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.

 Hordini wrote:
Neither side is innocent of making silly sweeping generalizations.

Entirely true. However, that doesn't mean you can't have a serious debate on the matter and try and ignore the idiots on both sides. No matter what American political "debate" might seem to indicate, slinging insults and sweeping generalisations at one another isn't debate.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.

I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.

1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.

I lol'd!

 Hordini wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I also propose that the expiration dates on milk have two days added to them. Mine expire when I have at least one more cereal bowl's worth of milk left!

Stop making me throw out my milk!

You know you don't have to throw it out just because it's passed the date on the carton or jug.

Well, its an old axiom but oft proven true, none more so than in this thread:

"Better to have someone think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it."

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.

I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.

1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.

This if the best post I have ever seen, on any topic, anywhere. My wife wants to create an account just so she can exalt it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.

I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.

1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.

This if the best post I have ever seen, on any topic, anywhere. My wife wants to create an account just so she can exalt it.

Yeah, it is a great post.

What complicates things is the fact that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right guaranteed to law-abiding citizens. It's hard to get people to like the idea that they only get access to their rights if they can pass a test, buy a license, afford insurance, and so on.

Which, as an outsider from a country with no such list of constitutional rights, is a little hard to understand. It seems that a lot of Americans put their own individual rights above their responsibility to the society they live in, which seems not only backwards but also appears to go against what that second amendment is actually intended to do...

Relapse wrote:It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.

By this logic, would it be fair to assume that because I once saw a movie wherein some pro-gun people forcibly sodomized Ned Beatty, that all pro-gun people are also part of the "squeal like a pig, fatboy" crowd?

 insaniak wrote:
Which, as an outsider from a country with no such list of constitutional rights, is a little hard to understand. It seems that a lot of Americans put their own individual rights above their responsibility to the society they live in, which seems not only backwards but also appears to go against what that second amendment is actually intended to do...

It doesn't.

Relapse wrote:

It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.

I'm all for strict gun controls.

I don't take drugs, and never have. I drink in moderation, and don't drive if I've been drinking. I don't speed, and I don't use my mobile phone in the car.

How does that fit in with your 'proof'?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Which, as an outsider from a country with no such list of constitutional rights, is a little hard to understand. It seems that a lot of Americans put their own individual rights above their responsibility to the society they live in, which seems not only backwards but also appears to go against what that second amendment is actually intended to do...

It doesn't.

What doesn't what?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.

By this logic, would it be fair to assume that because I once saw a movie wherein some pro-gun people forcibly sodomized Ned Beatty, that all pro-gun people are also part of the "squeal like a pig, fatboy" crowd?

It's a safe assumption... I say it on a daily basis...

 insaniak wrote:
What doesn't what?

Putting your own individual rights above the "responsibility to the society you live in" does not conflict with what the Second Amendment was designed to do.

 Seaward wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
What doesn't what?

Putting your own individual rights above the "responsibility to the society you live in" does not conflict with what the Second Amendment was designed to do.

What do you think the second amendment was designed to do?

 Seaward wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
What doesn't what?

Putting your own individual rights above the "responsibility to the society you live in" does not conflict with what the Second Amendment was designed to do.

My understanding (and again, as an outsider, and not a student of such things, so happy to be proven wrong) is that the right to bear arms in the US constitution is intended specifically for the purposes of allowing a citizen militia to be formed for the defense of the US where necessary.

But when you hear people complaining about their guns being restricted, you never seem to hear 'But how will I defend my country?'... it's more likely to be 'But how will I defend myself?', or simply 'But, I have rights!'

This is easier in Australia, where we don't have a bill of rights, so we're entitled to only as much as the government decides we can be trusted with

 LoneLictor wrote:
What do you think the second amendment was designed to do?

Provide for the security of a free state and its people.

 insaniak wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
What doesn't what?

Putting your own individual rights above the "responsibility to the society you live in" does not conflict with what the Second Amendment was designed to do.

My understanding (and again, as an outsider, and not a student of such things, so happy to be proven wrong) is that the right to bear arms in the US constitution is intended specifically for the purposes of allowing a citizen militia to be formed for the defense of the US where necessary.

Incorrect. Here's the verbiage:

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.

See the distinction?

But when you hear people complaining about their guns being restricted, you never seem to hear 'But how will I defend my country?'... it's more likely to be 'But how will I defend myself?', or simply 'But, I have rights!'

wut? That's exactly what's happening!

This is easier in Australia, where we don't have a bill of rights, so we're entitled to only as much as the government decides we can be trusted with

Hope that benevolent overloads stays... ya know... benevolent.

 whembly wrote:
Incorrect. Here's the verbiage:

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.

See the distinction?

No, that looks like exactly what I said. Americans are supposed to be allowed to bear arms because the guys who set the place up felt that an armed (and regulated) militia was an important thing to have... not because they felt that every man should have free access to every firearm ever made just, you know, because.

Hope that benevolent overloads stays... ya know... benevolent.

The system more or less requires it if they want to stay in power.

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Incorrect. Here's the verbiage:

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.

See the distinction?

No, that looks like exactly what I said. Americans are supposed to be allowed to bear arms because the guys who set the place up felt that an armed (and regulated) militia was an important thing to have... not because they felt that every man should have free access to every firearm ever made just, you know, because

Still... incorrect... allow me to elaborate:

It seems you're hung up on that second clause of the amendment... that is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" infers to the Militia only... that is not the case.

Also, this:
- The founders believed that one had a God-given right to rebel against tyranny. How in the bloody hell can you do this if you weren't armed? Oh, I left out a really important piece: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

-People forget that the Battles of Lexington and Concord were prompted by an attempt by the British to take away our arms.

- The fact that no one has attempted to overthrow our current government from within, is not proof we don’t need the Second Amendment; it is proof it is working.

-Keep in mind that, historically governments have taken guns away from groups they hated.

-Probably most importantly... you cannot always trust the government to defend you.

Hope that benevolent overloads stays... ya know... benevolent.

The system more or less requires it if they want to stay in power.

So... minority... groups... never had need to defend themselves?

In our current system of government, if a minority group needs guns to defend themselves, something has gone seriously wrong... And in that case, they're going to get their hands on weapons regardless of whether our not the law says they are allowed to have them.

But frankly, I can't see that happening. You can take the lack of recent revolution as a sign that your second amendment is working... But Australia and the UK are similarly revolution free, without any such God-given right backing it up.

The democratic system is what keeps us revolution free, not the ability of our citizens to make rabbits explode.

 insaniak wrote:
[My understanding (and again, as an outsider, and not a student of such things, so happy to be proven wrong) is that the right to bear arms in the US constitution is intended specifically for the purposes of allowing a citizen militia to be formed for the defense of the US where necessary.

No, but this was an open question until fairly recently. I don't know the case - I want to say Heller - they knocked down the militia-only argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, it was Heller.

I should have googled that before responding.

 insaniak wrote:
No, that looks like exactly what I said. Americans are supposed to be allowed to bear arms because the guys who set the place up felt that an armed (and regulated) militia was an important thing to have... not because they felt that every man should have free access to every firearm ever made just, you know, because.

Because computers are necessary to go to the moon, we will not infringe on the people's right to own computers.

Does that mean I need to go to the moon in order to own a computer? Of course not. That's how the Second needs to be read. It's providing a blanket prohibition - denying the ability to infringe on the right to bear arms - and proving a reason why. Anti-gunners focus on the reason, despite the fact that it's largely irrelevant to the point of the amendment - the prohibition on the infringement of the right to bear arms.

Seaward wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
No, that looks like exactly what I said. Americans are supposed to be allowed to bear arms because the guys who set the place up felt that an armed (and regulated) militia was an important thing to have... not because they felt that every man should have free access to every firearm ever made just, you know, because.

Because computers are necessary to go to the moon, we will not infringe on the people's right to own computers.

Does that mean I need to go to the moon in order to own a computer? Of course not. That's how the Second needs to be read. It's providing a blanket prohibition - denying the ability to infringe on the right to bear arms - and proving a reason why. Anti-gunners focus on the reason, despite the fact that it's largely irrelevant to the point of the amendment - the prohibition on the infringement of the right to bear arms.

That is some epic not-logic you've posted right there.

Here, let me replace all the pronouns with their respective proper nouns for you so as to best explain why what you just said is full of silliness:

"Anti-gunners focus on the reason, despite the fact that the reason is largely irrelevant to the reason of the amendment - the prohibition on the infringement of the right to bear arms"

You are essentially saying that you have an absolute right because you just do so. And this is not the case. At all. Without the reason, the right to it is arbitrary.

We use computers to do myriad tasks every day, so we will not infringe on the people's rights to own computers. Firearms, however, have a singular use: to propel a lethal projectile at a target. So if you want to say your reason is "defense", well I'm pretty sure that if you fail to defend yourself from a mugger with a 6-round .38s, then another ten rounds won't help you. And if you feel that you need to hunt, and feel you need more than a wood bow to do so, then you are mistaken about one or the other.

And, as a side note, I wish we'd stop calling people "anti-gunners". I think people should have the right to own a gun, however many guns they want, really. I don't even have a problem with automatic weapons for private ownership. I also think that they should be required to show some level proficiency before being able to buy one (or some classes of them) and have a background check made before buying one regardless of venue. I don't think that makes me, for example, an "anti-gunner".

I know it's easy and simple to just make a binary choice because you feel the need to break things down simplistically like a child would, but it really kind of hurts your credibility when you do so.

 azazel the cat wrote:
That is some epic not-logic you've posted right there.

Your argument's with the Supreme Court, then, who've likewise decided that the Second Amendment does not in fact state that membership in a militia is not a requirement for firearm ownership.

Here, let me replace all the pronouns with their respective proper nouns for you so as to best explain why what you just said is full of silliness:

Yes, if you ignore what I wrote and re-write it to make your point, it does make less sense. Well done.

You are essentially saying that you have an absolute right because you just do so. And this is not the case. At all. Without the reason, the right to it is arbitrary.

Nope. Not quite. I'm saying the prohibition on infringement is clearly stated, and that you could put whatever reason you wanted in front of it - it doesn't change the fact that the prohibition on infringement is clearly stated.

Firearms, however, have a singular use: to propel a lethal projectile at a target. So if you want to say your reason is "defense", well I'm pretty sure that if you fail to defend yourself from a mugger with a 6-round .38s, then another ten rounds won't help you.

You say this from vast experience with close quarters firefights and general self-defense? The considerable and unfortunately all-too-common inaccuracy of that statement really would deserve its own thread if it hadn't had one about six times in the past couple months.

 Ouze wrote:
And, as a side note, I wish we'd stop calling people "anti-gunners". I think people should have the right to own a gun, however many guns they want, really. I don't even have a problem with automatic weapons for private ownership. I also think that they should be required to show some level proficiency before being able to buy one (or some classes of them) and have a background check made before buying one regardless of venue. I don't think that makes me, for example, an "anti-gunner".

I know it's easy and simple to just make a binary choice because you feel the need to break things down simplistically like a child would, but it really kind of hurts your credibility when you do so.

Agreed, the gun-debate isn't a black and white subject people are all over the spectrum in terms of what they want with gun control to turn this issue into an anti-gun vs pro-gun debate is a gross oversimplification and shows a lack of understanding and knowledge on the topic at hand.

 Seaward wrote:
[You say this from vast experience with close quarters firefights and general self-defense?

I can't speak for Azazel, but I've been in hundreds of gunfights this week alone, and I can nearly always get a kill with 3 or 4 bullets, max. It's easier if you aim for the head - right clicking lets you zoom in and place the shots more accurately.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Agreed, the gun-debate isn't a black and white subject people are all over the spectrum in terms of what they want with gun control to turn this issue into an anti-gun vs pro-gun debate is a gross oversimplification and shows a lack of understanding and knowledge on the topic at hand.

Yet we're perfectly fine reducing complex problems to black-and-white descriptors with anti-abortion and anti-homosexual positions.

Curious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I can't speak for Azazel, but I've been in hundreds of gunfights this week alone, and I can nearly always get a kill with 3 or 4 bullets, max. It's easier if you aim for the head - right clicking lets you zoom in and place the shots more accurately.

Funnily enough, there's at least a few examinations of "one-shot stops" out there that suggest a majority of them can be attributed to a psychological rather than physiological response, which essentially boils down to, "I have been shot. From everything I've seen (movies, TV, etc.), this suggests I should fall down."

I think there is a difference here, certainly for abortion. The people who are against abortion are completely up-front they'd like to have Roe vs Wade overturned completely, and wish to chip away at it until then until they can get it overturned - something that would only take 5 justices to do, and which was previously unlawful within the lifetime of many posters on these fora.

With the exception of the complete crazies, the people who want tighter gun restrictions don't want gun ownership to be blanketly illegal, a total ban on guns. Addtionally, even if the could somehow get such legislation passed, the odds of that actually happening are effectively zero - the SCOUTUS would obviously overturn it. Lets not pretend like this is a real thing that could actually happen.

It's not an apples to apples comparison.

 Ouze wrote:
I think there is a difference here, certainly for abortion. The people who are against abortion are completely up-front they'd like to have Roe vs Wade overturned completely, and wish to chip away at it until then until they can get it overturned - something that would only take 5 justices to do, and which was previously unlawful within the lifetime of many posters on these fora.

With the exception of the complete crazies, the people who want tighter gun restrictions don't want gun ownership to be blanketly illegal, a total ban on guns. Addtionally, even if the could somehow get such legislation passed, the odds of that actually happening are effectively zero - the SCOUTUS would obviously overturn it. Lets not pretend like this is a real thing that could actually happen.

It's not an apples to apples comparison.

I think it is, because in both cases it's the extreme ends of the spectrum that're involved in the debate. Polling shows us that America's pretty much in the middle on abortion, and pretty much in the middle on gun control. It's the advocacy groups on both sides, in both of the debates, that are the drivers, however. Most Americans aren't in favor of unfettered abortion access (against partial birth, in favor of parental notification, etc.), and the same is true for much of the gun debate. If all the president wanted to push through was universal background checks, this wouldn't even be a debate anymore.

None of which matters at all, of course, to the context of the current discussion, which was an Aussie asking about the militia part of the Second Amendment. Anyone who's making the, "Nuh uh, it's for militias only!" argument is going to be, by default, anti-gun.

 Ouze wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
[My understanding (and again, as an outsider, and not a student of such things, so happy to be proven wrong) is that the right to bear arms in the US constitution is intended specifically for the purposes of allowing a citizen militia to be formed for the defense of the US where necessary.

No, but this was an open question until fairly recently. I don't know the case - I want to say Heller - they knocked down the militia-only argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, it was Heller.

I should have googled that before responding.

To be fair Insaniak's initial argument, that the Second Amendment implies a sort of social responsibility, does not conflict with Heller; as it specifically notes that the prefatory clause supplies the purpose of the Amendment. This is, if I recall correctly, the reason behind the Court's refusal to nominate all regulation as being Unconstitutional.