Another tragedy averted by an armed citizen Topic

antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
You failed to make an argument - just threw out an analogy -- so there was nothing to refute.

Give me specific examples of these "eerie similarities" between modern liberals and Nazis in Poland and I'll have something to rag-doll you with.

But again, you'd be a coward and a traitor to do so. If you genuinely believe what you are saying, you should be out watering the tree of liberty, not wanking away on the internet like a scared little boy.
1/9/2011 9:03 PM
nanu
Posts: 479 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 2 1 69
Prospect
malone, all you are doing is repeating talking points and aping what others have said, and failing to identify for yourself that each party claims itself the logical one, the effective one.  blast through all that bullshit and get to the heart of the matter. you're not seeing the forest for the trees.  

sarah palin wouldn't be made so much fun of if she wasn't such a caricature.  some dems whose characters were assassinated?  how about dukakis and kerry.  clinton was impeached.  obama is apparently making up that he's an american citizen.  you serious that only one side does that bullshit?  stop looking like an hayseed and get back to an actual conversation, which you do seem capable of doing every few paragraphs or so.  

hell, jimmy carter got it worse than just about anyone.  that man put solar panels on the white house.  torn down to acclaim by reagan.  yet here we are, three decades later, realizing that renewables are the way to go.  but carter's the idiot and reagan the hero.  open up your eyes, man.

1/9/2011 9:20 PM (edited)
nanu
Posts: 479 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 2 1 69
Prospect
and - if you didn't see it - i have a response to your earlier post at the bottom of page 6.  
1/9/2011 9:20 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by nanu on 1/9/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I should add, in our case, the **** that changed was the constitution was written at a time of muskets.  The next couple of centuries brought weapons of mass destruction, from gatling guns to nuclear warheads.  The value of those weapons in citizen hands is highly suspect to me, and I believeour forefathers would have some interesting thoughts on the subject.  But we can never know what they would have decided because they did not know.  Anything in judgment for or against is pure supposition.  It is up to the generations who live in the reality of automatic weapons to determine how those weapons ought to be regulated.  Jefferson isn't going to rise up from the grave and tell us what to do.
In the context of the Constitution "Arms" referes to personal arms. It does not refer to nuclear bombs and tanks.
1/10/2011 1:02 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 1/9/2011 7:34:00 PM (view original):
Seems about the right time in the thread for maybe my favorite Bloom County strip ever:


Classic stuff.

I think that Bloom County never quite got to the level of Doonesbury, but it was a solid piece of work for many years.
1/10/2011 1:04 AM
nanu
Posts: 479 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 2 1 69
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/10/2011 1:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by nanu on 1/9/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I should add, in our case, the **** that changed was the constitution was written at a time of muskets.  The next couple of centuries brought weapons of mass destruction, from gatling guns to nuclear warheads.  The value of those weapons in citizen hands is highly suspect to me, and I believeour forefathers would have some interesting thoughts on the subject.  But we can never know what they would have decided because they did not know.  Anything in judgment for or against is pure supposition.  It is up to the generations who live in the reality of automatic weapons to determine how those weapons ought to be regulated.  Jefferson isn't going to rise up from the grave and tell us what to do.
In the context of the Constitution "Arms" referes to personal arms. It does not refer to nuclear bombs and tanks.
and what's your definition of personal?  does it include grenades?  does it include automatic weapons?  and - why? what if i have a nice little personal gun turret mounted on my car?

my point is that 'personal' is an arbitrary line drawn in the sand by historical precedent.  so if you look at the precedent, the historical issues were that english rulers for one reason or another would restrict the ability of a subset of particular people to own arms.  usually because they were a conquered or otherwise disenfranchised people.  if our regulations were to say, hey, all black people, you can't have arms.... that's the sort of thing the second amendment is designed to restrict.  not: hey everyone, no automatics for you.  


1/10/2011 7:21 AM
nanu
Posts: 479 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 2 1 69
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/10/2011 1:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by nanu on 1/9/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I should add, in our case, the **** that changed was the constitution was written at a time of muskets.  The next couple of centuries brought weapons of mass destruction, from gatling guns to nuclear warheads.  The value of those weapons in citizen hands is highly suspect to me, and I believeour forefathers would have some interesting thoughts on the subject.  But we can never know what they would have decided because they did not know.  Anything in judgment for or against is pure supposition.  It is up to the generations who live in the reality of automatic weapons to determine how those weapons ought to be regulated.  Jefferson isn't going to rise up from the grave and tell us what to do.
In the context of the Constitution "Arms" referes to personal arms. It does not refer to nuclear bombs and tanks.
you think maybe because those didnt exist at the time?  what was the 18th century equivalent...blunderbusses?  
1/10/2011 7:21 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by nanu on 1/10/2011 7:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/10/2011 1:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by nanu on 1/9/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I should add, in our case, the **** that changed was the constitution was written at a time of muskets.  The next couple of centuries brought weapons of mass destruction, from gatling guns to nuclear warheads.  The value of those weapons in citizen hands is highly suspect to me, and I believeour forefathers would have some interesting thoughts on the subject.  But we can never know what they would have decided because they did not know.  Anything in judgment for or against is pure supposition.  It is up to the generations who live in the reality of automatic weapons to determine how those weapons ought to be regulated.  Jefferson isn't going to rise up from the grave and tell us what to do.
In the context of the Constitution "Arms" referes to personal arms. It does not refer to nuclear bombs and tanks.
you think maybe because those didnt exist at the time?  what was the 18th century equivalent...blunderbusses?  
Field Artillary. Man of War. There were lage scale weapons.

The wording of the 2nd Amendment clearly implies personal weapons.
1/10/2011 4:33 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
Posted by nanu on 1/10/2011 7:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/10/2011 1:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by nanu on 1/9/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I should add, in our case, the **** that changed was the constitution was written at a time of muskets.  The next couple of centuries brought weapons of mass destruction, from gatling guns to nuclear warheads.  The value of those weapons in citizen hands is highly suspect to me, and I believeour forefathers would have some interesting thoughts on the subject.  But we can never know what they would have decided because they did not know.  Anything in judgment for or against is pure supposition.  It is up to the generations who live in the reality of automatic weapons to determine how those weapons ought to be regulated.  Jefferson isn't going to rise up from the grave and tell us what to do.
In the context of the Constitution "Arms" referes to personal arms. It does not refer to nuclear bombs and tanks.
and what's your definition of personal?  does it include grenades?  does it include automatic weapons?  and - why? what if i have a nice little personal gun turret mounted on my car?

my point is that 'personal' is an arbitrary line drawn in the sand by historical precedent.  so if you look at the precedent, the historical issues were that english rulers for one reason or another would restrict the ability of a subset of particular people to own arms.  usually because they were a conquered or otherwise disenfranchised people.  if our regulations were to say, hey, all black people, you can't have arms.... that's the sort of thing the second amendment is designed to restrict.  not: hey everyone, no automatics for you.  


Automatics fits a braod group. The famous assualt gun ban included many weapons that people consider hunting weapons. It was written not to apply resonable imits, but to try to prevent people from owning weapons. It made the restrictions so extreme that owning a gun became problematic.

I can accept a law the prevents private ownership of heavy machine guns and artillary. I am bothered that a 10 round magazine is banned.
1/10/2011 4:36 PM
nanu
Posts: 479 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 2 1 69
Prospect
so its about comfort and ease of managing regulations.  that sounds like a tweak to the law, possibly even to regulatory language.  why does all the rhetoric get so dramatic and filled with bombast?  i'm sure it is the fault of each side.  however, surely you can get past that.
1/10/2011 9:32 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Since swamp went there, the only "personal use" justification you could possibly use for an extended magazine on a semi-automatic pistol would be as a defense against tyranny. It sure as hell wouldn't be for hunting or self-defense. And that justification covers everything up to and including nukes.
1/10/2011 10:21 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
What about shotguns with a 10 round magazine? Banned.

To tie the 2nd Amendment to nukes is just a way to scare people into supporting larger scale gun bans.

I know this has been attacked by your side so much that it is now cliche, but guns dont kill people.
1/11/2011 2:18 AM
The Taint
Posts: 12649 (2)
Hall of Famer
1000 3
Hall of Famer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVATPe5D3bY

These dudes are selling 10 round shotguns from their website in Georgia. Are they breaking the law?

http://www.saiga-12.com/
1/11/2011 3:18 AM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
The Assualt gun ban was allowed to lapse into its sunset provision.

Obama supports bringing back the assualt gun ban. He feels that law abiding citizens should not have a shotgun with a 6 shot magazine.

1/11/2011 3:54 AM
The Taint
Posts: 12649 (2)
Hall of Famer
1000 3
Hall of Famer

So the ban.....really isn't a ban, and your comment about shotguns with 10 round magazines being banned is false?

1/11/2011 4:46 AM
◂ Prev 1...5|6|7|8|9|10 Next ▸
Another tragedy averted by an armed citizen Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.