit]

If guns kill people then pencils misspell words.

END THREAD:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7919/117437979ae5ea3eb1and3.jpg

[Parkbandit]

How'd that Big Brother season finale turn out? Just sayin'.

Big Brother > Glee

Hell, just look at the titles... YOU WATCHED GLEE LAST NIGHT FFS! I have no idea what the fuck show it is about.. maybe a glee club? But it sounds strangely like Beef Wellington.

By the way.. Jordan won BB11.. and you know why I was happy? BECAUSE SHE WAS HOT AND SHE HAD BIG TITS!

http://realityskin.net/johndk/BB11US/01/BB11US_2009-07-13_Jordan_02-JohnDK.jpg

[4a6c1]

That said, I don't trust any of you to own a gun.

I bet you would trust me to own a gun if your life depended on it, douchewaffle.

Get to know your neighborhood watch one of these days. First responders...who do you think they are? Fucking aliens? They are your neighbors. Human beings who choose to care about and look after people that wouldnt do the same for them (meaning you). Just a thought. Give it some time. Let it sink it. It means something. Just sayin.

[Reawing]

I bet you would trust me to own a gun if your life depended on it, douchewaffle.

Get to know your neighborhood watch one of these days. First responders...who do you think they are? Fucking aliens? They are your neighbors. Human beings who choose to care about and look after people that wouldnt do the same for them (meaning you). Just a thought. Give it some time. Let it sink it. It means something. Just sayin.

My neighborhood watch doesn't carry guns, because there are strict gun laws where I live and it isn't necessary. If you live in a neighborhood that requires an armed neighborhood watch, perhaps you should consider paying more taxes for official law enforcement rather than civilians arming themselves. The first responders where I live are the police anyways. I don't live in Afghanistan. Guns kill. That is their purpose. Period. I have no interest in discussing sports cars, or alcohol or cigarettes. These are all diversion from the issue at hand which is that the primary purpose of a firearm is to maim or kill. I don't accept my neighbors owning a tool which only has one purpose of which is to maim or kill. Period.

[Durgrimst]

don't accept my neighbors owning a tool which only has one purpose of which is to maim or kill. Period.

What about swords?

[Drevihyin]

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/riverduck/guncontrolworks2tv7.jpg

[CrystalTears]

Guns kill. That is their purpose. Period. I have no interest in discussing sports cars, or alcohol or cigarettes. These are all diversion from the issue at hand which is that the primary purpose of a firearm is to maim or kill. I don't accept my neighbors owning a tool which only has one purpose of which is to maim or kill. Period.Please sell or trash your guns right now. After this discussion, you're the last person I want to see armed. Fucking hypocrite.

[Parkbandit]

My neighborhood watch doesn't carry guns, because there are strict gun laws where I live and it isn't necessary. If you live in a neighborhood that requires an armed neighborhood watch, perhaps you should consider paying more taxes for official law enforcement rather than civilians arming themselves. The first responders where I live are the police anyways. I don't live in Afghanistan. Guns kill. That is their purpose. Period. I have no interest in discussing sports cars, or alcohol or cigarettes. These are all diversion from the issue at hand which is that the primary purpose of a firearm is to maim or kill. I don't accept my neighbors owning a tool which only has one purpose of which is to maim or kill. Period.

Another shining example of liberalism being great on paper.. just not applicable to the real world.

You do realize you own a gun, right? If you feel this strongly about guns, why the fuck do you own one? Take it down to the Police station today and turn it in.

Why are liberals such flaming hypocrites?

[Clove]

What about swords?What about rat poison?

[Clove]

My neighborhood watch doesn't carry guns, because there are strict gun laws where I live and it isn't necessary.I think you miss the point. If you trust your neighborhood watch to be responsible you should trust them to OWN firearms; not necessarily CARRY firearms.

Most of the people I know are responsible enough to own firearms. Many of my coworkers own several and regularly hunt. If you're interested in killing power you really ought to be more concerned with hunting rifles and shotguns not assault rifles and handguns. I would be surprised if you knew more people who would be irresponsible, lawless firearm owners than otherwise. The good people outnumber the bad, but it's a sad state that allows an environment where only its worst citizens are armed.

As for swords vs. a handgun. All things being equal and in close quarters my unlimited ammo rapier will trump a handgun every time. It's simply faster than a 3lb trigger weight. Imagine the horrors a burglar with a machete can inflict on a family?

Prohibit Swords!

[4a6c1]

My neighborhood watch doesn't carry guns, because there are strict gun laws where I live and it isn't necessary. If you live in a neighborhood that requires an armed neighborhood watch, perhaps you should consider paying more taxes for official law enforcement rather than civilians arming themselves. The first responders where I live are the police anyways. I don't live in Afghanistan. Guns kill. That is their purpose. Period. I have no interest in discussing sports cars, or alcohol or cigarettes. These are all diversion from the issue at hand which is that the primary purpose of a firearm is to maim or kill. I don't accept my neighbors owning a tool which only has one purpose of which is to maim or kill. Period.

Do you understand the difference between your neighborhood watch and first responders? Most of them are police officers or soldiers...off duty.

Why do you trust uniformed police officers to have guns? What about National Guard walking the streets of New Orleans during Katrina? A security guard at the bank?

Think about why those guns are necessary. To deter bad choices made by irresponsible people. Guns are not just used to kill. You are being silly by analyzing the most final action of a tool that is most often used as a sign of authority or implied force.

I think your position might be colored by a bad personal experience or a lack of understanding of authority. In that case I am sorry. But as long as people make imperfect choices in an imperfect world, responsible, honest people will be required to carry weapons as (implied) protection for the rest.

[Methais]

I don't accept my neighbors owning a tool which only has one purpose of which is to maim or kill. Period.

By "I don't accept...", what exactly would you do about it if one of your neighbors decided they wanted guns and bought some?

Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that you're a raging hypocrite, being a gun owner yourself and all?

[radamanthys]

Millions of incidents are prevented each year by the mere presence of a firearm as a deterrent. Compare that to the amount of people killed because of the weapons (about 30-40k a year), and one can easily see why crime rates rise when you remove people's guns.

Hell, the distinct sound of a pump shotgun is one of the most effective deterrents out there. It's the brown noise for criminals.

You're far safer if your neighbors have weapons.

[Reawing]

What about swords?

Swords have several purposes, one of which is to cut things, you know, like a big knife.

[Sean of the Thread]

Reawing is a tard.

I live in a neighborhood that has cops visiting almost 24/7 for calls AND there are gunshots everyday.

I personally brought over my mossberg after staying here and seeing how serious shit is. I don't carry anymore because I had to sell most of my guns but I wish I had my Sig back.

You live in a fantasy world. (you dumb bitch)

[Reawing]

Not worth wasting my time with people who have NO ability to affect change. Thank God none of you could EVER get elected to office. :shivers: I finally understand that many of you simply come to this forum to voice your outrage and anger, when in fact you haven't taken the time the research and have zero ability to affect policy. :wipes his brow: You have emotional issues with the way the 21st century is gonna work, and you want to cling to firearms like a baby blanket, in case "tyranny" should strike. Well, "tyranny" and "fascism" have struck! A black man is President, he is gonna raise your taxes in the next 8 years to make up for a huge deficit that is now neccessary because of poor post-Cold War spending policies on Wall and Main Streets, make buying a gun more difficult nationwide, make abortions easier to come by, legalize gay marriage and SAVE THE COUNTRY FROM SOME OF YOU RAVING LUNATICS. Stop the talk. If you really think that guns are a way to stop the tyranny of the executive (as some have suggested) I suggest you start organizing rather than spouting your mouths on a forum. You are the epitome of inaction. You are absolutely impotent to affect change. You can yell all you want, Glenn Beck style. Cry, whine, sniffle...It doesn't really matter. If you cared about your country, and you actually believed the crap you spout (swords v. firearms?) than you should be in violent rebellion right now. But the truth is, you feel inadequate and the country is changing in a way that you don't like. Well here is a big "FUCK YOU" from everyone who understands the connection between the science of politics, history, governance and the state of our country today. I want to see those firearms in public. Seriously. Bring em out. Show "tyranny" how strong you are. Because until you do, you look like a bunch of Fox News watching, NRA lobbyist pussies that are all talk. Go back to Glenn Beck. At least he'll talk to you. I won't. Reawing out. I'll be in Hawaii spending my tard money until the 24th of January. You guys should consider getting with the program. Halekulani in Honolulu followed by Four Seasons for a week in Maui and then up to the resort featured in Forgetting Sarah Marshall for another week. Enjoy the winter and your guns bitches.

P.S. One last argumentative point. The second amendment was written for 2 reasons. 1) Because the United States objected to having a standing army, thus the need for well regulated militias. 2) The theory that a people should be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Nowhere in the discussions of the second amendment was the issue of personal self-defense ever raised. For those who want to know more, please take a college or grad school level course on the founding ideals of our country. A constitutional law class would also suffice. Since we now have a standing army and overthrowing the government is not an option (and would constitute treason, an offense punishable by death under federal law) we no longer have need for the second amendment. Repealing it would in no way hamper the ability of legitimate gun users such as the military or police from having firearms. Happy New Year!

[4a6c1]

Not worth wasting my time with people who have NO ability to affect change. Thank God none of you could EVER get elected to office. :shivers: I finally understand that many of you simply come to this forum to voice your outrage and anger, when in fact you haven't taken the time the research and have zero ability to affect policy. :wipes his brow: You have emotional issues with the way the 21st century is gonna work, and you want to cling to firearms like a baby blanket, in case "tyranny" should strike. Well, "tyranny" and "fascism" have struck! A black man is President, he is gonna raise your taxes in the next 8 years to make up for a huge deficit that is now neccessary because of poor post-Cold War spending policies on Wall and Main Streets, make buying a gun more difficult nationwide, make abortions easier to come by, legalize gay marriage and SAVE THE COUNTRY FROM SOME OF YOU RAVING LUNATICS. Stop the talk. If you really think that guns are a way to stop the tyranny of the executive (as some have suggested) I suggest you start organizing rather than spouting your mouths on a forum. You are the epitome of inaction. You are absolutely impotent to affect change. You can yell all you want, Glenn Beck style. Cry, whine, sniffle...It doesn't really matter. If you cared about your country, and you actually believed the crap you spout (swords v. firearms?) than you should be in violent rebellion right now. But the truth is, you feel inadequate and the country is changing in a way that you don't like. Well here is a big "FUCK YOU" from everyone who understands the connection between the science of politics, history, governance and the state of our country today. I want to see those firearms in public. Seriously. Bring em out. Show "tyranny" how strong you are. Because until you do, you look like a bunch of Fox News watching, NRA lobbyist pussies that are all talk. Go back to Glenn Beck. At least he'll talk to you. I won't. Reawing out. I'll be in Hawaii spending my tard money until the 24th of January. You guys should consider getting with the program. Halekulani in Honolulu followed by Four Seasons for a week in Maui and then up to the resort featured in Forgetting Sarah Marshall for another week. Enjoy the winter and your guns bitches.

I was trying to understand you. But whatever. You are right. We are all about inaction on this board. All the military on this board - inaction. The dozens of college graduates - inaction. The gym rats, marathon runners, moms and dads....all of us, liberal and conservative INACTION. None of us do anything and you are on top of the world.

I heart inaction. All about inaction. Army, animal rescue, Katrina recovery, Darwin 2009, GreenHouston.gov....That was all me doing inaction.

Me listening to you be high and mighty so that I can know a viewpoint other than my own.

Inaction.

You are so right. We are all wrong. For debating the issue and seeking to understand each other. For talking...back and forth every day and sharing opinions and jibes.

INACTION PC INACTION FOR SHAME

[Drevihyin]

Reminds me I need to clean my guns next week!

[TheEschaton]

I'm still waiting for PB to come to NYC and buy an illegal gun within hours.

As far as I can tell, Reawing outlined the two reasons the 2nd Amendment exists: to provide for well-armed militias in lieu of a standing army, and to overthrow a tyrannical government if need be. Both of these are historically antiquated. Whether one gets rid of historically antiquated amendments is a pointless debate, we wouldn't ever quarter soldiers any more, but it's relatively pointless to repeal the third Amendment.

So, then, the debate is, at best, extra-Constitutional: does an average citizen (not in a militia, and not looking to overthrow the gov't) have an absolute right to gun ownership. I think the answer, as with ALL rights, is no, no one has an absolute right to anything. This is, by the way, the same arguments conservatives use when saying terrorists don't deserve due process, by saying such rights are not absolute, and only refer to a narrowly defined set of people. I mention that not so we can get on a broad diversion about the rights of terrorists, but to illustrate that it is a commonly held view on both sides of the spectrum that there aren't absolute rights.

So, if a right is not absolute, that means it is subject to regulation. This, then, makes it purely a political debate. You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre, you need a permit to assemble peaceably, and on the other end, you can open a Legislative session with prayer without establishing state religion.

If you are allowed to regulate, the question then becomes the opposite extreme: are you allowed to regulate to the point of banning something. I think the answer to this has always been yes, irrespective of whether citizens actual follow the ban. The government has always had a role of "ensuring the public welfare," and has decided, time and time again, that public safety outweighs the individual right of a particular person.

So, in the particular question of certain types of guns, there is a policy question: is a certain type of gun so "inherently dangerous" that there is no valid reason a person's right to own it should outweigh public safety concerns? Liberals say yes, conservatives say no. That's the nature of those two particular political philosophies. Oh well.

By the by, "responsibility" in regards to human beings is much the same as "rationality". Sure, if everyone was rational and responsible, it's not a problem to let everyone act freely. However, laws are made specifically for those moments when people are not rational, not responsible, impaired, and so on and so forth. The "responsible" gun owner is not always responsible, and the law weighs whether that 1% (or whatever) time he's irresponsible is enough to outweigh the 99% he is responsible.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Swords have several purposes.Name five. And no a sword's purpose is not "cutting things"

[Clove]

Both of these are historically antiquated.How are both historically antiquated?

[AestheticLife]

Name five. And know a sword's purpose is not "cutting things"

1) Intimidating bitches.

2) Making Ninjas more than tiny Asian men dressed in black pajamas.

3) Acting as an outlet for all of those badass (but homosexual) names you come up with. Example: If you name your kid "Sparklefairy Princess", he's fucked for life. If you name your sword "Sparklefairy Princess", odds are it's fucking magical, and if not, it can still cut a dude's face off.

4) Adding legitimacy to your child's/sibling's/assorted lover's middle school production of Peter Pan.

5) Cutting things. Just to piss you off.

[TheEschaton]

We don't need militias in light of standing armies, we don't need to overthrow our government until it abolishes our right to change it, which, I am willing to bet, will never happen in this country's future.

[Clove]

We don't need militias in light of standing armies, we don't need to overthrow our government until it abolishes our right to change it, which, I am willing to bet, will never happen in this country's future.Weren't you one of the bitches that said the majority didn't vote for Bush?

Anyway, that's a bullshit statement. I'm sure if the government abolished our ability to affect change they'd embrace gun ownership. Or are you implying that when the 2nd Amendment was written the US Constitution didn't provide for the public to change government? Honestly E your argument style has gone to shit lately. I mean really? The Declaration of Independence doesn't imply that people have the right to rebel?

[TheEschaton]

The majority didn't vote for Bush, that's a fact. But I'm pretty sure I didn't advocate for my right to overthrow of the government, and wouldn't have unless Bush had declared himself President for life.

Secondly, I said the Declaration didn't imply that there was a right to violent rebellion, it merely says we have a right to overthrow a tyrannical government. Overthrowing a government doesn't imply armed revolution.

It seems your reading comprehension has gone to shit lately.

[Methais]

Secondly, I said the Declaration didn't imply that there was a right to violent rebellion, it merely says we have a right to overthrow a tyrannical government. Overthrowing a government doesn't imply armed revolution.

Could you please explain how you overthrow a tyrannical government without involving violence? Does it involve asking them to leave like when those armed burglars are robbing your house?

[Methais]

Not worth wasting my time with people who have NO ability to affect change. Thank God none of you could EVER get elected to office. :shivers: I finally understand that many of you simply come to this forum to voice your outrage and anger, when in fact you haven't taken the time the research and have zero ability to affect policy. :wipes his brow: You have emotional issues with the way the 21st century is gonna work, and you want to cling to firearms like a baby blanket, in case "tyranny" should strike. Well, "tyranny" and "fascism" have struck! A black man is President, he is gonna raise your taxes in the next 8 years to make up for a huge deficit that is now neccessary because of poor post-Cold War spending policies on Wall and Main Streets, make buying a gun more difficult nationwide, make abortions easier to come by, legalize gay marriage and SAVE THE COUNTRY FROM SOME OF YOU RAVING LUNATICS. Stop the talk. If you really think that guns are a way to stop the tyranny of the executive (as some have suggested) I suggest you start organizing rather than spouting your mouths on a forum. You are the epitome of inaction. You are absolutely impotent to affect change. You can yell all you want, Glenn Beck style. Cry, whine, sniffle...It doesn't really matter. If you cared about your country, and you actually believed the crap you spout (swords v. firearms?) than you should be in violent rebellion right now. But the truth is, you feel inadequate and the country is changing in a way that you don't like. Well here is a big "FUCK YOU" from everyone who understands the connection between the science of politics, history, governance and the state of our country today. I want to see those firearms in public. Seriously. Bring em out. Show "tyranny" how strong you are. Because until you do, you look like a bunch of Fox News watching, NRA lobbyist pussies that are all talk. Go back to Glenn Beck. At least he'll talk to you. I won't. Reawing out. I'll be in Hawaii spending my tard money until the 24th of January. You guys should consider getting with the program. Halekulani in Honolulu followed by Four Seasons for a week in Maui and then up to the resort featured in Forgetting Sarah Marshall for another week. Enjoy the winter and your guns bitches.

P.S. One last argumentative point. The second amendment was written for 2 reasons. 1) Because the United States objected to having a standing army, thus the need for well regulated militias. 2) The theory that a people should be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Nowhere in the discussions of the second amendment was the issue of personal self-defense ever raised. For those who want to know more, please take a college or grad school level course on the founding ideals of our country. A constitutional law class would also suffice. Since we now have a standing army and overthrowing the government is not an option (and would constitute treason, an offense punishable by death under federal law) we no longer have need for the second amendment. Repealing it would in no way hamper the ability of legitimate gun users such as the military or police from having firearms. Happy New Year!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY
http://www.maniacworld.com/everyone-is-now-dumber.jpg

[Clove]

The majority didn't vote for Bush, that's a fact. But I'm pretty sure I didn't advocate for my right to overthrow of the government, and wouldn't have unless Bush had declared himself President for life.

Secondly, I said the Declaration didn't imply that there was a right to violent rebellion, it merely says we have a right to overthrow a tyrannical government. Overthrowing a government doesn't imply armed revolution.

It seems your reading comprehension has gone to shit lately.My reading comprehension? Did they have any dictionaries in law school? I guess this really depends on what your definition of "is" is, imirite?

overthrow
vb [ˌəʊvəˈθrəʊ] -throws, -throwing, -threw, -thrown
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (tr) to effect the downfall or destruction of (a ruler, institution, etc.), esp by force
2. (tr) to throw or turn over
3. (tr) to throw (something, esp a ball) too far
n [ˈəʊvəˌθrəʊ]
1. an act of overthrowing
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) downfall; destruction
3. (Team Sports / Cricket) Cricket
a. a ball thrown back too far by a fielder
b. a run scored because of this

Overthrow certainly does imply violence and considering what the signers of the Declaration of Independence were engaged in (open violent rebellion) it seems its implications were obvious.

I repeat, since at the time of the 2nd Amendment's signing our government already allowed for a peaceful democracy why were they interested in protecting us against tyranny again? I mean it's obsolete now right? And apparently it's been obsolete since it was signed.


By the by, "responsibility" in regards to human beings is much the same as "rationality". Sure, if everyone was rational and responsible, it's not a problem to let everyone act freely. However, laws are made specifically for those moments when people are not rational, not responsible, impaired, and so on and so forth. The "responsible" gun owner is not always responsible, and the law weighs whether that 1% (or whatever) time he's irresponsible is enough to outweigh the 99% he is responsible.

-TheE-Good point. Perhaps we should ban money.

[4a6c1]

I'm still waiting for PB to come to NYC and buy an illegal gun within hours.

As far as I can tell, Reawing outlined the two reasons the 2nd Amendment exists: to provide for well-armed militias in lieu of a standing army, and to overthrow a tyrannical government if need be. Both of these are historically antiquated. Whether one gets rid of historically antiquated amendments is a pointless debate, we wouldn't ever quarter soldiers any more, but it's relatively pointless to repeal the third Amendment.

So, then, the debate is, at best, extra-Constitutional: does an average citizen (not in a militia, and not looking to overthrow the gov't) have an absolute right to gun ownership. I think the answer, as with ALL rights, is no, no one has an absolute right to anything. This is, by the way, the same arguments conservatives use when saying terrorists don't deserve due process, by saying such rights are not absolute, and only refer to a narrowly defined set of people. I mention that not so we can get on a broad diversion about the rights of terrorists, but to illustrate that it is a commonly held view on both sides of the spectrum that there aren't absolute rights.

So, if a right is not absolute, that means it is subject to regulation. This, then, makes it purely a political debate. You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre, you need a permit to assemble peaceably, and on the other end, you can open a Legislative session with prayer without establishing state religion.

If you are allowed to regulate, the question then becomes the opposite extreme: are you allowed to regulate to the point of banning something. I think the answer to this has always been yes, irrespective of whether citizens actual follow the ban. The government has always had a role of "ensuring the public welfare," and has decided, time and time again, that public safety outweighs the individual right of a particular person.

So, in the particular question of certain types of guns, there is a policy question: is a certain type of gun so "inherently dangerous" that there is no valid reason a person's right to own it should outweigh public safety concerns? Liberals say yes, conservatives say no. That's the nature of those two particular political philosophies. Oh well.

By the by, "responsibility" in regards to human beings is much the same as "rationality". Sure, if everyone was rational and responsible, it's not a problem to let everyone act freely. However, laws are made specifically for those moments when people are not rational, not responsible, impaired, and so on and so forth. The "responsible" gun owner is not always responsible, and the law weighs whether that 1% (or whatever) time he's irresponsible is enough to outweigh the 99% he is responsible.

-TheE-

Go away E.

Rewing temper tantrums > TheE's legally sound argument

[EasternBrand]

Overthrow certainly does imply violence and considering what the signers of the Declaration of Independence were engaged in (open violent rebellion) it seems its implications were obvious.

I repeat, since at the time of the 2nd Amendment's signing our government already allowed for a peaceful democracy why were they interested in protecting us against tyranny again? I mean it's obsolete now right? And apparently it's been obsolete since it was signed.

You keep conflating the Declaration with the Constitution. The former was a list of grievances drafted and adopted by the Congress in the midst of a revolution, whereas the latter was written 11 years later and adopted by the Congress as well as the states as a foundational governmental document. The point of the Constitutional Convention was to strengthen a federal government left impotent by the Articles of Confederation. A fledgling government interested in establishing democracy would seem to be ill-served by implying a right of rebellion in a document meant to delineate authority.

Claiming that the 2nd Amendment implies a right of rebellion because of the Declaration ignores the legal and historical differences between the two documents.

[Clove]

You keep conflating the Declaration with the Constitution. The former was a list of grievances drafted and adopted by the Congress in the midst of a revolution, whereas the latter was written 11 years later and adopted by the Congress as well as the states as a foundational governmental document. The point of the Constitutional Convention was to strengthen a federal government left impotent by the Articles of Confederation. A fledgling government interested in establishing democracy would seem to be ill-served by implying a right of rebellion in a document meant to delineate authority.

Claiming that the 2nd Amendment implies a right of rebellion because of the Declaration ignores the legal and historical differences between the two documents.I'm not confusing either I'm simply addressing two different arguments in the same post. Please read the thread.

I'll summarize. I pointed out that the Declaration of Independence implied that we had a right and responsibility to violently oppose (if necessary) tyrannical governments which the E keeps trying to refute (poorly).

The E observed that the 2nd Amendment existed for two purposes the first to provide for a militia and the second to safeguard against tyranny and then continues to claim that both purposes are obsolete and that because (essentially) we have a democracy that is the reason we don't need protection from tyranny. I have merely pointed out that if that were true then that purpose of the 2nd Amendment was obsolete at its inception.

Pay attention next time, please.

[TheEschaton]

My reading comprehension? Did they have any dictionaries in law school? I guess this really depends on what your definition of "is" is, imirite?


Overthrow certainly does imply violence and considering what the signers of the Declaration of Independence were engaged in (open violent rebellion) it seems its implications were obvious.

I repeat, since at the time of the 2nd Amendment's signing our government already allowed for a peaceful democracy why were they interested in protecting us against tyranny again? I mean it's obsolete now right? And apparently it's been obsolete since it was signed.
Good point. Perhaps we should ban money.

Funny, I don't see a definition that mandates (IE, necessitates) violence to overthrow. Certainly the Framers were engaged in a violent rebellion, of course, but they first tried the recourse of negotiation and engagement.

You seem to forget that later in the Declaration the Colonials repeat that they have tried these methods, and only now are resorting to violence, yet hold out for friendship during peace time. You must surely know that the Declaration states that a) an overthrow of government is the Right of the people when that government impedes life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and other inalienable rights, and b) they've tried that overthrow every other way.


In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Perhaps you want to keep arguing semantics, that without armed rebellion, their attempts at negotiation were not an actual overthrow, but simply meaningless words. I understand you may be confused by Bush's attempt at negotiation before Iraq, which was just puffery and a march to war. However, overthrow does not necessitate violence, and I don't think the Founders would have resorted to as much if other means were available.

And yes, they had many dictionaries in law school. I don't know what you think learning the law entails, but it certainly involves looking at issues deeper than just reading the words on the paper. That is what they teach in schools for people who merely want to read what they want to read. Perhaps you went to journalism school?

-TheE-

[Clove]

Really E, you can just admit that the Declaration implies that all people have the responsibility to violently oppose a tyrannical government when necessary. It's not semantics. Overthrow does imply just that. None of the justifications the Framers attempted prior to open rebellion negate that implication. I hope you didn't go to a public school, I'd hate to know my tax dollars contributed to such a poor education.

[TheEschaton]

The 2nd exists as a failsafe, not as a fear of future tyranny. Take the third; in a democracy, quartering soldiers against the will of the people is not a cause for concern, either the people authorize it through their representatives, or it is struck down - but in light of those who would attempt it (against the will of the people), it is forbidden by the third Amendment.

These are negative rights, by their nature. They don't imply that these things are occuring and they are just now being rectified, nor that there is an expectation of the abrogation of those rights. They're like the "worst case scenario" of the Constitution, advocated by the Anti-Federalists so that the government could not, itself, devolve into tyranny.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Really E, you can just admit that the Declaration implies that all people have the responsibility to violently oppose a tyrannical government when necessary. It's not semantics. Overthrow does imply just that. None of the justifications the Framers attempted prior to open rebellion negate that implication. I hope you didn't go to a public school, I'd hate to know my tax dollars contributed to such a poor education.

The Declaration implies people have the responsibility to overthrow, abolish, and build anew a government that protects the rights of their people. Simply that. It says nothing about whether that must be achieved by violence or not. As your very definitions outline, overthrow by no means necessitates violence. As noted, the Declaration was a philosophical remand to the British for the Colonies having to resort to the violent overthrow, instead of having the conflict solved peaceably beforehand.

Please, lay your educational credentials on the line, I'd love to know who the hell taught you anything.

[Clove]

The Declaration implies people have the responsibility to overthrow, abolish, and build anew a government that protects the rights of their people. Simply that. It says nothing about whether that must be achieved by violence or not. As your very definitions outline, overthrow by no means necessitates violence. As noted, the Declaration was a philosophical remand to the British for the Colonies having to resort to the violent overthrow, instead of having the conflict solved peaceably beforehand.

Please, lay your educational credentials on the line, I'd love to know who the hell taught you anything.Really E, you're just being ignorant. Whether or not it can be achieved by other means does not defy the fact that the Framers did believe it was a duty to overthrow tyrannies violently (for probably the fourth time, I swear your reading comprehension sucks) if motherfucking necessary. Which they demonstrated immediately after writing the document.

Do you understand the definition of "overthrow" yet? How about the phrase "if necessary"? Christ I know they're cranking out lawyers these days but they should at least give you a foundation in basic language skills and logic.

[Clove]

The 2nd exists as a failsafe, not as a fear of future tyranny. Take the third; in a democracy, quartering soldiers against the will of the people is not a cause for concern, either the people authorize it through their representatives, or it is struck down - but in light of those who would attempt it (against the will of the people), it is forbidden by the third Amendment.

These are negative rights, by their nature. They don't imply that these things are occuring and they are just now being rectified, nor that there is an expectation of the abrogation of those rights. They're like the "worst case scenario" of the Constitution, advocated by the Anti-Federalists so that the government could not, itself, devolve into tyranny.

-TheE-In other words both purposes of the 2nd Amendment are not obsolete. Apology accepted.

[EasternBrand]

I'm not confusing either I'm simply addressing two different arguments in the same post. Please read the thread.

I'll summarize. I pointed out that the Declaration of Independence implied that we had a right and responsibility to violently oppose (if necessary) tyrannical governments which the E keeps trying to refute (poorly).

The E observed that the 2nd Amendment existed for two purposes the first to provide for a militia and the second to safeguard against tyranny and then continues to claim that both purposes are obsolete and that because (essentially) we have a democracy that is the reason we don't need protection from tyranny. I have merely pointed out that if that were true then that purpose of the 2nd Amendment was obsolete at its inception.

Pay attention next time, please.

Went back, briefly reviewed the thread. First I'll apologize, because you pretty clearly stated early on that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant a right of rebellion. I've missed a lot of the goings-on due to holiday revelry.

But my confusion is grounded in uncertainty of what exactly your position is. How do you think the Declaration and the 2nd Amendment interact? Do you claim that because the Declaration implies a right of rebellion, then the 2nd Amendment is a way to enforce that right? It's that argument that doesn't seem to add up for me. That debate got dropped early on, and I haven't exactly been punctual about checking the PC over the past few days, but were you serious about legalizing landmines? Because that sounds completely insane to me.

[Clove]

The Declaration implies a duty to overthrow tyrannies, violently if necessary. The 2nd Amendment provides for a militia and acts as safeguard from the establishment of tyrannies. The 2nd Amendment really doesn't enforce the duty stated in the Declaration of Independence. I like to think the 2nd Amendment "inoculates" our government from ever becoming a tyranny.

[radamanthys]

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

Discussion of the amendment. Left leaning.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

In-depth history of the amendment written by a law professor. Cites the history behind the inclusion of the amendment. Right-leaning in conclusion.


As to TheE... You can't distrust people with guns and also believe that we've evolved past tyranny. Either you trust humanity or you don't.

Unless you just don't trust the type of people who would carry guns and wish to limit the power of a group of Americans. I think that might be a bit closer to the truth.

[Clove]

I'll cut to the chase:


VI. Conclusion

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

[AestheticLife]

Twatwaffle.

[Parkbandit]

I'm still waiting for PB to come to NYC and buy an illegal gun within hours.

I believe my terms were pretty simple to understand. Should I go over them again for you?

Make it worth my time. Simply proving that you have no idea what you are talking about isn't enough.. since that happens here daily, almost everytime you post regarding politics and the real world.

[Parkbandit]

Swords have several purposes, one of which is to cut things, you know, like a big knife.

What purpose does a sword have... to cut steaks into smaller sizes?

Don't be an idiot (oops, too late)

[Methais]

Somehow I don't think Reawing is gonna respond to any of the sword posts or my question about what he's gonna do about it if his neighbor buys a gun, since he "does not accept" his neighbors having guns.

Which also reminds me, I don't think he's gonna share his thoughts on what it's like to be a raging hypocrite either, being a gun owner himself despite "not accepting" his neighbors having guns.

To be fair though, most liberals don't answer any questions where the answer doesn't jive with their elitist delusions of utopia where they'd get to watch the rest of us play patty cake and sing koombayah from the heights of their pedestal of perfection, making Reawing just another brick in the wall of stupidity.

[AestheticLife]

This thread got very homosexual, very quickly. We should rename it Miami.

[Methais]

This thread got very homosexual, very quickly. We should rename it Miami.

Speaking of homosexuals...


http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gifHandguns in NYC (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1044479#post1044479) 01-03-2010 03:39 AM Hawaii is so nice. Being the liberal elite with money is fun. Try it sometime. - Reawing

As predicted, Gaywing hasn't responded to any of it. Can't be because he's busy vacationing in Hawaii, since he had time to come here and read the thread and post rep.

PS: You're too late getting to Hawaii for trying to live out your fantasy of eating Obama's ass. He's back in DC already. Must be why you're browsing on here instead of going outside.

[TheEschaton]

The Declaration implies a duty to overthrow tyrannies, violently if necessary. The 2nd Amendment provides for a militia and acts as safeguard from the establishment of tyrannies. The 2nd Amendment really doesn't enforce the duty stated in the Declaration of Independence. I like to think the 2nd Amendment "inoculates" our government from ever becoming a tyranny.

I don't disagree with any of this - but it seemed to me you were arguing that just because their overthrow was violent (which is resorted to if necessary, as you pointed out), there is an ipso facto right to violent overthrow.

My answer is that such a right (to a violent overthrow necessitating the right to bear arms) is obsolete in that a tyranny that warrants such measures is, in my opinion, impossible, due to bureaucracy, the prevalance of free communication, etc. Just like the tyranny of quartering soldiers is impossible.

Edit: There are many, many "minor tyrannies" as we would call them throughout our country. Liberals would consider Bush's terms somewhat of a minor tyranny, many on the right consider Obama's as such. Neither warrants the right to bear arms for the sake of forming militias because it is politically, and more importantly, pragmatically impossible for those tyrannies to continue unabated. Our system, while often unwieldy, bulky, and sometimes unfair, nevertheless keeps on rolling on.

-TheE-

[4a6c1]

I dont think it's actually Reeree leaving those reps. I got one too. It's grey and friendly and without the bitter angry pointless rambling. :weird:

[Methais]

I dont think it's actually Reeree leaving those reps. I got one too. It's grey and friendly and without the bitter angry pointless rambling. :weird:

Ah, yeah you're right, since Reawing is back up to a green block.

Doesn't make him any less gay though.

[radamanthys]

Ah, yeah you're right, since Reawing is back up to a green block.

Doesn't make him any less gay though.

Not anymore.

[Parkbandit]

I dont think it's actually Reeree leaving those reps. I got one too. It's grey and friendly and without the bitter angry pointless rambling. :weird:

He has negative overall rep, so doesn't that mean he can only leave grey rep now?

Also, he's been on since he claimed he was going to Hawaii:

Last Activity: 01-03-2010 04:40 AM

[Clove]

I don't disagree with any of this - but it seemed to me you were arguing that just because their overthrow was violent (which is resorted to if necessary, as you pointed out), there is an ipso facto right to violent overthrow.

My answer is that such a right (to a violent overthrow necessitating the right to bear arms) is obsolete in that a tyranny that warrants such measures is, in my opinion, impossible, due to bureaucracy, the prevalance of free communication, etc. Just like the tyranny of quartering soldiers is impossible.

Edit: There are many, many "minor tyrannies" as we would call them throughout our country. Liberals would consider Bush's terms somewhat of a minor tyranny, many on the right consider Obama's as such. Neither warrants the right to bear arms for the sake of forming militias because it is politically, and more importantly, pragmatically impossible for those tyrannies to continue unabated. Our system, while often unwieldy, bulky, and sometimes unfair, nevertheless keeps on rolling on.

-TheE-Not a right, a duty. None of what you describe is "impossible" though you consider it unlikely. Some of what you describe limits the possibility only in that it helps enable people to rebel against a tyranny (when necessary). (like free communication).

What the framers were engaged in at the Declaration of Independence was open, armed rebellion and that document was an apology for it. You can argue until you're blue in the face but it doesn't make it any less obvious that they believed violent rebellion was necessary at the time and a basic duty when facing a tyranny and all other options had been exhausted. So obvious I don't really need expert support, but it's out there in overwhelming agreement. Seriously E, just let it go.

[Parkbandit]

Edit: There are many, many "minor tyrannies" as we would call them throughout our country. Liberals would consider Bush's terms somewhat of a minor tyranny, many on the right consider Obama's as such. Neither warrants the right to bear arms for the sake of forming militias because it is politically, and more importantly, pragmatically impossible for those tyrannies to continue unabated. Our system, while often unwieldy, bulky, and sometimes unfair, nevertheless keeps on rolling on.

-TheE-

Which part of Bush's term would you consider 'minor tyranny'?

I'm still waiting for you to make my NYC trip worth making you look foolish and naive.

[TheEschaton]

You can argue until you're blue in the face but it doesn't make it any less obvious that they believed violent rebellion was necessary at the time and a basic duty when facing a tyranny and all other options had been exhausted.

I never argued otherwise that the Declaration, in the particular case of the Framers, was an apology for violent overthrow, which they thought necessary after exhausting all other means. I argued that overthrow was not necessarily violent, and that violent overthrow is not justified in current times, nor can it be feasibly justified in the future, rendering the 2nd moot, much like the 3rd. Note: this is not a call for the repeal of the 2nd, but rather, an acknowledgment that the conditions for which *I* think the 2nd was made for are so remote as to be rendered impossible.

If you want, you could try and illustrate how exactly a chief executive could feasibly render the country under a tyranny so strong that it required armed revolt.


Oh, and PB, Keller's already offered.

[ZeP]

"Rendered moot"?

There can be a new amendment made to repeal, but until then I don't see any asterisk by the 2nd or 3rd amendments that say they are "rendered moot".

[Parkbandit]

Oh, and PB, Keller's already offered.

You believe I would trust Keller with anything? Don't be naive. I actually trust that you would keep your word.

My bet was with you.. since you made the ignorant statement.

My terms are extremely simple... pay my airfare, my hotel bill and place a wager that makes it worthy of my time. I'll purchase a gun in NYC in one day.

I await your acceptance.

[radamanthys]

I never argued otherwise that the Declaration, in the particular case of the Framers, was an apology for violent overthrow, which they thought necessary after exhausting all other means. I argued that overthrow was not necessarily violent, and that violent overthrow is not justified in current times, nor can it be feasibly justified in the future, rendering the 2nd moot, much like the 3rd. Note: this is not a call for the repeal of the 2nd, but rather, an acknowledgment that the conditions for which *I* think the 2nd was made for are so remote as to be rendered impossible.

If you want, you could try and illustrate how exactly a chief executive could feasibly render the country under a tyranny so strong that it required armed revolt.


Oh, and PB, Keller's already offered.

Who says it has to be a chief executive only? Tyranny can be accomplished with a working legislative body, as well. That's usually how it begins. And with the support of many of the people. And it's not typically a fast, "omg tyranny today". It's typically a slow burn, with marginal increases to the power of the government over time- especially towards a radical/reactionary ideology.

Here's some situations you might agree with:
Bought politicians have military or blackwater-type consultants 'working' domestically. Possibly to protect corporate interests. Possibly to enforce an ideology. This has happened in a few incidents.

A state exercises a 10th amendment right and goes against a federal mandate. New Hampshire threatens to charge federal agents with a felony for enforcing firearms legislation. California legalizes drugs.

You might take up arms over this: Republican administration declares illegal aliens an invasionary force/enemy combatants. Declares open season.

Invasion attempt by a hostile power. Executive fails to protect the country adequately.

In the wake of a natural disaster. This is major- our 'civilization' is rather fragile. It relies on easy access to resources. If, say, truckers stop trucking food around, we'd have massive rioting and huge increases in violence within days. Seizure of power after an event such as this might be difficult for an already power-hungry politician to relinquish.

Large-scale private-interest eminent domain.

Obama shows up at your door with a big-ass grin on his face. Says, "Time for the rapin'", and slowly unzips his suitpants.

[Clove]

I never argued otherwise that the Declaration, in the particular case of the Framers, was an apology for violent overthrow, which they thought necessary after exhausting all other means. I argued that overthrow was not necessarily violent, and that violent overthrow is not justified in current times, nor can it be feasibly justified in the future, rendering the 2nd moot, much like the 3rd. Note: this is not a call for the repeal of the 2nd, but rather, an acknowledgment that the conditions for which *I* think the 2nd was made for are so remote as to be rendered impossible.

If you want, you could try and illustrate how exactly a chief executive could feasibly render the country under a tyranny so strong that it required armed revolt.I'm sorry but your original statement, was:
The right to alter or abolish doesn't necessarily imply a right to violent insurrection.Which launched us into an argument when I maintain that violent overthrow was exactly what the framers were advocating in the Declaration of Independence at the time. Perhaps you were just musing by pointing out that changing a government doesn't have to be violent, but personally I think it's backpedaling bullshit because frankly the point isn't relevant to mine: The framers agreed that humanity had a duty to overthrow tyranny, violently if necessary and they specified that idea in the Declaration of Independence.

The framers (whether they were federalist or anti-federalist) were suspicious of government and standing armies. I want you to pay attention very carefully to the word "government" and how very distinct it is from "executive". Our government could indeed become tyrannical, however unlikely you may feel it to be. As such the concepts that human beings have a duty to overthrow tyrannies and that the individual right to own arms should be protected are not obsolete.

[TheEschaton]

That statement in no way purports to be talking about the specific situation the Framers found themselves in, but rather, the language of the duty to abolish generally. And you question my reading comprehension? This isn't backpedalling, that's what I meant - it seems relatively obvious that the Framers themselves were holding a violent insurrection and justifying it via the DoI in their specific situation.

Furthermore, we now DO have a standing army, and (obviously) a federal government, that I think has done pretty well in checking and balancing itself. Not one of the situations rada mentioned requires a right to bear arms for individual citizens and their insurrections, as there is a governmental counterbalance to all of them. The Governor of Alabama decides he doesn't want blacks in his colleges, the President and Congress can authorize the ALREADY STANDING MILITIA (IE, National Guard) which has the right to arms, to make them stand down. Bought politicians can and are impeached, voted out of office, and arrested for corruption. The Supreme Court looks askance at the executive for declaring a group such as immigrants "enemy combatants", if they don't outright question the validity of the enemy combatant term itself, which allows an executive to unilaterally move against an enemy. Etc, etc. The confluence of circumstances required to form a true tyranny, in which the people are powerless to do anything BUT violently revolt, simply cannot happen any more. The day of the unitary monarch is over.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Obama shows up at your door with a big-ass grin on his face. Says, "Time for the rapin'", and slowly unzips his suitpants.

Pretty sure there are many liberals on this board that would welcome that with senario by bending over or falling to their knees in praise.

[Clove]

You really do have a reading comprehension problem.
VI. Conclusion

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.You just don't get it.

[Stanley Burrell]

We need to preemptively strike the Redcoats instead of dillydallying while cuddling our muskets.

Also, I will reserve the constitutional right to allow board and house if you're an O.K. looking Army chick.

God bless the Union.

[TheEschaton]

You just don't seem to get the idea that despite what the Revolutionaries thought, we now do have a standing army, a standing militia, and effective counterbalances against the tyranny of government.

English history taught them these two things, but believe it or not, history continued past the time of the English monarchy of 1776.

This whole argument about the lessons of the revolutionaries and effective checks on governments, though, is rendered pointless, because I'm relatively sure you don't believe the 2nd Amendment to be limited to militias formed to protect the free state. If you do, though, my point stands.

-TheE-

[Stanley Burrell]

You just don't seem to get the idea that despite what the Revolutionaries thought, we now do have a standing army, a standing militia, and effective counterbalances against the tyranny of government.

English history taught them these two things, but believe it or not, history continued past the time of the English monarchy of 1776.

This whole argument about the lessons of the revolutionaries and effective checks on governments, though, is rendered pointless, because I'm relatively sure you don't believe the 2nd Amendment to be limited to militias formed to protect the free state. If you do, though, my point stands.

-TheE-

Look, some of the stuff in Hammurabi's Code might seem outdated to you, but an eye for twelve goats is totally relevant to just about everything and anything contemporary.

I'd appreciate it if you preached your Communist Manifesto somewhere else, pinko.

[Clove]

You just don't seem to get the idea that despite what the Revolutionaries thought, we now do have a standing army, a standing militia, and effective counterbalances against the tyranny of government.
-TheE-You keep missing the point. Armed citizens are counterbalances against government AND STANDING ARMIES WHICH ARE INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT AS IS THE NATIONAL GUARD.


This whole argument about the lessons of the revolutionaries and effective checks on governments, though, is rendered pointless, because I'm relatively sure you don't believe the 2nd Amendment to be limited to militias formed to protect the free state. If you do, though, my point stands.
Actually I believe that the 2nd Amendment exists for two reasons:

As far as I can tell, Reawing outlined the two reasons the 2nd Amendment exists: to provide for well-armed militias in lieu of a standing army, and to overthrow a tyrannical government if need be. Both of these are historically antiquated. Whether one gets rid of historically antiquated amendments is a pointless debate, we wouldn't ever quarter soldiers any more, but it's relatively pointless to repeal the third Amendment.

-TheE-Provide for an armed militia in lieu of a standing army and in other circumstances because of a standing army. The 2nd Amendment is still very relevant to today.

[radamanthys]

The government will not protect the people from itself. If the government is the agent of suppression, it cannot also be the agent of liberation.

The people have it in their rights to be the agents of their own liberation. The second amendment defines that. You may think it currently unnecessary, and that's certainly a virtue of the American system that we're not currently considering armed insurrection against our government. But you have no powers of prognostication. You're not Nostradamus. You have no clue what the future holds for this country.

The Constitution was written to provide for the event of government being shitty, under the assumption that all government is inherently shitty and needs a swift kick in the ass occasionally.

And in the advocation of the removal of civil rights- those rights outlined in the Consitution- you become, in effect, an agent of repression. It's funny how that works, right? That the attempt to remove the right to bear arms from the people would be counted by many as tyrannical. And it, in effect, is. Is not removing one of the core freedoms from your people the definition of tyranny? Especially one that levels the playing field in a constantly expanding divide between the people and government?

[Stanley Burrell]

This isn't directed at anyone, but if the U.S. is at a point where the citizens have formed an active militia ready to overthrow a hypothetical tyrannical despotism, the Constitution will have been pissed on and burnt a thousand times over and replaced with whatever new piece of high holy doctrine we will worship at that point.

The last guy who challenged a government institution with his right to wield firearms helped liberate the tyranny of Fort Hood.

Edited to Add: Firearms help our economy and ultimately will exist and get into the hands of people who should have them and people who shouldn't no matter what the fuck the 2nd Amendment states, so w/e.