APP - great sadness

It started with citizen militia, regular citizens fighting Indian style. Don't forget we'd already had the French and Indian war. America was a very different place.
 
The 2nd was also written to make sure the gov't did not trample the rights of the people. It was expressly intended to preserve the ability to revolt against tyranny.
 
Bijou said:
The potential for disaster exists in every home possessing a gun; no exceptions.

That's the reality that comes with the gun 'rights' practiced today.

That potential is acceptable to the gun nuts. That's why they're considered 'nuts'.
Click to expand...

Actually, gun nuts oppose gun rights. Anyone radical enough to oppose the Second is very nutty, indeed.
 
whatever the intent of the 2nd, and I tend to think "a well regulated militia" means something -though SCOTUS has pretty much ignored the dependent clause - i would doubt the founders foresaw the majority of ppl who own guns treat them so casually.
For everyone who uses a safe. safteylock etc. there is some joker who just puts it in a drawer. Which has the unique ability to kill me. or ppl in a movie theater.

As to 'armed insurrection against tyranny", yes that was original intent - but it's not anymore. Whom is gonna overthrow the Fed'l gov't by armed insurrection?
You can't even get near the Capitol, or members of Congress -metal detectors. Armed insurrection? puuleees. ain't gonna happen.

Guns kill - no other use for them ( except target pravtice -so you can kill better} there are too many ppl whom can easliy obtain them.
Good for those whom are responsible - but that doesn't take the onus off all the dead ppl murdered because of easy access to guns.

We're stuck with the 2nd, it wouldn't be so bad if only hunters used them, but they are a quick mindless way to kill a whole bunch of ppl.

We are a violent society, it's acceptable -violence draws TV rateings, so does sex, but i've never seen anyone mass murder with a penis.
 
Haiku said:
I agree. At the time America was a very different place. I think the NRA has used a thirty plus year fear campaign to promote their agenda. Many buy it but I think most don't. We have firearms but our farm isn't an armory and I'm not preparing for armageddon. I don't read the 'Left Behind' books or believe America is damned due to gay marriage. We have a lot of crazy in this country and we need to have an adult discussion about the direction we're going.
Click to expand...

scotus says the 2nd applies to individuals.
 
for the record:

more people die from auto accidents every year than gun accidents and gun murders.

why aren't people like howey and bijou calling for autos to be banned or restricted?
 
Yurt said:
for the record:

more people die from auto accidents every year than gun accidents and gun murders.

why aren't people like howey and bijou calling for autos to be banned or restricted?
Click to expand...
look at the number of ppl driving everday - look at the number of ppl who use guns everyday. Without looking up the stats, there are many more drivers, then ppl whom are using a gun.

vehicles have a purpose - to get you from here to there. what pupose does a gun have? Only 1- to kill something, either animals or ppl
 
annata said:
look at the number of ppl driving everday - look at the number of ppl who use guns everyday. Without looking up the stats, there are many more drivers, then ppl whom are using a gun.

vehicles have a purpose - to get you from here to there. what pupose does a gun have? Only 1- to kill something, either animals or ppl
Click to expand...

Kudos to you for your tolerance. His inanity doesn't warrant a thoughtful response.
 
Bijou said:
Kudos to you for your tolerance. His inanity doesn't warrant a thoughtful response.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the compliment, but when comes to gunz, my tolerance level is about up to my little toe on my foot. ( which I haven't shot off ).
I hear the same old arguments " I take care to be safe" -well great, too bad there are so many freaking guns, easily available, falling into too many hands.

How many times have we turned on the TV and seen a mass murder? we're becoming almost used to it. Not to mention the daily carnage on the nightly news.
 
annata said:
whatever the intent of the 2nd, and I tend to think "a well regulated militia" means something -though SCOTUS has pretty much ignored the dependent clause - i would doubt the founders foresaw the majority of ppl who own guns treat them so casually.
For everyone who uses a safe. safteylock etc. there is some joker who just puts it in a drawer. Which has the unique ability to kill me. or ppl in a movie theater.

As to 'armed insurrection against tyranny", yes that was original intent - but it's not anymore. Whom is gonna overthrow the Fed'l gov't by armed insurrection?
You can't even get near the Capitol, or members of Congress -metal detectors. Armed insurrection? puuleees. ain't gonna happen.

Guns kill - no other use for them ( except target pravtice -so you can kill better} there are too many ppl whom can easliy obtain them.
Good for those whom are responsible - but that doesn't take the onus off all the dead ppl murdered because of easy access to guns.

We're stuck with the 2nd, it wouldn't be so bad if only hunters used them, but they are a quick mindless way to kill a whole bunch of ppl.

We are a violent society, it's acceptable -violence draws TV rateings, so does sex, but i've never seen anyone mass murder with a penis.
Click to expand...

I have always maintained that the armed insurrection is a viable reason for the 2nd.

There are over 65 million gun owners in the US. Considering the difficulty our military is having in Afganistan and Iraq, with far fewer numbers and fewer firearms, I think we citizens could do some major damage.

The last estimate I saw was that there are rough 240 million firearms in private ownership. If 70% of the private gun owners (45,500,000) were to shoot 5 people, we have the potential to have a body count of over 225 million.
 
WinterBorn said:
I have always maintained that the armed insurrection is a viable reason for the 2nd.

There are over 65 million gun owners in the US. Considering the difficulty our military is having in Afganistan and Iraq, with far fewer numbers and fewer firearms, I think we citizens could do some major damage.

The last estimate I saw was that there are rough 240 million firearms in private ownership. If 70% of the private gun owners (45,500,000) were to shoot 5 people, we have the potential to have a body count of over 225 million.
Click to expand...

Yeah, unless they shocked and awed your ass ;)
 
WinterBorn said:
I have always maintained that the armed insurrection is a viable reason for the 2nd.

There are over 65 million gun owners in the US. Considering the difficulty our military is having in Afganistan and Iraq, with far fewer numbers and fewer firearms, I think we citizens could do some major damage.

The last estimate I saw was that there are rough 240 million firearms in private ownership. If 70% of the private gun owners (45,500,000) were to shoot 5 people, we have the potential to have a body count of over 225 million.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious, this is a joke right? How far do you think you'd get against mortars, tanks, drones - and the US armed forces?
You can do major damage to a bunch of fellow Americans, but can you co-ordinate a military attack on the US gov't.

a couple of Warthogs, or Apache helicopters would wipe you out. and this is the tip of our arsenal/ plus how are you going to organize an armed insurrection?

I wouldn't even POST such a thought - the Patriot Act watches every keystoke -search engines look for key words phrases.
Knowing this -how do you plan to organize such armed insurrection? Think the US gov't is going to stand by while you Email, or ride a horse from town to town like Paul Revere?

Our military doesn't have any problems in AfPak, when they are out on maneuvers, they invariable kill a lot of "insugents" - the occasional truck bomb or IED is what does the killing of US troops - not an armed battle. The "insurgents" don't stand and fight ( by and large) they run a guerilla war.

Man you just lost me, most of your posts are well thought out. this one is loony tunes. Please tell me your just arguing for the sake of debate.
 
annata said:
look at the number of ppl driving everday - look at the number of ppl who use guns everyday. Without looking up the stats, there are many more drivers, then ppl whom are using a gun.

vehicles have a purpose - to get you from here to there. what pupose does a gun have? Only 1- to kill something, either animals or ppl
Click to expand...

so you're ok with cars killing more people because cars are useful and guns aren't?

wow.
 
Yurt said:
so you're ok with cars killing more people because cars are useful and guns aren't?

wow.
Click to expand...

what i was trying to say, is the sheer amount of vehicles on the roads dwarfs the number of ppl who are shooting each day.

So since there are millions of drivers each day (and night), there are bound to be more accidents.

If you want to compare deaths, use something like "homicides caused by vehicular manslaughter" compared to "homicides caused by gun deaths" accidental or other wise.

Lemme try to be clear, there are many more chances for a vehicle to cause a death ( because of sheer numbers) then those caused by gunz.

does that make sense?
 
annata said:
what i was trying to say, is the sheer amount of vehicles on the roads dwarfs the number of ppl who are shooting each day.

So since there are millions of drivers each day (and night), there are bound to be more accidents.

If you want to compare deaths, use something like "homicides caused by vehicular manslaughter" compared to "homicides caused by gun deaths" accidental or other wise.

Lemme try to be clear, there are many more chances for a vehicle to cause a death ( because of sheer numbers) then those caused by gunz.

does that make sense?
Click to expand...

of course that makes sense. that doesn't take away from the fact you want to ban guns in order to avoid deaths and the fact you're comfortable with far more deaths caused by automobiles simply because there are more automobiles.

your logic, in terms of numbers, makes sense. your logic in terms of avoiding deaths, makes no sense. my comparison is apt and shows that you don't really care about life. instead, you emotionally have this need to ban guns because on a 'per capita' level, they supposedly kill more people.

do you understand what i'm getting at?
 
Yurt said:
of course that makes sense. that doesn't take away from the fact you want to ban guns in order to avoid deaths and the fact you're comfortable with far more deaths caused by automobiles simply because there are more automobiles.

your logic, in terms of numbers, makes sense. your logic in terms of avoiding deaths, makes no sense. my comparison is apt and shows that you don't really care about life. instead, you emotionally have this need to ban guns because on a 'per capita' level, they supposedly kill more people.

do you understand what i'm getting at?
Click to expand...

Understood, and I agree my hatred of gunz is not all based on rational thought. I'd prefer they were banned, but I know they aren't going to be, and proliferaton not just in the US but worldwide shows more gunz/ gun deaths to come.

Hopefully I'll be dead and off this planet after this life,(nirvannah) but not dead by a gunshot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top