Discussion in 'Discussions on Language, History & Culture' started by slipthejab, Jan 2, 2015.
So, it is around now, you should join the well regulated militia that is there to ensure a free state because it exists in the 21st century, instead of remaining an unregulated force of one.
If they didn't write it in the constitution, it's not worth reading.
Are you gonna keep posting links in the hope that someone smarter than you will have said something to change my mind, or are you gonna be considerate and read what i asked you to?
Why not? The Founding Fathers apparently felt it was important to elaborate upon what they meant in the Constitution. They made considerable effort to provide us with more exact definition of what they meant by free speech, the right to bear arms, etc. Saying you are willing to read one thing the Founding Fathers wrote, yet avoid anything else, reflects that you don't care for their explanation.
I don't really care for the founding fathers at all, most of them were kind of terrible people, but that isn't really the point, none of what they said really justifies having guns in the 21st century, and the one thing they did say about them that everyone uses to justify having guns, has been rather poorly interpreted as a direct statement.
I have been reading some of the link you posted. Some of it does actually read in similar context to the first link I posted, while other parts appear to contradict it. Where is the exact source of Dispelling The Myth? It mentions a home page, yet that option does not seem available. Is this link a product of the British govt.?
As far as i can tell it is a blog that made a single post, but despite being a blog, it is incredibly well references and hyper linked to both the UK home office website and the FBI website, who are the respective authorities in crime calculation in their respective nations.
Terrible people based upon what, helping to free the colonies of a tyrannical king? Establishing a republic? What they said does justify firearms ownership in the 21st century if we expect to have any means whatsoever of dealing with a government that turns against the people. In the US, we don't just lie down and allow our government to do whatever they want.
They didn't really liberate themselves from a tyrannical government, The colonials wanted to annex parts of French Louisiana, dragging the British into a war with the French, the British decided to pay for the war they needed to more rigidly enforce a taxation system that for the most part was totally ignored by most colonial subjects, which led to the Boston tea party taking place, as the tea tax was one of the only taxes they tried to collect on, which rather surprised the British as they had been lead to believe most colonials were content, which was fairly true, given as roughly two thirds of the colonists were either pro British or indifferent, but that is really neither here nor there.
As for justifying it, it really doesn't as there is no modern day precedent for a tyrannical government taking over a peaceful functioning established democracy, mostly as the only way to get into a position of power in the country is to be elected by popular vote, which, hasn't really worked out in the past, i grant you, but has yet to lead to an armed revolt, there is no need to have a gun, as none of your fears have a modern counterpart.
That is a very myopic and rhetoric driven view of what transpired. Even a casual glance at a history book will show you how off the mark you are
Edit: or you could read qazaqwe's post instead! Lol
*sigh* they would probably just turn off the power and water supplies to any areas of resistance , wait a while , offer them a surrender deal , then , if they refused move in with weapons that you'd have no chance against like drones.
Look , I kind of get the self defence argument , though I maintain you're more likely to kill someone by accident if you're carrying a gun , but , the thought that you could defend yourself against a "tyrannical" government is moronic.
And you're many magnitudes more likely to kill someone or be killed by accident by a motor vehicle than any sort of gun. Everyone should stop using motor vehicles by your reasoning.
From 2005 -2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional
shootings. ii More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age.
Injuries: In 2010, unintentional firearm shootings caused the deaths of 606 people.
Motor vehicle deaths from 2005-2010:
Then there's accidental death, like drowning:
Drowning is the 3rd leading cause of unintentional injury death worldwide, accounting for 7% of all injury-related deaths.
There are an estimated 372 000 annual drowning deaths worldwide.
Global estimates may significantly underestimate the actual public health problem related to drowning.
Children, males and individuals with increased access to water are most at risk of drowning.
That doesn't really follow; guns are optional in our society, cars are not. If you were more likely to explode in a fireball than get to your destination, your comparison would make sense. The stated purpose of guns, successful self defense, is less likely to occur than the murder of a, presumably, loved one.
Nice strawman , the simple fact is that you're more likely to use a weapon if you're carrying it , so , if you feel threatened while carrying a gun you're likely going to draw , this escalates the situation , and with all the stress and adrenaline of the situation you may pull the trigger prematurely.
Most people don't train for violent confrontations and tend to react badly to them , either they curl up into a ball or over react , so unless everyone who carries a gun for self defence undergoes regular training to simulate the stress and adrenaline dump of a real violent encounter with the necessary firearms training and advise I stand by my views.
Collateral damage has just come to my mind , how many people who spout the self defence angle of guns genuinely consider the fact that bullets can pass clean through the intended target and hit an innocent passer by , or plain miss and hit someone else ?
There is a very funny and hard hitting comedy sketch on You Tube by Jim Jeffries, an Australian comedian.
I can't post a link, as the language is extreme to say the least.
Worth looking for Jim Jeffries - Gun Control though.
That's not a strawman. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
Where do you get support for the claim "the simple fact is that you're more likely to use a weapon if you're carrying it , so , if you feel threatened while carrying a gun you're likely going to draw , this escalates the situation , and with all the stress and adrenaline of the situation you may pull the trigger prematurely." That's a helluva a claim to make with no evidence!
Perhaps an untrained gun owner would do this, but it's not normal by any measure. I've lived in a CCW state for 30+ years(there are so many here that you're almost guaranteed to come in contact with an armed CCW carrier), and never have I witnessed someone whip out their piece for no good reason. Nor have I heard it recounted in the news. There are numerous accounts of cops doing this almost daily, though. and don't even get me started on the gawdawful trigger discipline of run of the mill cops. :bang: I'll trust almost anyone with a gun before a typical cop.
The main thing people don't realize is, it doesn't matter if you are a responsible gun owner, it's the fact that in society, there are irresponsible people, and making guns readily available to all is allowing that group of irresponsible people to be able to control life and death at the pull of a trigger, drugs are legislated against for reasons related to public safety, the only reason guns are not in the united states is because of two sentences written when an invasion by a major European power seemed imminent, at the time that was a valid point, especially after the war of 1812 happened, but now days the threat is so moot that the only way to justify having firearms relative to that statement is to be under the paranoid belief that you will one day need to topple your own government.
This is blatantly false. Drugs are made illegal to profit the prison/industrial complex and Big Pharma. The claims about public health, safety, etc are bull pucky. Even the oft-lauded "founding fathers" did drugs-most notably Mr Franklin with his taste for smoking hemp. If people were serious about banning "dangerous" substances, they'd demand alcohol prohibition all over again. Drunk people are far more likely to be dangerous than stoned people.
Separate names with a comma.