manimal, will you protect me from MMike if Canada ever tries to invade?
Supreme Court tells Chicago to suck it!
- Thread starter manimal
- Start date
manimal, will you protect me from MMike if Canada ever tries to invade?
Psssh...Just use a flashlight and shadow puppets. Problem solved.
"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."
It's not about your right to bear arms, it's about my right NOT TO GET SHOT. If no one was ever shot, or held up in an armed robbery, I'd say own whatever and however many guns you want. Unfortunately the reality is that the gun nuts in this country want to force 1 gun policy on the entire country... so what might be appropriate for northern Alabama, for instance, is now going to be forced upon heavily urban areas like NYC, Chicago, etc. Even though those cities don't WANT the same gun policy, even though the citizens of those areas have voted time and again for more stringent gun control, it doesn't matter.
Just imagine if the Supreme Court had said that instead of gun control rights being mandated across the country, the ruling was that the 1st amendment guarantees anonymous abortion abortion on-demand and birth control to ALL females, not just adult women (so any woman/girl, regardless of age, had access). Suddenly there'd be a HUGE cry from all of the conservatives on here about "States' Rights", and how the population in their state wants more controls, blah blah blah. There would be talk of activist courts overturning the will of the people, and how local laws and referendums meant nothing....
Of course, "States' Rights" really is just code word for "ending abortion", but I guess a little blatant hypocrisy for the right wing is nothing new.
neither of these cute election time phrases regarding rights are in the constitution. IOW, shall we revoke any right that may cause injury when misapplied? i believe the tort system is in place for restitution of the offended.
i see this as saying i have the right not to be offended. can you imagine if this were true? every mooselimb would be up in blown-up arms about cartoons. or that whole crucifix in a jar of piss flap? remember that? offensive *and* protected speech.
no, there would be talk of how the gov't is complicit in statutory rape
how is this hypocrisy? do the right wing practice abortion-on-demand while trying to prohibit it?
Please tell me that you're at least familiar with the conservative's "States Rights" bullsh!t....
And most states have statutory rape definitions that mandate one of the participants is over a certain age. If two 13 year olds are going at it, no crime is committed.
I thought it WAS all about protecting yourself from your gov't. Isn't that what it says?
And as a cop, should some sort of flash mob like terrorist attack happen, again, as a cop, would you want a bunch of weekend warriors in the streets "helping" you? You don't think it could confuse the situation somewhat?
And no...to answer your question, I don't think our law enforcement could handle anything big. Nor do I think that you and your brothers could also. To think that your law enforcement abilities are any better than anyone else's is rather comical.
so now you're throwing up strawman hypotheticals? i thought we were talking about *actual* rights.
besides, w/ moar gunz, there will be fewer abortions (it's a freakonomics prediction)
there's a little country we've insulated you from we like to call "mexico". 100% of their cops are either on the take or on the run
i've got a few dozen more i can whip out should you find yourself wanting
Ok then to say that US law enforecement is better than canadian.....that isn't really based on a whole lot other than redneck chest thumping.
may i introduce you to the recent events @ g20?
Nice citation there agreeing with MMike's statement that cops couldn't "handle anything big".
US law enforcement is better at shooting a Labrador Retriever that is running away.
Don't forget that.
The facts on the ground don't support your idealism. Simply looking at the situation illustrates all you need to know.
The two cities in question in these cases (DC and Chicago) had the most stringent gun laws on the books in the entire country (handguns were banned outright). Whether by coincidence or otherwise, they also happened to be two of the worst places for gun violence and murder. What does this tell us about the effectiveness of local laws with regard to this issue?
Obviously it is very easy for criminal types to acquire firearms regardless of the law. So the only purpose such laws serve are to disarm those who would be followers of the law. What sense does such a law make?
Just because Joe The (insert unskilled laborer job here) hears about gun violence and thinks a "no guns" law will save him, and decides to vote for it, doesn't make it sound local policy. On top of all that, you have the argument that the constitution guarantees a person the right to defend himself.
You're proposing we set aside common sense and a constitutional ammendment so you can feel safe when you actually arent?
Oh no it doesn't.
If it does, I want an RPG to defend myself against a SWAT team serving a warrant on the wrong house.
All the 2nd amendment bull**** about defending yourself from government hasn't been relevant since the invention of the machine gun.
who said anything about "law enforcement" being any better here than in canada? i was using the broader "government" as a whole in regards to your personal protection in a national crisis. those "weekend warriors" you're referring to are called "militia" in a time of crisis and are the type of people who allowed this country to exist.
and don't worry, if it's bad enough that the locals have to come out and help i'll probably be heading for the hills with my family as i doubt i'd be getting paid for my policing services any longer.
i think the reason we don't see eye to eye on this matter is the fact that i KNOW, first hand, the evils people are capable of while you are still naive to the idea that everyone can just get along. the only time that humanity is ever civil is when the needs for survival are met. take away one of the pillars of survival, especially in an urban environment, and you too will see, first hand, the need for personal protection.
So you're saying that since our government has gotten too powerful with regard to weaponry, we might as well give up what little defense we citizens have managed to retain because it's already a lost cause? That is a victim's mentality.
Would you fight back with fists if you were about to be raped by a large man with a gun? Why? The result is almost inevitable.
at least he'd finally get to work through his daddy issues
You actually might have gotten away with a musket (in most cases) with proper registration and FOID.
Just a reminder, this wasn't about what is right/wrong/makes sense, it is about the law.
OK, that said I can tell you this much; I spent most of my life in and around Chicago and grew up on the near south side. The handgun ban did NOTHING, N-O-T-H-I-N-G, to better the city and it did not reduce by any important margin the number of guns in the hands of those who would wish to rob/harm/kill people.
I have the feeling some people digging their heels in here have never been on the west or south sides of Chicago. It isn't not your sleepy bedroom community. As a teenager I'd had a gun shoved in my face and been robbed on a west side sidewalk during the day. Violent crime is HIGH, people are shot every day. and some areas are fvcking war zones. This is NOT due to the many law abiding citizens in the city having access to handguns or not.
If you had to live in such an area (lets say for economic reasons) you should not be denied any method of protecting yourself, family and possessions.
No, it's a stupid reason, is what I'm saying.
If an MMA fighter is going to rape and kill a woman in a wheelchair, whether she fights back or not really is irrelevant. She's going to end up raped and dead.
That will be a good reason when citizens are allowed to apply the Bush and Cheney doctrines (pre-emptive "defence" and a 1% chance of a negative outcome being treated as a certainty, for those of you who forgot) and shoot cops they are afraid of on sight. You know, the same rules the police get to play by, just in reverse...
Last edited:
ok then.
nick posted an anecdote
you posted a fantasy
only one of you is reality-based
friggin' uppity welsh highlandersarticle said:
That's what we do in Canada it would seem.
Again, the victim's mentality. "There's nothing I can do, so I may as well bend over and take it."
The defense from government argument is not one I care to really make again, and isn't really even the point of the thread, but look how effective insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been against the U.S. using old AK's, SKS's and homemade IEDs.
Anyway, my bigger issue is not even really with the constitutional part of this. It's about granting freedoms versus removing them. We have few enough as it is. The right to own a handgun is a useful and important freedom in many people's minds, and taking them away does nothing but further empower criminals, so there is no point.
It's an effective system.
that's a tragic part of this profession, however, it's an accepted risk. i know the following when it comes to guns and law enforcement:
1. we can never get rid of all the guns, especially those obtained illegally.
2.cops and bad guys will continue to get shot/stabbed/run over regardless of gun laws
3. the very small percentage of people willing to use a gun on a police officer should not be a reason to prevent everyone else from self defense. (i plan on being a private citizen again one day and i'm not going to lobby for something that will adversely affect me in retirement.)
Nothing to do with a victim's mentality. It's not being totally delusional, that's all. Note I'm not even arguing against your point, I'm trying to tell you that you're much better off arguing that you need protection against fellow citizens than the government. That's at least an argument not based in a fantasy world.
Iraqis and Afghans have been effective because they have nothing left to lose. When you get to that point, sure, you can maybe kill a couple of people. How many Iraqis and Afghans die for ever US soldier? It's not a good ratio for the guys without the stars and stripes, is it?
fixed
I don't think you're doing a very good job of either grasping the argument Im making, or refuting the argument you've created for me. I have not used the "defense from government" as the primary reason for continued gun ownership rights, and I've gone out of my way to say that it was not the point of the thread. In fact, you were the one to bring the whole issue up, so don't pretend to lecture me about what I should be arguing.
Secondly, your understanding military strategy and what constitutes "victory" appear to be flawed as well. Number of deaths did not decide the victor in Vietnam, nor will it likely in Afghanistan. To think you can predict all the circumstances surrounding some mythical military takeover of the US, and conclude that a citizenry of 300+ million (many armed) people would be helpless, akin to a wheelchair-bound woman is remarkably naive, given the military's current struggles against much smaller, less armed nations and the multitude of unpredictable events that would surround such a situation (possible defections, international interference, etc.). Ultimately the one thing we can say is that an unarmed populace is a weaker one, which makes it a point of note given the actual wording of the constitution.
**** man, I'm not talking about a military takeover. I'm merely talking about the police.
Guns are no defence from government. Lawyers are. You said that the constitution guarantees you the right to defend yourself. I said that if you're defending yourself against a government agent, you have no such right.
We're kind of talking past each other. I'm just tired of idiot rednecks who watched Red Dawn once maintaining that they need a gun to defend against the feds. It's like watching a crazy guy in New York masturbate on a street corner, really. It was fun to watch once, but I'm tired of it now, y'know?
Guns are no defence from government. Lawyers are. You said that the constitution guarantees you the right to defend yourself. I said that if you're defending yourself against a government agent, you have no such right.
We're kind of talking past each other. I'm just tired of idiot rednecks who watched Red Dawn once maintaining that they need a gun to defend against the feds. It's like watching a crazy guy in New York masturbate on a street corner, really. It was fun to watch once, but I'm tired of it now, y'know?
Last edited:
for this statement, you couldn't be more of a faggot if you had the directors cut of mamma mia on your ipad
Uh, what about New York City?
After Virginia changed its gun sales law in 1993 to allow only one handgun purchase per month (except for CCW permit holders), the murder rate in New York began to decline.
I saw this from in the Times, Mayor Bloomberg's adviser about illegal gun use:
I wish I was a non-faggot like Randy Weaver.
My bad on the misunderstanding then.**** man, I'm not talking about a military takeover. I'm merely talking about the police.
Guns are no defence from government. Lawyers are. You said that the constitution guarantees you the right to defend yourself. I said that if you're defending yourself against a government agent, you have no such right.
We're kind of talking past each other. I'm just tired of idiot rednecks who watched Red Dawn once maintaining that they need a gun to defend against the feds. It's like watching a crazy guy in New York masturbate on a street corner, really. It was fun to watch once, but I'm tired of it now, y'know?
I've never said that every form of gun control is wrong. Clearly if you have a situation where thousands guns are being bought quasi-legally and then falling into the wrong hands and being used in crimes, the situation needs to be rectified.
As you might imagine, it is a little different for me in San Francisco.
I don't know anyone who owns a gun who lives in the city, and you might as well say you like murdering people if you admit to gun ownership.
Given the hive lifestyle, it is unlikely I am going to have to defend my property, but rather be mugged on the street.
Even if I could carry a gun legally, it is extremely unlikely I ever would, nor would I want anyone else to around San Francisco.
But that's here. It is different across the bridge and in any direction except West.
I don't know anyone who owns a gun who lives in the city, and you might as well say you like murdering people if you admit to gun ownership.
Given the hive lifestyle, it is unlikely I am going to have to defend my property, but rather be mugged on the street.
Even if I could carry a gun legally, it is extremely unlikely I ever would, nor would I want anyone else to around San Francisco.
But that's here. It is different across the bridge and in any direction except West.
So, to bring a side helping of simpleton to this astute discussion. I am flawed, I suppose, to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that in order to maintain a well regulated (trained and accounted for and dependable) militia (private citizens that would be called to service in event of armed conflict) in order to maintain a free state (I assumed state to be capitalized not to mean state as in geographical territory but State as in the State being a small country or state of being) that the founders wanted to make sure that no local law or restriction could prohibit a citizen the right to bear arms (own guns and use them) to protect said state/land/etc.
If we are to start reading and interpreting the Constitution literally and not recognize and account for the time period it was written in, then we might as well assume there was a magic snake that handed a naked chick an apple and started this whole mess, according to the literal interpretation of that document and the consideration of the time it was written in.
Just wondering..
If we are to start reading and interpreting the Constitution literally and not recognize and account for the time period it was written in, then we might as well assume there was a magic snake that handed a naked chick an apple and started this whole mess, according to the literal interpretation of that document and the consideration of the time it was written in.
Just wondering..