Ask Me Help Desk - Gun control past debates

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.

YesTut undoubtedly you did, it was just citizens exercising their constittional right to own more weapons, like 270,000,000 isn't enough, but I question what do they have to fear but fear itself. Being afraid doesn't fit very well with the Superman image, I expect soon Superman will need an AR15 to get his man card marked

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.

We shouldn't respond to our rights and safety being threatened?

Hello again, Steve:

If the problem we have with guns, is that there's TOO FEW of them, then maybe the answer to the drug problem, is that there's TOO FEW of them.

I mean, if EVERYBODY had drugs, there wouldn't be ANY drug crime.. Problem solved.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

If the problem we have with guns, is that there's TOO FEW of them, then maybe the answer to the drug problem, is that there's TOO FEW of them.

I mean, if EVERYBODY had drugs, there wouldn't be ANY drug crime.. Problem solved.

excon

Yeah, OK. You run with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.

It's paranoid to be prepared to respond to a threat.

Would you kill an ant with a cannon? How many times? How many bullets do you need to protect your family in your home?

Protecting your home against the zombie apocalypse is understandable if you admit it. But don't say you need a machine gun for a burglar or thug. That's loony right?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Capiche ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It's paranoid to be prepared to respond to a threat.

Should read it's NOT paranoid...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

capiche ?

No they don't.

Then go defend our country the way real soldiers do if you have a right to act, dress, and arm yourselves like them.

But you are the same guys who don't want REAL soldier on every corner.

No Tal they like playing toy soldiers

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

But you are the same guys who don't want REAL soldier on every corner.

And you do ? One of the grievances documented in the Declaration of Independence was "For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us".

In fact ;one of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment was to prevent the deployment of REAL soldier on every corner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

ok then ;how's it going with other violent crimes ,assaults ,rapes ,forced entries into homes ?Did the use of firearms in robberies decrease ? All you really did was remove the means of self defense .

America, don’t repeat Australia’s gun control mistake | The Daily Caller

yeah yeah I know ....right wing ...no validity .

Tom, I think this will just be wasting my time and yours.

Tut

I'll say it again these are different days, time to move on. The government has a standing army, that it quarters in barracks, they are well supplied with arms and food, no need to quarter them in private homes or to augment their services with militia, the reason for some of the provisions in the constitution were the grievences of the people who were mistreated at that time, this is a different time with different problems, taxation is still an issue but you cannot say you are without representation, however weak it might be. You don't have an army maintaining order, you have a police force, a luxury no one had thought of in the eighteenth century. There hasn't been an Indian raid in, what, a least a century, there hasn't been a border incursion since the early nineteenth century.

I know you all long for the simple days of the eigthteenth century when there was still a nation to pioneer and conquer, but those days are long gone, if you can conquer the que in the rush hour you are doing well and you can't use a gun for that

Yeah I get it... We the sheeple of the United States should trust that the government will always be representative, and like the good nanny it is ,look out for our best interest ,and will not evolve into a tyranny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah I get it ...We the sheeple of the United States should trust that the government will always be representative, and like the good nanny it is ,look out for our best interest ,and will not evolve into a tyranny.

Of course, we are to always be watchful, but certainly there are plenty of checks and balances (plus eyes watching).

What would be the definition of tyranny? How would the government not become representative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah I get it ...We the sheeple of the United States should trust that the government will always be representative, and like the good nanny it is ,look out for our best interest ,and will not evolve into a tyranny.

If it evolves into a tyranny will you be like Syria and tear yourselves apart and how long will it take before you oppose it with small arms? You get the government you ask for and the surest way for it to become a tyranny is to allow the present corruption to persist and grow.

Look at your revolution, a small armed group was successful because it opposed a similarly armed small army which was not reinforced. Look at your civil war, professional armies fought themselves to a standstill, what citizens who could fight did and yet victory took years, and yet the south was unable to overcome the tyranny of the north. It is a romantic notion that an armed population will be successful against a well trained military

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Of course, we are to always be watchful, but certainly there are plenty of checks and balances (plus eyes watching).

What would be the definition of tyranny? How would the government not become representative?

Look up Alexis de Tocqueville 's description of 'soft tyranny '.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

look up Alexis de Tocqueville 's description of 'soft tyranny '.

Thank goodness President Obama was reelected so that we will be able to avoid that "soft tyranny" and be able to work together for a better future for all of us!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Thank goodness President Obama was reelected so that we will be able to avoid that "soft tyranny" and be able to work together for a better future for all of us!

Alexis de Tocqueville was a 19th century thinker. We don't live in the 19th century. Political society has evolved into something vastly different to that which captured deTocqueville imagination.

I also recommend John Saul's 'Voltaire's Bastards' and 'The Unconscious Civilization' This represents a contemporary and updated explanation of modern politics.

P.S.

Obama is actually contributing to the unconsciousness of society.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Alexis de Tocqueville was a 19th century thinker. We don't live in the 19th century.

I was putting tongue into cheek.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I was putting tongue into cheek.

I knew you knew that. I put that in there for Tom's benefit.

Tut

Quote:

Political society has evolved into something vastly different to that which captured deTocqueville imagination.

yeah much better

Gun manufacturers like all corporations sell products for profit, and don't care what the outcomes of that profit is as long as they don't have pay for it.Its no coincidence they spent a bunch of loot to get laws that make them NOT responsible for what their guns do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/po...guns.html?_r=0

Allowing the previous ban to expire and stopping lawsuits has the earmarks of a business decision to increase and protect profits.

What do you expect it is a capitalist society where everything is subserviant to profit

Wonder if Tom would consider it a soft tyranny. Doubt it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Then go defend our country the way real soldiers do if you have a right to act, dress, and arm yourselves like them.

But you are the same guys who don't want REAL soldier on every corner.

You want a military state?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You want a military state?

Wouldn't you be paying their salaries and benefits through your taxes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Wonder if Tom would consider it a soft tyranny. Doubt it.

No its more like a hard tyranny

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You want a military state?

Its already a military state if everybody has a military weapon. Maybe that's what you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Its already a military state if everybody has a military weapon. Maybe thats what you want.

I'm not the one asking for a soldier on every corner. It's still as simple as the constitution says, my right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." Get over it.

I want trained people on those corners as in MORE cops, and you want civilian volunteers to have the same thing as my cops. I think my way is safer. You want to carry an army gun, join the army.

But in your world its okay to be an armed vigilante accountable to no one. I say you have no right to the same weapons as my army does. And guys like Zimmerman have no right to be armed policemen and act without authority. Gang banger and drug dealers have no rights to be armed either.

There are plenty of weapons you can have that don't infringe on your rights to bear arms, or mine to be safe and secure. And you and your AR, or CCP have no authority to question anyone you think may be up to no good, or looks out of place to YOU!

So what's your motive to being an UN regulated militia? Or a vigilante? Both are against the law, and your beloved constitutional rights.

Again, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

You have the same problem understanding that the subordinate clause has no bearing on the meaning of the second that the courts have shot down - the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not conditional on being part of an active militia. You must have some warped view of history to imagine our founding fathers would have that as its intent just a few years out from taking up arms against "absolute" government tyranny.

How long would do you think it would have taken them to get a permit from King George so they could revolt against him?

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

How long would do you think it would have taken them to get a permit from King George so they could revolt against him?

I UNDERSTAND having a gun to protect your family. I UNDERSTAND collecting guns, and I even UNDERSTAND hunting.

But, you're not, are you, one of those dingbats who think your assault rifle is going to DEFEND you against an Apache helicopter with 50 cal machine guns?

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

But, you're not, are you, one of those dingbats who think your assault rifle is gonna DEFEND you against an Apache helicopter with 50 cal machine guns??

I'm not any kind of a dingbat, are you?

Hello again, Steve:

So, you DO think your guns will defend you against the government.

Okee doakee.

excon

That's why they think its okay to take your gun into a bar in case the bartender tells them they have had enough and wants to infringe on their right to drink. Or to work in case the boss wants to infringe on their right to work, or to church in case their right to sin is infringed upon by the preacher.

Or shoot black guys walking through THEIR neighbor hood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

So, you DO think your guns will defend you against the government.

Okee doakee.

excon

And your attempt to ridicule changes the facts about my rights how?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Thats why they think its okay to take your gun into a bar in case the bartender tells them they have had enough and wants to infringe on their right to drink. Or to work in case the boss wants to infringe on their right to work, or to church in case their right to sin is infringed upon by the preacher.

Or shoot black guys walking thru THEIR neighbor hood.

Are you two just trying to see how ridiculous you can be today?

Are you saying none of these things have happened?

Preacher Shot Before Church Knife Attack

Tennessee man charged in Vegas bartender killing - FOX5 Vegas - KVVU

I could go on, but why keep being ridiculous?