Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: A new ACW..

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: A new ACW.. Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 6:21:39 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 722
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok
In the US, however, the Founding Fathers also put in certain protections to minimize the possibility of the "tyranny of the majority". Certain rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of whichever way the will of the majority may go.


Indeed, but they also provided a means to *amend* the Constitution ... 2/3rds majority vote in both Houses of Congress and then ratification by a 2/3rds (or 3/4th? sources I checked aren't clear) majority of the States, isn't it?

So, at least theoretically, you could amend the amendments, or even (effectively) repeal them *if* you could get Congress to pass the Amendments and then most of the States to agree.

Certainly, the Founding Fathers did *not* include the Bill of Rights ... that's why the Constitution was *amended* ... because they thought it was important and/or conditions had changed.

According to Wikipedia, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York *rejected* the Second Amendment!

(Yes, I know, that's *not* the Second Amendment we're talking about ;-), it actually became the 27th Amendment)

My point?

The Founding Fathers (like most nations Founding Fathers) knew that whatever they wrote in the Constitution only applied to the situation they faced at the time they wrote it ... and, even though they tried to foresee any reasonable developments, realised that the situation *would* change, so they provided a way to change the Constitution to allow it to deal with changes.

The 2nd Amendment was one thing they felt that needed spelling out *after* they wrote the original Constitution.

Now, just for the sake of argument, say that Congress passess an Amendment that says the 2nd Amendment is to be modified to exclude specific classes of weapons ... including Assault Weapons, say, and large capacity magazines ... and that 3/4 of the States ratify it.

That would make it *constitutional* to pry those Assault Weapons from people's cold dead hands, would it not?

Assuming that such an Amendment came to pass, and I would agree that it is unlikely in the US of 2013, then that would mean that anyone who disagreed with it would be in opposition to the Constitution ... and *might* feel that they had to secede ... just as the Southern States did in 1861.

With 3/4 of the US States against any secessionists, and probably close to 3/4 of the military, it would get real nasty, real quick.

And, like the 1st ACW, the side with the numbers would probably win ... and the side with the majority would almost certainly be the side the rest of the world would side with.

I make no value judgements as to which side might be more *morally* correct, but surely the Constitution is *always* subject to amendment? Including the Amendments?

Phil


_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 361
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 7:18:27 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5653
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Yes that would make it legal, and if they could amend the Constitution, in the prescribed manner, I would abide by the law. But, and this is the big but, there is no way that could ever happen in the US. They could not get the votes in both houses nor get 3/4 of the states to support the removal of the 2nd Amendment. That is why they play these games, and why we throw such a fit.

And Gary, there is no such thing as a "assault weapon" wish you would quit using the term. It is a semi auto military style rifle. Anything I pick up and hit you upside the head with is a assault weapon, it is the weapon I used to assault you with.

You state you own no guns, okay, good for you. I do own guns, I also own 2 of the military style rifles, and will be buying a 3rd one once I can find a new one AND they have not jacked the price thru the roof. Why, because I can under the law. I am even thinking about buying a 4th one but this one will be a 30 shot .22LR semi auto, because it is really cheap for .22LR ammo. I enjoy shooting, a single trip to the range can easily cost me 500+ bucks just for ammo. I have used my AR15 for coyote hunting, and pig hunting. I can use it for home defense but am un-likely to do so do due to me also owning several 12 gauge shotguns, which are much much better for home defense, or any number of the different pistols I own. I also own several thousand rounds of ammo, on the plus side of 4,000 rounds of all calibers but mostly .223/5.56mm. Why do I own such massive ammo? Because it is much cheaper to buy in bulk, I buy my 5.56mm in 1000 round lots. And I will soon be ordering another batch, why, because I rip thru 500-1000 rounds every dang trip to the range. I own 30+ 30 round mags, why? Because I got them for free from my National Guard unit several years ago when we got brand new ones.

My AR15 and M4 version are the weapons I am most familiar with due to my time in the US Army. I bought my 1st AR while still active duty, I bought my M4 after I got back from Iraq. If you check history, you will find that the most popular guns/rifles bought by US citizens are the exact same ones that the US military use. Always been that way.

They can pass all the so called "bans" they want, I will never comply with them. And until they legally amend the Constitution, I will never surrender my guns. They get too uppity and I will start excercising my right in Texas to carry a long weapon in public, ie, carry my M4 with me. As long as it is carried in a non threatening manner, hence slung barrel down over my shoulder. I can just hear the panic in the anti-gun crowd now.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 362
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 7:55:20 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR


And Gary, there is no such thing as a "assault weapon" wish you would quit using the term. It is a semi auto military style rifle. Anything I pick up and hit you upside the head with is a assault weapon, it is the weapon I used to assault you with.


How about a more technical term like assault thingymajiggy then.

quote:

You state you own no guns, okay, good for you. I do own guns, I also own 2 of the military style rifles, and will be buying a 3rd one once I can find a new one AND they have not jacked the price thru the roof. Why, because I can under the law. I am even thinking about buying a 4th one but this one will be a 30 shot .22LR semi auto, because it is really cheap for .22LR ammo. I enjoy shooting, a single trip to the range can easily cost me 500+ bucks just for ammo. I have used my AR15 for coyote hunting, and pig hunting. I can use it for home defense but am un-likely to do so do due to me also owning several 12 gauge shotguns, which are much much better for home defense, or any number of the different pistols I own. I also own several thousand rounds of ammo, on the plus side of 4,000 rounds of all calibers but mostly .223/5.56mm. Why do I own such massive ammo? Because it is much cheaper to buy in bulk, I buy my 5.56mm in 1000 round lots. And I will soon be ordering another batch, why, because I rip thru 500-1000 rounds every dang trip to the range. I own 30+ 30 round mags, why? Because I got them for free from my National Guard unit several years ago when we got brand new ones.

My AR15 and M4 version are the weapons I am most familiar with due to my time in the US Army. I bought my 1st AR while still active duty, I bought my M4 after I got back from Iraq. If you check history, you will find that the most popular guns/rifles bought by US citizens are the exact same ones that the US military use. Always been that way.

They can pass all the so called "bans" they want, I will never comply with them. And until they legally amend the Constitution, I will never surrender my guns. They get too uppity and I will start excercising my right in Texas to carry a long weapon in public, ie, carry my M4 with me. As long as it is carried in a non threatening manner, hence slung barrel down over my shoulder. I can just hear the panic in the anti-gun crowd now.


I have no idea what would be the purpose of toting an M4 down mainstreet slung on your shoulder barrel down. Is this in case you run up against Doc Holiday? Or maybe you just enjoy freaking parents out? I mean is there a need for this that outweighs public nervousness?

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 1/18/2013 7:59:28 AM >


_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 363
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 8:21:09 AM   
wodin


Posts: 8108
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I love 2ndACR..not in that way..but he is a top man..

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 364
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 8:35:19 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I love 2ndACR..not in that way..but he is a top man..


Indubitably...

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 365
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 10:02:42 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5653
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Would just be exercising my rights here in Texas. Hell, I remember back in the 80's down in South Dallas, crime got so bad in some neighborhoods that the groups actually went on patrol with rifles and shotguns. Nothing the cops could do about it. And my kids are already grown and out, OH, and they own guns too. My step daughter can out shoot me with a pistol. She got her concealed carry the moment she was available too. I at least can sleep knowing she can defend herself. The boy, not as big a shooter as me and the girl, but he owns a shotgun which he uses to dove hunt. My wife, concealed carry license, dad, concealed carry, mom, concealed carry, cousins, check most own guns or have concealed carry.

Learn your terms, there is no such thing as a assault weapon. That is a media term that was created that sounded sexier than semi auto military style rifle. Anti gunners are the bane of all gun owners, they spout "facts" that are cherry picked to the max. They cry on about "kids killed everyday" when most of those "kids" are 16+ year old gang bangers killing each other. You got a a few crazies out there, they get a gun, and kill innocent people. The entire crowd gets riled up and try to limit gun owners. How about taking the 5 time drunk driver out and shoot him? I can show you 3 multi time drunk drivers, 1 of which has killed a person while driving drunk, yet, he is still driving drunk. He just has not been caught yet again. Or killed again yet. But to solve most of the gun crime deaths, how about rounding up all the gang bangers, and their wannabe's and slap them on some deserted island and let them duke it out. Or better yet, how about just declare open season on gang bangers. Once they circumvent the 2nd Amendment, be prepared to lose your other rights. Me, I own guns, so never will truely lose my rights as I have the means to fight back if god forbid it ever happens.

I bet if I did start toting my rifle, that I would have no fear of being a victim even in the worst parts of town, unlike the non gun toting people who would fall victim within minutes.

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 366
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 10:08:23 AM   
BASB


Posts: 1723
Joined: 2/14/2005
Status: offline
So in the US government changes the constitution not the people, here in OZ the government proposes a change and the people get to vote on the change. A majority of the states must agree and I think, but I maybe wrong on this, I think 75% of voters must vote yes to the amendment.

_____________________________

Formerly Goodwood


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 367
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 11:05:42 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5653
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Correct 3/4 must ratify a change to the Constitution. First it has to get 3/4 of Congress, 3/4 of Senate and then 3/4 of the States have to say yes. The Founding Fathers made it difficult to change the original document, it can be done, and it will have to be a very good thing for it to ever pass muster. Them are some serious huge hoops to jump thru.

There is no 51% telling the other 49% what will and will not be in the constitution. We have more than enough of the 51% telling the other 49% how to live, eat, etc. But for the biggie, the US Constitution, it will take a 75% agree all the way down the line.

(in reply to BASB)
Post #: 368
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 11:12:59 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3274
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

So in the US government changes the constitution not the people, here in OZ the government proposes a change and the people get to vote on the change. A majority of the states must agree and I think, but I maybe wrong on this, I think 75% of voters must vote yes to the amendment.


People constantly misunderstand the form of government we have in the United States. What you describe is a pure democracy, or rather mob rule. This is a very dangerous form of government that is easily manipulated and was rejected by our founding fathers. The US is actually a Constitutional Republic.

We use a democratic system to elect representatives of the people who then go to Washington to govern on behalf of the people and uphold and defend our Constitution. The Constitution and Bill of Rights lay out in broad terms what those representatives are supposed to do and not supposed to do.

The whole gun rights debate is just a small battleground in a long standing effort by the left to curtail the rights of the people as laid out in those founding documents and switch ultimate power (the ability to grant and take away rights) over to the government. If they can succeed in over-riding even one of the rights laid down in our founding documents then they'll use it as precedent to basically re-write our system of government and transfer power away from the people and give it to the government.

The left has always hated the form of government we have in the US as it gives our people unassailable rights and freedoms they feel the government should have the power to control. If you look at every big leftist government over the past hundred years or so, every single one trampled human rights, enslaved their people and murdered millions, all in the name of their ideological views. No matter what the left in America may say today, if they do manage to gain the power they ultimately want to attain in America (the ability to take away and grant rights as they see fit) this country will see the next big leftist bloodbath.

I believe the US sits on a precipice today. If the current administration or another near-future administration manages to bankrupt this country as they appear to be trying to do, I think they'll be unable to contain themselves during the ensuing chaos and civil unrest and they'll make a grab for the power they've always wanted. That's when a true 2nd civil war can and will erupt in this country.

Jim


_____________________________



(in reply to BASB)
Post #: 369
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 12:26:38 PM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 565
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

quote:

. I don't pretend to think that banning assault rifles will cure all the ills of society but it might limit the amount of damage output by a few individuals, at least a little bit.


Gary, that, along with the quotes from VP Biden and Pres. Obama saying (more or less) 'We have to take action, even if it only saves one life' ; begs the question "what other things are there that we could do to save one (or more) life(lives)?

In 2010 in the US 35,332 people died in motor vehicle accident.
In 2010 in the US 25,682 people died due to alcohol-induced deaths.
In 2010 in the US 10,078 people died (homicide) by discharge of firearms.

Since more than twice as many people are killed by alcohol than guns, and more than three times as many people are killed by motor vehicles than by guns, should we consider banning alcohol and motor vehicles?

We can save many more lives by banning alcohol and motor vehicles than we can save by banning guns.
(And keep in mind that death caused by assault weapons is a small subset of the overall ' death by firearms' category).


I really can't see living without motor vehicles. Alcohol, how often does someone break into your house and force you to drink yourself to death so if people want to drink themselves to death that's maybe arguably their business. And DUI is probably well off being illegal. But assault guns? I can see society without assault guns and it doesn't look so bleak. Not sure what good assault guns are except for killing the most human beings in the shortest amount of time. They aren't really for hunting and they are a bit overkill for self defense. Pistols are probably more practical for that. Most people I have encountered who fight tooth and nail for assault guns usually seem to think the government is out to get them or think the world is about to end and they need to build a bunker in their basement...not the most mentally stable people out there. Take any murderer out there and ask him why he used a pistol or shotgun and he'd probably tell you because he couldn't conveniently get his hands on an AK-47 at the moment. Assault guns are for killing humans en masse. That's sort of why they were invented and that's what they are best for. If you aren't in the army then there really aren't many situations where a private citizen needs to kill large numbers of human beings. If a burglar breaks into your house a .357 magnum is probably as good a deterent as any.


[My emphasis added above]

http://nation.foxnews.com/crime/2013/01/10/15-year-old-defends-home-against-burglars-shoots-one-them-fathers-ar-15?intcmp=fly

quote:


January 10, 2013

15-Year-Old Defends Home Against Burglars, Shoots One Of Them With Father's AR-15

The teenage son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon in the 2600 block of Royal Place in northwest Harris County, deputies said.

The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.

The teenager grabbed his father's assault rifle and knew what to do with it.

“We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.”

The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood.


and more on that incident:

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html

quote:



HOUSTON – The teenage son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon in the 2600 block of Royal Place in northwest Harris County, deputies said.

The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.

The teenager grabbed his father's assault rifle and knew what to do with it.

“We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.”

The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood.

Shortly afterwards, two suspects showed up at Tomball hospital. One was an adult and was hit at least three times. Lifeflight flew him to Memorial Hermann hospital in the Medical Center. The second suspect, a juvenile, was taken back to the crime scene, authorities said.

Neighbors said burglars had recently struck the two houses next door, including the deputy's home.

“They stole everything -- what they have inside. They already did it one time,” Rafael Cortez said.


You were saying something about "....they are a bit overkill for self defense".

_____________________________


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 370
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 12:34:34 PM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 565
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz


quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok
In the US, however, the Founding Fathers also put in certain protections to minimize the possibility of the "tyranny of the majority". Certain rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of whichever way the will of the majority may go.


Indeed, but they also provided a means to *amend* the Constitution ... 2/3rds majority vote in both Houses of Congress and then ratification by a 2/3rds (or 3/4th? sources I checked aren't clear) majority of the States, isn't it?

So, at least theoretically, you could amend the amendments, or even (effectively) repeal them *if* you could get Congress to pass the Amendments and then most of the States to agree.

Certainly, the Founding Fathers did *not* include the Bill of Rights ... that's why the Constitution was *amended* ... because they thought it was important and/or conditions had changed.

According to Wikipedia, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York *rejected* the Second Amendment!

(Yes, I know, that's *not* the Second Amendment we're talking about ;-), it actually became the 27th Amendment)

My point?

The Founding Fathers (like most nations Founding Fathers) knew that whatever they wrote in the Constitution only applied to the situation they faced at the time they wrote it ... and, even though they tried to foresee any reasonable developments, realised that the situation *would* change, so they provided a way to change the Constitution to allow it to deal with changes.

The 2nd Amendment was one thing they felt that needed spelling out *after* they wrote the original Constitution.

Now, just for the sake of argument, say that Congress passess an Amendment that says the 2nd Amendment is to be modified to exclude specific classes of weapons ... including Assault Weapons, say, and large capacity magazines ... and that 3/4 of the States ratify it.

That would make it *constitutional* to pry those Assault Weapons from people's cold dead hands, would it not?

Assuming that such an Amendment came to pass, and I would agree that it is unlikely in the US of 2013, then that would mean that anyone who disagreed with it would be in opposition to the Constitution ... and *might* feel that they had to secede ... just as the Southern States did in 1861.

With 3/4 of the US States against any secessionists, and probably close to 3/4 of the military, it would get real nasty, real quick.

And, like the 1st ACW, the side with the numbers would probably win ... and the side with the majority would almost certainly be the side the rest of the world would side with.

I make no value judgements as to which side might be more *morally* correct, but surely the Constitution is *always* subject to amendment? Including the Amendments?

Phil




The Bill of Rights was added in the first 10 amendments, and, if I recall, the reason that they were added was that many were concerned enough that these rights were not included in the original draft, that they insisted on them in order to pass the Constitution.

Means to amend the Constitution are there, and amendments have occurred, sparingly. The reason that the process to amend the Constitution is difficult is to ensure that changes are not made at the drop of a hat, and that any changes must require overwhelming support.

And sometimes, they do make mistakes (witness the 18th amendment and the 21st which 'fixed' it).




_____________________________


(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 371
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 12:59:57 PM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 565
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: online
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/17/what_is_the_purpose_of_gun_rights_116713.html

quote:


What Is the Purpose of Gun Rights?

Viewed through this lens, gun rights in the United States are essentially a reiteration of our belief in self-government. They are not incidental, though they may be old-fashioned. They are instead an acknowledgement of where the authority for government begins: with the citizen, not with power granted from on high. As such, removing them fundamentally alters the nature of our American understanding of human beings' capacity for protecting themselves from harm. And beyond the effect of increasing crime, as a prosecutor from Washington D.C. details today, such steps may in short order transform the psychological makeup of a nation that has for so long invested much belief in law and policy in the power of individuals to live the life they make for themselves.


Above is just a snippet---read more at the above link.



_____________________________


(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 372
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 1:02:04 PM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12905
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR


And Gary, there is no such thing as a "assault weapon" wish you would quit using the term. It is a semi auto military style rifle. Anything I pick up and hit you upside the head with is a assault weapon, it is the weapon I used to assault you with.


How about a more technical term like assault thingymajiggy then.

quote:

You state you own no guns, okay, good for you. I do own guns, I also own 2 of the military style rifles, and will be buying a 3rd one once I can find a new one AND they have not jacked the price thru the roof. Why, because I can under the law. I am even thinking about buying a 4th one but this one will be a 30 shot .22LR semi auto, because it is really cheap for .22LR ammo. I enjoy shooting, a single trip to the range can easily cost me 500+ bucks just for ammo. I have used my AR15 for coyote hunting, and pig hunting. I can use it for home defense but am un-likely to do so do due to me also owning several 12 gauge shotguns, which are much much better for home defense, or any number of the different pistols I own. I also own several thousand rounds of ammo, on the plus side of 4,000 rounds of all calibers but mostly .223/5.56mm. Why do I own such massive ammo? Because it is much cheaper to buy in bulk, I buy my 5.56mm in 1000 round lots. And I will soon be ordering another batch, why, because I rip thru 500-1000 rounds every dang trip to the range. I own 30+ 30 round mags, why? Because I got them for free from my National Guard unit several years ago when we got brand new ones.

My AR15 and M4 version are the weapons I am most familiar with due to my time in the US Army. I bought my 1st AR while still active duty, I bought my M4 after I got back from Iraq. If you check history, you will find that the most popular guns/rifles bought by US citizens are the exact same ones that the US military use. Always been that way.

They can pass all the so called "bans" they want, I will never comply with them. And until they legally amend the Constitution, I will never surrender my guns. They get too uppity and I will start excercising my right in Texas to carry a long weapon in public, ie, carry my M4 with me. As long as it is carried in a non threatening manner, hence slung barrel down over my shoulder. I can just hear the panic in the anti-gun crowd now.


I have no idea what would be the purpose of toting an M4 down mainstreet slung on your shoulder barrel down. Is this in case you run up against Doc Holiday? Or maybe you just enjoy freaking parents out? I mean is there a need for this that outweighs public nervousness?


If you live in an area where guns are common, you don't freak out over seeing them.

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 373
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 1:17:07 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 946
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Well, only 12 people were killed by explosives in 2011. Should we conclude that private ownership of explosives should be ok?


Another red herring.

Nobody's demanding freewheeling ownership of explosives.

I used "irrational angst", because everyone with your view is harping on so-called "assault weapons" when they aren't a major cause of deaths.

It's all about control.

Tell me what is significantly different about military type weapons than all the regular commercial semi-auto weapons produced over the last 110 years or so.

Ed-



_____________________________


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 374
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 2:18:58 PM   
vonRocko

 

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

It's all about control.


That is what it is all about. Not the safety of children, not defending against criminals etc. More control over our lives. Tell me what to eat, read, smoke,dress, how and where to work, and how much money I can make, who I can have sex with, who I can't, legal drugs, illegal drugs, make me dependant on the government for everything. The sad thing is, most people are sheep who are incapable of independant thought and need to be told HOW to live. They have the majority begging for protection from all the boogeymen.

(in reply to Mundy)
Post #: 375
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 3:05:52 PM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 565
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz


quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok
In the US, however, the Founding Fathers also put in certain protections to minimize the possibility of the "tyranny of the majority". Certain rights are guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of whichever way the will of the majority may go.


Indeed, but they also provided a means to *amend* the Constitution ... 2/3rds majority vote in both Houses of Congress and then ratification by a 2/3rds (or 3/4th? sources I checked aren't clear) majority of the States, isn't it?

So, at least theoretically, you could amend the amendments, or even (effectively) repeal them *if* you could get Congress to pass the Amendments and then most of the States to agree.

Certainly, the Founding Fathers did *not* include the Bill of Rights ... that's why the Constitution was *amended* ... because they thought it was important and/or conditions had changed.

According to Wikipedia, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York *rejected* the Second Amendment!

(Yes, I know, that's *not* the Second Amendment we're talking about ;-), it actually became the 27th Amendment)

My point?

The Founding Fathers (like most nations Founding Fathers) knew that whatever they wrote in the Constitution only applied to the situation they faced at the time they wrote it ... and, even though they tried to foresee any reasonable developments, realised that the situation *would* change, so they provided a way to change the Constitution to allow it to deal with changes.

The 2nd Amendment was one thing they felt that needed spelling out *after* they wrote the original Constitution.

Now, just for the sake of argument, say that Congress passess an Amendment that says the 2nd Amendment is to be modified to exclude specific classes of weapons ... including Assault Weapons, say, and large capacity magazines ... and that 3/4 of the States ratify it.

That would make it *constitutional* to pry those Assault Weapons from people's cold dead hands, would it not?

Assuming that such an Amendment came to pass, and I would agree that it is unlikely in the US of 2013, then that would mean that anyone who disagreed with it would be in opposition to the Constitution ... and *might* feel that they had to secede ... just as the Southern States did in 1861.

With 3/4 of the US States against any secessionists, and probably close to 3/4 of the military, it would get real nasty, real quick.

And, like the 1st ACW, the side with the numbers would probably win ... and the side with the majority would almost certainly be the side the rest of the world would side with.

I make no value judgements as to which side might be more *morally* correct, but surely the Constitution is *always* subject to amendment? Including the Amendments?

Phil



To add to my prior response to your post I would like to add this:

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no amendment successfully ratified to the Constitution that curtailed the Constitutional rights of the people as a whole. (The 18th amendment did in banning alcohol but it was subsequently reversed by another amendment).

Amendments have expanded rights (13th abolished slavery, 15th prohibited denial of suffrage based on race/color, 19th gave women the right to vote, 26th lowered voting age from 21 to 18) but none have ever taken away rights belonging to the general public.

IMHO amending the Constitution to take away a Constitutional right would set a dangerous precedent.


_____________________________


(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 376
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 3:32:19 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online
Well... I'm still not sure what the purpose of having a "military style weapon" is if one isn't in the military. "Out of my cold dead hands" seems a little obsessive. It's just a gun, it's not like an oxygen tank or something. But I guess in the final analysis if you see a guy walking down the street with an assault rifle...erm...."military style weapon", better to just get off the street and take cover than try to reason with him.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 377
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 3:40:29 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 946
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
Why does one need a purpose?  I don't have to justify owning one to the government.  The government has no business dictating to me what I "need" or "don't need".

Why does one need an automobile capable of exceeding any speed limit in the country?

Having a rifle does not mean that one is some deranged lunatic, like you seem to be implying.

Ed-

_____________________________


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 378
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 3:54:41 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Why does one need a purpose?  I don't have to justify owning one to the government.  The government has no business dictating to me what I "need" or "don't need".

Why does one need an automobile capable of exceeding any speed limit in the country?

Having a rifle does not mean that one is some deranged lunatic, like you seem to be implying.

Ed-


I just think there are more important stands to take against government policies than to worry about the government denying you the right to maintain an arsenal in your house. Really, in some senses it's not that much different than complaining that you aren't allowed to own a rocket launcher or whatever. Who the hell needs one? I'm not against self defense. A pistol is fine but what does anyone need a "military style weapon" for? Are we really that insecure in our modern civilization that a person needs to bar the doors and windows and prepare every day for a shootout at the OK corral? I suppose in the end people will find a way to get what they want. It's a little scarry but I guess there's not much to be done about it.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Mundy)
Post #: 379
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 4:18:35 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 946
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
You're assuming I buy weapons for the purpose of defense, or starting some kind of revolt.  Perhaps, I simply enjoy shooting them and reloading ammunition for them.  It has nothing to do with feeling secure or setting up a personal bunker.

Your need do decide what I "need" is completly irrevelant.  I suppose that because you can't understand, nobody else is supposed to understand, either.

Ed-

_____________________________


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 380
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 4:24:50 PM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 565
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Why does one need a purpose?  I don't have to justify owning one to the government.  The government has no business dictating to me what I "need" or "don't need".

Why does one need an automobile capable of exceeding any speed limit in the country?

Having a rifle does not mean that one is some deranged lunatic, like you seem to be implying.

Ed-


I just think there are more important stands to take against government policies than to worry about the government denying you the right to maintain an arsenal in your house. Really, in some senses it's not that much different than complaining that you aren't allowed to own a rocket launcher or whatever. Who the hell needs one? I'm not against self defense. A pistol is fine but what does anyone need a "military style weapon" for? Are we really that insecure in our modern civilization that a person needs to bar the doors and windows and prepare every day for a shootout at the OK corral? I suppose in the end people will find a way to get what they want. It's a little scarry but I guess there's not much to be done about it.



Gary,

How would you feel if a proposal was submitted to tweak the First Amendment.

It might say that freedom of speech should be restricted in circumstances where that speech was "hateful" or unpopular.

It might sound like a PC thing, I mean who is in favor of hateful speech?

But when you take a moment to look at that more closely, who is to be the arbiter of what hate speech is?
Would using the "n" word be considered hate speech? If you did that half of rap music would be deemed illegal.

Minimize one right of the people as stated in the Constitution and you open the door for it to happen to others as well.

< Message edited by chijohnaok -- 1/18/2013 4:27:03 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 381
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 4:54:12 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

You're assuming I buy weapons for the purpose of defense, or starting some kind of revolt.  Perhaps, I simply enjoy shooting them and reloading ammunition for them.  It has nothing to do with feeling secure or setting up a personal bunker.

Your need do decide what I "need" is completly irrevelant.  I suppose that because you can't understand, nobody else is supposed to understand, either.

Ed-


I'd enjoy shooting and reloading a recoiless rifle. Does that mean I should be allowed to buy one at my local recoiless rifle dealer? I promise I'll never use it in anger and I'll be sure to keep it locked up so it doesn't fall into the "wrong" hands. If you check the FBI website I'm sure you'll find that they are relatively safe since probably no one in 2011 used a recoiless rifle to murder anyone. I'll always keep it pointed toward the ground when toting it down the street in public. I'm responsible and law-abiding, just check my record, no felonies, never done illegal drugs of any kind, maybe a couple speeding tickets. I personally see no reason I shouldn't be allowed to have one. I certianly don't want others telling me what I can and can't have, and especially not the government. If everyone carried a recoiless rifle people would get accustomed to it and stop being afriad of them. No one would dare break into my house knowing I have a RR (and of course claymore mines at each window and door would further ensure my personal safety). And 10 years from now when someone says, "why does anyone need a RR", chijohnaok would be able to cite the time I incinerated a guy breaking into my house with my RR, proving conclusively that RRs aren't "overkill" for self defense.



_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Mundy)
Post #: 382
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 5:08:14 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Why does one need a purpose?  I don't have to justify owning one to the government.  The government has no business dictating to me what I "need" or "don't need".

Why does one need an automobile capable of exceeding any speed limit in the country?

Having a rifle does not mean that one is some deranged lunatic, like you seem to be implying.

Ed-


I just think there are more important stands to take against government policies than to worry about the government denying you the right to maintain an arsenal in your house. Really, in some senses it's not that much different than complaining that you aren't allowed to own a rocket launcher or whatever. Who the hell needs one? I'm not against self defense. A pistol is fine but what does anyone need a "military style weapon" for? Are we really that insecure in our modern civilization that a person needs to bar the doors and windows and prepare every day for a shootout at the OK corral? I suppose in the end people will find a way to get what they want. It's a little scarry but I guess there's not much to be done about it.



Gary,

How would you feel if a proposal was submitted to tweak the First Amendment.

It might say that freedom of speech should be restricted in circumstances where that speech was "hateful" or unpopular.

It might sound like a PC thing, I mean who is in favor of hateful speech?

But when you take a moment to look at that more closely, who is to be the arbiter of what hate speech is?
Would using the "n" word be considered hate speech? If you did that half of rap music would be deemed illegal.

Minimize one right of the people as stated in the Constitution and you open the door for it to happen to others as well.


Certainly "freedom of speech" is also a complicated matter. But largely I believe a person should be allowed to say almost whatever they want so long as it doesn't do some kind of exorbitant damage to the public or whatever. I mean, do I have "freedom of speech" to commit treason or espionage against my own country? Do I have freedom of speech to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Aparently the Supreme court didn't think so back during WWI when some anarchist (forget the name and everything) protested American involvement in Europe. The Supreme court likened the anarchist's protest to "yelling fire in a crowded theater". I mean if minimizing one right of the people opens the door for totalitarianism then we should probably have been a dictatorship long ago.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 383
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 5:12:42 PM   
Qwixt


Posts: 618
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

Gary,

How would you feel if a proposal was submitted to tweak the First Amendment.

It might say that freedom of speech should be restricted in circumstances where that speech was "hateful" or unpopular.

It might sound like a PC thing, I mean who is in favor of hateful speech?

But when you take a moment to look at that more closely, who is to be the arbiter of what hate speech is?
Would using the "n" word be considered hate speech? If you did that half of rap music would be deemed illegal.

Minimize one right of the people as stated in the Constitution and you open the door for it to happen to others as well.


You are just trying to obfuscate the issue with something not even closely related to the same thing, other than you think that not being able to own any weapon of your choosing violates the 2nd amendment.

Also, Gary is 100% correct in stating that it is a matter of degrees in regard to rocket launchers and an arsenal. The second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms. Well, how about nuclear arms? It has arms right in the name. It's a weapon. If you don't think citizens should be able to get those, then you are simply drawing the line at a different location. Heck, we don't even want other countries to get certain types of weapons, and they are not even covered by the constitution.


< Message edited by Qwixt -- 1/18/2013 5:18:16 PM >

(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 384
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 5:20:14 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 946
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
Actually you can. Just pay the NFA tax stamp

RR

More hyperbole as usual. Apparently owning a RR is exactly the same as owning a rifle.

I get it, Gary. Personal liberties are simply a quaint anachronism to you.

There are groups who like shooting Civil War cannons. I'm sure you'd be first in line to put an end to that travesty.



_____________________________


(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 385
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 6:00:19 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18489
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt
The thread was officially over with the Hitler quote as far as I am concerned.


So then why are you still posting in it? I think you've expressed the 'cut of your jib' now...

quote:


There is no real discussion here. It's basically the same few posting the same stuff ad nauseum till there is just one position represented, then a congratulatory pat on the back for having a great discussion.


...you're patting Gary on the back for a great discussion and reiterating your position ad nauseum.

_____________________________


(in reply to Qwixt)
Post #: 386
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 6:03:58 PM   
parusski


Posts: 4848
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Wyoming, Even Liberals Welcome
Status: offline
I am back to say I was wrong. Yep. After thinking things over we should just throw our hands up, surrender our rights and do what "feels good".

Headline from Texas:

Robber Beats Dallas Clerk With Several Hammers

There you go. Ban hammers. Right now. Ban hammers. Ban hammers. No one really needs one, do they?????

Hey, I'm just getting on the band wagon. I hope I get support from those who say we have no need of "assault" rifles.

BAN HAMMERS NOW. THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT NEED ONE.

We can make some allowances by licensing 1 hammer(with rubber head) to home builders.

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.

< Message edited by parusski -- 1/18/2013 6:06:34 PM >


_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to Mundy)
Post #: 387
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 6:09:58 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 20262
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.
warspite1

You are right out of line there parusski. Leave Scottish rappers with silly pants out of this - there is nothing wrong with McHammer.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/18/2013 6:10:42 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to parusski)
Post #: 388
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 6:10:54 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18489
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

I am back to say I was wrong. Yep. After thinking things over we should just throw our hands up, surrender our rights and do what "feels good".

Headline from Texas:

Robber Beats Dallas Clerk With Several Hammers

There you go. Ban hammers. Right now. Ban hammers. Ban hammers. No one really needs one, do they?????

Hey, I'm just getting on the band wagon. I hope I get support from those who say we have no need of "assault" rifles.

BAN HAMMERS NOW. THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT NEED ONE.

We can make some allowances by licensing 1 hammer(with rubber head) to home builders.

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.


NEIN! I SUPPORT ZE HAMMERS! HEIL HAMMERS!






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 1/18/2013 6:12:15 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to parusski)
Post #: 389
RE: A new ACW.. - 1/18/2013 6:14:36 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 20262
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

I am back to say I was wrong. Yep. After thinking things over we should just throw our hands up, surrender our rights and do what "feels good".

Headline from Texas:

Robber Beats Dallas Clerk With Several Hammers

There you go. Ban hammers. Right now. Ban hammers. Ban hammers. No one really needs one, do they?????

Hey, I'm just getting on the band wagon. I hope I get support from those who say we have no need of "assault" rifles.

BAN HAMMERS NOW. THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT NEED ONE.

We can make some allowances by licensing 1 hammer(with rubber head) to home builders.

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.


NEIN! I SUPPORT ZE HAMMERS! HEIL HAMMERS!





warspite1

I don't support the Hammers - I'm a Spurs fan - but for the sake of this argument I am prepared to switch allegiance.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: A new ACW.. Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.133