Page 4 of 5 [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 12:53 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
I can't find any information on pre-ww2 culture so I'll leave that sitting. as for the post 911 comment, I would ask you if you think that the US military would allow themselves to be used to subjugate their own country with 0 dissent, especially in an age where a significant portion of the populace have camera phones and access to youtube/twitter et c. The space where such an action could be hidden has been shrinking steadily over the past ~20 years
What pre-WW2 information are you looking for?

As for your question, that was kind of the point I was making about the overwhelming force of the US military and law enforcement apparatus not making a difference. Americans could overthrow the entire US government without firing a shot if we rose up together, it is the credible threat that matters.
a comparison of pre-ww2 european culture vs post-ww2 culture would be optimal, I take it that is what you referenced above.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

17 Jul 2015, 1:15 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
I can't find any information on pre-ww2 culture so I'll leave that sitting. as for the post 911 comment, I would ask you if you think that the US military would allow themselves to be used to subjugate their own country with 0 dissent, especially in an age where a significant portion of the populace have camera phones and access to youtube/twitter et c. The space where such an action could be hidden has been shrinking steadily over the past ~20 years
What pre-WW2 information are you looking for?

As for your question, that was kind of the point I was making about the overwhelming force of the US military and law enforcement apparatus not making a difference. Americans could overthrow the entire US government without firing a shot if we rose up together, it is the credible threat that matters.
a comparison of pre-ww2 european culture vs post-ww2 culture would be optimal, I take it that is what you referenced above.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean so I'll just reiterate the point I made about Germany, they were one of the most technologically, scientifically, and culturally advanced countries in the world Look all the amazing inventions and discoveries, the great authors and philosophers, all the composers. If it can to Germany then it can happen in America, it can happen anywhere. Japan wasn't a primitive culture either. Look at Greece right now, if there was ever going to another Nazi state then it would be there given how their democracy has been stolen and harsh terms forced upon them.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 1:20 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
I can't find any information on pre-ww2 culture so I'll leave that sitting. as for the post 911 comment, I would ask you if you think that the US military would allow themselves to be used to subjugate their own country with 0 dissent, especially in an age where a significant portion of the populace have camera phones and access to youtube/twitter et c. The space where such an action could be hidden has been shrinking steadily over the past ~20 years
What pre-WW2 information are you looking for?

As for your question, that was kind of the point I was making about the overwhelming force of the US military and law enforcement apparatus not making a difference. Americans could overthrow the entire US government without firing a shot if we rose up together, it is the credible threat that matters.
a comparison of pre-ww2 european culture vs post-ww2 culture would be optimal, I take it that is what you referenced above.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean so I'll just reiterate the point I made about Germany, they were one of the most technologically, scientifically, and culturally advanced countries in the world Look all the amazing inventions and discoveries, the great authors and philosophers, all the composers. If it can to Germany then it can happen in America, it can happen anywhere. Japan wasn't a primitive culture either. Look at Greece right now, if there was ever going to another Nazi state then it would be there given how their democracy has been stolen and harsh terms forced upon them.
what part of "a comparison of pre-ww2 european culture vs post-ww2 [european] culture" was unclear? Greece is a good example of corruption and inaction conspiring, not so much an example of the government taking over.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,426
Location: northeast US

17 Jul 2015, 3:16 pm

Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
sly279 wrote:
and the people who lobby for the cdc funding, get money from anti gun groups. so what. how about the cdc stays out of non health issues and focuses on stuff like Ebola and anthrax.

there is no non biased side in this debate, people who are not on any side(unbiased completely) don't give a s**t and don't debate gun control. the fact that you do shows you're on one side and its not the pro gun side.
woah, are you saying that being shot isn't a health issue? what's your reasoning for that claim?

The treatment of a gunshot wound is a health issue. Prevention is outside the scope of medicine and best left totally avoided.

prevention of diabetes is a health issue, as is prevention of gun violence. what qualifies you to define the scope of medicine?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

17 Jul 2015, 4:18 pm

cathylynn wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
sly279 wrote:
and the people who lobby for the cdc funding, get money from anti gun groups. so what. how about the cdc stays out of non health issues and focuses on stuff like Ebola and anthrax.

there is no non biased side in this debate, people who are not on any side(unbiased completely) don't give a s**t and don't debate gun control. the fact that you do shows you're on one side and its not the pro gun side.
woah, are you saying that being shot isn't a health issue? what's your reasoning for that claim?

The treatment of a gunshot wound is a health issue. Prevention is outside the scope of medicine and best left totally avoided.

prevention of diabetes is a health issue, as is prevention of gun violence. what qualifies you to define the scope of medicine?


Um.....you're actually trying to compare diabetes to gun shot wounds?


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

17 Jul 2015, 4:23 pm

Raptor wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Fugu wrote:
sly279 wrote:
and the people who lobby for the cdc funding, get money from anti gun groups. so what. how about the cdc stays out of non health issues and focuses on stuff like Ebola and anthrax.

there is no non biased side in this debate, people who are not on any side(unbiased completely) don't give a s**t and don't debate gun control. the fact that you do shows you're on one side and its not the pro gun side.
woah, are you saying that being shot isn't a health issue? what's your reasoning for that claim?

The treatment of a gunshot wound is a health issue. Prevention is outside the scope of medicine and best left totally avoided.

prevention of diabetes is a health issue, as is prevention of gun violence. what qualifies you to define the scope of medicine?

Um.....you're actually trying to compare diabetes to gun shot wounds?

The federal CDC should take over the authority of the FAA because airplane crashes are deadly, too. While we are at it, the CDC should take over housing standards because house collapses are deadly during Earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados. The CDC should manage the Smithsonian Institution, too, because the wax applied to the museums' floors can injure art lovers. Darn, I get paper cuts from brand-new crisp dollar bills. Call the CDC for new regulations to require stone-washing of all new bills. The Federal Reserve System has obviously failed at its mission to protect the public.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 4:29 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
The federal CDC should take over the authority of the FAA because airplane crashes are deadly, too. While we are at it, the CDC should take over housing standards because house collapses are deadly during Earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados. The CDC should manage the Smithsonian Institution, too, because the wax applied to the museums' floors can injure art lovers.
that's a very good example of a slippery slope fallacy, thanks for demonstrating. you can't fly in a gun, nor can a gun shake your house to pieces or blow the roof off.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 4:31 pm

Raptor wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
Raptor wrote:
The treatment of a gunshot wound is a health issue. Prevention is outside the scope of medicine and best left totally avoided.

prevention of diabetes is a health issue, as is prevention of gun violence. what qualifies you to define the scope of medicine?


Um.....you're actually trying to compare diabetes to gun shot wounds?
they're both preventable, what are you finding difficult to comprehend about this comparison?



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

17 Jul 2015, 4:53 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I don't care about studies even tho most are in our favor, the constitution is clear in its intent. We must be able to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, period. End of story.
ah, you must be a 1 man militia then. interesting.

In fairness the Amendment doesn't actually say that, it makes a distinction between the "people" and the "militia". I used to think that but then looked at the original grammar. it is pretty clear the the "people" whose right should not be infringed.

Whether it is worth updating it is another question.

I agree with Jacoby in that it is clear what it is about, it has nothing to do with crime or sport.

You could interpret it and a right to keep, bear arms but not necessarily any number of them, or nuclear warheads. Simply that they have right to keep an bear some arms. Or you could interpret the opposite, in which case sign up for your nuclear warhead.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 4:56 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I don't care about studies even tho most are in our favor, the constitution is clear in its intent. We must be able to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, period. End of story.
ah, you must be a 1 man militia then. interesting.

In fairness the Amendment doesn't actually say that, it makes a distinction between the "people" and the "militia". I used to think that but then looked at the original grammar. it is pretty clear the the "people" whose right should not be infringed.

Whether it is worth updating it is another question.

I agree with Jacoby in that it is clear what it is about, it has nothing to do with crime or sport.

You could interpret it and a right to keep, bear arms but not necessarily any number of them, or nuclear warheads. Simply that they have right to keep an bear some arms. Or you could interpret the opposite, in which case sign up for your nuclear warhead.
the way I read it was that the rights of the people to bear arms was so they can be part of a militia if required. you're stretching it really thin if you think nuclear weapons constitute 'arms'



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

17 Jul 2015, 5:04 pm

Fugu wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I don't care about studies even tho most are in our favor, the constitution is clear in its intent. We must be able to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, period. End of story.
ah, you must be a 1 man militia then. interesting.

In fairness the Amendment doesn't actually say that, it makes a distinction between the "people" and the "militia". I used to think that but then looked at the original grammar. it is pretty clear the the "people" whose right should not be infringed.

Whether it is worth updating it is another question.

I agree with Jacoby in that it is clear what it is about, it has nothing to do with crime or sport.

You could interpret it and a right to keep, bear arms but not necessarily any number of them, or nuclear warheads. Simply that they have right to keep an bear some arms. Or you could interpret the opposite, in which case sign up for your nuclear warhead.
the way I read it was that the rights of the people to bear arms was so they can be part of a militia if required. you're stretching it really thin if you think nuclear weapons constitute 'arms'

See my post about "discriminate" and "indiscriminate" weapons.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 5:07 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
See my post about "discriminate" and "indiscriminate" weapons.
there's no such post in this thread, perhaps you could copy and paste it from whereever you posted it(ctrl +c and ctrl +v respectively if you're using windows)



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

17 Jul 2015, 5:26 pm

Fugu wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
See my post about "discriminate" and "indiscriminate" weapons.
there's no such post in this thread, perhaps you could copy and paste it from whereever you posted it(ctrl +c and ctrl +v respectively if you're using windows)

Indiscriminate weapons ( http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/indi ... ate-weapon ) include grenades, landmines, automatic firearms and, yes, nuclear devices. They are generally are prohibited from private ownership and use. Discriminate weapons include manual-operation and semiautomatic light firearms which use .50-cal. or smaller ammunition. They are allowed in most nations including the United States for private ownership and use.

Also, the idea that firearms are restricted if they are used by law-enforcment or military personnel isn't true in the United States. Under the Indiscriminate/Discriminate scheme, U.S. citizens may own and use the very same discriminate firearms that are routinely used by personnel. In many jurisdictions, citizens might actually own and use superior firearms than a jurisdiction's personnel can afford.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

17 Jul 2015, 5:32 pm

Fugu wrote:
the way I read it was that the rights of the people to bear arms was so they can be part of a militia if required. you're stretching it really thin if you think nuclear weapons constitute 'arms'


I was making a satirical point. In the British school of satire we don't explain (so if John Oliver was doing his show for a British audience he wouldn't do the over-emphasis at the end of the piece).

Obviously what does constitute arms is an important question, as this is a legal right.

Btw the grammar doesn't read how you interpret it, unless you ignore the comma. The argument then the comma is just a pause to breathe doesn't hold water, they are writing it not speaking it. Beside it doesn't say:

Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [GASP] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[BREATE OUT]. s**t, thank god I thought I'd never get through that!



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

17 Jul 2015, 6:01 pm

In fact even then it doesn't make sense.

John - "I'm going to join the Militia the People."
Sally - "You mean the Militia of the People?"
John - "No, the Militia the People."
Sally - "The Militia and the People?"
John - "No, the Militia the People."
Sally - "That doesn't make much sense."
John - "It doesn't have to, its in the Constitution"



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

17 Jul 2015, 6:52 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Fugu wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
See my post about "discriminate" and "indiscriminate" weapons.
there's no such post in this thread, perhaps you could copy and paste it from whereever you posted it(ctrl +c and ctrl +v respectively if you're using windows)

Indiscriminate weapons ( http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/indi ... ate-weapon ) include grenades, landmines, automatic firearms and, yes, nuclear devices. They are generally are prohibited from private ownership and use. Discriminate weapons include manual-operation and semiautomatic light firearms which use .50-cal. or smaller ammunition. They are allowed in most nations including the United States for private ownership and use.

Also, the idea that firearms are restricted if they are used by law-enforcment or military personnel isn't true in the United States. Under the Indiscriminate/Discriminate scheme, U.S. citizens may own and use the very same discriminate firearms that are routinely used by personnel. In many jurisdictions, citizens might actually own and use superior firearms than a jurisdiction's personnel can afford.
interesting, though I wonder where on the scale a semi-auto weapon that could be converted to full auto would fall.