First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Time to repeal the second ammendment?
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 5/8/16


I like this image
runec 
28244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/8/16


Oh god, gun nut image macros. Do you have to? Sigh, fine. Here are the actual quotes in context:


Gandi:

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.

He was advocating that his people should fight *alongside* the British in WW1 to prove they were worthy of citizenship in the empire. He was not advocating gun ownership.


Dalai Llama:

But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg."

When being asked by a student about how to respond to a school shooter. He also, of course, said to forgive the school shooter.


Heck, lets look at the other two:


Thomas Jefferson:


Shit Jefferson Also Said(tm):

“Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions.”


Teddy Roosevelt:

Roosevelt was the manliest man who ever manned so that actually sounds about right. Though he's not talking about the 2nd Amendment. Oddly enough he was actually talking about the international exposition in Japan.




DeadlyOats wrote:

Repeal the 2nd Amendment? You trying to start a Revolutionary War in America - again?








Now these ones are just stupid. Which is saying something given bob's. -.-

#1 Borders on parody.
#2 Is actually kind of horrible for reducing the execution of a Tibertan protestor to a shitty meme about America.
#3 Reductio ad Hitlerum



14755 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/8/16

runec wrote:Heck, lets look at the other two:
]Thomas Jefferson:

Shit Jefferson Also Said(tm):

“Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions.”


Any time any militia-nut brings up "Blood of patriots" quotes from Jefferson to make him sound like Rambo, it's usually from around an earlier time than the above quote, that Jefferson was so Age-of-Enlightenment smitten with France's intellectual elite, he didn't even have bad things to say about the French Revolution, and defended the abstract idea of People Changing the Government without looking at the harsh details, like a true Libertarian.
While John Adams most certainly did have bad things to say about the French Revolution, and it was one of the deep divides that caused them to shun each other for twenty years.

It was....a phase, that was later cooled by both getting a shot at the harsh realities of the presidency, and having the more important Federalist/Democratic divide to focus on.
runec 
28244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/16

Ejanss wrote:
Any time any militia-nut brings up "Blood of patriots" quotes from Jefferson to make him sound like Rambo, it's usually from around the time that Jefferson was so Age-of-Enlightenment smitten with France's intellectual elite, he didn't even have bad things to say about the French Revolution, and defended the abstract idea of People Changing the Government without looking at the harsh details like a true Libertarian.
While John Adams most certainly did have bad things to say about the French Revolution, and it was one of the deep divides that caused them to shun each other for twenty years.
It was....a phase, that was later cooled by both getting a shot at the harsh realities of the presidency, and having the more important Federalist/Democratic divide to focus on.


Yes, there seems to be a whoooole lotta context and historical subtext to that quote. It certainly doesn't simplify down to a militia nut talking point.
16757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/8/16

descloud wrote:

So Iv read some arguments for and against this amendment.

The argument for keeping it is really, we can't trust our government won't pull something. Which I can understand, history has repeatably shown governments can and may impose on the people if given a chance.

However the counter argument is that the founding fathers could not have foreseen the technological advances of guns. Which is why people feel so uneasy about everyday normal people owning guns. You shouldn't have to own a gun to feel safe because other people do in short. Which again, makes sense and often spells disaster in some environments in the United States.

So what do you guys think.


You think the founding fathers weren't sitting around talking about ways to create rapid fire guns to defeat the British?

Oh wait they had rapid fire guns, multi-shot pistols and rifles with a central revolver. It looked like a weird version of the guns used in the "wild west". Generals and people who had money would carry bags full of revolvers with the gunpowder stuffed in first, the bullet next, then wax to keep it dry and stuffed in there. This is a fancy one but you get the idea:



You could slap the central revolver out then put in another just as fast as someone can reload a clip nowadays.

Small arms haven't changed much besides becoming longer range, cheaper, and more reliable. The only thing that has changed is instead of everyone knowing how to use a gun only part of the population knows how to use one. The other half wets their pants at the sight of one because they don't know much about it besides it being scary.
16757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/8/16

runec wrote:






Ghandi was still advocating for his people to be able to own and use arms. He wanted his people to fight along side the British to prove they are worthy of having arms. When he rebelled against the British he used guns as a means of non-violent protest, always suggesting that they could use them if the British forced them to. It worked! The Indians were armed well enough that it wasn't worth it for the British to start a war there so they let them have their freedom. Guns even stop wars before they start!


The Dali Llama still said to shoot back to protect yourself. When such a situation happens you are typically just trying to hit them but he was advocating for avoiding killing -IF- possible. Still Pro-gun.

15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 5/8/16

Rujikin wrote:


descloud wrote:

So Iv read some arguments for and against this amendment.

The argument for keeping it is really, we can't trust our government won't pull something. Which I can understand, history has repeatably shown governments can and may impose on the people if given a chance.

However the counter argument is that the founding fathers could not have foreseen the technological advances of guns. Which is why people feel so uneasy about everyday normal people owning guns. You shouldn't have to own a gun to feel safe because other people do in short. Which again, makes sense and often spells disaster in some environments in the United States.

So what do you guys think.


You think the founding fathers weren't sitting around talking about ways to create rapid fire guns to defeat the British?

Oh wait they had rapid fire guns, multi-shot pistols and rifles with a central revolver. It looked like a weird version of the guns used in the "wild west". Generals and people who had money would carry bags full of revolvers with the gunpowder stuffed in first, the bullet next, then wax to keep it dry and stuffed in there. This is a fancy one but you get the idea:



You could slap the central revolver out then put in another just as fast as someone can reload a clip nowadays.

Small arms haven't changed much besides becoming longer range, cheaper, and more reliable. The only thing that has changed is instead of everyone knowing how to use a gun only part of the population knows how to use one. The other half wets their pants at the sight of one because they don't know much about it besides it being scary.


http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/technique/gun-timeline/

Pretty much confirms what you said. Around 1776-American Revolution if you scroll down.

But remember I am not really trying to argue for or against the second amendment. I just picked out some arguments I thought made a good point.
16757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/8/16

descloud wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


descloud wrote:

So Iv read some arguments for and against this amendment.

The argument for keeping it is really, we can't trust our government won't pull something. Which I can understand, history has repeatably shown governments can and may impose on the people if given a chance.

However the counter argument is that the founding fathers could not have foreseen the technological advances of guns. Which is why people feel so uneasy about everyday normal people owning guns. You shouldn't have to own a gun to feel safe because other people do in short. Which again, makes sense and often spells disaster in some environments in the United States.

So what do you guys think.


You think the founding fathers weren't sitting around talking about ways to create rapid fire guns to defeat the British?

Oh wait they had rapid fire guns, multi-shot pistols and rifles with a central revolver. It looked like a weird version of the guns used in the "wild west". Generals and people who had money would carry bags full of revolvers with the gunpowder stuffed in first, the bullet next, then wax to keep it dry and stuffed in there. This is a fancy one but you get the idea:



You could slap the central revolver out then put in another just as fast as someone can reload a clip nowadays.

Small arms haven't changed much besides becoming longer range, cheaper, and more reliable. The only thing that has changed is instead of everyone knowing how to use a gun only part of the population knows how to use one. The other half wets their pants at the sight of one because they don't know much about it besides it being scary.


http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/technique/gun-timeline/

Pretty much confirms what you said. Around 1776-American Revolution if you scroll down.

But remember I am not really trying to argue for or against the second amendment. I just picked out some arguments I thought made a good point.


They had them back in the 1600's in France but they were all custom designed one of a kind guns that only aristocrats could obtain, don't think the cylinder was replaceable either. I'd post the picture if I could find it.

Also had the Korean Hwacha:



A hwacha or hwach'a (화차; 火車) (fire cart)[1] was a multiple rocket launcher developed by Koreans and deployed in the defence of Korea against Japanese invasion in the 1590s.[2] It had the ability to fire up to 200 singijeon, a type of fire arrow rocket, at one time.[3] The hwacha consisted of a two-wheeled cart carrying a board filled with holes into which the singijeon were inserted

runec 
28244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/16

Rujikin wrote:
Ghandi was still advocating for his people to be able to own and use arms. He wanted his people to fight along side the British to prove they are worthy of having arms. When he rebelled against the British he used guns as a means of non-violent protest, always suggesting that they could use them if the British forced them to. It worked! The Indians were armed well enough that it wasn't worth it for the British to start a war there so they let them have their freedom. Guns even stop wars before they start!


Yeah, no. The eventual independence of India was granted due to a myriad of complex reasons chief of which were economic and shifting British opinion. As well as the election of a pro-India government in Britain in the wake of, you know, WWII. Which was kind of an important thing that affected Britain and India's relations.




Rujikin wrote:
The Dali Llama still said to shoot back to protect yourself. When such a situation happens you are typically just trying to hit them but he was advocating for avoiding killing -IF- possible. Still Pro-gun.


He did not say to shoot back, he said it would be reasonable if you did and he did not say avoid killing if possible, he specifically said avoid killing. He also, as I mentioned, put this in the context of a larger frame work of forgiveness. He did not advocate for guns. He did not praise the Second Amendment. He was answering a difficult question from a young girl whose community had experienced a school shooting a couple years prior.

I mean, come on man. You're trying to argue that the Dalai Llama is pro-gun. There has to be some limit to stretching the absurd.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 5/8/16
https://youtu.be/J_hnC6x036Q

Here is another pre 2nd amendment "fast" multi-shot weapon.

48485 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Colorado
Offline
Posted 5/8/16

VZ68 wrote:

https://youtu.be/J_hnC6x036Q

Here is another pre 2nd amendment "fast" multi-shot weapon.



Classic! Go "Girl"!!
8504 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 5/9/16

ZavinRoyalheart wrote:

No.
The reason guns are a problem is mainly because of gun violence from criminals. Laws only stop honest people. If you banned guns, criminals would still be able to obtain firearms in some way and use them against our now unarmed citizens.
It might be even worse. The 18th amendment to the constitution was the prohibition of alcohol. This didn't cut down on alcohol consumption. It decreased at first but then gradually increased to being consumed almost as much as before prohibition. I guess when you tell people they can't have something it makes them want it even more.


I just like to add, that even if criminals will easily get a hold of guns, we should take every sensible measure to prevent criminals from legally purchasing guns. The government shouldn't arm criminals period. It's irresponsible. Yes, I know about the US military history.
4027 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 5/9/16



Classic! Go "Girl"!!


Make America great Britian again.

Donald Trump

Read the bold =p

Also, I detest the use of Holo the wise wolf in this manner. She is one of my favorite characters :c
16757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 5/9/16

runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
Ghandi was still advocating for his people to be able to own and use arms. He wanted his people to fight along side the British to prove they are worthy of having arms. When he rebelled against the British he used guns as a means of non-violent protest, always suggesting that they could use them if the British forced them to. It worked! The Indians were armed well enough that it wasn't worth it for the British to start a war there so they let them have their freedom. Guns even stop wars before they start!


Yeah, no. The eventual independence of India was granted due to a myriad of complex reasons chief of which were economic and shifting British opinion. As well as the election of a pro-India government in Britain in the wake of, you know, WWII. Which was kind of an important thing that affected Britain and India's relations.




Rujikin wrote:
The Dali Llama still said to shoot back to protect yourself. When such a situation happens you are typically just trying to hit them but he was advocating for avoiding killing -IF- possible. Still Pro-gun.


He did not say to shoot back, he said it would be reasonable if you did and he did not say avoid killing if possible, he specifically said avoid killing. He also, as I mentioned, put this in the context of a larger frame work of forgiveness. He did not advocate for guns. He did not praise the Second Amendment. He was answering a difficult question from a young girl whose community had experienced a school shooting a couple years prior.

I mean, come on man. You're trying to argue that the Dalai Llama is pro-gun. There has to be some limit to stretching the absurd.


The main reason being that Britain was too exhausted after WW2 to fight any kind of a prolonged war with heavy casualties. The British tried jailing Ghandi multiple times to stop his protests but it didn't work. When Ghandi was in jail he refused to eat to the point where he was close to starvation. His followers many times wanted to attack the British to protect Ghandi but Ghandi wanted them to engage in non-violent protests instead of starting a war.

His followers listened to him but if Ghandi starved to death the British knew there would be a country wide revolution. They jailed Ghandi many times and each time Ghandi refused to eat and had to be let out to prevent him from starving to death. Each time Ghandi gained more and more support. While that was happening there were revolts in various parts of India. The British didn't have the manpower, the industry, or the money to put down a full Indian revolt. They ended up negotiating instead of fighting because the casualties would have been far too much and India transitioned into a democracy. If the Indians had followed the law and had no guns then the revolution would have went a lot differently.

"He did not say to shoot back, he said it would be reasonable if you did"
"He said it would be reasonable if you shot back"
Can you not into English?

Yes he said to avoid killing which is a nice way of doing things. However typically situations such as that are not nice enough to allow you to choose between killing and not killing. He advocated for self protection which is the EXACT same thing people who support the second amendment advocate for.


VZ68 wrote:

https://youtu.be/J_hnC6x036Q

Here is another pre 2nd amendment "fast" multi-shot weapon.



I've never seen that one before. That is an amazing piece of ingenuity! Thanks!


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


ZavinRoyalheart wrote:

No.
The reason guns are a problem is mainly because of gun violence from criminals. Laws only stop honest people. If you banned guns, criminals would still be able to obtain firearms in some way and use them against our now unarmed citizens.
It might be even worse. The 18th amendment to the constitution was the prohibition of alcohol. This didn't cut down on alcohol consumption. It decreased at first but then gradually increased to being consumed almost as much as before prohibition. I guess when you tell people they can't have something it makes them want it even more.


I just like to add, that even if criminals will easily get a hold of guns, we should take every sensible measure to prevent criminals from legally purchasing guns. The government shouldn't arm criminals period. It's irresponsible. Yes, I know about the US military history.


Even with all its restrictions Mexican criminals seem to have no trouble obtaining guns. I don't see how gun control is preventing criminals from obtaining guns.
306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 5/9/16
The constitution tells the government what the people can do.
We don't have guns for fun, to hunt, to just have good time, we have them in case we need a modern weapon to defend against modern weapons. Realistically, will a .45 hold up against trained military personnel and advanced equipment? No.
But it's the thought, the idea, that there are armed citizens. If we do get a tyrant in office, and with our media (As bias as some may say it is), if something outrageous happens, at least the people can take some of their aggressors down with them.
It's the knowledge that any aggression will be met with aggression, and hopefully good men and women around the world would notice the bloodshed and would step up to help.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.