Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
32 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,827 Year: 16,863/19,786 Month: 988/2,598 Week: 234/251 Day: 5/58 Hour: 0/2


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(6)
Message 56 of 5179 (684016)
12-15-2012 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
12-15-2012 12:17 AM


You don't know what the fuck the founders wanted. They wanted an organized militia. They were talking about guns that could shoot one shot per minute. To think the founders ideas of weapons has any credence with todays technology and culture is fucking asinine.

When guns are not available to private citizens for self defense and defense in such situations as these shootings, soon the whole population is at the mercy of criminal and government powers, standing armies and so on.

Shame on you. You take this tragedy as an opportunity to post wing nut talking points. Shame on you.

You think more guns and more untrained, stupid wannabe rambo's is the answer?

The stupidity is astounding.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 12:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 2:28 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 77 of 5179 (684048)
12-15-2012 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
12-15-2012 2:28 AM


Re: Second Amendment
Actually I do know what the founders wanted and it was NOT an organized militia for the very reason that such a body can be used against the people which is the exact opposite of the intent of the amendment

You obviously haven't read the Constitution.

quote:
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.

And seem to be unable to understand the vast majority of the quotes you posted.

You are a right wing freak that no amount of reality will intrude upon your fantasy world.

Your revisionist view of history, unquestioning belief in radical interpretations of a iron age text and hate for other people, and the people like you will destroy this country.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 2:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2012 9:15 AM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 6:08 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 184 of 5179 (684233)
12-16-2012 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
12-15-2012 6:08 PM


It burns
Yes, the PEOPLE, not an army run by the state, the PEOPLE.

Obviously history is not your strong suit.
To call the Constitution an "iron age text" is to have bought the propaganda that WILL kill this country.

I was talking about your bible.

They intended to protect the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms, and that IS in the amendment -- the right of the PEOPLE -- it's you who seem to have trouble reading it, and the "militia" refers to this armed citizenry, not to an organized army, which, again, would contradict the whole spirit of the amendment.

Care to provide some cites to any interpretations by the courts that supports this?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 6:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(4)
Message 186 of 5179 (684236)
12-16-2012 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
12-15-2012 6:16 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
The National Guard is not what the founders had in mind.

It is exactly what they meant. They were not talking about freelance militias. The founders had a fear of anarchy. There are even writings by some of them that support this. The free militias you are talking about are the antithesis of what the founders meant by a well-regulated militia. Well regulated militia implies a militia set up by law. The free militias of the far right of today are not in any way regulated, so that simple fact destroys your argument.

If we want to live by the actually meaning of the founders than the right to bear arms means single shot muzzleloaders. I am fine with people having free access to them.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 6:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 10:13 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 187 of 5179 (684237)
12-16-2012 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by hooah212002
12-15-2012 6:35 PM


Gish gallop

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by hooah212002, posted 12-15-2012 6:35 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 210 of 5179 (684265)
12-16-2012 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
12-16-2012 8:36 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
I provided a lot of evidence back in Message 57 about what they meant,

You provided no evidence

Patrick Henry was not part of writing the constitution.
The George Mason quote does nothing to support your assertions. In actuality his writings are counter to your arguments.

Samuel Adams was not part of the writing of the Constitution. His comments here do not support your assertions.

Your Alexander Hamilton Quote is actually a combination of two quotes from different Federalist Papers. Also these quotes do not support your assertion.

As for Mr Vandercroy what does anything he have to say mean anything. What makes him an authority?

You have provided no evidence to support your assertions.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 8:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 211 of 5179 (684266)
12-16-2012 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
12-16-2012 9:15 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
David E Vandercoy

Tell me why he is an authority.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 9:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 10:32 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(3)
Message 215 of 5179 (684273)
12-16-2012 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 10:13 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
You obviously have no concept of why there was the bill of rights.

Ypur argument makes no sense. This is a reaffirming that there is a right to bear arms in conjunction with the militia mentioned in the Constitution.

The founders had a fear of armed rabble. They were the elites in a period of revolution. The well regulated militia was a means to allow citizenry arms bu to keep them organized and well regulated.

Maybe you need to understand what the word regulated means.
This was a legal document so words in it have a legalistic meaning. Do you actually thing well-regulated means outside of government control? That is the anithesis of what the term well regulated means. Well regulated means following regulations. Regulations are laws.

What do you think would qualify today as a well regulated militia?

It's not a protection of the right to hunt or the right to self-defense; it's a defense of the right to pose a credible resistance to armies.

Did you not just say this?
Or do you believe that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the TV news simply because there was no such thing as TV in 1776?

Yet you think an armed populace can defeat a modern army?
Your arguments are schizophrenic at best.

That's not even historically accurate, and that's hardly the interpretation you expect to apply to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

It is an argument of the absurd. I am stunned that you believe it is a real argument. The basis is people like Faith making claims that we must stick with founders original intent. Unless of course that argument works against you then they throw it out.

Oh how is it not historically accurate?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 10:13 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 11:15 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(3)
Message 217 of 5179 (684275)
12-16-2012 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
12-16-2012 10:32 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
Theodoric, I am not presenting him as an authority, I don't know a thing about him as a person.

Then why should I give a flying fuck about anything he writes?

I am presenting his paper as an extremely well documented study of the HISTORY of the thinking that led up to the Second Amendment. He covers the historical background of the relevant concerns in England through king after king, and he covers the various arguments of the Constitutional framers and others concerning the issues that eventuated in the Second Amendment.

How do you know it is accurate?

This a fallacious argument.

The paper shows his interpretations of the evidence. It is an interpretation. There are many legal scholars and historians that come to different conclusions.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 10:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 1:36 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 221 of 5179 (684280)
12-16-2012 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 11:02 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
The National Guard evolved out of state armies

Source for these state armies please.

According to the National Guard itself they evolved from colonial and state militias. I know not of these state armies of which you speak.

Was there an Ohio state army at one time? NY state army? Georgia?

and the Federal armed forces were prohibited from internal action only by the Posse Comitatus Act signed after the Civil War.

There is no such prohibition.
quote:
Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.{Federalist 29 (Hamilton, 1788)} In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute, even though it may be problematic for political reasons.

Posse Comitatus Act

Basically, if Congress or the President authorizes it it is not a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 11:02 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 222 of 5179 (684283)
12-16-2012 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 11:15 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
Sure. Have you just not opened a newspaper in the past seven years?

We are speaking in the terms of an invasion. A civil war is a much different situation. But of course you will not acknowledge that. Also, the people fighting in these civil wars are not armed with handguns and semi auto rifles only. They are using heavy weapons and heavy machine guns. I was not clear by saying armed populace, what I should have said populace armed with civilian weapons.

But then again this defeats your argument that an armed populace is necessary to prevent the tyranny of government.

Syria and Tunisia have very strict gun laws. Libya had a total ban on private ownership. Seems they did pretty well considering gun restrictions. They had no need to have an already armed populace to overthrow the dictators.

For 200 years - including last month, in Federal appeals court - the Second Amendment has been interpreted as implying an individual right to keep and bear arms as a private citizen.

Building strawmen I see. How about arguing against my statements not what oyu want to argure against.

Show where I have said there is no right. The point i am making is that there is an ability to heavily regulate them. It is right there in the Constitution.

ABE

Breech-loading rifles and cartridge ammunition were contemporary with the Revolutionary War and known to the Framers (since the British had been using both.)

There were 200 breechloading rifles used in the revolutionary war. It was the Ferguson rifle. Show they were known by the framers. Your cartridge comment is another strawman. Where did I say anything about there not being cartridges. Cartridges were quote common for muzzleloaders. Now how about showing a non-single shot

Edited by Theodoric, : Time to deal with strawmen

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 11:15 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 8:15 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 227 of 5179 (684290)
12-17-2012 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by xongsmith
12-16-2012 11:44 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
Hmmm...I don't seem to recall Alabama Governor George Wallace calling out the National Guard during the Civil Rights demonstrations. Seems they were called out by Washington, D.C.?

Maybe you have heard of the President of the United States. He can nationalize the National Guard.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2012 11:44 PM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by xongsmith, posted 12-17-2012 1:07 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 241 of 5179 (684338)
12-17-2012 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by crashfrog
12-17-2012 8:15 AM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
I'll make whatever arguments I feel support my point, Theodoric. You're not in a position to dictate the terms of discussion, whatever you may believe.

But you are arguing against something I never said.That is a strawman. So I can dictate what many own positions are, you cannot.

Oh yeah the pepperbox is a post revolutionary weapon.

Again my claim of founders only allowing single shot muzzle loaders is an absurdity, to show that they were unable to conceive of the weapons around today. It is not ridiculous to think they may have rethought this amendment if they knew we would someday ahve bushmasters and glocks.

That would have been completely at odds with their conception of the Constitution as a document for the future of the country, a document meant to grow and expand along with a growing and expanding nation.

But in this case it has not been allowed to grow and expand.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 8:15 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 10:01 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 249 of 5179 (684348)
12-17-2012 10:09 AM


Removal of Constitutional rights
The thing I find fascinating about this discussion by the American people at large is the lack of out cry when other constitutional rights were removed.

1st Amendment
We now have first amendment zones in this country

4th Amendment
Slowly been chipped away for years, but the Patriot Act completely eviscerated this amendment. All that needs to be made is a claim of national Security and law enforcement has very few limits on searches.
National Security Letters
Current laws do not adhere to the 4th amendment.

But when it comes to guns, people scream to high heaven that their Constitutional Rights are being oppressed.

The way to stop the tyranny of government is not through guns, but through demanding our 1st and 4th amendment rights.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by Jon, posted 12-18-2012 10:44 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6577
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 250 of 5179 (684350)
12-17-2012 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by crashfrog
12-17-2012 10:05 AM


Re: The Reality aint easy
Self-defense. When seconds count, you need the gun to fire as soon as you pull the trigger, not after several seconds or minutes of tedious loading. "Freeze, buster! Oh, wait, hang on a second, now where did I put that powder horn..."

You seemingly know nothing about guns. A semi auto will not get off a first shot any quicker than a revolver or a single shot. All the semi auto will give you is more shots before reloading. "powder horn? Aren't you tired of strawmen yet?This whole self defense thing is just a deflection. How often do we hear about mindless slaughter as opposed to someone actually using a gun in self defense? Self defense with a gun is not like in the movies, There are rarely multiple rounds going back and forth. Like hunting if you are not sure of your target and not confident a shot will hit, do not take the shot.
The Bushmaster .223 is a hunting rifle.

Mr Semantics strikes again. Lets make an accurate statement. it can be used as a hunting rifle. Its original design was not as a hunting rifle.
As an avid hunter, I find people that bring 20-30 round clips hunting offensive and disgusting. You can only shoot 1-2 deer and how many prairie dogs do you really need to shoot at one time? If you can't drop a deer with one shot you shouldn't take the shot.

Rifles like this are terrible hunting rifles. They are not designed to be MOA accurate. They are designed tho throw as much lead as quick as possible. If you read the reviews by people that shoot them they think hitting a 12" target at 300 yards is good accuracy. I good hunting rifle should be accurate within 6" at 300 yards.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 10:05 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 11:52 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019