Re:It makes sense
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yea, I know, very small % do the bomb thing, but... *shrug* those people are the most devout.
Not the most devout, just the most manipulated. And it's not like "devout" christians haven't committed some truly horrible attrocities over the centuries either. Religion is a powerful tool. When it's abused, it can cause incredible suffering.
Like he said. That was dumb. Handing a check to the UPS man doesn't get him paid. He should have made the guy send the check and then waited for it to clear, and THEN sent the puter to the guy. COD is a bad idea.
50 cents per song I think. And as for union and RIAA, well that's the point. They need to stop fucking the consumers and then the consumers will stop trying to fuck them.
Yes, but he makes the same stupid argument that has been repeated about a thousand times in this story alone. An armed populace is a good thing. It isn't enough to overthrow a government alone, but it helps. It will eventually come down to how much of the military ends up on the side of the people though. If we have enough on our side, then a revolution could be successful. Without the right to bear arms, the government could quite easily round up as many people as they like and nobody would be able to do much about it. It gets a lot tougher when the population can fight back. Especially when you consider that the government, no matter how threatened, will most likely not be able to use nukes or other very heavy weapons that could destroy cities. The men and women of the military are from these cities and have friends and family there. They aren't likely to cooperate with such heavy-handed tactics, at least most wouldn't.
The two clauses of the second amendment are independent of one another, just as are the various clauses of the first amendment. The second amendment says two distinct things: A free state needs a well-equipped and trained militia, and that all of the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Who is in the militia? Basically, every able-bodied citizen:
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Saying that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms only applies to the militia is as silly as saying that the rights of free speech and the press only applies to religious material.
Also a Q for you gun-is-my-protection folks out there... are there any non-lethal alternatives to guns out there? Like tazers, and the like? Would you consider that as your defense?
I sure wouldn't, except in situations where I cannot have a gun in my posession, such as in a bank. The reason is simple. They aren't nearly as effective. That's why the police won't rely on them. That's why the Sky Marshall's won't rely on them. They may have them as backups or to use in situations that don't require the use of lethal force, but when they are really threatened, they use a gun, and so would I.
Then why does the US have such a high incidence of homicide involving a firearm?
Much of it is due to gang violence, which is in turn largely to do with the drug war and various other wars on contraband. There is also a VERY high incidence of defensive gun use in this country, ranging anywhere from 200,000 to over 2 million cases a year depending on which study you go with. Those far outnumber homicides, and usually don't even result in the firing of a gun.
You really think the government is gonna level New York to put down a revolution? You really think the military (most of whom are just ordinary people like you and me) are gonna play along with that? Maybe you need to wake up.
So, if you have't used it, why not give it up, or let's at least register it.
Just because it hasn't been used yet doesn't mean it never will be used. Like the Boy Scouts say, always be prepared. Registering firearms has always been the first step in disarming the population. I don't think we're stupid enough to go along with that.
However if you were to attempt the same coup against our current governmet today you would find yourself very much out gunned and out numbered.
That depends on whose side the military takes.
Also guns do not = safe. You are far more likely to be shot at if you are carrying a gun, because you are a bigger threat.
Guns can be quite safe if you know what you're doing. Most people don't carry them in visible locations anyway. From what I've read, you're more likely to be injured or killed if you don't resist an assailant than if you do resist with a gun. It may sound counter-intuitive, but that's the way it seems to work out.
Heh.. sorry to hear about your insane ex-wife. I'm not the poster that you were responding to, but I could see myself making the same basic statement. I think there might have been some confusion over the word "intent". If I were to draw a weapon, I may or may not intend to use it at that moment, but I would certainly have to be willing to use it if necessary. Similar to a police officer drawing a weapon, he will usually give a command and expect it to be obeyed. If it is not and certainly if the suspect attempts anything threatening, he will use the weapon. That seems to me to be what the other poster was getting at. Other than that, I thikn I agree with everything else you said.
Well, I think that there's more to it than just thinking that things would be so much better if nobody had a gun. I'm not sure that would be an improvement. Then we'd be back to whoever is bigger and stronger simply dominating those that are physically weaker. I know I wouldn't have much chance against a 250lb guy with a baseball bat. Since it could be taken for granted that I don't have a gun, what would he have to fear? I don't think I'd be safer than I am today. Sure, he could come in with a gun, but it's a lot easier for me to learn to be proficient with a handgun than it would be for me to put on 80lbs of muscle and learn to fight well enough to beat someone else that size, even without a weapon. In most cases of self-defense involving a gun, the gun isn't even fired. In the majority of the rest of the cases, the gun is fired, but nobody is hit. Usually the fact that someone has a gun is enough to make a criminal decide to look for an easier target. Whatever problems they may have, lacking a good sense of self-preservation is usually not among them.
So, whilst an outright ban on the ownership of firearms is unlikely, tighter control on ownership is entirely achievable, though perhaps an uphill struggle in the US where firearms are so common.
I agree that it would be achievable, but as long as criminals are going to have access to weapons (and you seem to understand that they always will), I think it is best if everyone else has the same opportunity. To prohibit some people from owning guns would be to put them at a distinct disadvantage that could jeopardize their lives and the lives of their families.
Heh.. do you have any idea how many vehicles there are in this country? Blowing them all up would be a hell of a task. Of course we can vote. Nobody is arguing that. Like most revolutions, the problems come when the voting becomes unfair, ignored, or non-existant. If it came to revolution, then we could hope that enough of the military was on our side that the government would go quietly. If that didn't happen, then there would be a conflict. An armed populace would make it very dangerous for military units loyal to the government to move around. The only way to do anything about it would be to start leveling cities. Something that would likely cause more military defections and strengthen the resolve of the people to remove the government from power.
Sorry buddy, but the moment he points a loaded gun at me, he's threatening my life, not just my property. Perhaps you are willing to entrust your life to a gun-wielding thug, but I'm not. I'll do what the situation calls for. If resistance is more likely to get me killed, then I'll cooperate. If the opportunity to defend myself is there, then I'll do that. I'm more concerned with staying alive than I am with being morally superior in your eyes.
You are living in a mini-arms race, a scaled down version of the US vs USSR nuclear one of the last decade. That ended by disarmament, and I sincerely hope your mini-one does too.
You do realize, I hope, that the US and Russia both still have thousands of nukes? Sure, they got rid of some, mostly the old ones that weren't as powerful or reliable. And they will get rid of more. But they'll never get rid of all of them. They will keep more than enough to level most major cities, and everyone will know that. Disarmament is a nice idea, but not one that anyone is willing to go all the way with. Nobody wants to be defenseless.
Looks good to me. The drug laws in this country are moronic. Now, on to your other point. Someone else posted this quote earlier, so I'll just stick it in here:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823) Let us not pretend that all the founding fathers had deep religious convictions.
Show me a city without crime. Now tell me that it will stay that way after everyone moves there.
Nobody gets mistakenly shot if you know how to use and store a gun properly. It is also quite wise to teach your kids about guns, so they know to respect them and that they are not for play. As for voting, that only works as long as voting is allowed and carried out in a just manner. After that, all bets are off.
The second amendment says no such thing. It mentions the militia (not a state controlled entity, obviously, since states are not allowed to have any sort of military force), but goes on to say that the right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed. The people themselves are supposed to be armed, not as a military force, but as a people.
They were talking about Militia's so that states would be able to protect themselves from an oppressive federal government.
The states aren't even allowed to raise a military force. The militia was not a formal body of any kind. It was just all the able-bodied men, who were assumed to be gun-owners.(a safe assumption)
If it came to revolution in the US, the military will have to choose sides (remember that they have friends and family among all those civilians out there). It would likely split, with some supporting the government and some supporting the rebels. In the end though, a revolution can go over without a shot fired, or it can be a long and bloody affair. Either way, it's the armed people that matter.
How bout we look at it this way? People were allowed to own the same rifles and handguns that the military used back then. Maybe we should all be allowed to own M-16s and have a howitzer parked in the garage. You can go either way. Personally, I'd rather we all be allowed own rifles and handguns and leave it at that.
1) your own life (that thief would fire if he saw you pulling out a gun, and frankly I won't blame him)
So you wouldn't blame the carjacker for killing the guy trying to defend his property, but you would blame the guy for killing the carjacker. Talk about a fucked up sense of priorities. The carjacker has already made the decision that he has no respect for your life or your property when he points a gun at you. How is he somehow morally superior here?
Bravo!:) Took the words right out of my mouth, which is good cause I'm getting tired of typing tonight. Too many silly posts to reply to in this story!
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, I know, very small % do the bomb thing, but... *shrug* those people are the most devout.
Not the most devout, just the most manipulated. And it's not like "devout" christians haven't committed some truly horrible attrocities over the centuries either. Religion is a powerful tool. When it's abused, it can cause incredible suffering.
If they're gonna toss out a number like that, then they should certainly also say what they're using as a baseline. Otherwise it's just propaganda.
Like he said. That was dumb. Handing a check to the UPS man doesn't get him paid. He should have made the guy send the check and then waited for it to clear, and THEN sent the puter to the guy. COD is a bad idea.
50 cents per song I think. And as for union and RIAA, well that's the point. They need to stop fucking the consumers and then the consumers will stop trying to fuck them.
Yes, but he makes the same stupid argument that has been repeated about a thousand times in this story alone. An armed populace is a good thing. It isn't enough to overthrow a government alone, but it helps. It will eventually come down to how much of the military ends up on the side of the people though. If we have enough on our side, then a revolution could be successful. Without the right to bear arms, the government could quite easily round up as many people as they like and nobody would be able to do much about it. It gets a lot tougher when the population can fight back. Especially when you consider that the government, no matter how threatened, will most likely not be able to use nukes or other very heavy weapons that could destroy cities. The men and women of the military are from these cities and have friends and family there. They aren't likely to cooperate with such heavy-handed tactics, at least most wouldn't.
To quote something said in a post earlier:
The two clauses of the second amendment are independent of one another, just as are the various clauses of the first amendment. The second amendment says two distinct things: A free state needs a well-equipped and trained militia, and that all of the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Who is in the militia? Basically, every able-bodied citizen:
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Saying that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms only applies to the militia is as silly as saying that the rights of free speech and the press only applies to religious material.
Also a Q for you gun-is-my-protection folks out there... are there any non-lethal alternatives to guns out there? Like tazers, and the like? Would you consider that as your defense?
I sure wouldn't, except in situations where I cannot have a gun in my posession, such as in a bank. The reason is simple. They aren't nearly as effective. That's why the police won't rely on them. That's why the Sky Marshall's won't rely on them. They may have them as backups or to use in situations that don't require the use of lethal force, but when they are really threatened, they use a gun, and so would I.
Then why does the US have such a high incidence of homicide involving a firearm?
Much of it is due to gang violence, which is in turn largely to do with the drug war and various other wars on contraband. There is also a VERY high incidence of defensive gun use in this country, ranging anywhere from 200,000 to over 2 million cases a year depending on which study you go with. Those far outnumber homicides, and usually don't even result in the firing of a gun.
America has more gun deaths than any other 1st world country. So it would seem these laws do protect you very well indeed!
How exactly would disarming the law-abiding people of this country make me safer?
You really think the government is gonna level New York to put down a revolution? You really think the military (most of whom are just ordinary people like you and me) are gonna play along with that? Maybe you need to wake up.
So, if you have't used it, why not give it up, or let's at least register it.
Just because it hasn't been used yet doesn't mean it never will be used. Like the Boy Scouts say, always be prepared. Registering firearms has always been the first step in disarming the population. I don't think we're stupid enough to go along with that.
However if you were to attempt the same coup against our current governmet today you would find yourself very much out gunned and out numbered.
That depends on whose side the military takes.
Also guns do not = safe. You are far more likely to be shot at if you are carrying a gun, because you are a bigger threat.
Guns can be quite safe if you know what you're doing. Most people don't carry them in visible locations anyway. From what I've read, you're more likely to be injured or killed if you don't resist an assailant than if you do resist with a gun. It may sound counter-intuitive, but that's the way it seems to work out.
Yes, but they have this additional use called "deterrence." That is usually sufficient to ensure that the weapon never has to be used to kill anyone.
Heh.. sorry to hear about your insane ex-wife. I'm not the poster that you were responding to, but I could see myself making the same basic statement. I think there might have been some confusion over the word "intent". If I were to draw a weapon, I may or may not intend to use it at that moment, but I would certainly have to be willing to use it if necessary. Similar to a police officer drawing a weapon, he will usually give a command and expect it to be obeyed. If it is not and certainly if the suspect attempts anything threatening, he will use the weapon. That seems to me to be what the other poster was getting at. Other than that, I thikn I agree with everything else you said.
Well, I think that there's more to it than just thinking that things would be so much better if nobody had a gun. I'm not sure that would be an improvement. Then we'd be back to whoever is bigger and stronger simply dominating those that are physically weaker. I know I wouldn't have much chance against a 250lb guy with a baseball bat. Since it could be taken for granted that I don't have a gun, what would he have to fear? I don't think I'd be safer than I am today. Sure, he could come in with a gun, but it's a lot easier for me to learn to be proficient with a handgun than it would be for me to put on 80lbs of muscle and learn to fight well enough to beat someone else that size, even without a weapon. In most cases of self-defense involving a gun, the gun isn't even fired. In the majority of the rest of the cases, the gun is fired, but nobody is hit. Usually the fact that someone has a gun is enough to make a criminal decide to look for an easier target. Whatever problems they may have, lacking a good sense of self-preservation is usually not among them.
So, whilst an outright ban on the ownership of firearms is unlikely, tighter control on ownership is entirely achievable, though perhaps an uphill struggle in the US where firearms are so common.
I agree that it would be achievable, but as long as criminals are going to have access to weapons (and you seem to understand that they always will), I think it is best if everyone else has the same opportunity. To prohibit some people from owning guns would be to put them at a distinct disadvantage that could jeopardize their lives and the lives of their families.
Heh.. do you have any idea how many vehicles there are in this country? Blowing them all up would be a hell of a task. Of course we can vote. Nobody is arguing that. Like most revolutions, the problems come when the voting becomes unfair, ignored, or non-existant. If it came to revolution, then we could hope that enough of the military was on our side that the government would go quietly. If that didn't happen, then there would be a conflict. An armed populace would make it very dangerous for military units loyal to the government to move around. The only way to do anything about it would be to start leveling cities. Something that would likely cause more military defections and strengthen the resolve of the people to remove the government from power.
Sorry buddy, but the moment he points a loaded gun at me, he's threatening my life, not just my property. Perhaps you are willing to entrust your life to a gun-wielding thug, but I'm not. I'll do what the situation calls for. If resistance is more likely to get me killed, then I'll cooperate. If the opportunity to defend myself is there, then I'll do that. I'm more concerned with staying alive than I am with being morally superior in your eyes.
You are living in a mini-arms race, a scaled down version of the US vs USSR nuclear one of the last decade. That ended by disarmament, and I sincerely hope your mini-one does too.
You do realize, I hope, that the US and Russia both still have thousands of nukes? Sure, they got rid of some, mostly the old ones that weren't as powerful or reliable. And they will get rid of more. But they'll never get rid of all of them. They will keep more than enough to level most major cities, and everyone will know that. Disarmament is a nice idea, but not one that anyone is willing to go all the way with. Nobody wants to be defenseless.
Looks good to me. The drug laws in this country are moronic. Now, on to your other point. Someone else posted this quote earlier, so I'll just stick it in here:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in
the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823) Let us not pretend that all the founding fathers had deep religious convictions.
Show me a city without crime. Now tell me that it will stay that way after everyone moves there.
Nobody gets mistakenly shot if you know how to use and store a gun properly. It is also quite wise to teach your kids about guns, so they know to respect them and that they are not for play. As for voting, that only works as long as voting is allowed and carried out in a just manner. After that, all bets are off.
The second amendment says no such thing. It mentions the militia (not a state controlled entity, obviously, since states are not allowed to have any sort of military force), but goes on to say that the right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed. The people themselves are supposed to be armed, not as a military force, but as a people.
They were talking about Militia's so that states would be able to protect themselves from an oppressive federal government.
The states aren't even allowed to raise a military force. The militia was not a formal body of any kind. It was just all the able-bodied men, who were assumed to be gun-owners.(a safe assumption)
If it came to revolution in the US, the military will have to choose sides (remember that they have friends and family among all those civilians out there). It would likely split, with some supporting the government and some supporting the rebels. In the end though, a revolution can go over without a shot fired, or it can be a long and bloody affair. Either way, it's the armed people that matter.
How bout we look at it this way? People were allowed to own the same rifles and handguns that the military used back then. Maybe we should all be allowed to own M-16s and have a howitzer parked in the garage. You can go either way. Personally, I'd rather we all be allowed own rifles and handguns and leave it at that.
1) your own life (that thief would fire if he saw you pulling out a gun, and frankly I won't blame him)
So you wouldn't blame the carjacker for killing the guy trying to defend his property, but you would blame the guy for killing the carjacker. Talk about a fucked up sense of priorities. The carjacker has already made the decision that he has no respect for your life or your property when he points a gun at you. How is he somehow morally superior here?
Bravo! :) Took the words right out of my mouth, which is good cause I'm getting tired of typing tonight. Too many silly posts to reply to in this story!