First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Time to repeal the second ammendment?
14781 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/9/16 , edited 5/9/16

Rujikin wrote:

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!


Since I never got to watch most of S&W before Netflix dumped the first season, there's....some joke here that's flying over my head, and my reflexes aren't Drax-like enough to catch it.

I always considered Holo too smart and canny a character to be a gullible-patsy Trump-billy, and about all she and Don share in common is their self-centered ego, their god-complexes, and their complete resentment/detachment from any Western Judeo-Christian religion...Any help here? Or did I pretty much get it?
1359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Online
Posted 5/9/16

machinaprecis wrote:

Guns are nearly useless in defending against a hypothetical tyrannical state hellbent on robbing people of power.

This is the age of terrorism and asymmetrical warfare. If you want to fight a government these days there are much more effective weapons that can be made for nearly free, easy to hide, and can kill hundreds of people at once. Guns are sold by the military-industrial complex as a totem for gun fetishists to feel like they have power as they're stuck in dead-end jobs and trapped in eternal debt.


That isn't the only point though, and nor are you right about that. People use guns to protect themselves, whether it be against a tyrannical state, OR against burglars, murderers, or any kind of intruder of peace. Back in 1966, there was a shooter named Charles Whitman. He went to the top of a tower at the University of Texas and started shooting and killing people. (he was an ex-marine) You know what helped from him shooting more people? Other people carrying guns! they pinned him down enough so that officers could go up the tower and subdue him. Guns are more useful then just against tyrranical states.

Back to your point though, you are right about bigger and better weapons you could make at home. BUT not everybody is smart enough or web savvy enough to look up how to make a bomb, or chemical gas, or whatever. Also, ones own economic stability has absolutely nothing to do with owning weapons of any kind, and not only gun "fetishists" buy and use guns. People young and old, rich or poor, for hundreds of years, have used guns to protect themselves and/or for recreational activity, and will continue do so for however long it is allowed. It has very little to do with power, it has much more to do with the safety of their property and livelihood, and of course the hobbyists, who may enjoy for nothing more then the kickback of a gun against their shoulder.
9606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 5/9/16

Rujikin wrote:


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.


It is honestly more principle based if anything. If a person really wanted to commit suicide they will, but making it easier makes you more complicit in the crime. Same with a background check.
runec 
28334 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/9/16

Rujikin wrote:
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.


Britain was broke as shit following WWII and India was no longer profitable as a colony. Quite the opposite. Britain had been paying India for its assistance in the war. As a colony still under direct rule Britain had to shell out the costs of raising an army in India unlike other former colonies who were paying for their own military in WWII. On top of that, the end of WWII saw the election of a pro-independence political party in Britain. So India's independence was an inevitability. It had nothing to do with the amount of guns India did or did not have.

Plus India did not get independence as Ghandi wanted it. Ghandi wanted a unified multicultural India. Britain partitioned it into India and Pakistan along religious lines.

And this is all ignoring the elephant in the room that is the fact Ghandi was shot to death.



Rujikin wrote:Can you not into English?


.....what? >.>



Rujikin wrote: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.

He didn't "advocate" for anything let alone do so in the same fashion as a Second Amendment advocate. He answered a difficult question about a difficult situation. For fark sakes man, we're talking about the Dalai Llama. If there's at least one person on the planet that should be left out of your gunwanking its the Dalai Llama.
Posted 5/9/16
++Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
US.. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapon.
As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.
The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily.Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plaguee


+Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html#ixzz48CYMuuKp

why does this not surprise me
16805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 5/9/16

Ejanss wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

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!


Since I never got to watch most of S&W before Netflix dumped the first season, there's....some joke here that's flying over my head, and my reflexes aren't Drax-like enough to catch it.

I always considered Holo too smart and canny a character to be a gullible-patsy Trump-billy, and about all she and Don share in common is their self-centered ego, their god-complexes, and their complete resentment/detachment from any Western Judeo-Christian religion...Any help here? Or did I pretty much get it?


....?




PeripheralVisionary wrote:



It is honestly more principle based if anything. If a person really wanted to commit suicide they will, but making it easier makes you more complicit in the crime. Same with a background check.


You know what would work better than more gun control? Investing in a background checker that keeps in sync with all of the countries police databases. Right now our background check can be really hit or miss because its severely underfunded and outdated. We've had people who were on a DO NOT SELL ANYTHING list but because some city names were misspelled and some phone numbers not updated he got one.
14781 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/9/16 , edited 5/9/16

Rujikin wrote:


Ejanss wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

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!


Since I never got to watch most of S&W before Netflix dumped the first season, there's....some joke here that's flying over my head, and my reflexes aren't Drax-like enough to catch it.

I always considered Holo too smart and canny a character to be a gullible-patsy Trump-billy, and about all she and Don share in common is their self-centered ego, their god-complexes, and their complete resentment/detachment from any Western Judeo-Christian religion...Any help here? Or did I pretty much get it?


....?


Okay, let's try it again: Putting a Trump cap on Holo is "ingenuity".
Am I.........MISSING something? Like, y'know, a punchline?
Was there some opinion about guns expressed in Spice & Wolf that justified its use in a 2A thread? (Hey, I'm asking, I didn't get to see the whole series!)

I'm just trying to understand why everyone keeps reposting it. Just working for the cause of better humor, you know.
192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / In the Mountains
Offline
Posted 5/9/16
I think we should have guns it keeps the government and our enemies on edge? Plus I think it makes home invaders think twice?
17457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/9/16
best way to make america gun free https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnoFKskvSq4
1003 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/9/16
Don't repeal the 2ndA, make the adjustment that you can own a gun but you have to take a test to show you know what the hell you're doing with it. How many times have we heard stories of someone getting killed with a gun due to negligence or stupidity?
43262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The States
Online
Posted 5/9/16

piepie526 wrote:


machinaprecis wrote:

Guns are nearly useless in defending against a hypothetical tyrannical state hellbent on robbing people of power.

This is the age of terrorism and asymmetrical warfare. If you want to fight a government these days there are much more effective weapons that can be made for nearly free, easy to hide, and can kill hundreds of people at once. Guns are sold by the military-industrial complex as a totem for gun fetishists to feel like they have power as they're stuck in dead-end jobs and trapped in eternal debt.


That isn't the only point though, and nor are you right about that. People use guns to protect themselves, whether it be against a tyrannical state, OR against burglars, murderers, or any kind of intruder of peace. Back in 1966, there was a shooter named Charles Whitman. He went to the top of a tower at the University of Texas and started shooting and killing people. (he was an ex-marine) You know what helped from him shooting more people? Other people carrying guns! they pinned him down enough so that officers could go up the tower and subdue him. Guns are more useful then just against tyrranical states.

Back to your point though, you are right about bigger and better weapons you could make at home. BUT not everybody is smart enough or web savvy enough to look up how to make a bomb, or chemical gas, or whatever. Also, ones own economic stability has absolutely nothing to do with owning weapons of any kind, and not only gun "fetishists" buy and use guns. People young and old, rich or poor, for hundreds of years, have used guns to protect themselves and/or for recreational activity, and will continue do so for however long it is allowed. It has very little to do with power, it has much more to do with the safety of their property and livelihood, and of course the hobbyists, who may enjoy for nothing more then the kickback of a gun against their shoulder.


I agree with 90% of that, I said what I said because it is a deconstruction of the nominal reason for the 2nd amendment. Whether or not guns are a good idea has little to do with with the amendment, but it is held up in debates as if it were the only thing stopping Evil Uncle Sam from kicking down the door, including by some posters in this thread.

I actually think guns are pretty neat, damn the consequences.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 5/9/16


NOPE.

You don't take a test to get a computer, type writer, fax machine, stamps to mail letters to the editor, so fuck taking a test to use your second amendment right.

16805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 5/9/16

Ejanss wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


Ejanss wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

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!


Since I never got to watch most of S&W before Netflix dumped the first season, there's....some joke here that's flying over my head, and my reflexes aren't Drax-like enough to catch it.

I always considered Holo too smart and canny a character to be a gullible-patsy Trump-billy, and about all she and Don share in common is their self-centered ego, their god-complexes, and their complete resentment/detachment from any Western Judeo-Christian religion...Any help here? Or did I pretty much get it?


....?


Okay, let's try it again: Putting a Trump cap on Holo is "ingenuity".
Am I.........MISSING something? Like, y'know, a punchline?
Was there some opinion about guns expressed in Spice & Wolf that justified its use in a 2A thread? (Hey, I'm asking, I didn't get to see the whole series!)

I'm just trying to understand why everyone keeps reposting it. Just working for the cause of better humor, you know.


A bunch of ????? Sucking out flowers with their ???? isn't enough of a punch line for you?

Idk never watched spice wolf. That looks like another meme to me. Memes don't need to make sense they only need to make lulz
14781 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/9/16 , edited 5/9/16

Rujikin wrote:
Idk never watched spice wolf. That looks like another meme to me. Memes don't need to make sense they only need to make lulz


Well, here's why it's good to know what the rest of the room knows when posting Memes.
Holo is one of our favorite charmingly privileged "Goddess roommates" in all of anime. She would never vote for Trump, she would insist Trump vote for HER.


machinaprecis wrote:
I agree with 90% of that, I said what I said because it is a deconstruction of the nominal reason for the 2nd amendment. Whether or not guns are a good idea has little to do with with the amendment, but it is held up in debates as if it were the only thing stopping Evil Uncle Sam from kicking down the door, including by some posters in this thread.


Well, that's...pretty much LITERALLY what people thought it was, and what the FF's tried to tell them it wasn't.

The Revolution had been fought largely with volunteer state militias, and for the twelve years of the Articles of Confederation, that was American Defense, period.
The panic over Federalism was when people just couldn't get their minds around being an American citizen rather than a Vermont citizen, and were terrified what would happen to the Green Mountain Boys once Gen. Washington got his new standing "Federal Army".
The Constitutional idea was that state-sanctioned part-time volunteer militias, "being necessary to the security of the people", would continue to play some role in defense (which they did, in eventually becoming the National Guard) would co-exist with the Federal Army, and Evil Uncle Sam--or "King George" as he was known at the anti-Federalist time--wouldn't vindictively seek to wipe out any and all competition to the "throne".

So, yeah: It's sort of like the Constitutional equivalent of quoting Leviticus, and trying to pretend it still makes sense.
28602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Inside the Anime...
Offline
Posted 5/9/16 , edited 5/9/16

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.


Keep em. Only the weak fear weapons. I cannot control another persons fear and weakness, only the individual can. If you cannot control your fear, then you should seek education and training. Why should I have my rights infringed upon because of someone Else's weakness? As a black man, when they come to get my weapons, I'll probably die. I will not allow my family to be re-enslaved, because a bunch of weak white kids are afraid of the big bad world. You want to feel safe? In this world?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.