Fun Gun Statistics

[tom502]

No militias in the DPRK.

[sgreger1]

Re: Fun Gun Statistics

I didn't say I subscribed to that idea, I said that idiots trying to twist the second ammendments meanings for political gain (like you) like to claim that.

Also, you are wrong about militias.

The Militia Act of 1903 organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system



(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.[14]

No, you're still grasping at straws. Claiming that the US has militias because it passed a "Militia Act" over a century ago is just plain silly. The act in question took militias, which you then had, and organized them into a standing army. Ergo, no more militias. Ergo, the Second Amendment dissolves into nothingness.

Also, I want you to calm down. Frankly, your juvenile antics accomplish absolutely nothing. Despite the fact that I have remained perfectly civil towards you, I note that every single of your posts directed at me has contained one or more personal insult. If you cannot argue without resorting to ad hominem attacks, I will consider my conversation with you finished. There are plenty of posters out there that will gladly join you in obnoxious shouting matches; I am not one of them. I prefer to communicate with those that prioritize the content of their speech over its loudness.

Alright judge, i'll play ball. Lets keept it civil. What I said in my original post was that the leading argument by people taking your position on the second ammendment is that the 2nd ammendment was initially created to make sure the militias could remain armed, but then at one point they organized the militias into the national guard, and therefore there is no need for a well armed militia any longer, i.e. no right to have weapons for the people. I was saying that I don't see that interpreteation, and the supreme court also does not agree with that interpretation. At the end of the day the supreme court has the final say so we will let them decide.

If you read anything the foudning fathers have ever written you will find out that there is a trend in each of their writings that points to their views on how the population should remain armed, this is why I don't think they meant just the militias.

[tom502]

I always thought the idea for an armed militia, was to have a sorta people's army, to keep the federal goverment in check, and fight them, if need be. Of course that was written way back when, but the ideal. The national guard though is just slaves of the federal government, and in no way takes the place of the militia ideal. They are totally opposite.

[sgreger1]

I always thought the idea for an armed militia, was to have a sorta people's army, to keep the federal goverment in check, and fight them, if need be. Of course that was written way back when, but the ideal. The national guard though is just slaves of the federal government, and in no way takes the place of the militia ideal. They are totally opposite.

Your basically right. Back in the beginning there wasn't really much of a standing army, and our armed forces were comprised of citizen soldiers. At one point this led to a problem because too many soldiers were starving due to a lack of central oganization and inability to keep the forces supplied with enough food rations. This is where the federal government came in, which was tasked with maintaining a standing army and keeping the military supply lines flowing. The militias, which were just citizens with guns who were willing to use them, turned into more of a contingency force that coul be dispatched locally incase of armed conflict, but also to enforce states rights and act as a check and balance to the federal government, should it become corrupt.


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness,” states the Declaration of Independence.


Then a little over a centruy ago, the federal government was beginning it's major power grab and decided that they should take over, which is when they organized the various militias into a state military force known as the national guard. Since then, the national guard has just become a different way of enlisting in the federal standing army. You can come and train only once a month, but during times of war (like now), you will be deployed just as often as any active duty unit. The national guard was supposed to be the states militia but has been hijacked by the federal standing army.

If you want to know more about militias, research the Michigan Militia which is one of the largest, best established ones. I would submit that any country wishing to take over michigan would have a harder time than we are having in Afghanistan.

[Judge Faust]

Re: Fun Gun Statistics

Alright judge, i'll play ball. Lets keept it civil. What I said in my original post was that the leading argument by people taking your position on the second ammendment is that the 2nd ammendment was initially created to make sure the militias could remain armed, but then at one point they organized the militias into the national guard, and therefore there is no need for a well armed militia any longer, i.e. no right to have weapons for the people. I was saying that I don't see that interpreteation, and the supreme court also does not agree with that interpretation. At the end of the day the supreme court has the final say so we will let them decide.

Here's my take on it: the Second Amendment clearly states that citizens must be allowed to keep guns so that the government will have a militia at its beck and call. If you think about it, this makes perfect sense. A militia is a self-organized, self-armed entity. The members own the guns, bring them into battle, and then take them home again. National Guard members leave their guns behind when they go home. Ergo, there's no military need for them to have guns, and thus no constitutional reason for anyone to have guns.

The Supreme Court may be the final deciding body, but only at the federal level. Recently, it ruled that Washington D.C. (a federal enclave) cannot restrict the Second Amendment. This has not yet been stretched to cover the vast majority of Americans (those living in one of the 50 states). As I mentioned before, a case is now pending on this matter. The Court may conceivably incorporate the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment, which would then cover the rest of us. As it stands, though, this is a state issue, meaning that the 50 state Supreme Courts have the final say on whether or not you can own guns.

[tom502]

Who's gonna tell that to Lil' Wayne?

[sgreger1]

Re: Fun Gun Statistics

Alright judge, i'll play ball. Lets keept it civil. What I said in my original post was that the leading argument by people taking your position on the second ammendment is that the 2nd ammendment was initially created to make sure the militias could remain armed, but then at one point they organized the militias into the national guard, and therefore there is no need for a well armed militia any longer, i.e. no right to have weapons for the people. I was saying that I don't see that interpreteation, and the supreme court also does not agree with that interpretation. At the end of the day the supreme court has the final say so we will let them decide.

Here's my take on it: the Second Amendment clearly states that citizens must be allowed to keep guns so that the government will have a militia at its beck and call. If you think about it, this makes perfect sense. A militia is a self-organized, self-armed entity. The members own the guns, bring them into battle, and then take them home again. National Guard members leave their guns behind when they go home. Ergo, there's no military need for them to have guns, and thus no constitutional reason for anyone to have guns.

The Supreme Court may be the final deciding body, but only at the federal level. Recently, it ruled that Washington D.C. (a federal enclave) cannot restrict the Second Amendment. This has not yet been stretched to cover the vast majority of Americans (those living in one of the 50 states). As I mentioned before, a case is now pending on this matter. The Court may conceivably incorporate the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment, which would then cover the rest of us. As it stands, though, this is a state issue, meaning that the 50 state Supreme Courts have the final say on whether or not you can own guns.

You may very well be correct. While I interpret the 2nd to include all Americans, I am a firm believer in states rights and think it should be at the discretion of the state in regards to gun control laws and their severity. Some states may want to remain without guns, while some may want them. This is the problem with an overbearing federal government run amok is that with 50 states, it is hard to make rules that are agreed on by everyone.

We will see what the supreme court rules in the upcoming case, but no matter which way you cut it, most states will maintain some level of gun ownership, and I am positive it will (and should) remain that way.


Have you never enjoyed the pleasure of shooting before Faust? I notice a trend amongst anti-gun crowd that they themselves have never been in the presence of a firearm or fired one. Perhaps if you gave it a try you could see how it is much safer than driving a car or sugary foods. Even if you don't agree with guns, do you really feel it is right to push that on other people wishing to be free? You and I agree that we don't like an overbearing imperial government calling the shots like fascists and taking our freedoms, so surely allowing those hwo wish to own guns can't be a bad thing, right?

[tom502]

Gun rights for law abiding citizens, gulag and gallows for gun criminals.

[sgreger1]

Gun rights for law abiding citizens, gulag and gallows for gun criminals.

I think the only thing we should take from the commies and fascists is the fact that they used their prison population for a productive means. Labor camps ftw!!! Gives them less time to sit around and teach each other how to be better criminals or allow the extremists to convert them to Islamic Jihadists like we keep seeing in our prisons.

[tom502]

I bet they make 'em work in the DPRK.

[sgreger1]

loolololooo. No 9-11 in DPRK. Just sayin.

[Mordred]

On the guns issue:

It's amazing how people can talk about guns and then quote figures of people killed and injured by others/themselves using guns. I mean, duh, that's their purpose, it shouldn't suprise you and if it does, you're a moron.

But really, the gist of the story is this:

A criminal, by definition, breaks the law. Therefore, a criminal cares not about gun control laws. In other words, if arson, rape, murder and other such crimes are on your agenda, are you going to suddenly start obeying the law when it comes to acquiring weapons? Obviously not.

In the words of Penn Jilette: "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. Thats.... insane."

So since you can never take away the weapons from criminals, the only way to put law-abiding citizens in a position to defend themselves is to grant them access to means of self-defense. How long do you think a mass-shooter would last in a place where 80 percent of people are packing? He'd get maybe two, three shots off before somebody takes him out. Heck, even if, in the firefight, one or two bystanders get killed, that's still an improvement over having a maniac mow down 20-30 unarmed people, right?

A final note on accidental discharge also: if you have your gun and ammo lying around where your kids can get them and have not taught your kids gun safety, then you're an idiot and chances are that your kids are too, so the guns just removed an idiot from the gene pool. Good riddance. If you shoot yourself with your gun because you're too dumb to apply gun safety, even better.

Nuff said.

Edit @Faust:

To be honest, the different readings of the second amendment are becoming tiring. The fact of the matter is that what was written hundreds of years ago should not be the only thing that guides our decisions today. Common sense should.

[sgreger1]

On the guns issue:

It's amazing how people can talk about guns and then quote figures of people killed and injured by others/themselves using guns. I mean, duh, that's their purpose, it shouldn't suprise you and if it does, you're a moron.

But really, the gist of the story is this:

A criminal, by definition, breaks the law. Therefore, a criminal cares not about gun control laws. In other words, if arson, rape, murder and other such crimes are on your agenda, are you going to suddenly start obeying the law when it comes to acquiring weapons? Obviously not.

In the words of Penn Jilette: "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. Thats.... insane."

A final note on accidental discharge also: if you have your gun and ammo lying around where your kids can get them and have not taught your kids gun safety, then you're an idiot and chances are that your kids are too, so the guns just removed an idiot from the gene pool. Good riddance. If you shoot yourself with your gun because you're too dumb to apply gun safety, even better.

Nuff said.

When I was in the army I had a kid shoot himself right infront of me on accident. He was drunk in my room and was talking about how "gansta" he was and how cool his gang was. He was playing Russia roulette witha revolver, but looked down the barrel each time to see if there was a bullet charged, then pulled the trigger. I begged him to realize that that's not how it works, on a semi-auto revolver when you pull the trigger it clicks the next round in, so you won't ever see the bullet by looking down the barrel.

POP.

We cut an emergency tracheotomy in his throught with our kitchen knife because his mouth was filling up with blood but he still had a pulse. Since I lived on the same floor as the medics, they were able to keep him alive for nearly 20 minutes, but he died as the ambulance took him away.

And in my estimation, that's one less idiot wannabe gang member on our planet. If you don't understand gun safety, do not use or own a gun, you will probably kill yourself.

[lxskllr]

When I was in the army I had a kid shoot himself right infront of me on accident. He was drunk in my room and was talking about how "gansta" he was and how cool his gang was. He was playing Russia roulette witha revolver, but looked down the barrel each time to see if there was a bullet charged, then pulled the trigger. I begged him to realize that that's not how it works, on a semi-auto revolver when you pull the trigger it clicks the next round in, so you won't ever see the bullet by looking down the barrel.

POP.

We cut an emergency tracheotomy in his throught with our kitchen knife because his mouth was filling up with blood but he still had a pulse. Since I lived on the same floor as the medics, they were able to keep him alive for nearly 20 minutes, but he died as the ambulance took him away.

And in my estimation, that's one less idiot wannabe gang member on our planet. If you don't understand gun safety, do not use or own a gun, you will probably kill yourself.

ROFL!!

Some people are too dumb to breathe :^D

[sgreger1]

ROFL!!

Some people are too dumb to breathe :^D

It is darwin in effect. Those who serve no benefit to the gene pool will slowly kill themselves off. I cried not one tear nor lost one moment of sleep that weekend over this individual. And furthermore he was in the army so he should have known better. But he was a commo guy, meaning all he did was make sure my radio had batteries, and had little to no firearm training.

And to make it even worse, before this moron came to my room looking for more booze, he had put on his IBA body armor and shot himself twice in the chest to "test it out" about an hour prior to him shooting himself. He then went through the halls drunkenly pointing and clicking off the trigger at people who passed by, thinking it was funny.

The Colonel asked me why I didn't do some ninja move to disarm him like a good battle buddy should have, to which I responded that he was an idiot who was going to kill SOMEONE that night, and we should all just be thankfull that he only killed himself. Me and everyone in that room lost all of our rank, had to forfeit 2 months pay, and had to work extra duty untill 11pm every night including weekends for 30 days that evening as per the UCMJ Article 15, which is complete bullshit.

Today's army is a joke and breeds failure and weakness. But that's another story.





@ Tom: Let me do it for you. "No morons shooting themselves in DPRK"