We aren't obsessed with guns, rather we know how precious that right is, and do everything possible to protect it. We know if we ever give up an inch, we will lose a mile, and NEVER get it back. And the second amendment isn't anything to play with, especially when it comes to only trying to make people feel better, and when the calls by the ignorant and irrational beg for laws that won't change a God damned thing.
Assault rifle have already been banned, and the truth is there were more mass shootings during the ban, and less mass shooting after the ban sunset under BWB. What's more, even Berkley University, Leftist of all Leftist institutions, found in their own study that banning assault rifles did not make any impact at all.
Symmetry wrote:
So, if I'm getting this right, you're saying that you want guns so that people can overthrow the democratically elected government by sheer firepower?
I'm saying that people should be allowed to have guns for self-protection. Whether that protection is due to assault from a citizen criminal or the government is relatively moot.
Just a little thought experiment. How would you feel about the 2nd amendment being changed to this instead:
- You have a right to bear arms in respect to personal protection from criminal activity (you can word it however you like)
- Some allowance for sports and recreational use of firearms
- If the government is not a fair and democratic representation of the population, and that government seeks to remain in control through non-democratic process, then the control of the powers of national defense shall be passed over to the people; all defense force personal shall be free to use themselves and their relevant resources to overthrow the tyranical government.
Quote to get a NS/PS answer.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Symmetry wrote:
So, if I'm getting this right, you're saying that you want guns so that people can overthrow the democratically elected government by sheer firepower?
I'm saying that people should be allowed to have guns for self-protection. Whether that protection is due to assault from a citizen criminal or the government is relatively moot.
Just a little thought experiment. How would you feel about the 2nd amendment being changed to this instead:
- You have a right to bear arms in respect to personal protection from criminal activity (you can word it however you like)
- Some allowance for sports and recreational use of firearms
- If the government is not a fair and democratic representation of the population, and that government seeks to remain in control through non-democratic process, then the control of the powers of national defense shall be passed over to the people; all defense force personal shall be free to use themselves and their relevant resources to overthrow the tyranical government.
Quote to get a NS/PS answer.
If you are looking for an answer to Symmetry's question, all I can say is I don't willingly let myself get trolled
Symmetry wrote:
So, if I'm getting this right, you're saying that you want guns so that people can overthrow the democratically elected government by sheer firepower?
I'm saying that people should be allowed to have guns for self-protection. Whether that protection is due to assault from a citizen criminal or the government is relatively moot.
Just a little thought experiment. How would you feel about the 2nd amendment being changed to this instead:
- You have a right to bear arms in respect to personal protection from criminal activity (you can word it however you like)
- Some allowance for sports and recreational use of firearms
- If the government is not a fair and democratic representation of the population, and that government seeks to remain in control through non-democratic process, then the control of the powers of national defense shall be passed over to the people; all defense force personal shall be free to use themselves and their relevant resources to overthrow the tyranical government.
Quote to get a NS/PS answer.
There's nothing wrong with the way it's currently worded (except that it doesn't explicitly say individuals have the right to bear arms). The current problems are with the people who demand that the government ignore the Constitution and take away the right.
gun control worked in this case, in that it prevented the psycho from getting a gun. The psycho tried to get a gun legally, he was turned down. It didn't stop shit.
Symmetry wrote:
So, if I'm getting this right, you're saying that you want guns so that people can overthrow the democratically elected government by sheer firepower?
I'm saying that people should be allowed to have guns for self-protection. Whether that protection is due to assault from a citizen criminal or the government is relatively moot.
Just a little thought experiment. How would you feel about the 2nd amendment being changed to this instead:
- You have a right to bear arms in respect to personal protection from criminal activity (you can word it however you like)
- Some allowance for sports and recreational use of firearms
- If the government is not a fair and democratic representation of the population, and that government seeks to remain in control through non-democratic process, then the control of the powers of national defense shall be passed over to the people; all defense force personal shall be free to use themselves and their relevant resources to overthrow the tyranical government.
Quote to get a NS/PS answer.
There's nothing wrong with the way it's currently worded (except that it doesn't explicitly say individuals have the right to bear arms). The current problems are with the people who demand that the government ignore the Constitution and take away the right.
It specifically says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
And it was written for a time long ago when the United States had no army and was a frontier country.
There's a good case to be made here, from the perspective's of the battle of Lexington and Concord. Of course, the supreme court ruled that the right to own a gun has nothing to do with militia's or army's. I seriously question that the Supreme Court paid any mind to the historical context of the words written.
Phatscotty wrote:gun control worked in this case, in that it prevented the psycho from getting a gun. The psycho tried to get a gun legally, he was turned down. It didn't stop shit.
Also, Sym is correct, Assault Rifles are legal in the US.
tgd has Assault Rifles confluttered with Automatic Weapons, which is not the same thing, yet Automatic weapons are also legal with heavy restrictions. Typically you need permits and they have to be registered with local police. Most states wont let you have them anyway, but you can own machine guns in Carolina. The regulation actually goes back to the NFA 1938. But the bans ended in 2004, to my knowledge.
Our right to bear arms is one of the biggest reasons why a foreign power would have a severely difficult time trying to occupy us.
Keeps us safe
A gun-carrying man in Flagstaff, Ariz. is being credited with helping stop a bank robbery suspect — but he never even had to pull out his gun.
Dave Young was driving up to the Arizona Central Credit Union branch when he saw a friend’s son trying to stop a man jumping over a fence.
Young says he quickly confirmed a bank robbery had occurred and took off after the two in his vehicle.
The Arizona Daily Sun reports Young caught up with the pair and placed his hand on his sidearm, showing the suspect that he was armed. He didn’t pull his gun — but he was ready if he needed to.
Young called 911 and police took the suspect, later identified as 32-year-old Joshua Nesmith, into custody.
“I provided cover for him. If the suspect had tried to pull a weapon I could have stopped him,” Young said. “I told him don’t move. I looked him over for weapons and visually inspected the suspect, then called 911.”
In Arizona, gun owners can carry a concealed or exposed weapon without a permit or training. Young says he’s held a concealed carry permit since 1998. He also said carrying a firearm is the responsibility of able-bodied, law-abiding men.
“I think it’s important if you’re a male with a clean record to protect your community,” Young added. “You should be ready to do something like this if possible.”
However, he went on to say that individuals who carry concealed handguns should receive the same amount of training he has. That training, he explained, taught him how to handle a gun and provided him with the mental and emotional control needed not to draw his weapon unless it is absolutely necessary.
Phatscotty wrote:1)Our right to bear arms is one of the biggest reasons why a foreign power would have a severely difficult time trying to occupy us.
2)Keeps us safe
Number (1) is obviously a fantasy. That's all it is, a fantasy. Our nuclear submarines, flying robots, and ruthless diplomacy are obviously what keeps us safe from foriegn powers, not to mention that we have our own continent. Kinda hard to move a trillion men across the oceans. England's citizen's aren't all packing heat, and nobody is trying to invade England. Why? Because invasion is a fantasy.
2) What do you think brought this whole conversation about? We don't feel safe, and parents don't feel like their kids are safe.
Phatscotty wrote:1)Our right to bear arms is one of the biggest reasons why a foreign power would have a severely difficult time trying to occupy us.
2)Keeps us safe
Number (1) is obviously a fantasy. That's all it is, a fantasy. Our nuclear submarines, flying robots, and ruthless diplomacy are obviously what keeps us safe from foriegn powers, not to mention that we have our own continent. Kinda hard to move a trillion men across the oceans. England's citizen's aren't all packing heat, and nobody is trying to invade England. Why? Because invasion is a fantasy.
2) What do you think brought this whole conversation about? We don't feel safe, and parents don't feel like their kids are safe.
Ever heard of the reason some Japanese Admiral gave for not invading the United States? I'm guessing not
I have plenty of friends who are terrified for their children and feel their children are not safe, and want to provide their own security, because they know the schools cannot be kept safe. They are even posting it on their facebook. If another tragedy like this or worse happened tomorrow, it would be going that far.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Phatscotty wrote:1)Our right to bear arms is one of the biggest reasons why a foreign power would have a severely difficult time trying to occupy us.
2)Keeps us safe
Number (1) is obviously a fantasy. That's all it is, a fantasy. Our nuclear submarines, flying robots, and ruthless diplomacy are obviously what keeps us safe from foriegn powers, not to mention that we have our own continent. Kinda hard to move a trillion men across the oceans. England's citizen's aren't all packing heat, and nobody is trying to invade England. Why? Because invasion is a fantasy.
2) What do you think brought this whole conversation about? We don't feel safe, and parents don't feel like their kids are safe.
Ever heard of the reason some Japanese General gave for not invading the United States? I'm guessing not
Except that's just wrong. The reason Japan couldn't invade the US is because of that thing called the Pacific Ocean.
The US is safe because it's isolated by two oceans which act as its borders, and it has vast superiority in the air and on sea. An invasion of the US is thus completely infeasible, made only worse by the sheer size of the US, ie the Russia syndrome, which means that holding ground and advancing the invasion would be a logistical nightmare.
Japan didn't invade Australia either, simply because while it was a very potent military force it did not nearly have enough. men to mount an invasion like that
Not because of some rednecks with shotguns.
Last edited by Iliad on Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Phatscotty wrote:1)Our right to bear arms is one of the biggest reasons why a foreign power would have a severely difficult time trying to occupy us.
2)Keeps us safe
Number (1) is obviously a fantasy. That's all it is, a fantasy. Our nuclear submarines, flying robots, and ruthless diplomacy are obviously what keeps us safe from foriegn powers, not to mention that we have our own continent. Kinda hard to move a trillion men across the oceans. England's citizen's aren't all packing heat, and nobody is trying to invade England. Why? Because invasion is a fantasy.
2) What do you think brought this whole conversation about? We don't feel safe, and parents don't feel like their kids are safe.
Ever heard of the reason some Japanese Admiral gave for not invading the United States? I'm guessing not
Except that's just wrong. The reason Japan couldn't invade the US is because of that thing called the Pacific Ocean.
The US is safe because it's isolated by two oceans which act as its borders, and it has vast superiority in the air and on sea. An invasion of the US is thus completely infeasible, made only worse by the sheer size of the US, ie the Russia syndrome, which means that holding ground and advancing the invasion would be a logistical nightmare.
Japan didn't invade Australia either, simply because while it was a very potent military force it did not nearly have enough. men to mount an invasion like that
Not because of some rednecks with shotguns.[/quote]
Except you are just wrong
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
Phatscotty wrote:1)Our right to bear arms is one of the biggest reasons why a foreign power would have a severely difficult time trying to occupy us.
2)Keeps us safe
Number (1) is obviously a fantasy. That's all it is, a fantasy. Our nuclear submarines, flying robots, and ruthless diplomacy are obviously what keeps us safe from foriegn powers, not to mention that we have our own continent. Kinda hard to move a trillion men across the oceans. England's citizen's aren't all packing heat, and nobody is trying to invade England. Why? Because invasion is a fantasy.
2) What do you think brought this whole conversation about? We don't feel safe, and parents don't feel like their kids are safe.
Ever heard of the reason some Japanese General gave for not invading the United States? I'm guessing not
/quote]
Except that's just wrong. The reason Japan couldn't invade the US is because of that thing called the Pacific Ocean.
The US is safe because it's isolated by two oceans which act as its borders, and it has vast superiority in the air and on sea. An invasion of the US is thus completely infeasible, made only worse by the sheer size of the US, ie the Russia syndrome, which means that holding ground and advancing the invasion would be a logistical nightmare.
Japan didn't invade Australia either, simply because while it was a very potent military force it did not nearly have enough. men to mount an invasion like that
Not because of some rednecks with shotguns.
Except you are just wrong
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
And if you've bothered o think for yousrself for once in your fucking life Scotty, you'd realise that an invasion of the US was infeasible because of the factors I mentioned.
Phatscotty wrote:1)Our right to bear arms is one of the biggest reasons why a foreign power would have a severely difficult time trying to occupy us.
2)Keeps us safe
Number (1) is obviously a fantasy. That's all it is, a fantasy. Our nuclear submarines, flying robots, and ruthless diplomacy are obviously what keeps us safe from foriegn powers, not to mention that we have our own continent. Kinda hard to move a trillion men across the oceans. England's citizen's aren't all packing heat, and nobody is trying to invade England. Why? Because invasion is a fantasy.
2) What do you think brought this whole conversation about? We don't feel safe, and parents don't feel like their kids are safe.
Ever heard of the reason some Japanese General gave for not invading the United States? I'm guessing not
/quote]
Except that's just wrong. The reason Japan couldn't invade the US is because of that thing called the Pacific Ocean.
The US is safe because it's isolated by two oceans which act as its borders, and it has vast superiority in the air and on sea. An invasion of the US is thus completely infeasible, made only worse by the sheer size of the US, ie the Russia syndrome, which means that holding ground and advancing the invasion would be a logistical nightmare.
Japan didn't invade Australia either, simply because while it was a very potent military force it did not nearly have enough. men to mount an invasion like that
Not because of some rednecks with shotguns.
Except you are just wrong
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
And if you've bothered o think for yousrself for once in your fucking life Scotty, you'd realise that an invasion of the US was infeasible because of the factors I mentioned.
Except it's not about any factors other than the factor I stated the Japanese Admiral acknowledged.
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Number (1) is obviously a fantasy. That's all it is, a fantasy. Our nuclear submarines, flying robots, and ruthless diplomacy are obviously what keeps us safe from foriegn powers, not to mention that we have our own continent. Kinda hard to move a trillion men across the oceans. England's citizen's aren't all packing heat, and nobody is trying to invade England. Why? Because invasion is a fantasy.
2) What do you think brought this whole conversation about? We don't feel safe, and parents don't feel like their kids are safe.
Ever heard of the reason some Japanese General gave for not invading the United States? I'm guessing not
/quote]
Except that's just wrong. The reason Japan couldn't invade the US is because of that thing called the Pacific Ocean.
The US is safe because it's isolated by two oceans which act as its borders, and it has vast superiority in the air and on sea. An invasion of the US is thus completely infeasible, made only worse by the sheer size of the US, ie the Russia syndrome, which means that holding ground and advancing the invasion would be a logistical nightmare.
Japan didn't invade Australia either, simply because while it was a very potent military force it did not nearly have enough. men to mount an invasion like that
Not because of some rednecks with shotguns.
Except you are just wrong
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
And if you've bothered o think for yousrself for once in your fucking life Scotty, you'd realise that an invasion of the US was infeasible because of the factors I mentioned.
Except it's not about any factors other than the factor I stated the Japanese Admiral acknowledged.
You kiss your mom with that mouth?
What? You honestly don't think borders, naval and air capacities, size of nations, logistical issues or any factors like that play a role in likelihood of an invasion succeeding? It is those factors which make the US so safe from invasion, Scotty.
What one man says does not make automatically law, especially when that quote can just cover up the daunting disadvantages Japan faced against the US.
I'm sorry to say, but yes it's a complete fantasy.
Phatscotty wrote:
Ever heard of the reason some Japanese General gave for not invading the United States? I'm guessing not
/quote]
Except that's just wrong. The reason Japan couldn't invade the US is because of that thing called the Pacific Ocean.
The US is safe because it's isolated by two oceans which act as its borders, and it has vast superiority in the air and on sea. An invasion of the US is thus completely infeasible, made only worse by the sheer size of the US, ie the Russia syndrome, which means that holding ground and advancing the invasion would be a logistical nightmare.
Japan didn't invade Australia either, simply because while it was a very potent military force it did not nearly have enough. men to mount an invasion like that
Not because of some rednecks with shotguns.
Except you are just wrong
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
And if you've bothered o think for yousrself for once in your fucking life Scotty, you'd realise that an invasion of the US was infeasible because of the factors I mentioned.
Except it's not about any factors other than the factor I stated the Japanese Admiral acknowledged.
You kiss your mom with that mouth?
What? You honestly don't think borders, naval and air capacities, size of nations, logistical issues or any factors like that play a role in likelihood of an invasion succeeding? It is those factors which make the US so safe from invasion, Scotty.
What one man says does not make automatically law, especially when that quote can just cover up the daunting disadvantages Japan faced against the US.
I'm sorry to say, but yes it's a complete fantasy.
Of course they did. LOL! However, I was only talking about what the Japanese Admiral said, and I did not say it was the only reason....
see how ya are?
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
according to you, Yamamoto is "just some dewd"...lmao..."one man"?
I can see you posting here all the time, so I'm going to assume that you can in fact read. Or at least, hope that you can read.
What one man say does not make it gospel. If you look World War 2, it's clear that the US invasion of Japan was not just infeasible, but impossible primarily because of the factors I listed. The fact that some of the US citizens had guns is a minor footnote as Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an invasion force across the Pacific Ocean faced against the US navy. The fact that general decided to shift attention from that onto a different issue does not change these factors. A quote by itself provse nothing, an actual analysis of Japan's position shows otherwise. You've shown an entire incapability of forming arguments, resorting to literally parroting that same quote in every post.
I can see you posting here all the time, so I'm going to assume that you can in fact read. Or at least, hope that you can read.
What one man say does not make it gospel. If you look World War 2, it's clear that the US invasion of Japan was not just infeasible, but impossible primarily because of the factors I listed. The fact that some of the US citizens had guns is a minor footnote as Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an invasion force across the Pacific Ocean faced against the US navy. The fact that general decided to shift attention from that onto a different issue does not change these factors. A quote by itself provse nothing, an actual analysis of Japan's position shows otherwise. You've shown an entire incapability of forming arguments, resorting to literally parroting that same quote in every post.
I can see you posting here all the time, so I'm going to assume that you can in fact read. Or at least, hope that you can read.
What one man say does not make it gospel. If you look World War 2, it's clear that the US invasion of Japan was not just infeasible, but impossible primarily because of the factors I listed. The fact that some of the US citizens had guns is a minor footnote as Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an invasion force across the Pacific Ocean faced against the US navy. The fact that general decided to shift attention from that onto a different issue does not change these factors. A quote by itself provse nothing, an actual analysis of Japan's position shows otherwise. You've shown an entire incapability of forming arguments, resorting to literally parroting that same quote in every post.
Just backing up the only thing I said.
Sue me prick
And not a single rational argument was seen.
I wouldn't sue you Scotty. Life sued you, and you lost.
I can see you posting here all the time, so I'm going to assume that you can in fact read. Or at least, hope that you can read.
What one man say does not make it gospel. If you look World War 2, it's clear that the US invasion of Japan was not just infeasible, but impossible primarily because of the factors I listed. The fact that some of the US citizens had guns is a minor footnote as Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an invasion force across the Pacific Ocean faced against the US navy. The fact that general decided to shift attention from that onto a different issue does not change these factors. A quote by itself provse nothing, an actual analysis of Japan's position shows otherwise. You've shown an entire incapability of forming arguments, resorting to literally parroting that same quote in every post.
Just backing up the only thing I said.
Sue me prick
And not a single rational argument was seen.
I wouldn't sue you Scotty. Life sued you, and you lost.
But you said that the Japanese Admiral did not say what he said. But he did say it, and what he said was true.
I can see you posting here all the time, so I'm going to assume that you can in fact read. Or at least, hope that you can read.
What one man say does not make it gospel. If you look World War 2, it's clear that the US invasion of Japan was not just infeasible, but impossible primarily because of the factors I listed. The fact that some of the US citizens had guns is a minor footnote as Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an invasion force across the Pacific Ocean faced against the US navy. The fact that general decided to shift attention from that onto a different issue does not change these factors. A quote by itself provse nothing, an actual analysis of Japan's position shows otherwise. You've shown an entire incapability of forming arguments, resorting to literally parroting that same quote in every post.
Just backing up the only thing I said.
Sue me prick
And not a single rational argument was seen.
I wouldn't sue you Scotty. Life sued you, and you lost.
But you said that the Japanese Admiral did not say what he said. But he did say it, and what he said was true.
So you are wrong
Children have a better grasp of critical thinking than you do. Then again children have better critical thinking than most.
I didn't dispute that he said it, I just pointed out that a quote doesn't prove anything. George W Bush can go and say the invasion of Iraq didn't go to plan because it was too much of a desert, that there was sand behind every blade of grass. That doesn't then mean that that's the actual reason that the invasion didn't go swimmingly. That's not a convincing argument within itself.
Yes he said it, but if you actually look at issues facing the Japanese military an invasion of the US wasn't feasible. I can't be fucking trying to explain this over and over again, try to read the posts?
Phatscotty wrote:yes you did. You said I was wrong. How is going on the attack to deny your own mistakes working out for you?
Now shut up and go to bed. You can always try again tomorrow
I knew about the quote, I never disputed that the Admiral said that. I didn't deny the quote's existence and you posting it over and over again does in no way actually present a logical point. I just disputed the assertion that the reason why the Japan couldn't invade the US was because some of it citizens had guns. I presented other factors which made it impossible in the first place. Y'know an argument.
You failed to address one of the points, instead loudly shouting the quote over and over again. Go on, read over it again, it's all there on the page.
