BengalBacker Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1358034855' post='1207600'] and think there's no legitimate reason for a civilian to own a semi-automatic rifle that takes external clips? Is that a "side"? [/quote] Then you would be on the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1358017552' post='1207535'] Revolutionary war, but I digress..... [/quote] Right except that your talking about us citizen vs us citizen, so now I digress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1358021891' post='1207550'] [url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html"]http://www.guncite.c...s/vandhist.html[/url] Didn't you go to George Mason University Jamie? Also, note Patrick Henry's views, you know, the "Give me liberty or give me death" guy. Excerpt: (This didn't really format right, but close. Go to the link if this is hard to read) [b] [i]A. The Antifederalist View[/i][/b] Additional views on the relationship between freedom and arms were expressed when the Constitution was being submitted to the states for ratification. The Antifederalist views were stated in pamphlets entitled [i]Letters (p.1024)from the Federal Farmer to the Republican[/i].[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn133"][133][/url] Richard Henry Lee is credited with authorship.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn134"][134][/url] The self-styled federal farmer thought of himself as a supporter of federalism and republicanism.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn135"][135][/url] His view of federalism was not that set forth in the proposed Constitution of 1787. The federal farmer argued that a distant national government was antithetical to freedom: [indent=1] [T]he general government, far removed from the people, and none of its members elected oftener than once in two years, will be forgot or neglected, and its laws in many cases disregarded, unless a multitude of officers and military force be continually kept in view, and employed to enforce the execution of the laws and to make the government feared and respected. No position can be truer than this, that in this country either neglected laws, or a military execution of them, must lead to revolution, and to the destruction of freedom. Neglected laws must first lead to anarchy and confusion; and a military execution of laws is only a shorter way to the same point--despotic government.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn136"][136][/url][/indent] The federal farmer also saw evil in Congress's power to raise an army, despite the two-year limit on money appropriations and the states' control over the militia via the appointment of officers.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn137"][137][/url] He understood the need to provide for the common defense but believed an additional check was necessary. He proposed requiring two-thirds consent in Congress before a standing army could be raised or the militia could be pressed into service by the national government.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn138"][138][/url] Additionally, the federal farmer argued that a select militia composed of less than all the people ought to be avoided. The farmer argued that, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn139"][139][/url] [u][b]Another Antifederalist, George Mason, spoke on the relationship between (p.1025)arms and liberty. Mason asserted that history had demonstrated that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn140"][140][/url] Mason suggested that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense, clearly including the right to defend one's political liberty within that term.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn141"][141][/url] Patrick Henry argued against ratification of the Constitution by Virginia, in part because the Constitution permitted a standing army and gave the federal government some control over the militia.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn142"][142][/url] Henry objected to the lack of any clause forbidding disarmament of individual citizens; "the great object is that every man be armed .... Everyone who is able may have a gun."[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn143"][143][/url] The Antifederalists believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Antifederalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn144"][144][/url][/b][/u] [b] [i]B. The Federalist View[/i][/b] The Federalists, those supporting the Constitution as drafted, did not dispute the premise that governmental tyranny was the primary evil that people had to guard against.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn145"][145][/url] Nor did the Federalists dispute the nexus between (p.1026)arms and freedom.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn146"][146][/url] In one of the first Federalist pamphlets, Noah Webster argued that the proposed Constitution provided adequate guarantees to check the dangers of any standing army.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn147"][147][/url] His reasoning acknowledged checks and balances, but did not rely on the same. Rather, Webster argued: [indent=1] [u][b]Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn148"][148][/url][/b][/u][/indent] [u][b]Similarly, James Madison made clear that, although the proposed Constitution offered sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and balances, the real deterrent to governmental abuse was the armed population.[/b][/u][url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn149"][149][/url] To the Antifederalist criticism of the standing army as a threat to liberty, Madison replied: [indent=1] To these [the standing army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops .... Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are (p.1027)attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn150"][150][/url][/indent] [u][b]Another leading Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, voiced a similar view.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn151"][151][/url] Hamilton suggested that if the representations of the people, elected under the proposed Constitution, betrayed their constituents, the people retained the right to defend their political rights and possessed the means to do so.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn152"][152][/url] In summary, both Federalists and Antifederalists believed that the main danger to the republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an armed population.[/b][/u][url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn153"][153][/url] Federalists and Antifederalists disagreed, however, on several issues. First, they disagreed as to whether sufficient checks and balances had been placed on the proposed national government to control the danger of oppression.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn154"][154][/url] Second, the Antifederalists believed a bill of rights should be incorporated into the Constitution to guarantee certain rights.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn155"][155][/url] The Federalists argued that such a bill of rights was unnecessary because the power of the federal government was restricted to the grant of authority provided by the Constitution.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn156"][156][/url] There was no need to (p.1028)provide exceptions to powers not granted.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn157"][157][/url] Further, the Federalists argued that providing exceptions to powers not granted was dangerous because it could encourage a claim that powers not expressly stated had been granted.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn158"][158][/url][u][b] Again, both sides not only agreed that the people had a right to be armed, both sides assumed the existence of an armed population as an essential element to preserving liberty. The framers quite clearly had adopted James Harrington's political theory that the measure of liberty attained and retained was a direct function of an armed citizenry's ability to claim and hold those rights from domestic and foreign enemies.[url="http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn159"][159][/url][/b][/u] [/quote] I'm going to say this as plainly and clearly as possible because your "side" continues to distort the position of the other side. Regulation of firearms [b]IS NOT THE SAME THING[/b] as disarmament. Regulation is fully within the rights of the goverment to do by way of that "well regulated" part, nothing you have posted here addresses that, likely because many like you choose to ignore it. You cant ignore it, its there, deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1358035777' post='1207605'] Then you would be on the other side. [/quote] I'll keep an eye out for the black helicopters when I'm out plinking this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1358035921' post='1207606'] Right except that your talking about us citizen vs us citizen, so now I digress [/quote] You're full of shit Jamie, you know I got you on that one and it was funny. Look, you guys wring your hands, debate, pass laws, do what you're gonna do. I, and a lot of other people are gonna do what we're gonna do. Lock and load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 No I actually meant civil war because that is citizen vs citizen not a foreign country. But hey James Yaeger your still gonna have to register and follow the regulations whether you like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1358043505' post='1207678'] Look, you guys wring your hands, debate, pass laws, do what you're gonna do. I, and a lot of other people are gonna do what we're gonna do. Lock and load. [/quote] See, what's ridiculous (or sad) about that is that it's painfully obvious that on some level, this is what you WANT to happen. It's the mentality behind the sort of person who claims they need an AK47 to "protect their family" - a wild west, Road Warrior vigilante fantasy that is so removed from reality as to be comedy, except for the fact that you're supporting an organization that thinks the solution to psychopaths with guns is MORE GUNS, despite all evidence to the contrary. Admit it or not, it's clear that you WANT the feds to come try and take away your assault rifle, so you can have some big shoot-out and justify/legitimize.. well, I'm not sure what, but I can only imagine a psychologist or sociologist would have a field day with it. Whatever it is, it's fucked up, and does nothing but strengthen the argument for gun control. Unfortunately for this kook-ass narrative you've constructed for yourself, nobody is going to come try to take your guns. Shit, if you're not a felon you can get yourself a Class 3 permit and stock up on antiaircraft guns and whatever other overcompensation-in-gun-form you want, and nobody gives a shit. In fact, nobody gives a shit [i]now[/i]. All that's likely to happen is a reinstatement of the "assault weapons" ban, with enough grandfather clauses and other loopholes to back a m1 tank through. The politicians look like they are taking action but nobody has to do much of anything difficult. It's the American way. Meanwhile you can sit around cleaning your bazooka safe in the knowledge that, statistically, if you ever DO shoot someone with it, it's far, far more likely to be either you or that family you're so worried about protecting, Way to go, Rambo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1358046389' post='1207697'] But hey James Yaeger [/quote] Wow, that guy rocks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1358064166' post='1207728'] Wow, that guy rocks!!! [/quote] Thank you for confirming my theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1358067046' post='1207729'] Thank you for confirming my theory [/quote] Think what you want, don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1358064166' post='1207728'] Wow, that guy rocks!!! [/quote] Oh I'm pretty sure for all your vibrato you'd end up just like he did.... http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/tennessee-suspends-gun-carry-permit-james-y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1358088255' post='1207743'] Oh I'm pretty sure for all your vibrato you'd end up just like he did.... [url="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/tennessee-suspends-gun-carry-permit-james-y"]http://videocafe.cro...-permit-james-y[/url] [/quote] Vibrato? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrato Perhaps...bravado? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1358089156' post='1207747'] Vibrato? [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrato"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrato[/url] Perhaps...bravado? [/quote] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato"]Or castrato?[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_14SLuVYYzQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 I have some things I have to do today, but I'll try to put together a post later that better explains my reasons for being so adamant on this issue. No, I'm not Rambo, no I don't want confrontation with the government or anyone, I don't even hunt, and I catch spiders and take them outside rather than squash them. I'm one of the most easy going people you'll ever meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 [quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1358108469' post='1207803'] I have some things I have to do today, but I'll try to put together a post later that better explains my reasons for being so adamant on this issue. No, I'm not Rambo, no I don't want confrontation with the government or anyone, I don't even hunt, and I catch spiders and take them outside rather than squash them. I'm one of the most easy going people you'll ever meet. [/quote] Fair enough, but that Yaeger dude you seem to admire is such an asshole that it made me suspicious. In fact he's such a stereotype of disenfranchised Angry White Guy that I suspect he's trolling for the ATF. At least, I hope so, and at worst he's managed to put himself and all his customers on a watch list. Those types love the word "tactical" but they sure don't know shit about strategy. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say, though. Particularly why you think you need a Bushmaster or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Ok, I'll briefly give some of my reasons why I think it's smart to own guns and why high capacity magazines should not be made illegal. If you've ever watched doomsday preppers, I'm sure you're like me and think that those people for the most part are fucking nuts, and extreme in what they are doing. The thing is, that doesn't make them wrong. I think that anyone who doesn't see the real possibilities of the (maybe sudden) breakdown of our society and chaos in the streets is crazier than they are. Before anyone says that watching that show, or Fox News, or listening to talk radio has made me think that, I've seen the possibilities coming for a long time and no matter where you get your information, the future looks bleak if you're paying attention. There are a number of ways this could happen. I won't list them all, but the one that I think is most likely is global economic collapse. It's a house of cards and it wouldn't take a very strong wind to blow it all down. If that happens, there will be no food in stores, and quickly no stores. No gas at gas stations, and quickly no gas stations. It wouldn't take long for there to be no electricity or heat. If money becomes worthless, the companies that provide these things can no longer provide them and they will collapse. Trucks that bring products across the country will no longer be able to. Everyone who works anywhere will no longer work because they can't be paid, and the money is worthless anyway. When my parents were growing up in the hills of Tennessee, post great depression, these things wouldn't have made a lot of difference to them. Most, or at least many people back then were self sufficient. They grew and raised their own food, got their water from fresh springs, chopped their own wood for heat, didn't even have electricity. Today's society isn't at all like that. We all depend on the perpetual machine that feeds and provides for us. If that machine breaks down, it won't take long for hungry people to start looking for food any way they can get it. If they weren't smart enough to stockpile for themselves, they're going to try to take mine. Can you imagine our big cities in such a scenario? Even the suburbs and rural areas would turn to chaos, just not as fast as the cities. While I would love to share with, and feed everyone in that scenario, and would hate to have to shoot people who are trying to feed their families, that's simply not possible, so it could come down to me and my family against them. I'm going to do everything I can to protect myself and my family, and the most reasonable means of doing that is to have guns, preferably with high capacity magazines. Some other scenarios could be massive natural disasters. While the chances might not be very high, solar flares could knock out the entire power grid and fry all electronics. Where is everyone's money right now? Do you think it's sitting in a vault in a bank? No, it's a series of ones and zeros on computers, and if the computers go poof, so does the money. Try recovering your bank account, much less your investments if that happens, not to mention the ability of hackers and terrorists to intentionally fuck up all records. The new Madrid fault line could cause an earthquake bad enough to fuck up the machine for at least an extended period of time, and what about the super volcano under Yellowstone? Hurricanes, floods, droughts, massive loss of crops for whatever reasons, et cetera. In my lifetime I've seen quite a few riots break out in the streets in America and around the world, and sometimes the things that trigger them just make you shake your head. While in the past, for the most part these riots are somewhat localized, that doesn't make much difference if you're stuck in the middle of one, especially if you're part of the targeted group. The government turning on me, ala the Nazis is way down on my list of possible scenarios, but it has happened all throughout history, and it's always, or almost always against a defenseless populace. Just because this is America and we don't think it would happen, doesn't mean it can't. Guns have always been a big part of American culture, and it can be argued that they are a huge part of what has made us great. Scary looking guns with high capacity magazines are not a new thing, and IMO are not the reason for the recent shooting spree tragedies. If your argument is that their availability contributes, I won't deny that, but I absolutely do not think they are the cause, which is what people should be focusing on if they truly want to do what needs to be done to try to end them. I know many of you argue that the violence prevalent in entertainment has nothing to do with it because you played violent video games, and you watched violent movies and tv shows, and you listen to gangster rap and you turned out alright. The same argument can be made for gun owners. Millions of people have grown up around guns who would never shoot anyone unless it was in self defense. I think the glorification of violence in entertainment, the breakdown of the family unit, the instant celebrity of the twisted individuals who commit these crimes have much much much much more to do with the phenomenon than the fact that law abiding citizens can own guns with or without high capacity magazines. I was taught in Social Studies in High School that the way to solve social problems is to attack the cause, not the symptoms. Guns might be a tool that's sometimes used, but they are not the cause. Hopefully you guys don't see me as a Rambo type monster now, and even if you don't agree with me, maybe you can see where I'm coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted January 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Great post. I especially agree with your stance on video games, family breakdown etc... Those wanting to condemn guns without looking for a real cause are the same ones that will be condemning knives if guns are made illegal and the whackos start stabbing people. sure it's less atrocious to the huddled masses but you still never really fixed the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted January 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Thinking out loud here, guns have always been a part of American culture, have school shootings? When did all this stuff start and when did it escalate and what are the factors in society that changed prior to those shifts? Seems like the answer is not going to be as simple as the invention of sub machine guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 If any of the scenarios that I presented should happen, and our society turns to chaos, everyone who wants them banned will wish they had them. Unless they would rather just lay down and accept their, and their families' fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted January 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Some quick googling revealed this little squidoo blog or whatever it is with some interesting statistics I have no reason to doubt. http://www.squidoo.com/school-shooting-statistics-by-state Highlights: United States of America / USA - 90 school shootings and 231 deaths, 13 of the 90 shootings did not result in any deaths. The first recorded shooting was in 1966. Europe - 16 school shootings and 91 deaths, 3 of the 16 shootings did not result in any deaths. The first recorded shooting was in 1913. Canada - 9 school shootings and 26 deaths, 1 of the 9 shootings did not result in any deaths. The first recorded shooting was in 1902. South America, Asia, and Australia - 8 school shootings and 29 deaths, all shootings resulted in at least 1 death. The first recorded shooting was in 1997. ] It also has a map showing the majority of shootings happen in the south, California or on the east coast with very very few in the less populated areas of the country. It's very interesting data and I'm not sure what it actually means but I think it proves there are far more factors at play than the availability of guns. What happened to American society in the late 50s and early 60s that could have started the process that creates the monsters that commit these crimes? Obviously other continents have fewer shootings but America was late on the scene and it seems our instances increase along with the decadence and moral breakdown of our families. Do other societies foster happier citizens that don't feel the need to go on rampages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted January 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 [quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1358153288' post='1207979'] If any of the scenarios that I presented should happen, and our society turns to chaos, everyone who wants them banned will wish they had them. Unless they would rather just lay down and accept their, and their families' fate. [/quote] They'll fight off the looters with their lethal fists, broom handles and boomerangs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1358154393' post='1207981'] They'll fight off the looters with their lethal fists, broom handles and boomerangs. [/quote] Baseball bats are the preferred weapon of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 14, 2013 Report Share Posted January 14, 2013 Paranoid apocalyptic delusions aside, if your so worried about a break down in the global economy and cite a "my family vs them" mentality, why do you vote against your own economic interests when voting republican? Much of this stuff your so worried about wouldn't come to fruition if we followed a more progressive economic agenda. You talk of the breakdown in the family unit, I would suggest to you this is because of the economics of the family unit have changed to the point that families are often forced to have both parents working simply to survive, let alone have luxuries. Wages have not kept up with inflation while corporate profits are higher than ever, and all I hear from you regarding this is "rich people have always sucked" while following the likes of a Glen Beck, because "OMG SOCIALISM!!!" Fact is the economics of our societal breakdown are to cause for some of this, yet the folks who are so adamant about their guns are the ones voting against their own interests causing some of our societal breakdown. Never will I understand the mindset that says we need more guns but less access to healthcare, never will I understand the mindset that says we need more guns but less equal distribution of wealth for the working poor, never will I understand the mindset that says we need more guns but less help for the inner cities, never will I understand the mindset that says we need more guns but less government involvement in our economy. Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.