How much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz.
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, November 21, 2021 17:03
VIEWED: 8210
PAGE 1 of 1
Just for fun:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/1104/How-much-do-you-know-ab
out-the-Second-Amendment-A-quiz/Topic-of-Second-Amendment?nav=620255-csm_article-promoLink
I got 13 out of 15, but I challenge one of the wrong answers.
A couple of the answers were quite illuminating...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
13 out of 15, as well.
Oh guessing and cursory reading of wikipedia articles in the past weeks... where would I have been without you? *g*
Nah, most of the answers seem pretty obvious.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Be careful, not all their answers are correct.
For example. The first question asks which right is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It gives several examples such as protection from unreasonable searches, free speech, and the right to own a gun.
They list the correct answer as the right to keep and bear arms. This is not correct. The 2nd Amendment protects ALL of the Constitutional rights. That is the only reason it was included.
For example, the right to vote. Lets say Congress says, 'screw the Consitution' only people who are Democrats can vote. And the President signs the law. And the Supreme Court does not strike it down and voila, its the LAW of the land. Sure, we could just bend over and take it. That's what they did in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany...but this is America and about 50 million Americans would simply exercise their veto power using their firearms if necessary. Blood of patriots and tyrants and some kid with a drum and dude with a bandage on his head playing a fife...
Anybody happen to own a fife...can't preserve our liberty without one. Shoulda put that in the Constitution.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He who commands the military branches controls the country, be it President or rebel leader.
"The nineteenth batallion of mind raiders, three thousand master computer killers; from great platforms in the mountains...."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
For example, the right to vote. Lets say Congress says, 'screw the Consitution' only people who are Democrats can vote. And the President signs the law. And the Supreme Court does not strike it down and voila, its the LAW of the land. Sure, we could just bend over and take it. That's what they did in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany...
You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
He who commands the military branches controls the country, be it President or rebel leader.
That was exactly why the Right to Bear Arms was expressly created. Hamilton argues in the Federalist papers that the mass of armed citizens was a final check on the power of a central govt seeking to enforce its will with a standing army.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Be careful, not all their answers are correct.
For example. The first question asks which right is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It gives several examples such as protection from unreasonable searches, free speech, and the right to own a gun.
They list the correct answer as the right to keep and bear arms. This is not correct. The 2nd Amendment protects ALL of the Constitutional rights. That is the only reason it was included.
Oh look Hero must have gotten some wrong but can't admit it so the test is wrong. Go figure.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
For example, the right to vote. Lets say Congress says, 'screw the Consitution' only people who are Democrats can vote. And the President signs the law. And the Supreme Court does not strike it down and voila, its the LAW of the land. Sure, we could just bend over and take it. That's what they did in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany...
You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?
When do propagandists bother themselves with factual info?
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
When do propagandists bother themselves with factual info?
Your logic gives me sad feelings.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We The People ARE the Fourth Branch of govt.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/29/cary-grove-drill-to-include-sho
oting-blanks-in-hallways/
?300 school employees prepare to return fire during an attack
http://kwgn.com/2013/01/28/hundreds-of-teachers-school-personnel-atten
d-concealed-weapons-class/
U.S. backed plan to launch false-flag chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-w
eapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
That was exactly why the Right to Bear Arms was expressly created. Hamilton argues in the Federalist papers that the mass of armed citizens was a final check on the power of a central govt seeking to enforce its will with a standing army.
*blink*
.......
*DOPESLAP!*
MADISON, you dimwit - in Federalist #46, fer cryin out loud you gettin senile on us or what ?!
No extra credit for YOU, lawyer-boy!
Oh, and 10/11 is wrong in light of the assertions of Tench Coxe and others.
Quote:
The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
10 USC @ 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.
Just because some find it inconvenient, just because the rule of law is ignored and trampled upon, makes it no less the law of the land - restricting the Second Amendment without invoking the amendment process would be like passing laws to forbid persons of certain race/religion from using public transportation, for example, the legal superiority of a Constitutional Amendment would forbid this.
Let's not pretend that isn't what's going on here.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
For example, the right to vote. Lets say Congress says, 'screw the Consitution' only people who are Democrats can vote. And the President signs the law. And the Supreme Court does not strike it down and voila, its the LAW of the land. Sure, we could just bend over and take it. That's what they did in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany...but this is America and about 50 million Americans would simply exercise their veto power using their firearms if necessary. Blood of patriots and tyrants and some kid with a drum and dude with a bandage on his head playing a fife...
Oh, that is TRULY rich...this guy is a LAWYER? Bullshit! One can argue about the "spirit" of the law, but the LETTER of it is perfectly clear!
I knew he wasn't a lawyer...!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?
Yes. In my example I set up a scenario where the Constitution was simply ignored by the ruling power and the people had no alternative but to go along. In other words...what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
For example, in the Soviet Union there was one party, no opposition. There was a Constitution that had even more expressions of liberty and freedom then our own. They had elections with near 100% turnout. You go in, you vote for the one choice you had...party line votes all the way down the ballot. If you don't vote (which is your only choice) you get a visit from the Committee for State Security and possibly an all expenses paid trip to summer camp...in Siberia...in winter. Nazi Germany was even less...enlightened.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Oh, that is TRULY rich...this guy is a LAWYER? Bullshit! One can argue about the "spirit" of the law, but the LETTER of it is perfectly clear!
I knew he wasn't a lawyer...!
Really? You just lost your vote, what do you do?
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Oh, that is TRULY rich...this guy is a LAWYER? Bullshit! One can argue about the "spirit" of the law, but the LETTER of it is perfectly clear!
I knew he wasn't a lawyer...!
Really? You just lost your vote, what do you do?
A) Take up arms
B) Do nothing, your vote never counted anyways
C) Petition the government through legal means and protest.
Okay folks lets see who the reasonable and intelligent people are!
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?
Yes. In my example I set up a scenario where the Constitution was simply ignored by the ruling power and the people had no alternative but to go along. In other words...what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
You drew up a very simplistic scenario.
1) Nazi Germany and Communist Russia "bent over and took it." Implying that generally they hated these developments but just were too cowardly and helpless to do anything about it.
2) America wouldn't because they have the 2nd Amendment = armed citizenry standing up against tyranny.
And that's just so very much not what it boils down to. Ignoring the complexities that led to these developments in both countries is not the way to make your point.
Can't you find a positive example, something that actually reflects the scenario you're drawing up? Armed citizens preventing the toppling of their own democracy through armed resistance against their government and its military? They must be out there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Can't you find a positive example, something that actually reflects the scenario you're drawing up? Armed citizens preventing the toppling of their own democracy through armed resistance against their government and its military? They must be out there.
You know, I really, really hate folks like Zero being on my "side" of an issue, it burns, it really does - their lunacity and incompetence does NOT help, you know ?
No, he probably couldn't find you such an example - but I could.
So too could (ironically) PirateNews, cause this is one of his favorite historical bits right here.
Battle of Athens (1946)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
Quote:
The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny.
Also worthy of note are the battles of Matewan and Blair Mountain, in regards to workers/union rights - especially the latter, since despite some "creative editing" on behalf of the horde bent on revising history, the bombs in question had US Army Ordinance Depot markings, and were dropped from Martin MB-1's, as Chafins civilian aircraft were not capable of carrying such a payload.
The reason I feel this distinction needs be made is that because the US Military was often used as an adjunct to strikebreakers and hired goons, using martial law and the need to "restore order" as excuses - but never not once in all of american history did they ever try to defend/protect the workers, leading to the realization after Blair Mountain that a while a union *CAN* fight a corporation and their hired goons, they could not fight both them and the entire weight of the US Military, and if they could, might as well just take over - it effectively crushed unions into the pale, thin, servile shadow that they are now, and the one union which didn't bend the knee (that being the IWW) was all but destroyed via extra legal measures, and constant harrassment from the Gov under a thin veil of excuses and scare tactics.
Battle of Matewan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_matewan
Quote:
The Battle of Matewan (also known as the Matewan Massacre) was a shootout in the town of Matewan, West Virginia in Mingo County on May 19, 1920 between local miners and the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency.
This lead TO the Battle of Blair Mountain, since the remnants of the Baldwin-Felts goons arranged for Sid Hatfield to be at court, and thus conveniently disarmed (because no one in their right mind would mess with Sid if he was!) and blatantly, publicly murdered him right there on the courthouse steps in broad daylight - something they weren't even charged for, much less called to heel about.
Quote:
Tom Felts, the last remaining Felts brother, planned on avenging his brothers' deaths by sending undercover operatives to collect evidence to convict Sid Hatfield and his men. When the charges against Hatfield, and 22 other people, for the murder of Albert Felts were dismissed, Baldwin-Felts detectives assassinated Hatfield and his deputy Ed Chambers on August 1, 1921, on the steps of the McDowell County Courthouse located in Welch, West Virginia. Of those defendants whose charges were not dismissed, all were acquitted.
Needless to say this set a fire under the workers, on top of the treatment they received the minute they turned over their arms as requested by governor Cornwell when he sent the state police to take control of the town - as soon as they handed em over, it was back to business as usual for the corrupt collective of corporation and state, and the murder of Sid in combinati
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, battle, battle, battle. First of all, those are not "positive" scenarious. Secondly, they were on a local level, and long ago, when it might have been possible, but I'm sorry, I find it impossible to imagine any scenario where citizens taking up arms would do any good nowadays. Even locally, the National Guard would be called in, or the Army if it got to that, and that's the end of that.
There simply ARE NOT enough Americans who would rise up, unless true dictatorship and egregious harm was being done, and there's so much that comes before that, that I just can't see it happening.
The things you point to are 1780, 1920, 1921, etc. Think of how different things are now--merely the population of the country, and you have to have a large portion of the population willing to rebel. Do you REALLY imagine enough Americans standing up to rebel in these times?? I just cannot. And anything less than a major revolt can easily be put down.
It's not "it can't happen here" for me, it's "it won't happen here" because there aren't enough Americans willing to put their lives on the line, there's no indication that the kind of tyranny you envision has even begun, or WOULD begin given the way our government is set up, from local to state to federal. I feel like some of us are dealing with reality, while you're coming at this out of your own experience, which is limited to a small part of the country and doesn't extrapolate to the country as a whole. That's why I reject your rebellion scenarios.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of course you reject them, they're... inconvenient for you.
Note: Battle of Athens had a POSITIVE outcome, as in the end, did Matewan/Blair Mountain cause it pushed legislators into backing workers rights in order to avoid further bloodshed - and Kings Mountain was quite helpful to that whole, yanno, indepedence thing.
Also, it doesn't have to be some huge gotterdammerung battle to stop an act of tyranny - case in point Maryanne Godboldos fateful shot into the ceiling.
Just imagine how awful that could have been (given how awful it WAS despite it) had that shot not drawn the eyes and ire of the public down upon the injustice which was being done ?
A shot that might I add, harmed NO ONE - the mere presence of the weapon and will to use it was enough.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
That was exactly why the Right to Bear Arms was expressly created. Hamilton argues in the Federalist papers that the mass of armed citizens was a final check on the power of a central govt seeking to enforce its will with a standing army.
*blink*
.......
*DOPESLAP!*
MADISON, you dimwit - in Federalist #46, fer cryin out loud you gettin senile on us or what ?!
No extra credit for YOU, lawyer-boy!
Oh, and 10/11 is wrong in light of the assertions of Tench Coxe and others.Quote:
The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
10 USC @ 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.
Just because some find it inconvenient, just because the rule of law is ignored and trampled upon, makes it no less the law of the land - restricting the Second Amendment without invoking the amendment process would be like passing laws to forbid persons of certain race/religion from using public transportation, for example, the legal superiority of a Constitutional Amendment would forbid this.
Let's not pretend that isn't what's going on here.
-Frem
Just noting with great amusement that "hero" did a great job of avoiding the post that proves him to be full of shit. As per usual.
And he expects us to believe he's an expert in the law. Hi-larious!
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Can't you find a positive example, something that actually reflects the scenario you're drawing up? Armed citizens preventing the toppling of their own democracy through armed resistance against their government and its military? They must be out there.
There are many examples. Keeping with the WW2 concept I'd take a long look at France. Armed citizens working years resisting both the Nazi's and the Vichy French govt. Another example is Germany in the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch
But a better example is closer to home...the United States of America engaged in armed resistance and prevented the King of England from toppling their own elected democratic govt's. The colonies were governed by appointed governers, local elected legislatures, and local courts, and by right as British Citizens should have been represented in Parliament. The King denied their rights to be represented in Parliament, usurped the power of local judges, and bypassed local legislatures.
Another American example is from Rhode Island. The Dorr Rebellion in 1842 briefly led to two state govts with two legislators and 2 governors. Several small battles were fought and Dorr eventually lost...and won. All over the question of who could vote. There was a minimum of money or property required and only about 40% of the white men qualified (women, blacks, and Irish need not apply back then). Dorr got a bunch of guys together and drafted a new constitution that included all the white dudes and Irish immigrants. Eventually he lost, he was convicted of treason, his constitution was later adopted and his conviction overturned.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
A) Take up arms
B) Do nothing, your vote never counted anyways
C) Petition the government through legal means and protest.
A) They already gave up their arms, so liberals can't engage in armed resistance.
B) That's the weed and TV talking.
C) If they took away your right to vote, what's to stop them from taking away your right to protest or go to court. A good example is France. The French people in Paris used to riot all the time. It was their thing, afteer all they had a legitimate beef with how things were run. They overthrew the king, they overthrew the people who overthrew the king, and this went on for years till a little fella named Bonaparte came home from a vacation in Egypt and saw all these fellas coming down the street to overthrow the latest republic. So he takes a few cannons, lines them up side by side, and fires into the crowd...grapeshot. Voila, Viva La Revolution! Then...poof, he's Emperor and conquering Europe the old fashioned way.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Frem,
thank you for taking the time to look up these examples!
The Battle of Athens is a particularly good example. I noted that they raided a National Guard Armory and thus apparently obtained further weapons (and possibly the dynamite?) for their cause, but that wouldn't have been possible without guns in the first place, I imagine. A big factor there was probably the shared military background of many of the "rebels" and their ability to form a cohesive team, as well as follow through with sensible reform.
All the examples relating to union suppression I saved for reading tomorrow, because I'm fairly certain delving into that would rob me of sleep for the night.
I see where Niki is coming from with her doubts and concerns about the age of the examples, as well.
It is not my intention to support either "side" of the issue. I understand both and cannot yet find a balance. It's a highly protracted situation. I mainly got highly annoyed at the use of an extremely tired and inadequate comparison to dictatorships of eras past, and Frem did a great job providing much better material for comparison and discussion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
There are many examples. Keeping with the WW2 concept I'd take a long look at France. Armed citizens working years resisting both the Nazi's and the Vichy French govt.
See? That's a decent example. As are the last two you listed.
Quote:
Another example is Germany in the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch
This one, not so much. You're listing this as a positive example? Hitler and his armed fascist thugs trying to topple a democratically elected government? That'd be an argument against gun rights if I ever saw one.
Unless you were joking?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The things you point to are 1780, 1920, 1921, etc. Think of how different things are now--merely the population of the country, and you have to have a large portion of the population willing to rebel. Do you REALLY imagine enough Americans standing up to rebel in these times?? I just cannot. And anything less than a major revolt can easily be put down.
Niki: What happened with you and the Occupy Wall Street Movement? I seem to recall police brutality. Doesn't non-violent law breaking count as rebellion?
The only problem I had with OWS is they didn't seem to know what they were doing or what to do next.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, Frem, it's not that it's inconvenient. If I thought it were possible, I'd be right in there planning and worrying. But to me it's like Rap and his "Islamist terrorism" stuff; it ain't gonna happen, so why should I get all hot and bothered about it?
If I thought it were a real potential, I'd be in there working at it--you KNOW I do and have become an activist on things I believe are important and doable. I'd no more stay awake nights and write long screeds about Islamist terrorism than I would about an American rebellion. For one thing, what are the odds of it happening in the next couple of decades? No, don't answer that, I'm guessing you might even think it's imminent.
Just a subject we'll have to agree to disagree on, if you can be even that reasonable. You've pretty much pushed our friendship right out the door with your nastiness, snarking about it being "inconvenient" just pushes it further. I've made reasonable arguments against your position; if you can't do the same without snarking, just don't respond. You've done enough damage with that particular obsession, and I've mourned the loss of how I felt about you ever since.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The Battle of Kings Mountain was a decisive battle between the Patriot and Loyalist militias in the Southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War. The actual battle took place on October 7, 1780, nine miles south of the present-day town of Kings Mountain, North Carolina in rural York County, South Carolina, where the Patriot militia defeated the Loyalist militia commanded by British Major Patrick Ferguson of the 71st Foot.
Ferguson had arrived in North Carolina in early September 1780 with the purpose of recruiting for the Loyalist militia and protecting the flank of Lord Cornwallis' main force. Ferguson issued a challenge to the rebel militias to lay down their arms or suffer the consequences. In response, the Patriot militias led by James Johnston, William Campbell, John Sevier, Joseph McDowell and Isaac Shelby rallied for an attack on Ferguson.
Mind you, describing the Wataugans as Patriots is kinda stretching it there, they were the closest thing the colonies had to Anarchists, and bore as little love for the Colonials as they did the Crown, you see ?
But then along comes Ferguson, and he tells em to hand over their guns or he would lay waste to the countryside with fire and sword, aka OR ELSE.
Of course, no fools the Wataugans, they made the obvious connection that if they DID hand them over, they'd wind up staring down the barrels of those same weapons in the hands of Fergusons men as he did much much worse than that.
Last weekend The History Channel had a special program on this very subject. They called themselves mountain men, and they had their own culture, something very different from the city dwellers and farmers in Boston, Philadelphia, or even Charleston. They wore animal skins and drank home brew whiskey. When the battle occured things were looking very bleak for Washington's Continental Army and the future of the revolution. Defeat seemed inevitable. The mountain men's superior tactics and their long rifles gave them a big advantage in shooting distance over the British regulars. This victory was inspirational, and as the story spread throughout the colonies thousands of new voluteers signed up. It can be argued that without this little-known battle victory there wouldn't be a United States today.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
And for anyone thinking of saying "See, this is why the Second Amendment is useless!" - allow me to point out that if said amendment had not been so badly infringed, distorted and abused by well meaning and gullible fools, those miners would have obliterated them
...and than what? Rainbows and sunshine would have erupted from the dead and the miners would have lived happily ever after?
Many of the miners spent time in jail, some were acquitted, but do you think the punishment would have been less had they slaughtered the lawman and others?
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Just a subject we'll have to agree to disagree on, if you can be even that reasonable. You've pretty much pushed our friendship right out the door with your nastiness, snarking about it being "inconvenient" just pushes it further. I've made reasonable arguments against your position; if you can't do the same without snarking, just don't respond. You've done enough damage with that particular obsession, and I've mourned the loss of how I felt about you ever since.
Okay, that's it.
You wanna play this card on me, fine.
You wanna threaten an honest friendship because I hold an honest position that is... inconvenient for you, even though I have tried to bite my tongue about it ?
Oh well, won't be the first one down the tubes.
There is a reason some things are Constitutional Amendments, it is to prevent state laws from overturning what were felt to be essential human freedoms, a check against tyranny of the majority by insisting on a difficult process which requires an extreme and overwhelming amount of support to prevent abuse of the system by folks with agendas not supported by the whole of the people, in fact it's the closest thing our entire legal structure has to mutually agreed consent.
Mind you, it doesn't always WORK, because the desire to ignore them by factions which want thier way no matter what is very strong, pushing religion with state resources is but one example, blue laws are another, and so too are infringements on the right to bear arms.
As you well know I am an Anarchist, and I begrudgingly accepted the Constitution as a minimum standard in tolerance of the fact that others seem to want and need a structure even if I feel it is not the benefit they believe it is, therefore I am bound by both ethics and oath to support that Constitution and the principles upon which it is founded - something I take pretty damned seriously as it has put me in conflict with many persons and factions over the years.
I say again, *IF* you wanna mess with a Constitutional Amendment, then you go to the Amendment process - this is how it's done, it's called the rule of law, due process, and it is there for a reason - you do NOT just ignore that because it is inconvenient, because you want your way and you want it now and who cares if you don't actually have the support of enough people to do it...
Might-makes-Right is not an argument you wanna have with me.
And that is what you are proposing, make no mistake about it - this is no different than others ignoring the Fourth Amendments protections because they were too much hassle and got in the way of what they wanted to do, something I also stood strongly against.
Nor does the argument of historic or techological advancement hold much weight with me, as the Fourth Amendment never foresaw telephones, cellular networks, computers or the internet, but we damn sure adapted it, maybe not all that well, but in principle it's been applied.
To say the Second Amendment covers muzzle loading muskets is as ridiculous as saying the Fourth Amendment covers only physical documents, it's a sham argument which holds no weight given any understanding of its initial purpose.
Beyond that, despite every effort to ignore or strawman the argument, not every act of tyranny, nor every act of resistance, is collective - some are individual, as I pointed out in the case of Maryanne Godboldo, which is an example of how OTHER rights come into conjunction with that, such as freedom of the press and the Fourth Amendment, because it was trampling on the latter which started that incident, an act of resistance under the Second Amendment which put a check on it and drew the notice of the public and the press, and the First Amendment in combination with public outrage which eventually put paid to the situation.
No single Amendment, by itself, is a pancea to oppression, but they exist as a whole to provide a check against infringing on what are felt to be necess
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I call Besties! :D Niki, you may feel free to express your lack of respect for me and my emotional/personality disorder whenever you want. This is how I understand friendship works.
I reserve the right to throw a snit and threaten to leave and everyone just rolls their eyes because it is so TIRESOME I need a new schtick like Yesterday.
In the meantime we can all keep pouring sand into the machine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
To be angry at me for this, to be offended and threaten a friendship just because I won't support such things when YOU want them done, in light of the fact that I have never supported them at any time, just says to me we probably shouldn't have been friends in the first place,
That's the funniest thing I've seen since Manti T'eo's fake internet girlfriend died.
"If you need a friend get a dog." G.G.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now, as a Brit, I know next to nothing about the 2nd Amendment, but I thought I would take the test as a bit of an experiment. I got 11 of the 15 right, purely based on the sensibility of the proposed answers and a certain amount of lucky guesses. Not quite sure what it proves, other than don't base knowledge on multiple choice tests, maybe. Just thought it was something I might throw in there.
With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Pushing for blatantly unconstitutional laws to be passed in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the process shows a complete disrespect for the rights of everyone no matter how well meant the intentions behind it are - for if one can pass a law infringing on the Second Amendment in that way, it then becomes precedent and ammunition for infringing on the First, Fourth and others in a similar fashion, eventually rendering the whole purpose of those Amendments an exercise in futility and reducing them to naught more than a mostly ignored pretense.
Thing is the Supreme Court has weighed in on this and stated that some restrictions on arms are in fact constitutional. The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits. The courts opinion on this is the one that matters. So to say that gun restrictions are unconstitutional is a fallacy.
It also seems that you don't get that the problem with Niki is more about your attitude than your stance.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
To be angry at me for this, to be offended and threaten a friendship just because I won't support such things when YOU want them done, in light of the fact that I have never supported them at any time, just says to me we probably shouldn't have been friends in the first place,
That's the funniest thing I've seen since Manti T'eo's fake internet girlfriend died.
"If you need a friend get a dog." G.G.
Well... Internet friends kinda do become more important for people who don't really have friends in real life. Plus there's the added bonus that you risk less and no one really notices if you're gone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
There is a reason some things are Constitutional Amendments, it is to prevent state laws from overturning what were felt to be essential human freedoms, a check against tyranny of the majority by insisting on a difficult process which requires an extreme and overwhelming amount of support to prevent abuse of the system by folks with agendas not supported by the whole of the people, in fact it's the closest thing our entire legal structure has to mutually agreed consent.
You need to understand that when the Bill of Rights was written it was a check on the power of the Federal Govt. The Federal Govt could not infringe on speech, establish religeon, etc. States were not bound by those limitations in the Federal Constitution except were they were specifically mentioned. It was not until after the Civil War and the passage of the 14th Amendment that the Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights to state law and it is not until the last 10-15 years that the 2nd Amendment was applied to the States.
I note for the record that most, if not all states, have their own specific 'bill of rights' in their State Constitutions. For example, Ohio has Article 1, Sec 4 which says "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security". Which is a bit more direct a statement of my rights here in Ohio under State law, the the US Consitution's 2nd Amendment.
Quote:
As you well know I am an Anarchist, and I begrudgingly accepted the Constitution as a minimum standard in tolerance of the fact that others seem to want and need a structure even if I feel it is not the benefit they believe it is, therefore I am bound by both ethics and oath to support that Constitution and the principles upon which it is founded - something I take pretty damned seriously as it has put me in conflict with many persons and factions over the years.
Not much of an Anarchist...hell, you sound like a Federalist. That's like saying, 'I'm a Christian, but I worship Allah because...you know...its the popular thing around here."
Quote:
I say again, *IF* you wanna mess with a Constitutional Amendment, then you go to the Amendment process - this is how it's done, it's called the rule of law, due process, and it is there for a reason
Enough with your Anarchist rants about how we should all respect law and due process...actually, I think somebody...ME...has gotten into your head. I've said it before, deep down you are a Republican. Probably voted for Bush...four times!
Quote:
Pushing for blatantly unconstitutional laws to be passed in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the process shows a complete disrespect for the rights of everyone no matter how well meant the intentions behind it are -
Stop it! Your making me blush. Somebody has a Hero crush.
Quote:
I find this hurtful and confusing, but you've a right to your own life and feelings
You folks just need to hug...a nice, non-sexual expression of forgiveness and love that will soothe those hurt feelings away and bathe you both in the light of mutual respect and understanding...makes me kinda teary just thinking about it.
For the record...my ammo is in, 180 rounds of .223 for my new SIG M400. Also bought 20 of the 30rd mags at cost. I'm gonna sell most of them at the Gun Show this weekend, should make about $15-20 per. My rifle wont be in till April or May. Yep, all this talk of feelings is making me want that rifle even more. Nothing helps you express your feelings more then shooting up a defenseless paper target.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I got 11 of 15................I got hung up with the whole hand gun issue.
But I noticed something, that I only heard of in passing, that sounds very much like a BAN of a certain type of gun - Congress passing the National Firearms Act of 1934, in response to a mass killing, very similar to the outrage of Newtown and the mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary.
"The grisly shooting on Feb. 14, 1929 was the result of a “disagreement” between Al Capone and Bugs Moran. Seven of Moran’s men were riddled with bullets fired from two Thompson submachine guns. One contained a 20-round magazine, the other 50-rounds. The assailants also used shotguns. The escalating firepower being used by criminal gangs alarmed law enforcement, Congress, and the public."
Was this considered an infringement of the people's right to bear arms?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've heard of rights being added, but I have not heard of rights being taken away.
Which national laws have been "whittled" away?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Thing is the Supreme Court has weighed in on this and stated that some restrictions on arms are in fact constitutional. The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits. The courts opinion on this is the one that matters. So to say that gun restrictions are unconstitutional is a fallacy.
The general rule when the govt wants to limit your rights is that the limitation must be as specific and narrow as possible, content neutral, serve a compelling govt interest, and be a reasonable limitation on time, place, and manner.
For example, the Court has ruled that the ban on felons or people who commit Domestic Violence is narrow, there's an obvious interest, and the limitation is specific to them. Also allowed is the right of an owner of a private property to exclude guns from their property. Another one is the Federal and State laws barring guns from specific places like schools and govt buildings (they apply to all but are very limited in time and place).
A non-gun example is requiring someone to get a permit for a parade. You have the right to speak and assemble...but it could cause a traffic mess so lets schedule it for next Tuesday so we can announce it, have some extra cops on, and put up those traffic and crowd barriers so nobody gets run over by Grandma coming home from her Yoga for Oldies class at the Y.
Heller (2007) threw out DC's ban which said you could not own handguns and that rifles and shotguns be either unloaded and locked with a trigger lock or disassbled. The Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for 'traditionally lawful purposes', such as self-defense within the home. The Court ruled that the prepatory language in the section (the bit about a militia) announces a purpose for the protection and is not a limitation.
The Court also noted that this interpretation of the clause is consistant with the legislative intent of the founders to provide an ultimate check on the power of govt as well as consistent with similar state constitutions drafted before and after the 2nd Amendment (and the interpretation of those collective documents throughout the 19th and 20th centuries).
The right is not unlimited (as I discussed before). A limit on type of weapon is valid (no more assault rifles) but the test is if the weapon is used for legal purposes and is in common use (oops, looks like Assault Rifles stay legal since there are millions in the hands of law abiding citizes for everything from home defense, target shooting, and hunting).
But that only applies to the Federal Govt because DC is a Federal enclave. Can Ohio suddenly take away my guns?
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) threw out Chicago's gun ban for all the same reasons. The Court held that the Due Process Clause (Alito) and/or the Privilages and Immunities Clause (Thomas) of the 14th Amendment incorporate the protections of the 2nd Amendment. Oddly one of the liberals dissented saying incorporation of the Bill of Rights should be thrown out and the doctrine should revert to its 19th Century basis when it was disallowed. An odd take from a liberal since that would overturn fun cases like Miranda, Gideon, and school integration. Another dissented on the same grounds argued for Hiller (guns bad, nobody should have them except criminals and tyrants).
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Was this considered an infringement of the people's right to bear arms?
Yes.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I've heard of rights being added, but I have not heard of rights being taken away.
Which national laws have been "whittled" away?
There are a number, but I think "privacy" is probably the one people most notice.
We have technology that lets us look through your walls, monitor your heat levels and energy use (which helps in drug cases). We have technology that allows us to peek in your windows, fly drones over your fenced back yard, and listen to your conversation from 1000 yds away. Police can take an involuntary blood sample...without a warrant in some cases. It goes on...but needless to say, privacy is a great example.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not much of an Anarchist...hell, you sound like a Federalist. That's like saying, 'I'm a Christian, but I worship Allah because...you know...its the popular thing around here."
Nah, it's a manifestation of the chaotic alignment. Most chaotic types don't mind so much the rules people impose on themselves so long as they CHOSE to live like that.
So a chaotic good or chaotic neutral anarchist would see a social contract accepted by a majority of the population and -begrudgingly, as Frem mentioned - accept it. Though that means we also have a sympathy for people who resist the rule of the land for their own reasons, and also for people who just sometimes don't quite fit into the greater established society.
And part of us chaotic good-neutral anarchist types still wants to see everything topple and return to what we see as a more natural state. But the neutral/good part of the alignment says we won't violently force that on people.
Not sure if that makes any sense to you. You're a pretty straightforward "lawful" alignment, Hero, which means that some chaotic alignment perspectives will seem like alien gibberish to you. Much like pure lawful arguments look the same to chaotic alignments.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
I get from your statement, among other things, that you feel that the Amendment process is being bypassed? How so? It is my understanding that Congress is imbued with that power, as determined by the Constitution:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the constitution.
1.get 2/3 of both houses in congress to agree
2.through a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of state legislatures
Then it must be ratified:
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions
(never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions
(used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures
(used all other times)
And, as a point of clarification, for those who incorrectly state that the president is going to repeal or amend the 2d Amendment, he has no say whatsoever in the formal amendment process. He cannot veto an amendment proposal or a ratification (Article V of the Constitution).
Having stated the above, I am somewhat baffled by the comments and claims being levied against the president of making himself out to be "King." The Constitution simply would not allow it.
History Repeating Itself
I want to point out that the precedent for weapons ban was established by Congress in 1934, I'm referring to the National Firearms Act, which, in effect, established a ban on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. I argue that despite this law banning a specific type of gun, the rights of the people to bear arms has produced, over the years, some 4.3 million NRA members and some 300 million guns owned by civilians (2010 figures). Also, there has been a significant uptick in gun sales since Obama took office in 2004 (partially due to the scare tactics incorporated by the NRA). I would further argue that the 2d Amendment was the first gun control law established by Congress in 1791.
The 2d Amendment was the Framers answer to the tyranny of King George and his British Army, whereby they correctly established a "well-regulated militia" to ensure the freedoms that they fought and died for.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I want to point out that the precedent for weapons ban was established by Congress in 1934, I'm referring to the National Firearms Act, which, in effect, established a ban on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.
This is the law that lets the govt require you to have a Federal Fireamrs License to legally sell guns as a dealer. It also talks about background checks and keeps me from buying some types of weapons.
While this ban does set a statutory precedent it could not be used to ban assault rifles or the size of magazines. The Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that the govt could not ban guns sold for legal purposes and that are in common use. In 1934 very few automatic and semi-automatic weapons were in common use. Today tens of millions of assault weapons are owned by tens of millions of Americans, thus they are in common use. The legal purposes range anywhere from hunting to collecting to target shooting to self defense.
So in short, times change and in this case the times have not changed in favor of the people seeking to limit the sale or ownership of guns.
You folks might want to start thinking ahead. Someday we'll be talking about laser guns, flechette guns, and other fancy scifi stuff. Ban them now so they never come into common use. What good will my old fashioned slug thrower be against a Federal Policeman in full body bullet proof powered armor and packing a laser rifle. I just saw the Judge Dredd remake...I prefer Stallone and I want my flying motorcycle. I wonder if they have warbots at the local pawn shop...
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You're not too familiar with the history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, are you?
Yes. In my example I set up a scenario where the Constitution was simply ignored by the ruling power and the people had no alternative but to go along. In other words...what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
For example, in the Soviet Union there was one party, no opposition. There was a Constitution that had even more expressions of liberty and freedom then our own. They had elections with near 100% turnout. You go in, you vote for the one choice you had...party line votes all the way down the ballot. If you don't vote (which is your only choice) you get a visit from the Committee for State Security and possibly an all expenses paid trip to summer camp...in Siberia...in winter.
You don't really know much about history, do you? The Russian Revolution is a salutory lesson in what happens when people decided to use armed force as a solution to problems within government rather than other means. The moderates (Menshiviks) who attempted to form government along democratic lines ended up losing the civil war to the more extreme Bolsheviks, who basically outgunned them. And then having established their system in place by armed force, they continued to fight it out with one another until you were left with the bloodiest tyrant of all in power, Stalin.
And such is the outcome of revolutions, and civil wars in many places. More often and not, when you start using arms, its the bad guys who end up winning.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
There are many examples. Keeping with the WW2 concept I'd take a long look at France. Armed citizens working years resisting both the Nazi's and the Vichy French govt.
There is no evidence to suggest that the French people were heavily armed like US citizens prior to WW2. In fact the Resistance, in a non organised way, heavily relied upon tactics such as distributing written information and sabotage, especially in the early days. Most arms and equipment were provided through drops by allied forces, and it is quite clear that the Resistance would have probably never survived or impacted significantly without the involvement of Allied Military Force to combat the German military force. Their role is significant, but it wasn't just through battle, but information and intelligence that they played a major part.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You don't really know much about history, do you? The Russian Revolution is a salutory lesson in what happens when people decided to use armed force as a solution to problems within government rather than other means. The moderates (Menshiviks) who attempted to form government along democratic lines ended up losing the civil war to the more extreme Bolsheviks, who basically outgunned them. And then having established their system in place by armed force, they continued to fight it out with one another until you were left with the bloodiest tyrant of all in power, Stalin.
I do know a lot about history. For example, unlike you I know that the history of the Soviet Union does not stop with Stalin taking power. After WW2 the Soviet people's Democratic rights were exercised in exactly the manner I described. You may want to read something about the period between killing the Czar and that fella with the spot on his head betraying the revolution.
Quote:
And such is the outcome of revolutions, and civil wars in many places. More often and not, when you start using arms, its the bad guys who end up winning.
Yes, it is more often then not the bad guys win. That's human history, filled with bad guys winning. But not all the time. Sometimes the good guys win...sometimes the act of fighting turns the bad guys into good guys and the good guys into bad guys and then its all really mucked up.
The alternative is not to fight...but that only works if both sides agree. Since you've already noticed that often one side is made up of bad guys...the odds of them putting their guns down and joining in one of the group chanting events like the Occupy crazytalkers...is not likely.
But Ghandi and Martin Luther King did so much with non-violence, says you. True, but they were both fighting societies made up and controlled by 'good guys' who simply needed some serious enlightenment which they provided. I suggest that had Dr. King attempted his non-violent reform in the Soviet Union...it would not have ended well.
Dr. Martinov Lutherinko Kingovich's dream speech (written and approved by the Ministry of State Security):
I say to you today, Comrades, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the People's dream.
I have a dream that one day the worker's will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all workers are created equal and they have nothing to lose but their chains."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former landowners and the sons of former peasants will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the People's Democratic Republics of Europe, a land once sweltering with the heat of Nazi injustice, sweltering with the heat of Western Bourgeois oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of equality and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a world where they will not be judged by the quality of their individual achievment but rather by their contribution to the collective. A worker's paradise under the guiding hand of our Great Leader.
I have a dream today.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I do know a lot about history. For example, unlike you I know that the history of the Soviet Union does not stop with Stalin taking power. After WW2 the Soviet people's Democratic rights were exercised in exactly the manner I described. You may want to read something about the period between killing the Czar and that fella with the spot on his head betraying the revolution.
But then it doesn't really have much to do with your point about armed citizens holding back the forces of tyranny, does it?
You put up good examples. Why defend the bad ones?
Peaceful resistance depends a lot on visibility, which is why authoritarian regimes hate a free press and harass journalists at any cost. But it also depends on popular sympathy. Just look at Russia these days. They're slashing away at all options of public dissent and the majority of people are happy with it. Lack of guns is not the issue in that mess, as it needn't come down to armed conflict. It's lack of wanting to resist for a number of reasons.
East Germany did a pretty decent job using peaceful protest to demonstrate civilian power in '89 because people wanted to resist. A lot of beneficial outside factors played into that, of course, but the big factor was that public dissatisfaction was wide-spread and had the will to speak up as a group.
I'm not an anti-gun advocator but when you're looking at armed resistance to tyranny you really have to look at a large number of factors, not the least of which public sentiment, so you really really really need to be careful and respectful to circumstances when picking your comparisons.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just got around to this post.
Frem: I believe you are misunderstanding what I have said.Quote:
I explained why it's not about "inonvenience", and you totally ignored that, continuing to claim that on my behalf. THAT is why I feel the way I do about what you write, it has nothing to do with the issue itself. I have told you that it was you calling us all (which means me) LIARS for our position, at which I take serious offense, which put the first dent in my feelings toward you.
You wanna threaten an honest friendship because I hold an honest position that is... inconvenient for you
IT'S ABOUT YOU, not the issue. I have no problem disagreeing or debating an issue, but I have a big problem with being called a liar when I, too, have expressed MY HONEST POSITION--something for which you have never apologized. When you repeatedly claim that I believe what I believe because it is INCONVENIENT, it offends me because you are JUDGING me as a petty person, despite my having attempted to be honest about why I feel what I feel. When that sort of thing comes from someone I don't consider a friend, it rolls right off my back. When it comes from someone I have felt a special friendship with, it hurts deeply.
And I have never "threatened" our friendship, I have told you how I feel. I don't like feeling that way, but you keep belittling me and attacking me, on this one issue.
You went on and on about the issue itself, while the only negative thing I have said about you where it's concerned is that I believe your experiences have caused you to generalize them as existing everywhere, and that I think you are blinded about some realities. You've been a lot less kind in your judgments of me. You're not addressing me as a friend, you're addressing me as an enemy.
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE GUN ISSUE--your entire rant comes off as if I'm attacking the issue of the second amendment, etc., etc., which I am not. Once again, my response is to how you have addressed me and the negative things you have said about me.Quote:
First, I'm not angry; I'm hurt. Second, it has nothing to do with what you will support; it has to do with the lack of respect you have shown me. It has caused me to lash out and show you a lack of respect at times, out of FRUSTRATION, never anger, but I have attempted over and over to put that frustration aside and again address you with respect. Not once have I seen you show me equal respect on this issue. I have tried to suggest we should agree to disagree on the issue itself, as it is obvious there can be no middle ground, but even that pisses you off.
To be angry at me for this, to be offended and threaten a friendship just because I won't support such things when YOU want them done
When respect goes out the window, it is no longer a friendship. THAT is why I have felt our friendship slipping away; that and nothing else. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GUNS or your stand on them, can you understand that??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, I'm totally confused.Quote:
Niki, you may feel free to express your lack of respect for me and my emotional/personality disorder whenever you want.
I wasn't aware I'd done so, and I've gone back quite a ways in this thread to see where I did. I didn't respond to that post because I didn't see it; as I said, I've not been back here since the last time I posted in that thread. I certainly would never disrespect your disorder, far be it, and while yes, I have shown a lack of respect for you personally now and again, it stems from my total inability to understand why you have such a desire for us to view you the way you view yourself.
Jong, I don't know why you find that so amusing. If you'd care to elaborate, and maybe do so without belittling anyone on the left, I'd like to hear what you have to say.
Um, cancel that, as I think I have an inkling what you meant by the comment, and I'd probably rather not hear further.
PK, absolutely correct; much can be guessed from the framing of multiple-choice tests, and in this case some of the "answers" provided were so patently absurd, guessing was easy!
Nick, bless your heart. At least YOU got it:Quote:
It also seems that you don't get that the problem with Niki is more about your attitude than your stance.
And that's a good point, about the courts' decision, and that "The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits." That seems to be something our pro-gun members refuse to accept, and is the cause of much frustration because it leaves absolutely no room for any kind of common ground.
Shiny, excellent point. The National Firearms Act is a perfect parallel to what is happening today, and the fact that the American public wants something done about the abuse of the Second Amendment as it is happening today, just as it happened then. Personally, I don't consider either "an infringement of the people's right to bear arms", I view both as the People's reaction to an abuse of the Second Amendment which has been going on and has grown to a point where some sort of change needs to happen.
Byte: Quote:
Most chaotic types don't mind so much the rules people impose on themselves so long as they CHOSE to live like that.
So a chaotic good or chaotic neutral anarchist would see a social contract accepted by a majority of the population and -begrudgingly, as Frem mentioned - accept it. Though that means we also have a sympathy for people who resist the rule of the land for their own reasons, and also for people who just sometimes don't quite fit into the greater established society.
MOST excellent, in my opinion.
Magons, Quote:
You don't really know much about history, do you? The Russian Revolution is a salutory lesson in what happens when people decided to use armed force as a solution to problems within government rather than other means. The moderates (Menshiviks) who attempted to form government along democratic lines ended up losing the civil war to the more extreme Bolsheviks, who basically outgunned them. And then having established their system in place by armed force, they continued to fight it out with one another until you were left with the bloodiest tyrant of all in power, Stalin.
And such is the outcome of revolutions, and civil wars in many places. More often and not, when you start using arms, its the bad guys who end up winning.
Beautiful example, and some of how I feel about the potential of an American rebellion and that it might result in something "better" than what we have now. I sincerely believe it wouldn't, as in your example. Thank you.
Agent, you made some excellent points, not the least of which reflects exactly why I believe the way I do about armed rebellion:Quote:
Peaceful resistance depends a lot on visibility, which is why authoritarian regimes hate a free press and harass journalists at
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
From the top here:
M52Nick
Quote:
Thing is the Supreme Court has weighed in on this and stated that some restrictions on arms are in fact constitutional. The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits. The courts opinion on this is the one that matters. So to say that gun restrictions are unconstitutional is a fallacy.
Horse manure.
They can state that the sky is green, it does not make it so, and there is no proper check against this as there is with the other branches - something addressed in Antifederalist Papers #78-82.
Of course, given that Hamilton and Jay were apparently planning to use that loophole from the very start might have had a little something to do with it being there.
Nor is the Supreme Court in any way immune to some very... erm, "creative" re-interpretations of existing law, given the occasional ruling that some act means exactly the opposite of what is written, or by refusing to address very obvious cases of Unconstitutional acts because doing so allows them to stand - again, there is a flaw there in the checks and balances system.
SGG
Quote:
But I noticed something, that I only heard of in passing, that sounds very much like a BAN of a certain type of gun - Congress passing the National Firearms Act of 1934, in response to a mass killing, very similar to the outrage of Newtown and the mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary.
"The grisly shooting on Feb. 14, 1929 was the result of a “disagreement” between Al Capone and Bugs Moran. Seven of Moran’s men were riddled with bullets fired from two Thompson submachine guns. One contained a 20-round magazine, the other 50-rounds. The assailants also used shotguns. The escalating firepower being used by criminal gangs alarmed law enforcement, Congress, and the public."
Was this considered an infringement of the people's right to bear arms?
Yes, and if not, it should have been - case example of how knee-jerk outrage and rush to judgement can over time erode rights into non-existence.
Mind you, I don't think much of fully automatic weapons from a tactical perspective, offensive or defensive, they're inaccurate, waste ammunition and the recoil/inaccuracy is a recipe for needless collateral damage, as well as such fire rapidly wearing the bore - as I recall the M16A2, our military battle rifle at one time, in truth did NOT have a fully automatic setting, but a three-round-burst setting - in large part due to that exact problem.
While I think the notion of an outright ban is bunk, and they're not "technically" banned, since the right bribes (aka Taxes) to the right people can net you a full auto - what they've done instead of made it financially prohibitive for the average citizen as a form of getting what they want without "technically" calling it a ban, basically chicanery.
Mind you, that would likely remain a problem anyhow since a full auto is one of those situations where requiring insurance against collateral damage could logically be required as a condition of purchase or ownership, and another ridiculously flaky workaround is that in some localities it's legal to own all the PARTS, but not legal to actually assemble them.
That's a lot like making owning a car legal, but making it illegal to start the engine and then saying you haven't banned the use of cars, you see ?
Quote:
I get from your statement, among other things, that you feel that the Amendment process is being bypassed? How so? It is my understanding that Congress is imbued with that power, as determined by the Constitution
I feel it is, and yes Congress is imbued with that power - if the people want something badly enough that's the process it requires to alter or remove an Amendment, case example was Prohibition - once installed the people quickly realized the unforseen and terrible consequences of the thing and eventually demanded its repeal.
You can't just ignore the process cause it's inconvenient, those protections are there in
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But then it doesn't really have much to do with your point about armed citizens holding back the forces of tyranny, does it?
My example was the former Soviet Union. I nation whose Constitution promised free speech, freedom of religeon, and most of the same rights our own does...more even, but lacking a right to bear arms.
The result...no freedom. It is an example of a disarmed people at the mercy of their govt.
Quote:
East Germany did a pretty decent job using peaceful protest to demonstrate civilian power in '89 because people wanted to resist. A lot of beneficial outside factors played into that, of course, but the big factor was that public dissatisfaction was wide-spread and had the will to speak up as a group.
East Germany had the most effective secret police in the world. They ruled by terror and routinely shot people trying to 'climb the wall.' What happened in 1989 was the product of the trasitional period of the 1980s that happened in every Warsaw Pact country. The old men died, the younger men did not have the same...zeal and relaxed their iron grip.
If that rebellion had been 1959 instead of 1989 they'd have been crushed by german tanks...or Soviet ones if the germans balked. This is not speculation...it happened. Don't forget, before Spring came to the Arabs, it came to Prague.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki....
Quote:
I explained why it's not about "inonvenience", and you totally ignored that, continuing to claim that on my behalf. THAT is why I feel the way I do about what you write, it has nothing to do with the issue itself. I have told you that it was you calling us all (which means me) LIARS for our position, at which I take serious offense, which put the first dent in my feelings toward you.
When facts have been deliberately misrepresented in order to support ones cause, yeah I tend to get a bit snippy about it, and yet instead of acknowledging this you tear into me on a personal level ?
Quote:
IT'S ABOUT YOU, not the issue.
I have a little trouble buying that, as it comes across to me as both.
Quote:
When you repeatedly claim that I believe what I believe because it is INCONVENIENT, it offends me because you are JUDGING me as a petty person, despite my having attempted to be honest about why I feel what I feel.
I am not trying to judge you, or be judgemental, but I do feel you are taking this very personally in a way that confuses the hell out of me - you know where I stand about rights, where I have always stood, and then you go advocating measures that essentially violate them, and become angry when that offends me ?
Quote:
And I have never "threatened" our friendship, I have told you how I feel. I don't like feeling that way, but you keep belittling me and attacking me, on this one issue.
I am not belittling you, nor attacking you, or at least that has not ever been my intention.
I do mock and attack, quite vigorously, attempts to step on peoples rights, especially when those attempts are rooted in deception and unsupportable assertions - to take a blanket statement in general as a directed personal attack is a bit much, although I do acknowledge I called you out on making one specific statement the facts did not support, but the facts did not support it.
Quote:
You went on and on about the issue itself, while the only negative thing I have said about you where it's concerned is that I believe your experiences have caused you to generalize them as existing everywhere, and that I think you are blinded about some realities.
Yeah cause that's not offensive at all is it ?
And no, I don't think my experiences apply everywhere - I state quite often this isn't the case and express a desire that they some day they not apply anywhere, hell that's half my motivation.
As for blind about some realities, one *MIGHT* take into account my track record of predicting certain abuses before saying so.
Quote:
You're not addressing me as a friend, you're addressing me as an enemy.
You are advocating for the infringements of rights I have sworn to protect, it's kind of a difficult situation there for both of us, especially when we are both emotionally invested in the matter to no small degree because of our own feelings and experiences.
This ain't no easier for me than it is for you.
Quote:
First, I'm not angry; I'm hurt. Second, it has nothing to do with what you will support; it has to do with the lack of respect you have shown me. It has caused me to lash out and show you a lack of respect at times, out of FRUSTRATION, never anger, but I have attempted over and over to put that frustration aside and again address you with respect. Not once have I seen you show me equal respect on this issue.
Huh?
Seems to me you're taking mere generalized snark as directed personal attack, which it ain't meant to be, but as you do seem to be pretty damn upset all I can do is *TRY* to not come off like that, but this bit here is far less easy for me....
I don't, you might be aware, share the same cogitative or thought processes as most people, I come at things from angles instead of straight lines and a lot of time there's a heap of translation FAIL going on there - there's at least one other person round this board with the same problem, and just cause I am a bit better at
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I do know a lot about history. For example, unlike you I know that the history of the Soviet Union does not stop with Stalin taking power.
Ah, yeah I do know that.
Quote:
After WW2 the Soviet people's Democratic rights were exercised in exactly the manner I described. You may want to read something about the period between killing the Czar and that fella with the spot on his head betraying the revolution.
Except that it has nothing to do with the argument at hand, which is about armed civilions fighting tyranny and triumphing over evil. In the case of Russia, the revolution actually went the other way.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Less a quiz about the 2nd Amendment than a quiz about court cases pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
Meh.
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
From the top here:
M52NickQuote:
Thing is the Supreme Court has weighed in on this and stated that some restrictions on arms are in fact constitutional. The right to bear arms, like all rights, has limits. The courts opinion on this is the one that matters. So to say that gun restrictions are unconstitutional is a fallacy.
Horse manure.
They can state that the sky is green, it does not make it so, and there is no proper check against this as there is with the other branches - something addressed in Antifederalist Papers #78-82.
Of course, given that Hamilton and Jay were apparently planning to use that loophole from the very start might have had a little something to do with it being there.
Nor is the Supreme Court in any way immune to some very... erm, "creative" re-interpretations of existing law, given the occasional ruling that some act means exactly the opposite of what is written, or by refusing to address very obvious cases of Unconstitutional acts because doing so allows them to stand - again, there is a flaw there in the checks and balances system.
There is no flaw. The Supreme Court can be overruled by constitutional amendment. Also if the court was ever to vote something so blatantly wrong Justices can be impeached.
Until one of those happen the Supreme Court rules state what laws are and what laws are not constitutional. The Court is the final arbiter of these issues.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
My example was the former Soviet Union. I nation whose Constitution promised free speech, freedom of religeon, and most of the same rights our own does...more even, but lacking a right to bear arms.
The result...no freedom. It is an example of a disarmed people at the mercy of their govt.
And yet you do little to address the point of widespread, coherent political dissent to this development. The reason this happened and endured was not first and foremost that the people were unarmed. THAT is the point. It's not like inserting guns into this situation would have meant - poof - freedom. You ignore the complexity of the situation, which is my entire beef with this comparison.
Quote:
East Germany had the most effective secret police in the world. They ruled by terror and routinely shot people trying to 'climb the wall.' What happened in 1989 was the product of the trasitional period of the 1980s that happened in every Warsaw Pact country. The old men died, the younger men did not have the same...zeal and relaxed their iron grip.
That is what I meant by beneficial outside factors, you know? My parents lived through it. I was born there. I was present at the mass protests. People were afraid they would get shot at even in the far more relaxed political climate of '89. And it didn't happen out of nowhere, either, there was a development of dissent and it grew and it had public backing. They wouldn't have dismantled the established order without those protests, without that popularly voiced dissent, either. The point was coherent public will to voice their protest en masse.
Quote:
If that rebellion had been 1959 instead of 1989 they'd have been crushed by german tanks...or Soviet ones if the germans balked. This is not speculation...it happened. Don't forget, before Spring came to the Arabs, it came to Prague.
They did try, and it happened in Germany, too, in '53. Tanks aplenty.
Apart from "Yes, we both know a little bit about history" I still don't see how this relates to armed citizens defending their democracy against tyranny. Successfully, at that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem:
Words are hard for me right now, and I'm too weary to keep trying on this issue. I'll try, one last time, to state my position.
Screw guns. That's one issue to me, little more. For all of us who are against assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, not just me, to be called liars flat out when we have tried to express our opinions honestly is offensive, period. They are our OPINIONS, just as yours are you opinions; none of them can be proven facts beyond doubt. You believe otherwise. You believe only you are 100% right.
When you speak of taking things personally, please look in the mirror. YOU have taken the discussion of this issue far more personally than anyone else here, as far as I can see.Quote:
When facts have been deliberately misrepresented
I never deliberately misrepresent facts.
I tried to explain that "IT'S ABOUT YOU, not the issue. "Quote:
I have a little trouble buying that, as it comes across to me as both.
So again you call me a liar, obliquely this time, but the end result is the same. As I said previously, NICK got it, but you can't seem to:Quote:
It also seems that you don't get that the problem with Niki is more about your attitude than your stance.
Nick, at least, understands.Quote:
I am not trying to judge you, or be judgemental
When you state TWICE that the issue is "inconvenient" for me, immediately after I have explained why it is not that, what is it but judging me?Quote:
I don't know how it cannot be your intent to belittle or attack when you call us all liars.
I am not belittling you, nor attacking you, or at least that has not ever been my intention.Quote:
attempts to step on peoples rights
We disagree. As has been stated, no rights are absolute in our country; you believe this one is. I disagree. I don't say it's "inconvenient" for you to want no limits on one right, I know how you feel. I try to make valid points to back up my stance, but rather than address them, you DO belittle me by saying I believe what I do because it's "inconvenient" for me to have any other reason for my stance.Quote:
when those attempts are rooted in deception.
Again you call me a liar. Your post was directed at ME...what you wrote is therefore directed at ME. Of course I take that personally. I have never been deceitful.Quote:
I am truly sorry if...
Good gawd, how many times have we heard that from politicians who aren't really sorry? "I'm sorry if I offended anyone", "I'm sorry if anyone was upset by..." That's what we call the "non-apology apology" I couldn't possibly make it more clear WHY I feel kicked in the teeth, and your response here is peppered with even MORE personal comments claiming I have deliberately misrepresented things, been deceptive, etc. How in hell am I NOT supposed to take those as offensive, judgmental and attacking?
Enough. I'm fighting a triggered depression. I've not been able to sleep much, my eating has been sporadic for days, I'm exhausted and my head hurts, and at the moment I'm sick to death of this forum, the petty bickering, the nastiness, stupidity, boring repetition of idiocy and personal attacks (none of those include you except the last, just in general the repetitiveness of some here and the general tone of "conversation"). This discussion is useless; you seem unable to grasp the points I try to make. I said clearly before that the issue is something we should agree to disagree on. That was my attempt to respect your opinion and ask you to respect mine. Yet you came right back after that, unwilling to even let it go. I'm outta here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fine, you want it this way, then it'll be that way.
Quote:
I never deliberately misrepresent facts.
Suuuuuuuuure you don't.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=54007#925027
Quote:
I don't know how it cannot be your intent to belittle or attack when you call us all liars.
I call what I see.
Like pretending an empty stinger tube was a live missle ?
Like using deliberately distorted information to present the false claim of someone being "Heckled", after it came out that this was not quite true ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/01/30/msnbc-re
viewing-newtown-heckled-video/
Not by far the half of it, but whatever.
And I am all for agreeing to disagree, unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what you mean.
What you seem to want me to do is to SHUT UP - to STOP disagreeing with you.
I find that unacceptable.
You post here, I post here.
We both have an interest in the topic.
The topic comes up, I am going to discuss it, that's a fact - if you decide to take personal umbrage because I disagree, or with the MANNER of my disagreement, that's on you.
But expecting me to just sit down and shut up while you post screed after screed trying to justify what I feel to be an unwarranted assault on a human rights is ridiculous, offensive, even.
I *do* believe human rights are absolute, so long as one is willing to accept the consequences of misusing them, that has always been the case, and never before have you taken such personal issue with it, or me being so extreme about it, until it came down to a right you don't seem to like.
THEN all of the sudden it's all kinda personal ?
Whatever.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, Jezus Criste, can we please stop this?? I will try one more time, only one. The mere fact that I keep trying to get through to you should illustrate the value I have placed on our friendship, if nothing more. So here it is:
The link that took me to had you writing Quote:
As for calling people liars, welll.....
You did just try to draw a false conclusion from a perspective where there was not sufficient data to support it, and you *knew* there was not sufficient data when you said it.
What the hell else could I possibly call these things ?
And I find it laughable that you state discussing the matter with ME is logically futile, when it was logic that just tore your contrived and unsupportable conclusion to shreds.
had you calling me a deliberate liar, personally this time. You wrote that you were "quite, quite tanked" at the time, AND ALSO WROTE that we should agree to disagree. I did so, and said the same, either later on or in another thread, and you went right on attacking me.
I was debating; you claimed you had negated my point. I responded Quote:
Your statement and mine are a wash; ergo, that doesn't "prove" your negating the studies. For example, if a woman (or a wife) is raped at gunpoint but doesn't report it (many women don't report rape),or someone is robbed at gunpoint but doesn't report it because he lives in an area where he knows the police will never find the robber, it doesn't make the stats either, or someone is murdered with a gun but the body is never found, or a gang member is injured by a gun but doesn't seek treatment or report it, etc. In other words, not all uses of a weapon are reported, either.
In other words, neither of us had sufficient data to absolutely support our positions, but what I posted has been stated in numerous studies with the best data possible. I drew a conclusion from data that has been offered by valid sources, such as the American Journal of Epidemiology: Quote:
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
From the Oxford Journals, by the way, and there is much, much more in just that one study, which they went to great lengths to verify, and accompanied with cites, information on their materials and methods, measures and analysis. If you choose not to believe ANY studies, you cannot claim you know more than they do and thus can refute the data. You've done no personal studies and have offered no valid sources of any.
The material I originally presented, and the conclusions to which it came, can be found in myriad studies, like the one above, as well as Medscape http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058, which I have long trusted when it comes to mental illness and which I ha
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki: Oh, I was just teasing you. And being self-deprecating. Trying to lighten the thread a bit, foster some unity. Failed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ayep, that's it, oh well.
Quote:
you went right on attacking me.
Went right on DISAGREEING with you, you mean.
Lemme make this abundantly, absolutely clear from my perspective.
You have essentially demanded a I *take a dive* on the cause of a human right I feel very strongly about and held your respect and our friendship hostage to that demand - regardless of what you say, seems to me that ANY act of disagreement with you on this is too much, apparently.
And now you want me to back off, back down, under the pretense that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and expect me to actually believe this when never not once have you had any "issue" with my rabidity on human rights, on me calling folk out, till it came round to this one issue.
I find that more than a little hard to swallow.
Quote:
I've truly never known you at all.
No, I guess you haven't.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
11 of 15 here...wow, I've missed one hell of a firefight, verbally speaking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris, it hasns't been a firefight on my part, it's been a sincere and time-consuming attempt to solve a problem. We disagreed about the gun issue for quite some time civilly, as I attempted to do with everyone, and I agreed with him on numerous points. It was when he called us all liars and said clearly that what we were saying wasn't what we meant, or wanted, or something, that this all went haywire. It was like that sentence came flying out at me and hit me like a brick in the face, and I reacted.
Now it's gotten to the point where he seems totally unable to grasp that I'm quite happy to debate guns with anyone and have never asked anybody to take a dive, back down, back off, under some "pretense", it's that he's said some really horrible things, now about me and to me which aren't true and which are like dumping raw sewage on my head, and I was hoping he would retract those things when I showed they were wrong, and apologize for having called me a liar and said all those other things. It's like we're having two completely different arguments, and it's been pretty painful, for me at least.
I have to give up, obviously I have no choice. But it was never a fight or a battle to me, it was an attempt to keep from losing what I've thought of as a respectful friendship, which was vastly more important to me than any single issue of any kind.
I'm totally confused at this point as to why he cannot make the leap to what it's been ABOUT, and keeps insisting it's about the issue; which it's not and never has been. I just can't grasp why we can't communicate on this. I just wanted to say for me it's never been a firefight or any other kind of fight, and by now it's gotten so hurtful, what with him accusing me of ugly things which are totally false, that I am forced to accept his anger and personal attacks and let there be an end to it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, if things don't cool down soon Byte will come in here and post pictures of puppies pooping out rainbows or something. :)))
I think Frem and Niki will "cool down" and get back to being friends. When people have things they are passionate about sometimes disagreements can get real serious. I think though that you guys can still be friends, agree to disagree. Just know that if you're trying to change each other's minds it probably won't, changing one's mind usually is something gradual, something that steals in quietly, if it occurs at all. And its not necessary anyways for a friendship I think, at least not a casual friendship. If you guys were best friends then this might be a bigger situation, but I always agree to disagree with my casual friends and it usually works out okay.
I feel sorry for Mantai Teo, poor sap. Getting romantically involved with someone you've never seen in real life is pretty lame, but it happens a lot so he probably thought it would be okay. I feel bad when people have been sorely taken advantage of like that. It makes Mantai sound dumb, but it was a very elaborate hoax and I do feel kind of sorry for him.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem
While your knowledge of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers is commendable, please note that many of those positions didn't actually make it into the Constitution. And it's the Constitution that counts.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Wow, if things don't cool down soon Byte will come in here and post pictures of puppies pooping out rainbows or something. :)
pfffffft where's my google? I need to get on this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kamala Harris says Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal shows justice system not 'equitable'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10224371/Kamala-Harris-says-K
yle-Rittenhouse-acquittal-shows-justice-not-equitable.html
I don't have a say in this I'm not an American but I guess I find the talk interesting
don't give a fuck for internetz friends much
Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:Quote:
You're not addressing me as a friend, you're addressing me as an enemy.
You are advocating for the infringements of rights I have sworn to protect
-Frem
I don't get why people always go so hung up on these fake interwebs friendships
You are his enemy
Remember FREMDFIRMA the Anti-American Faggot is nobody's friend, he even likes to suck the dick off the mohammedans and politically takes it up the ass from islamos, he even defended the terrorists that bomb pop concerts and guys who make threats to attack South Park cartoonists.
An 'Anarchist' is what he claims to be but I think he could be something even worse.
If peope did not see past this fake Marxist Anti-American faggot fucker
Then Let me quote some of his best some time, before the 2016 election when he posted Death Threats against people who MIGHT vote for Trump.
Back to the news...
Four Distinguished And Retired FBI Agents Warn About the Marxist Revolution in America and Within The DOJ And FBI
https://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/four-distinguished-and-retir
ed-fbi-agents-warn-about-marxist-revolution-america-and-within
Jury finds Rittenhouse not guilty in Kenosha shootings
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Rittenhouse-jury-to-return-f
or-4th-day-of-16633858.php
Evading Accountability: Kenosha jury’s acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse just the latest miscarriage of justice
https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/evading-accountability
-kenosha-jurys-acquittal-kyle-rittenhouse-just-latest-miscarriage-justice/
Kenosha Protesters ‘Confused’ and ‘Pissed’ After Rittenhouse Verdict
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kenosha-protesters-confused-and-pissed-a
fter-rittenhouse-verdict
Jury finds Rittenhouse not guilty of all charges in Kenosha shootings
https://whdh.com/news/jury-finds-rittenhouse-not-guilty-of-all-charges
-in-kenosha-shootings/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Head Of American Militia Freedom Forces: The Victory For Kyle Riddenhouse Is A Victory For The Constitutional Militia
https://gunsinthenews.com/head-of-american-militia-freedom-forces-the-
victory-for-kyle-riddenhouse-is-a-victory-for-the-constitutional-militia/
Former Rittenhouse attorney hails jury’s verdict: Second Amendment is about ‘right of self-defense’
https://www.foxnews.com/media/rittenhouse-attorney-robert-barnes-jury-
verdict-second-amendment-right-self-defense-ingraham-angle
‘Disappointed but not surprised’: Carbondale crowd protests Kyle Rittenhouse verdict
https://thesouthern.com/news/local/disappointed-but-not-surprised-carb
ondale-crowd-protests-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict/article_58b3b725-21f9-5c36-a9dc-118d3c133d04.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME