Welcome To The Wild West???
POSTED BY: deepgirl187
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 06:19
VIEWED: 7905
PAGE 3 of 13
Kwicko, can you say thread hog. Boy, its not always about you. Its about the 2nd amendment. A guaranteed right. Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. Now DC can join the rest of the Union. You have a right to protect yourself, family, and property. Idiots always say that the armed citizen is dangerous. But cops are your saviors. Criminals are better with arms than veterans. Cops are the criminals. Shooten engine blocks what a fag.
"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(Yes, it's a bit ranty and wandering, tired from mowing the lawn and bombed on allergy meds...pollen allergies suuuuuuuuuuuck!)
MI originally adopted Right-to-Carry in 2001, but it wasn't till about two-three years later that certain little shell games were finally ended by the state legislature and you could actually GET a CCW permit, the police installed a revolving door setup of catch-22 crap to drive folk off.
FYI, you CAN legally open-carry in MI, but that pissant Cox actively discourages it with the excuse that you might cause a panic - are people such cowards that the mere SIGHT of a freakin TOOL sends them screaming?
God forbid I walk across my own yard with a hammer or a rake then....
(insert about four minutes of profanity here)
Between 2004-2005 I was driving a cab in that area, and literally watched as crime fell off like a rock, you really get to know an area and it's people quite intimately from behind the wheel of a cab, and since I do associate and make friends in the "lower elements" of society* and many of them headed for greener pastures, specifically wisconsin, as a better and "safer" (how ironic, eh?) place to practice their 'trades'.
In fact the exodus really affected the area, for a while there it was actually starting to look like a ghost town, and I would have to say overall the folks who moved into that vaccum were at least marginally better folk, although given the continual poverty and resultant desperation of the average resident, not by all that bloody much, alas.
One substantially contributing factor to recent upswings in crime were the lack of any kind of trust and communication between the police and communities, especially in detroit, compounded in recent years with a truly significant amount of criminal activity on behalf of the DPD themself - remember, we STILL have that cursed federal task force sitting on top of them, and as a result they've been sitting around and bitching that they "can't do their job" if they're held to even the simplest standards of basic human decency, so they've prettymuch been sitting it out and waiting for the feddies to give up while the rest of us get left swinging in the breeze, one reason WHY I severely reccommend you protect yourself anywhere in Detroit and the local burbs, cause help will be long in coming, if at all.
As I recall, without being specific in either case, you live quite a bit further west of detroit than I do, and in any area that is comparatively safe, to a degree that actually weirds me the hell out being originally a native of Baltimore... I'd never SEEN an urban environ without the 'atmosphere' of fear, dread and violence before, I was like, what the hell, did they spike the local water supply with valium or what ?! none of these people look dangerous or frightened, it's... unnatural!
But I got used to it, especially after moving to a podunk little town about a mile wide in which three vandalisms in a month is considered a "crime wave"
*eyeroll*
But old habits and reflexes do die hard, and these days even most of the criminal element in detroit itself are just pathetic and incompetent amateurs in comparison to what I am used to, truthfully I feel MORE threatened by the DPD given their conduct over the past three years.
All the more reason to protect self (mostly by avoiding trouble in the first place) and not get them involved if at all possible - imagine being robbed, calling the cops and THEN getting shaken down, extorted, and then arrested by them... it's common enough that folks on the east side simply WILL not call em unless there's bodies to be picked up, if even then.
We're seeing an upswing now only because of the truly grevious economic situation, and most of that is what I call crimes of desperation more than intentional lifestyle conduct, it's no less dangerous for all that, but the really dangerous ones, that consider it a lifestyle and a living, they've long since flown the coop to somewhere they can be SURE their victims are unarmed and defenseless, and good fekkin riddance to em.
-Fr
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, Human rights do change, for all the assumption that such things are immutable, they change a great deal. Not only what Human rights are, but who they apply too as well. When the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, freedom and representation applied only to Rich, Landowning White Men. If you were Black and a slave, you were property, you had no rights. Your right to defend yourself was to let your master beat you if he wanted, because if you were to raise your hands to white folk, even in self defence, you were some dead property, ya' hear? There's a whole fleet of 'basic Human Rights' that didn't exist before the 20th century. To modern eyes the America of the Founding Fathers would likely have been quite a hideous tyranny, unless, of course, you were one of those Rich, landowning White guys.
But my main point was that language changes. The wording of the Second Amendment may mean one thing today, but that doesn't mean that's what it meant when it was written, nor what the founding fathers actually meant. Words change, sometimes drastically, and interestingly these changes can reflect on the changes of the wider society. Just consider the word 'franchise', it used to mean to go and vote; one would exercise one's franchise to vote. Now it means corporate monopoly of a marketable name or product. Militia in the 1700's was a non-professional army, that was called up in time of War, in the modern day the closest allegories would be the US Reservists or the British Territorial Army; civilian soldiers in the sense that they make a living outside of the military, yes, but hardly the idea of every civilian in the country being an armed militiaman. Similarly, the phrase 'to bear arms' didn't mean to own weapons, it meant to serve in the military. There are numerous contemporary documents where the phrase 'to bear arms' or similar connotations are used in reference to a serving member of the military, as we'd say 'soldiering' or similar today, though none I know of that indicate it too mean private weapon ownership. A well regulated militia (well regulated being a fairly important fragment there) would have more in common with the US Reserves than an ad hoc grouping of gun-ho survivalists, and the term 'to bear arms' meant to be an armed member of the military. Thus using the language and it's meaning of the day, to interpret a statement made at the time, I would say the Second Amendment could equally be interpreted to mean defending the right of individual states to maintain an independent militia, a part time army, and that no one's right to join their states army, nor the states right to maintain or raise that army, should be infringed.
Even so, if the right to bear arms means the right to own private weapons, why is it just small arms? The Second Amendment doesn't say “The Right to Bear Small Arms”, it says “Arms”, which is a just, in military parlance, Armaments. That includes everything from a knife to heavy artillery, munitions and Nuclear weapons. Here's an example of the tools changing. When the Founding Fathers wrote that rather open ended statement, no one had split the atom, nobody knew the atom really existed, beyond a vague philosophical sense. Arms were Cannon, Arms were single shot musket. Arms were not Fighter Jets, machine guns and tanks. So yes, I do wonder that if the Founding Fathers could have seen the modern context within which private weapon ownership falls, they would have been as free with it as the NRA suggests. No one (well no one fully sane) thinks any individual should have access to the supreme destructive power of a modern Thermonuclear weapon, but if the Second Amendment really says exactly that which you suggest, then Thermonuclear Weapons certainly fall under the heading 'arms', whose ownership should not be infringed. Or we can accept that they lived in a different time, a different context with different pressures, different language, and in fact a different set of 'basic human rights', what those rights were, and who they applied to.
More insane rambl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Truth is you can't be sure, the founding fathers may have been for more stringent weapon protection in the modern context, they may not.
In point of fact, they were VERY VERY explicit about it to a painstaking degree.
Just read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers to comprehend their reasons, intentions and effective decisions on the matter in explicitly clear detail.
NOT a standing army of ANY kind (the National Guard qualifies as such to the founders standards, and is thus anethma to their purpose)
NOT a state-run enterprise whatsoever save for the selection of officers, as often as not simply appointed to the position by the men they would be under.
Essentially the "militia" is the whole body of the people, and by well regulated they mean well ARMED and well TRAINED, with MILITARY WEAPONS.
It was the explicit intent (as mentioned in the Federalist Papers) that the "militia" should OUTGUN any raised conventional military force for the express purpose of a check and balance against that bastion of tyranny, the Standing Federal Army, which by their intent, should not exist nor have ever existed in this country, Madison in particular was SO convinced they had set up conditions that would ever prevent it, that no further explicit provision was required.
The intent and purpose of the second amendment was to make damn sure that at ANY point in time, due to superior force and quality of arms and training, we the people could kick the crap out of the Gov AND any military, police, or security forces they raised should they get out of line.
That means MILITARY WEAPONS, without restriction, up to, inlcuding, and beyond anything the US Army is or can be equipped with - period.
Read the documents yourselves if you doubt any word of mine on the matter.
And if you don't believe such a militia can kick ass when need be, just have a look at what happened on kings mountain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain
All papers by timeline.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm
Federalist Papers by number.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm
AntiFederalist Papers by number.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm
Those who put that Amendment there left no doubt whatsoever of its intent nor its meaning, it's only by completely distorting it that ANY restriction of that right exists at all.
-Frem
As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and burdensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it wilt be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department; judges, collectors, tax-gatherers, excisemen and the whole host of revenue officers, will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them. . . .
AntiFederalist #29
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Have you got anything that specifically deals with the idea that they weren't talking about a regulated state militia, because the word militia and the phrase "to bear arms" didn't mean what you suggest, and I'm not in the mood to dig through a hundred odd links to support your case for you.
Essentially, 'militia' is NOT the whole body of the people, it's a militia, not the populous, hence them being different names for different things.
The meaning of the word militia is a non-professional army, part time and called up in crisis. It doesn't necessarily mean the whole body of the populous, that is not the meaning of the word now, and it is not the meaning of the word then.
Besides that, nothing you posted deals with what you quoted.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, here ya go, Madison, from Federalist Paper #46...
"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogeth
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If yer unwilling to do the research to support your opinion, offer it as opinion, not fact, then!
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And Patrick Henry's very eloquent and correct counter argument, copy/pasted directly from here.
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_12.htm#henry-07
Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I was heard to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two great instruments of government; and I professed great repugnance at parting with the purse, without any control, to the proposed system of government. And now, when we proceed in this formidable compact, and come to the national defence, the sword, I am persuaded we ought to be still more cautious and circumspect; for I feel still more reluctance to surrender this most valuable of rights.
The honorable member who has risen to explain several parts of the system was pleased to say, that the best way of avoiding the danger of a standing army, was, to have the militia in such a way as to render it unnecessary; and that, as the new government would have power over the militia, we should have no standing army — it being unnecessary. This argument destroys itself. It demands a power, and denies the probability of its exercise. There are suspicions of power on one hand, and absolute and unlimited confidence {385} on the other. I hope to be one of those who have a large share of suspicion. I leave it to this house, if there be not too small a portion on the other side, by giving up too much to that government. You can easily see which is the worst of two extremes. Too much suspicion may be corrected. If you give too little power to-day, you may give more to-morrow. But the reverse of the proposition will not hold. If you give too much power to-day, you cannot retake it to-morrow: for to-morrow will never come for that purpose. If you have the fate of other nations, you will never see it. It is easier to supply deficiencies of power than to take back excess of power. This no man can deny.
But, says the honorable member, Congress will keep the militia armed; or, in other words, they will do their duty. Pardon me if I am too jealous and suspicious to confide in this remote possibility. My honorable friend went on a supposition that the American rulers, like all others, will depart from their duty without bars and checks. No government can be safe without checks. Then he told us they had no temptation to violate their duty, and that it would be their interest to perform it. Does he think you are to trust men who cannot have separate interests from the people? It is a novelty in the political world (as great a novelty as the system itself) to find rulers without private interests, and views of personal emoluments, and ambition. His supposition, that they will not depart from their duty, as having no interest to do so, is no satisfactory answer to my mind. This is no check. The government may be most intolerable and destructive, if this be our only security.
My honorable friend attacked the honorable gentleman with universal principles — that, in all nations and ages, rulers have been actuated by motives of individual interest and private emoluments, and that in America it would be so also. I hope, before we part with this great bulwark, this noble palladium of safety, we shall have such checks interposed as will render us secure. The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. But then, he says that the power of arming and organizing the militia is concurrent, and to be equally exercised by the general and state governments. I am sure, and I trust in the candor of that gentleman, that he will recede from that {386} opinion, When his recollection will be called to the particular clause which relates to it.
As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of appointing the
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Kwicko, can you say thread hog. Boy, its not always about you. Its about the 2nd amendment. A guaranteed right. Its not about your ghetto life. You live there because the hookers are cheap. Get off the fat crack. Now DC can join the rest of the Union. You have a right to protect yourself, family, and property. Idiots always say that the armed citizen is dangerous. But cops are your saviors. Criminals are better with arms than veterans. Cops are the criminals. Shooten engine blocks what a fag.
"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".
PirateCat, how do you spell "retard"? Oh, that's right - you can't.
I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge of cheap hookers, but you really shouldn't call your mom "cheap". After all, she was decent enough not to swallow you, or let you run down the crack of her ass to become a stain on the sheets after her brother had his fun...
As for the rest of your post, I'll only repeat what Samuel L. Jackson asked in "Pulp Fiction" :
"ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT?!"
Keep "worken" on it - someday maybe you'll be reading at the third-grade level. That would make you the most well-educated person in your family tree.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
You made 2 good arguments. (I commend you for them) I will attempt to answer both of them.
1. The Bill of Rights only applied to white, land owing men...as such anyone else had NO rights. Yes, you are correctin that, at the time, it applied only to them. However it left a back door open, so that things could change.
This point, however, does not apply. The young U.S.A., at the time, had just begun. It is my belief that the founding fathers did not want to immediatly start a civil war by granting freedoms to slaves and to women.
They left it open to be done, but the establishment of the country was primary.
The founding fathers left it to later generations to decided. And we did, with the Civil War, (just as they had predicted).
This does not mean that they wanted to hold the door closed to slaves or to women. Just that it could not be decided and still keep the country intact at the time. But they knew that it would be decided one day, which is why they made it so that it COULD BE DECIDED.
2. Why doesnt it apply to nukes?
Well, why doesnt it? No, they didnt have nukes back then, and technology has far outpaced what anyone could have thought of.
However, one of the major points of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, is that NO ONE MAN CAN CONTROL THE COUNTRY. With a nuke, you could threaten and terrorize the country into doing whatever you wanted.
Or at least a large chunk of it. This is UnConstituional. Our founding fathers set up this country to protect itself from despots who would try and take complete power. However, it left the door open again, so that if a despot did rise, the people would ahve the means and the ability to strike them down.
The right of a human being, to protect themselves and their families, from threats both foreign and domestic should never even be questioned.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME