The Political Party

[normh]

---

guido61 wrote:

Of course.  All these people have emotional problems to begin with.  That's pretty much without dispute. 

The debate is how to effectively separate the crazies from the tools and opportunites to commit such henious acts.

---

The solution is obvious: better mental health screening and not by restricting firearms.

[rbstern]

---

guido61 wrote:

It was the technology that changed things.  Military-weapons technology changed very little in the millinia leading up to the founding.  The idea of matching a government army weapon-for-weapon was perfectly reasonable.   Today?  Nobody in their right mind believes for a second that people should be able to have their own nukes.   And once you accept that fact, you realize the whole concept of standing up to the government with weapons is a moot point.

I would offer that were the same founders writing the 2nd amendment today, they might include a right to bear arms for self protection, but any thoughts of standing up to the government would be done with means other than arms.  Which, thankfully,they included also.  Our representative form of government and open and free elections and free press have done much more to keep our government from being overtaken by tyrrants than has the fact that Billy Joe Bob has a bunch of guns in the basement.

---

On paper, nobody can stand up to the U.S. military. In the real world of non-uniformed combatants, insurgents hiding among civilian populaton, irrational human behavior, intrigues and betrayals, the U.S. military would not go all out against a popular uprising. Among the people in the fight would be veterans, national guard, defectors who side with the Constitution more than their political leadership, etc. Civil wars, rebellions, insurrections, etc. are messy, messy things. Right now, in Syria, a country with a battery of modern figher jets, missles, small arms, and a per capita military force larger than the U.S., the government is trying to figure out an escape hatch.

The perspective you offer is completely lacking in real world understanding of how such events play out.

[trainset]

Yet militias would stop the government lol

[guido61]

---

normh wrote:

---

The solution is obvious: better mental health screening and not by restricting firearms.

---

The solution is obvious:  attack the issue on all fronts.  Restricting certain firearms in no way infringes on anyone's right to protect themselves with a gun.   So there's no reason NOT to do it.

[normh]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

normh wrote:

---

The solution is obvious: better mental health screening and not by restricting firearms.

---

The solution is obvious:  attack the issue on all fronts.  Restricting certain firearms in no way infringes on anyone's right to protect themselves with a gun.   So there's no reason NOT to do it.

---

You are simply mistaken. Your solution is to deny Aspirin to all because a few have overdosed and gone into acidosis.

[guido61]

---

rbstern wrote:

---

guido61 wrote:

It was the technology that changed things.  Military-weapons technology changed very little in the millinia leading up to the founding.  The idea of matching a government army weapon-for-weapon was perfectly reasonable.   Today?  Nobody in their right mind believes for a second that people should be able to have their own nukes.   And once you accept that fact, you realize the whole concept of standing up to the government with weapons is a moot point.

I would offer that were the same founders writing the 2nd amendment today, they might include a right to bear arms for self protection, but any thoughts of standing up to the government would be done with means other than arms.  Which, thankfully,they included also.  Our representative form of government and open and free elections and free press have done much more to keep our government from being overtaken by tyrrants than has the fact that Billy Joe Bob has a bunch of guns in the basement.

---

On paper, nobody can stand up to the U.S. military. In the real world of non-uniformed combatants, insurgents hiding among civilian populaton, irrational human behavior, intrigues and betrayals, the U.S. military would not go all out against a popular uprising. Among the people in the fight would be veterans, national guard, defectors who side with the Constitution more than their political leadership, etc. Civil wars, rebellions, insurrections, etc. are messy, messy things. Right now, in Syria, a country with a battery of modern figher jets, missles, small arms, and a per capita military force larger than the U.S., the government is trying to figure out an escape hatch.

The perspective you offer is completely lacking in real world understanding of how such events play out.

---

That's the beauty of the US and our Constitution.   The founders thought we needed a 2nd amendment in order to prevent tyranny, because that's how THEY freed themselves, but the truth is we don't need it.  We're perfectly capable of keeping tyrannts out of government without having to march on Washington with guns to do so.

As such, the "militia" clause is outdated and ineffective.  Scalia got it largely correct in Heller.  We have an individual right to keep and bear arms for things like self-protection and hunting.  And keeping those arms would also necessarily allow us to form militias, but they aren't necessary for establishing that right.   We have the right with or without needing to form militias.

And we don't need to.  They are no longer necessary for maintaining a free state.

[guido61]

---

normh wrote:

---

You are simply mistaken. Your solution is to deny Aspirin to all because a few have overdosed and gone into acidosis.

---

Such weapons provide no extra degree of protection in the hands of good guys, but do provide an extra degree of ability to create carnage in the hands of bad guys.  They are of no benefit to our society whatsoever.

[normh]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

normh wrote:

---

You are simply mistaken. Your solution is to deny Aspirin to all because a few have overdosed and gone into acidosis.

---

Such weapons provide no extra degree of protection in the hands of good guys, but do provide an extra degree of ability to create carnage in the hands of bad guys.  They are of no benefit to our society whatsoever.

---

[guido61]

Look, I understand you guys love having your big, bad guns to play with. They look really cool and feel nice and smooth in your hands.

And maybe you even have fantasies that one day, you'll need them when a dozen paramilitary troops try to drop in on your house from the roof.

But that isn't going to happen. If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself with, you can do it just as well with the guns our parents and grandparents used.

In fact, isn't one of the arguments you often make that gun violence ISN'T really all that bad? Certainly crimes rates haven't gone up in the last 50 years.

So the truth is--you DON'T need those weapons. They are silly and superflueous. They don't make you any safer. Even if they make you FEEL safer, they really don't.

Time to grow up and put the dangerous toys away.

[normh]

---

guido61 wrote:

Look, I understand you guys love having your big, bad guns to play with. They look really cool and feel nice and smooth in your hands.

And maybe you even have fantasies that one day, you'll need them when a dozen paramilitary troops try to drop in on your house from the roof.

But that isn't going to happen. If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself with, you can do it just as well with the guns our parents and grandparents used.

In fact, isn't one of the arguments you often make that gun violence ISN'T really all that bad? Certainly crimes rates haven't gone up in the last 50 years.

So the truth is--you DON'T need those weapons. They are silly and superflueous. They don't make you any safer. Even if they make you FEEL safer, they really don't.

Time to grow up and put the dangerous toys away.

---

[guido61]

Time to grow up.

[normh]

---

guido61 wrote:
Time to grow up.

---

[normh]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Eagles were pretty good.

Incidently, the ol' lady says that she likes my gun and she is not talking about the firearm that I do not own.

[yanktar]

"So are you saying that constitutional amendments are defacto "congressional approval" of any exectutive action to enforce a SC ruling or not?"

I don't know how you infer that. The Constitution sets up the powers and responsibilities of each branch and the President is the head of the Executive branch, responsible for enforcing the Law. "Law" is more than what Congress enacts (and, of course, the POTUS signs). It is also the legal precedents the courts establish based on interpretation of the legislation. If the Congress doesn't like the interpretation, they have to enact new legislation that the President signs.

[Kramerguy]

---

normh wrote:

---

Kramerguy wrote:

Seriously, It's faulty logic and apples to oranges.

Cars are designed to transport people, and while dangerous, that was not and never was the intent of designing it.  It was designed as a technology to ultimately better society and commerce.

Guns were designed for only one purpose:  To kill, damage, destroy, or obliterate whatever is in the path of the bullet it fires.  It has no useful purpose to society, other than to kill a person or people.  We use them to fight wars (kill), to hunt (kill), and to shoot targets and inanimate objects (damage, destroy, obliterate).

No car was ever designed to do any of those things, with exception to tanks and deathrace 2000 cars, both which are not legal for civilians to own.

/Thread

/Comparisons

/Debate

---

Having shown that one element of your argument is false, we can logically assume that all of your argument is false due to a false premise.

Nice try though.

---

Thanks for slirting the point entirely and focusing on the semantics of tank ownership.  Allow me to re-pphrase:

You cannot own a FULLY ARMED & FUNCTIONAL tank, nor the same level of functional RPG, Rocket launcher, or any other military-grade weapons.

Nice try, but pointing out unspoken semantics on my side doesn't change the point one single iota.

[Kramerguy]

---

MargeHowel wrote:

---

Kramerguy wrote:

Seriously, It's faulty logic and apples to oranges.

Cars are designed to transport people, and while dangerous, that was not and never was the intent of designing it.  It was designed as a technology to ultimately better society and commerce.

Actually there are a lot of cars that aren't very good at transport, but are designed to go at illegally and dangerously high speeds (and motorcycles are even worse)...on the street (these aren't set up for the racetrack) 

So it really depends on what the nature of the comparison is.

For instance, just a look at what these cars really are for. That issue exists even if guns didn't exist at all

"I want to go 150mph and 0-60 in 5 seconds to better society and improve commerce"

---

The car may have been designed to go fast, illegally or not, but it still was not designed to kill.  Nobody ever spent the R&D time and money on a car design, saying "Hey, I like this car, but it just doesn't have the capacity to mow down 100 vietcong in 60 seconds, can you make it more lethal?"

[MargeHowel]

---

Kramerguy wrote:

---

MargeHowel wrote:

---

Kramerguy wrote:

Seriously, It's faulty logic and apples to oranges.

Cars are designed to transport people, and while dangerous, that was not and never was the intent of designing it.  It was designed as a technology to ultimately better society and commerce.

Actually there are a lot of cars that aren't very good at transport, but are designed to go at illegally and dangerously high speeds (and motorcycles are even worse)...on the street (these aren't set up for the racetrack) 

So it really depends on what the nature of the comparison is.

For instance, just a look at what these cars really are for. That issue exists even if guns didn't exist at all

"I want to go 150mph and 0-60 in 5 seconds to better society and improve commerce"

---

The car may have been designed to go fast, illegally or not, but it still was not designed to kill.  Nobody ever spent the R&D time and money on a car design, saying "Hey, I like this car, but it just doesn't have the capacity to mow down 100 vietcong in 60 seconds, can you make it more lethal?"

---

not just to go fast, but illeaglly fast (these are street cars ) and to be used recklessly  endangering life.  The R&D was spent to make machines operating well outside the legal operating limits and then the advertising glorifies that ("professional driver on closed course" in teeny print showing people how the machine does what they aren't supposed to do )

That issue exists even if guns never existed at all.

[trainset]

This thread is full of dumb...

[trainset]

Lol @ cars and motorbikes being designed to go faster than the speed limit...who's speed limit? Are Mercedes and Audis not German? Whats their speed limit? lol


Motorbikes are limited by a gentlemans agreement, they are also designed for road and track use, many of us dont even use our bikes on the road

Doesnt matter, they are not fvking weapons you dumbfvks