SkyDekker
-
Content
21,691 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
96 -
Feedback
0% -
Country
Canada
Everything posted by SkyDekker
-
If the posted interpretation of the 2nd amendment is correct, then I would assume it holds more value than your opinion. Though you make a valid point, it would not fall under that interpretation. true, but can we not agree that that is currently impossible. The army has so much more weaponry at its disposal. never mind tha airpower from the air force (not even imaginable at the time). The US citizens would be completely unable to stop the US military. so that argument is just no longer valid. No the interpretation was what the average footsoldier carries, not what the Armed Forces happen to have in their arsenal.
-
But, US citizens could not successfully defend themselves against the US army anyways, nor any other invading force. Was that not the intent behind that amendment? The rest of your arguments I addressed earlier. IMHO guns were invented and are primarily designed to kill people. that puts them on a different playing field than the Internet among other things.
-
I am sure it is really big. That doesn't mean anything though. If the US army wanted to invade New York and take it over, I am pretyy sure the US population couldn't do anything about it. Do you think a group of citizens armed with their guns could stop them?
-
True, that may lead in that direction. But even the report posted by JohnRich indicated that the research currently is not sufficient to make any conclusive conclusions. In this particular case, since there may be other variables at play you cannot simply make that conclusion.
-
I thought I had, but I'll be happy to do it now. IMHO, if a citizen is allowed to carry what the average footsoldier carries, it follows that the citizen is not allowed to carry what the average footsoldier is not carrying.
-
I really don't understand what kind of validity this argument has in current times. If for instance Bush got full control of the military and would somehow be able to get them to do exactly what he wanted. Do you really think a half armed civilian population could stop them? Trained armies of other countries do not have that ability. You think untrained citizens with guns will be able to stop them. Let's be serious. If some one truly got control over the army (however unlikely that is, I guess it could be possible) no civilian or group of civilians with guns is going to stop them. The argument just doesn't make any sense to me. Specially not when you have such a powerful military.
-
That doesn't indicate though if it was for instance the rapist or the rapee that got killed, which was the point of his question.
-
You guys seem to forget that I really do not have any stake in whether you guys carry guns or not. personally I could care less whether or not people in the US shoot themselves to pieces, be it with a legal or illegal gun. I could care less if everybody in the US carries a concealed handgun or RPG launcher. I am trying to discuss the arguments you are using. Some I don't understand, some I don't think are particularly valid. In the mean time, carry your gun and shoot whatever or whomever you want I'll just happily stay in Canada, the greatest country in the world to live in, where more people get killed with a knife than with a gun and I am happy if it stays that way
-
I have only asked one simple question of JohnRich. To provide me with the scientific proof that his statement of gun laws do not work is correct. He has pretty much been ignoring me ever since.
-
Yet, someone will have to decide what the average footsoldier carries under that interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
-
I never made that statement. Once again, as in my previous reply to you, I recommend actually reading the posts. I didn't say that, nor does that link point to a post I made. Once again, please read the posts before you hit that button.
-
I agree completely with you. Someone else posted that the interpretation was made that people had the right to bear arms carried by the average footsoldier. My question was, what does the average footsoldier carry. The answer was an M16. Hence, my question was, would it not be fair to state then that the US citizen has the right to carry an M16 but nothing else, since that is what would follow from that stated interpretation. If you say that the average footsoldier carries a handgun, then fine. All US citizens are allowed to carry a handgun similar in size and force to those carried by the average footsoldier, but nothing else. Since that is what would follow from that interpretation.
-
Ok, then how about a simple dynomite or plastics bomb. Or how about a dirty bomb or a bomb with a chemical agent. All of those are weapons which can easily be operated by a single individual. Are they covered by the 2nd amendment?
-
If my argument is so poor. Why don't you rebuf it? I never said I would want to limit guns to those of that time period. so I am don't know what you are trying to say. I recommend reading before posting. The automobile, printing press and the computer and internet were not invented nor designed primarily to kill people. Thta makes those items different. You cannot compare apples to oranges and expect a valid argument.
-
well, stop dodging my calls damnit :)
-
Hey John, I keep waiting for that evidence about the fact that gun laws don't work. I know you are just ignoring me, but it does look kind of silly that you can't come up with any evidence.
-
I agree. I find Bush a very scary man. The powers given to the US government over its citizens in the last two years is astonishing. I am truly surprised not more people are upset about that. And there is the little fact about Bush hearing God speaking to him in his head. That doesn't seem to bother many peple either I now understand where you were coming from and I agree with you.
-
That still doesn't prove it makes it a better place to live either.
-
No, actually I never do. If you would make it illegal to make a gun, obviously those commercials would not be there anymore and much of that knowledge will eventually be lost. It has happened in many other cases. I believe the average footsoldier is armed with one weapon.
-
I know I don't, but that doesn't take away from teh fcat that target shooting has originally een practice for shooting at human beings. The aim to kill practice.
-
absolutely true. However, organizations are doing massive amounts of work to try and bring those numbers down. Smoking is against the law in many public places. That would be a law restricting a freedom to prevent death. I am sure we could both come up with more examples for the rest of the list. Why should firearms be excluded from that?
-
And there are quite a few countries where that didn't happen. By the way, I don't think guns were restricted in pre-Castro Cuba, hence that argument would actually be against your standpoint. Or, one would do that be electiing the proper government. The immense powers given to the government have come in place due to laws passed by your current goverment. Since it scares you so much that you feel the need to arm yourself, I would assume that you are not going to vote for Bush in the next election? As far as I understand, constitutional scholars have no powers in the current framewaork. It is the judges who decide whether a law is constitional or not. In order to do that, the judge will have to interpret the constitution. Or am I way off base here?
-
hopefully my wife will want me for Christmas, or I am truly fucked....or not
-
IIRC, one robber shot himself and one was apprehended by a SWAT team using their standard weapons. Hence, the added firepower from the local gun store didn't help with that. OK, so you are allowed to own and carry a gun similar to the M16, but no other guns allowed. Would that not be the correct response to that interpretation? It could help you defend yourself from attackers and the US government. Obvisouly you would not need any otehr guns? On top of that, obviously if the weapons are no longer produced it will be much harder to get the weapon in the first place, both legally and illegally. Just think of weapons grade plutonium.
-
Though there are many more countries that went through those phases. Yet guns are by far not as prolific as in the US. Those countries came through it fine, eventhough their citizens were not armed to the teeth. So, you think that the avegare US citizen needs to be afraid of the US army and US government surpressing them and invading their homes etc? Then who interprets the constitution? Who came up with your interpretation of what arms you have the right to bear?
