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.

 Alex C wrote:

 skyth wrote:

We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.

Yup, give me access to military grade hardware please.

You do know what that part means, right?

Does the Army have any BARs or Tommy Guns in storage?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
Flying the Confederate flag has a very strong correlation for being a racist. That is the attitude that emboldens people to engage in terrorism against African American.

Using the same argument, once could call for the banning of Muslim symbols as well.

Fortunately the third way, the American way, is to ban neither and let the ideas fight it out.
I'm all for scheduling cage matches between KKK members and Pomona Crips though.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 skyth wrote:

We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.

Yup, give me access to military grade hardware please.

You do know what that part means, right?

Does the Army have any BARs or Tommy Guns in storage?

Even if they did it would require the repeal of multiple existing laws that infringe on our rights, as well as the willingness of the army to sell the surplus, for us to get access to them.

If that miracle occurred I would love to have one of each

So why should such a flag be allowed to be flown over public buildings, which are owned and paid for by the people, in a country where it was written into its very founding that all men are created equal?

Indeed.

 Alex C wrote:

The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.

Yeah, I gotta disagree with you on that point. Ownership of weaponry is not a natural right, it is a civil right, and has been treated as such. It is a right given to you by the government, just like speech, religion, ect. That's why it's called a civil right. To argue that you are somehow naturally entitled to weaponry is beyond ridiculous.

 Alex C wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 skyth wrote:

We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.

Yup, give me access to military grade hardware please.

You do know what that part means, right?

Does the Army have any BARs or Tommy Guns in storage?

Even if they did it would require the repeal of multiple existing laws that infringe on our rights, as well as the willingness of the army to sell the surplus, for us to get access to them.

If that miracle occurred I would love to have one of each

Well if we're going the militia route, I'm volunteering for the Tommy Gun. You youngins can have your M4.

 skyth wrote:
Flying the Confederate flag has a very strong correlation for being a racist. That is the attitude that emboldens people to engage in terrorism against African American.

Really? Prove that.

Also, you could make the exact same argument about Islam as an ideology that emboldens people to engage in terrorism.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.

Yeah, I gotta disagree with you on that point. Ownership of weaponry is not a natural right, it is a civil right, and has been treated as such. It is a right given to you by the government, just like speech, religion, ect. That's why it's called a civil right. To argue that you are somehow naturally entitled to weaponry is beyond ridiculous.

You have a severely incorrect view of rights as viewed under the Constitution. Government gives us NOTHING. We only permit the government to have certain powers.
read the Constitution itself. Its right there.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.

Yeah, I gotta disagree with you on that point. Ownership of weaponry is not a natural right, it is a civil right, and has been treated as such. It is a right given to you by the government, just like speech, religion, ect. That's why it's called a civil right. To argue that you are somehow naturally entitled to weaponry is beyond ridiculous.

The founders of our nation recognised that people are born with these rights, they are not granted by anyone but our creator (should you believe in such a thing, but that's how it's phrased). The entire bill of rights is there to tell the government what it cannot do, to protect the people's rights from being oppressed.

But continue to talk complete bollocks if you must, I won't entertain your stupidity any longer.

 Alex C wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.

Yeah, I gotta disagree with you on that point. Ownership of weaponry is not a natural right, it is a civil right, and has been treated as such. It is a right given to you by the government, just like speech, religion, ect. That's why it's called a civil right. To argue that you are somehow naturally entitled to weaponry is beyond ridiculous.

The founders of our nation recognised that people are born with these rights, they are not granted by anyone but our creator (should you believe in such a thing, but that's how it's phrased). The entire bill of rights is there to tell the government what it cannot do, to protect the people's rights from being oppressed.

But continue to talk complete bollocks if you must, I won't entertain your stupidity any longer.

I don't disagree that it tells the government what it can't do, but you misunderstand the difference between civil andnatural rights.
The right to weaponry (bear arms) is a civil or legal right. They are designed to protect citizens from the government infringing apon them. They require laws, rules ect. And they can, in fact, be removed by the government. This can mean many things depending on the government in question. For us, it means passing an amendment. You appear to believe this is a natural right, however. Natural rights are most closely related to human rights. Things like life, health, ect. Now, I will admit, there is some contention on the issue (is it a civil or natural), but that's how I see it. I am not saying that it isn't a right, nor am I saying it shouldn't be, merely that it is a civil right, not a natural right.

And, seriously, not need to be rude. You can disagree without insulting me.

Also, you appear to have be confused me with another poster? I haven't really been involved with this discussion very much.

I apologise, just been dealing with a lot lately and this thread is stressng me out.

Time for a break I think.

All good.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.

Yeah, I gotta disagree with you on that point. Ownership of weaponry is not a natural right, it is a civil right, and has been treated as such. It is a right given to you by the government, just like speech, religion, ect. That's why it's called a civil right. To argue that you are somehow naturally entitled to weaponry is beyond ridiculous.

You have a severely incorrect view of rights as viewed under the Constitution. Government gives us NOTHING. We only permit the government to have certain powers.
read the Constitution itself. Its right there.

Agreed, the rights in the Constitution are powers of the people that the government has no authority to alter with out consent of the people. The Constitution grants powers to the government not privileges to the people under the government's discretion.

 Frazzled wrote:


Fortunately the third way, the American way, is to ban neither and let the ideas fight it out.
I'm all for scheduling cage matches between KKK members and Pomona Crips though.

The confederate flag wasn't banned.

It was removed from city hall by republicans through a majority vote.

If retailers don't want to sell it, that's just the free market at work, not a ban.

The confederate flag was raised over all the city halls in the south in protest to "civil rights" when the new klan adopted it as it's symbol, it's the chosen flag of racists in america and in germany. it's history is easily googleable NuggzTheNinja.

Says the Canadian.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Now, will you answer the question; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?



And before I forget your claim that there has been 355 mass shootings is wholly incorrect, and comes from Shooting Tracker. As mentioned previously their definition is wholly at odds with any accepted definition, and includes incidents were children were playing with BB guns and hit each other. The people behind Shooting Tracker would have you believe that kids playing with pellet guns is as serious an incident as Sandy Hook. Even Mother Jones walked back this claim after they published it, saying the total in 2015 was 4, or 1.12% of the actual incidents claimed.

I answered that in this thread already, right before we got warned by a mod to stop discussing that.

you're really going to claim there were only 4 mass shootings this year? really? there was 4 in the US just this week. the definition is quite clear shooting 3 or more people. and the 355 number was 4 or more people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Says the Canadian.

so you have proof of this ban then?

Not the ban, your statements about its history and use.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not the ban, your statements about its history and use.

Didn't we do a thread on this? are we really going to go this far off topic?


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/why-is-the-flag-still-there/396431/

This history is not seriously contested. It has been documented in scholarly books, articles, and official reports. The flag was created by an army raised to kill in defense of slavery, revived by a movement that killed in defense of segregation, and now flaunted by a man who killed nine innocents in defense of white supremacy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-the-confederate-flag-flown-outside-the-us-2015-6

In Germany, the Confederate flag is not void of political context. European skinheads and neo-Nazi groups have adopted the Confederate flag and variations of it because of its historical context as a symbol of racism and white supremacy.

People still have the right to use the flag. I think it can also be flown by the government in areas where it is historically significant.

Certainly going the way Europe has gone where most similar symbols have been criminalized is wrong.