Armed March on Washington D.C.- Not a recreation of the War of 1812

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**purplefood**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
purplefood wrote:
You said that shouting fire in a crowded place (Thus causing panic and/or injury) was an immediate and obvious danger. Implying, to some degree, that loaded guns were not.
You didn't actually say it as such however.

That's how I see it anyway.

Is a loaded firearm still an immediate and obvious danger to the public if used on a closed range at paper tagets? Is it still an immediate and obvious danger to the public when being used to hunt deer?

My point was that firearms are not de facto a danger to the public "unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur". That is not the same as the position that is being ascribed to me.

Melissia wrote:If you want to reword yourself, go ahead. You said "But that risk is immediate and obvious", indicating that you believed that somehow shouting fire in a crowded theater was an immediate and obvious danger... unlike a gun.

This is pretty much my answer.
It's merely a misunderstanding really...

**Grey Templar**

Wolfstan wrote:
Oh yeah silly me I didn't know that. I don't suppose I could of been referring to the fact that the former Soviet Union was not put off by the fact your citizens owned guns?

Again, that's not the purpose of the second amendment. The purpose of the second amendment is to be a deterrent to the tyranny of our own government.

**Melissia**

Yes, a loaded firearm is always a public safety risk, no matter what the situation.

If it wasn't, there'd be no point of having one.

**Valion**

Wolfstan wrote:
Any example from before the 50's is pointless as nobody had the fire power to cause mass destruction, plus you still miss most of the points.

Who was talking about the '50s? I was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.

As I've said before many times, your fore fathers could not of foreseen the way weapon technology would advance. The bill was written based on their understanding of guns at the time. Not of a time when there would be assault rifles, automatic pistols and machine guns.

You're aware all of those have been banned since 1986, right?

Still, I do love the impression so many people seem to have that the founders of this country would be radical liberals if they were alive today. Just a little food for thought...

Thomas Jefferson, Paris, November 13, 1787 wrote:The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Definitely sounds like a guy worried about gun violence, doesn't he?

**Dreadclaw69**

Melissia wrote:
If you want to reword yourself, go ahead. You said "But that risk is immediate and obvious", indicating that you believed that somehow shouting fire in a crowded theater was an immediate and obvious danger... unlike a gun.

I'm sorry if you mis-interpreted my words, I was attempting to clear up any confusion that you may have.
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is obviously am immediate danger as there is the very real risk of someone getting hurt in the panic of people in a crowded area attempting to get out. Someone possessing a firearm and using it responsibly does not create that same immediate risk, unless the firearm is being used in an irresponsible, dangerous or threatening manner.

Once again I would ask;
Is a firearm an immediate risk to the public if stored responsibly?
Is a firearm an immediate risk to the public if being used responsibly at a range firing at paper targets?
Is a firearm an immediate risk to the public if being used responsibly whilst hunting?

My point was that firearms are not de facto a danger to the public "unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur". That is not the same as the position that is being ascribed to me

**Grey Templar**

Melissia wrote:
Yes, a loaded firearm is always a public safety risk, no matter what the situation.

If it wasn't, there'd be no point of having one.

A car is also always a public safety risk if you are going to split hairs like that.

And again, these guys are not going to march with loaded weapons.

**Dreadclaw69**

Melissia wrote:
Yes, a loaded firearm is always a public safety risk, no matter what the situation.

If it wasn't, there'd be no point of having one.

If that is your point of view then that makes this discussion rather difficult to conduct, given your entrenched position and mis-understanding of why someone may seek to own a firearm. You appear to be arguing from an ideological perspective, and not a factual one. I myself doubt that many hunters or target shooters posses their firearms for the sole point of having them as a public safety risk. I know that would not be my reason for owning a gun if permitted to in the future.

**Valion**

Melissia wrote:
Only in your head.

And the heads of the guys who wrote it, don't forget.

**Grey Templar**

Melissia wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
The purpose of the second amendment is to be a deterrent to the tyranny of our own government.
Only in your head.

No, its only in your head that that was not the purpose. The founders stated the purpose of the second amendment in no uncertain terms.

**purplefood**

Are their opinions really that relevant in this day and age?

**d-usa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
purplefood wrote:
You said that shouting fire in a crowded place (Thus causing panic and/or injury) was an immediate and obvious danger. Implying, to some degree, that loaded guns were not.
You didn't actually say it as such however.

That's how I see it anyway.

Is a loaded firearm still an immediate and obvious danger to the public if used on a closed range at paper tagets? Is it still an immediate and obvious danger to the public when being used to hunt deer?

My point was that firearms are not de facto a danger to the public "unless the individual possessing the gun is abusing that right and putting others in physical harm, or in a situation where they may reasonably expect that physical harm may occur". That is not the same as the position that is being ascribed to me.

They can be a danger to the public in every one of your scenarios. When hunting the bullet can miss the target and hit somebody, you don't always know what's behind your target. Dick Cheyney was hunting when he shot somebody in the face.

Accidents happen at gun ranges, so saying there is no risk is a lie.

I don't advocate not doing any of those things, I just advocate that if you own and use a weapon you acknowledge that it is a dangerous thing on your person and act accordingly.

Guns are dangerous and require a lot of caution to handle. Pretending that they pose no risk unless somebody has bad intentions is stupid and if people think that they are safe if you only have good intentions they should not own them.

**Grey Templar**

Why should they not be?

We are not living in some magical age where Tyranny is gone the way of the Dodo.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
They can be a danger to the public in every one of your scenarios. When hunting the bullet can miss the target and hit somebody, you don't always know what's behind your target. Dick Cheyney was hunting when he shot somebody in the face.

Accidents happen at gun ranges, so saying there is no risk is a lie.

I don't advocate not doing any of those things, I just advocate that if you own and use a weapon you acknowledge that it is a dangerous thing on your person and act accordingly.

Guns are dangerous and require a lot of caution to handle. Pretending that they pose no risk unless somebody has bad intentions is stupid and if people think that they are safe if you only have good intentions they should not own them.

Someone possessing a firearm and using it responsibly does not create that same immediate risk, unless the firearm is being used in an irresponsible, dangerous or threatening manner. Can unintended consequences occur? Yes that is a possibility. But to equate that with a deliberate and reckless/malicious action (the aforementioned "fire" in a theatre) is not an accurate comparison.

**Melissia**

Actually, it's pretty much definitively proven that they were specifically talking about a militia system.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29, regarding the second amendment:

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"

Whatever they believed, they were proven disastrously wrong about the militia system little more than a couple decades later. Pushing your own biases and beliefs upon the founding fathers without doing any research on the topic doesn't do your argument any justice. And since that's all you're doing, I'm gonna go over there and talk about minecraft instead.

**azazel the cat**

IMPERIALGUARD40K wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:

Do you really think that the Soviet Union or in fact any other Superpower would actually hesitate in invading you because a load of "bubbas" have an arsenal of guns? Do you not think that any invading country would have the same ideas on warfare as you...carpet bomb the place before moving in !?!

Actually Japan's generals in WWII were saying to take over the rest of the world first then go for america dew to the fact of most Americans had at that time had lots ow guns and some military grade rifles and such.

NO.

Just no.

You have posted an egregious and nonsensical piece of revisionist history, and you should feel bad.

attacking the U.S. mainland wouldn’t have advanced the primary, or even secondary, strategic aims of the Japanese military in WWII, and wouldn’t have been seriously considered until after more important goals were met. Japan’s primary goal in WWII, remember, was defeating Chinese resistance to Japanese control so as to establish a stable, secure colonial foothold on the Asian continent. In order to maintain military production, Japan needed reliable sources of metals, minerals, oil, and rubber, materials that the United States had stopped selling Japan as part of the attempt to get Japan to back away from China. The attack on Pearl Harbor and the Aleutian island chain was a bit of a feint, to damage US military capacity in the Pacific and to blunt any response to Japanese seizure of the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, and other territories in the South Pacific. Those territories were valuable to Japan for their mineral wealth, oil and rubber: exploiting those resources would allow Japan to continue fighting the war in China

**Valion**

Melissia wrote:
Whatever they believed, they were proven disastrously wrong about the militia system little more than a couple decades later. Pushing your own biases and beliefs upon the founding fathers without doing any research on the topic doesn't do your argument any justice. And since that's all you're doing, I'm gonna go over there and talk about minecraft instead.

Is that because you're aware of the absolute torrent of quotes that can be summoned from other founders referring to the militia as nothing more than the people themselves?

Speaking of doing your research, you may not want to just grab the juiciest quote you can find from a whackadoo website. You'll find it more fruitful to know what you're talking about if you want to get into a constitutional intent wrangle.

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
NO.

Just no.

You have posted an egregious and nonsensical piece of revisionist history, and you should feel bad.

attacking the U.S. mainland wouldn’t have advanced the primary, or even secondary, strategic aims of the Japanese military in WWII, and wouldn’t have been seriously considered until after more important goals were met. Japan’s primary goal in WWII, remember, was defeating Chinese resistance to Japanese control so as to establish a stable, secure colonial foothold on the Asian continent. In order to maintain military production, Japan needed reliable sources of metals, minerals, oil, and rubber, materials that the United States had stopped selling Japan as part of the attempt to get Japan to back away from China. The attack on Pearl Harbor and the Aleutian island chain was a bit of a feint, to damage US military capacity in the Pacific and to blunt any response to Japanese seizure of the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, and other territories in the South Pacific. Those territories were valuable to Japan for their mineral wealth, oil and rubber: exploiting those resources would allow Japan to continue fighting the war in China

I think that quote was mis-attributed to begin with, along with the "sleeping giant" quote;

Misattributed

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)
Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians said,[citation needed] I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto

**azazel the cat**

Valion wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
You have posted an egregious and nonsensical piece of revisionist history, and you should feel bad.

The links on that site are hilarious.

I sincerely hope that's not a snide attempt to invalidate an historical fact as presented by a well-established collective of academic historians.

However, just to drive the nails into the coffin on this one:

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)

**Mannahnin**

I've deleted a couple of posts which were excessively personal or devoid of content. If you can't keep it friendly, please step away from the computer, have a refreshing beverage, and come back when you're in a more positive mood. Sarcasm and snarkiness don't help anyone.

Thanks.

**Cheesecat**

Grey Templar wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Yes, a loaded firearm is always a public safety risk, no matter what the situation.

If it wasn't, there'd be no point of having one.

A car is also always a public safety risk if you are going to split hairs like that.

And again, these guys are not going to march with loaded weapons.

Could you please stop comparing guns and cars they have little in common (it's a dishonest comparison), for why this is the case I'll refer to an earlier comment I made.

Yeah but it's off-topic and doesn't add anything to the conversion other than a false idea that cars-related deaths are comparable to gun-related deaths despite the fact that they are quite different from each other (in terms of purpose, amount of time spent with them, where they are used,

how they're regulated, the likely hood of encountering them, etc), therefore making the comparison irrelevant that's why I made the apples and oranges comment earlier.

**Grey Templar**

That comparison was only because Melissa made a silly statement that a gun simply by being loaded is a public safety threat. What if its loaded and in a locked safe? Or in the hands of someone very familiar with the weapon at a gun range shooting at targets.

None of those are situations where the general public is in danger.

It was to show the silly conclusion of saying something is a threat because in a certain situation it could prove to be one.

**Fafnir**

Although it is a funny comparison, since cars are licensed and regulated, far more than guns are in the US.

**Cheesecat**

Grey Templar wrote:
That comparison was only because Melissa made a silly statement that a gun simply by being loaded is a public safety threat. What if its loaded and in a locked safe? Or in the hands of someone very familiar with the weapon at a gun range shooting at targets.

None of those are situations where the general public is in danger.

It was to show the silly conclusion of saying something is a threat because in a certain situation it could prove to be one.

I forgot to add that you're technically right that under certain circumstances a car can be a threat.

**d-usa**

Cars are dangerous.

That's why we have legally required inspections to make sure cars are roadworthy. That's why cops can pull you over for malfunctioning cars. That's why we have licensing and testing requirements that have to be renewed periodically.

You know, to try to minimize the risk of operating a dangerous product.

**Cheesecat**

Fafnir wrote:
Although it is a funny comparison, since cars are licensed and regulated, far more than guns are in the US.

I wonder if there's any stats that show tighter regulation in cars decreases the likelihood of fatalities happening per population, I don't think such a stat exist but there seems to be a downward trend in car related deaths in the US I don't know what is causing it though.

**Grey Templar**

d-usa wrote:
Cars are dangerous.

That's why we have legally required inspections to make sure cars are roadworthy. That's why cops can pull you over for malfunctioning cars. That's why we have licensing and testing requirements that have to be renewed periodically.

You know, to try to minimize the risk of operating a dangerous product.

Sure, and that's ok because Car's are not a Constitutional right.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
Although it is a funny comparison, since cars are licensed and regulated, far more than guns are in the US.

I wonder if there's any stats that show tighter regulation in cars decreases the likelihood of fatalities happening per population, I don't think such a stat exist but there seems to be a downward trend in car related deaths in the US I don't know what is causing it though.

It's also interesting that gun violence is also going down, without a corresponding increase in regulation.

Which I would interpret as "Regulation effects different things differently" It works for cars but not for guns.

**d-usa**

Free and unrestricted travel is actually a constitutional right as determined by the Supreme Court. So you can argue that by restricting car usage and ownership you are infringing on my right to travel.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And also:

If cars and guns are not the same and have different laws, then maybe you should quit comparing the two in your arguments.

**Grey Templar**

A fair point.

**DemetriDominov**

Redacted by Mannahnin

**Grey Templar**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_us