Kennedy 0 #151 November 19, 2003 Why is it when you refute one argument, they ignore that and move to another, and when you have covered them all, they go back to the first? And you know the "assault weapons" in the ban are nothing like what soldiers carry. Those have been covered since 1934 or so.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #152 November 19, 2003 QuoteAnd you know the "assault weapons" in the ban are nothing like what soldiers carry. Those have been covered since 1934 or so. That's ridiculous, they're exactly like what soldiers carry...black and scary. That seems to be the criteria by which the list of banned weapons was derived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #153 November 19, 2003 QuoteThey carry a suitable weapon for their task. Sometimes it is a rifle, or a machine gun, or a handgun, or a shotgun or a combination of them. For close quarters fighting, a shot gun. For open range, rifle, for max firepower, a machine gun, for concealability and portability, a handgun. I'm required by law to conceal my gun when carrying it in public. I CAN'T carry it in the open. So, handgun is the only option. Yet, someone will have to decide what the average footsoldier carries under that interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #154 November 19, 2003 QuoteWhy is it when you refute one argument, they ignore that and move to another, and when you have covered them all, they go back to the first? And you know the "assault weapons" in the ban are nothing like what soldiers carry. Those have been covered since 1934 or so. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #155 November 19, 2003 QuoteHow many of those deaths were while commiting a crime? Attached is the breakdown of murders, by circumstances, in the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2002. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #156 November 19, 2003 QuoteSo, using your own argument, since 99.997% of all guns are not used to kill someone, then their "purpose" must not be "to kill". Using *your* own argument... what is the purpose of your reserve parachute? Based on how many times you use it, and how often you *prepare* to use it...www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #157 November 19, 2003 QuoteThat's ridiculous, they're exactly like what soldiers carry...black and scary. That seems to be the criteria by which the list of banned weapons was derived. 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #158 November 19, 2003 QuoteThe idea behind arming the average Joe to the same degree as your average foot soldier was incase the government went all villainous on you and you had to overthrow it. I really don't think the American people will ever have to defend their homes and families from American soldiers. Do you? So what's there to be afraid of? The fact that we do possess the ability to resist government tyranny, is a restriction upon government daring to go too far in that direction. It's part of the many checks and balances our wise founding fathers built into our system. "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, speaking of standing armies, Federalist 29, 181, 1788 (American Classics Lib. ed., 1991) "One of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms - just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safe-guard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proven to be always possible." - Senator Hubert Humphrey, 1960 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #159 November 19, 2003 QuoteAttached is the breakdown of murders, by circumstances, in the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2002. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #160 November 19, 2003 QuoteYet, someone will have to decide what the average footsoldier carries under that interpretation of the 2nd amendment. They already have....that's why some weapons aren't permitted and others are. I still don't understand why you are arguing this point. Are you trying to imply that everyone should be limited to a certain number of weapons? If so, just come out and say it. But first, tell me what that would accomplish. I think that there should be a proposed benefit and some kind of evidence of obtaining that benefit before you even consider restricting anything. QuoteI 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. I gave you the scientific proof, or at least how to get it. Look at gun crime before and after the ban enacted in 1994 and you'll see that there has been no benefit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #161 November 19, 2003 QuoteI 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. Why on earth do you keep adding this "but nothing else" line? What does it have to do with anything? PhillyKev has asked you several times, and I haven't seen a reply yet, despite your complaints about someone else not replying as you desire.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #162 November 19, 2003 QuoteThe fact that we do possess the ability to resist government tyranny, is a restriction upon government daring to go too far in that direction. It's part of the many checks and balances our wise founding fathers built into our system. "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, speaking of standing armies, Federalist 29, 181, 1788 (American Classics Lib. ed., 1991) "One of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms - just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safe-guard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proven to be always possible." - Senator Hubert Humphrey, 1960 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #163 November 19, 2003 QuoteI 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. Do you know the ratio of American citizens to American military? I don't, but I'd guess it's pretty damn big.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #164 November 19, 2003 QuoteThe circumstances that let the framers to include that passage as no longer, hence the passage should be no longer too. Does that make sense? The founding fathers, when crafting the 1st Amendment, also couldn't conceive of people talking to each other with computers over telephone lines, instantaneously, around the world. Does that mean that the internet should not be protected under free speech rights? Yes, technology changes. However, concepts of freedom do not. The beauty of the concepts is that they still apply, regardless of the march of technology. The concept of the citizens being capable of self-defense and providing for the national defense is still valid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #165 November 19, 2003 QuoteWhy on earth do you keep adding this "but nothing else" line? What does it have to do with anything? PhillyKev has asked you several times, and I haven't seen a reply yet, despite your complaints about someone else not replying as you desire. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #166 November 19, 2003 QuoteI gave you the scientific proof, or at least how to get it. Look at gun crime before and after the ban enacted in 1994 and you'll see that there has been no benefit. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #167 November 19, 2003 QuoteSince the circumstances that led to the inclusion of that passage are no longer in place, that passage should no longer be in place. You could say that about many of the items in the Constitution. How much of it do you want to throw out? The Constitution prescribes the procedure for changing the document - a Constitutional Convention. If the anti-gun folks want to revoke the 2nd Amendment, they can try and drum up some Congressmen to get the ball rolling. I'd like to see how far it would get... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #168 November 19, 2003 QuoteDo you know the ratio of American citizens to American military? I don't, but I'd guess it's pretty damn big. 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #169 November 19, 2003 QuoteIf you are allowed to carry what the average footsoldier carries, then conversely you should not be allowed to carry anything else. That's not the way I see it. If I am trusted to carry an automatic M16-type rifle, then the government shouldn't have any problem with me owning any "less dangerous" semi-auto only or single shot firearms. QuoteFurthermore, I would think that the rational man would keep in mind that the framers of the Bill of Rights could not possibly foresee the immense firepower which could once be packed into a single weapon. Hence, to me it would make even more sense that guns are restricted. The idea was to make the citizens equal in firepower to the military, so that the army could not take over the country like a third world coup. So if the Armed Forces have M16's, then under that principle, the citizens should also have M16's to make them equal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #170 November 19, 2003 QuoteDo you know the ratio of American citizens to American military? I don't, but I'd guess it's pretty damn big. 292.6 million vs. 1.4 million. So 4.8 soldiers per 100,000 civilians. QuoteTrained armies of other countries do not have that ability. You think untrained citizens with guns will be able to stop them. We're better armed than those other countries' trained armies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #171 November 19, 2003 QuoteThe founding fathers, when crafting the 1st Amendment, also couldn't conceive of people talking to each other with computers over telephone lines, instantaneously, around the world. Does that mean that the internet should not be protected under free speech rights? Yes, technology changes. However, concepts of freedom do not. The beauty of the concepts is that they still apply, regardless of the march of technology. The concept of the citizens being capable of self-defense and providing for the national defense is still valid. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #172 November 19, 2003 QuoteSo, 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? Right now - no. But they have in the past, and that's why the Constitution contains many of the things that it does, such as the 2nd Amendment. And there is no telling what the future will bring. And it could be said that the reason we don't have to fear the Army conducting a coup, is because of the very existance of the ability of the citizens to resist. So by having guns, we don't need to use them in that manner, because they deter the possibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #173 November 19, 2003 QuoteQuoteWhy on earth do you keep adding this "but nothing else" line? What does it have to do with anything? PhillyKev has asked you several times, and I haven't seen a reply yet, despite your complaints about someone else not replying as you desire. 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. You've missed my point. If you want to focus on details and words (you seem to like the word "one"), how about a "scientific, conclusive conclusion" (something you've asked for) about exactly what an "average foot soldier" is. The above is sarcasm, obviously. All foot soldiers do not carry one weapon, and I do not truly know what number is "average". My point is this. I'm asking you to explain, rationally, why you keep focusing on "one weapon." What is the realistic difference between carrying one gun or two? You can only die once.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #174 November 19, 2003 QuoteThat's not the way I see it. If I am trusted to carry an automatic M16-type rifle, then the government shouldn't have any problem with me owning any "less dangerous" semi-auto only or single shot firearms. 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. QuoteThe idea was to make the citizens equal in firepower to the military, so that the army could not take over the country like a third world coup. 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. QuoteSo if the Armed Forces have M16's, then under that principle, the citizens should also have M16's to make them equal. No the interpretation was what the average footsoldier carries, not what the Armed Forces happen to have in their arsenal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #175 November 19, 2003 QuoteAnd it could be said that the reason we don't have to fear the Army conducting a coup, is because of the very existance of the ability of the citizens to resist. So by having guns, we don't need to use them in that manner, because they deter the possibility. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe the US army would not invade New York because citizens have guns? Do you really think that would deter them if that was their stated objective? They invaded a country which they were convinced had Weapons of Mass Destruction and you think citizens with weapons would stop them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
