Thoughts and Prayers

[Thomas]

Just now, UndertheHalo said:

You got me. 

Seriously though.  Contemporary armed rebellions rarely suceed. 

Not that civil disobedience always works.  But I am can think of several that have. 

 

What was the last successful attempt by the US military to pacify an armed rebellion? The "Indian problem"? The Civil War, kinda?

[UndertheHalo]

Just now, Taylor said:

I read a comment earlier today that struck me. The second amendment talks about a "well-regulated militia." It's interesting how you never hear those words thrown around when the gun control debate comes up. It's always about the "right to bear arms," which for some means the right to own guns without any restrictions.

In my opinion, I think the 2nd amendment pretty clearly is about the militia part. 

[UndertheHalo]

7 minutes ago, Thomas said:

What was the last successful attempt by the US military to pacify an armed rebellion? The "Indian problem"? The Civil War, kinda?

I mean, the blacks dealt with a lot of heavily armed police during the civil rights movement. 

As far as the US military pacifying an armed rebellion.  Do you mean domestically ? I mean obviously none recently.  Unless you want to count Waco or those whack jobs in Oregon a year or 2 ago.  Do get to your point. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[red321]

2 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I think the point is to be rational

of course, it's certainly rational to think all that is normal and we should just live with it instead of saying...hey, we should sit down and figure out if we can do something better

I will say, I do enjoy your new debate tactic on gun control...the other side is just too emotional so we shouldn't talk about it...besides...we have

 

thoughts and prayers

[Taylor]

2 minutes ago, red321 said:

of course, it's certainly rational to think all that is normal and we should just live with it instead of saying...hey, we should sit down and figure out if we can do something better

I will say, I do enjoy your new debate tactic on gun control...the other side is just too emotional so we shouldn't talk about it...besides...we have

 

thoughts and prayers

I agree. There has to be some kind of solution to put a stop to these mass shootings. The status quo is not good enough. 

[Thomas]

 

5 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I read a comment earlier today that struck me. The second amendment talks about a "well-regulated militia." It's interesting how you never hear those words thrown around when the gun control debate comes up. It's always about the "right to bear arms," which for some means the right to own guns without any restrictions.

That would be the infamous comma and what exactly was meant by that.

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

 

That would be the infamous comma and what exactly was meant by that.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's very awkwardly worded. 

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, Taylor said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's very awkwardly worded. 

You know what it doesn't say ? 

That you should have a right to a gun in case you are afraid of you're neighbor 

[Thomas]

3 minutes ago, Taylor said:

It's very awkwardly worded. 

All the amendments are similarly formatted. I imagine the constitutional convention voiced by many William Shatners.

[mtangelsfan]

11 minutes ago, red321 said:

of course, it's certainly rational to think all that is normal and we should just live with it instead of saying...hey, we should sit down and figure out if we can do something better

I will say, I do enjoy your new debate tactic on gun control...the other side is just too emotional so we shouldn't talk about it...besides...we have

 

thoughts and prayers

Sigh, rage away then red.  Get pissed off, have all the libs agree with you, pat each other on the back and high five.

 

and accomplish nothing

[UndertheHalo]

Just to lay my cards out.  I don't think a full ban on guns is an effective or reasonable means of gun control.  But I do believe that long rifles like the AR-15 should be banned and that large capacity magazines should be banned.  I believe that we should have significant reporting on the sales of ammunition and restrictions on the amount of ammunition that can be purchased.  And finally that we should have significant back ground checks at the purchasers expense to verify their medical and criminal background.   This probably needs to include several visits with a person capabale of making psychological evaluations.  It should not be easy to own a gun. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

As is usually the case I believe that there would a lot of agreement in the middle of these two sides but the squeaky wheels keep getting the oil

[red321]

2 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Sigh, rage away then red.  Get pissed off, have all the libs agree with you, pat each other on the back and high five.

 

and accomplish nothing

let us know when it's ok to talk about it mt....maybe we'll get a week long respite from mass shootings and everyone will meet your "calm enough" meter

 

thoughts and prayers

 

[mtangelsfan]

Just now, red321 said:

let us know when it's ok to talk about it mt....maybe we'll get a week long respite from mass shootings and everyone will meet your "calm enough" meter

 

thoughts and prayers

 

Find where I said not to talk about it now.  I just said it should be a calm, rational discussion 

[Thomas]

14 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I mean, the blacks dealt with a lot of heavily armed police during the civil rights movement. 

As far as the US military pacifying an armed rebellion.  Do you mean domestically ? I mean obviously none recently.  Unless you want to count Waco or those whack jobs in Oregon a year or 2 ago.  Do get to your point. 

I gave no qualifier. It's just remarkable how much you sound like the military leaders in the first few episodes of the recent Vietnam miniseries. Peace through superior firepower. Yet all they managed to do was spur recruitment to the Vietcong. Regardless of political opinion of firearms I would have at least hoped that we as a country would have learned that military forces are ill-equipped to handle civic disturbances. Now whether it's worth the curse of firearms for this privilege is a valid argument. But to simply dismiss it as inconvenient to your argument trivializes the lessons we should have learned that we paid for with blood.

[red321]

Just now, mtangelsfan said:

As is usually the case I believe that there would a lot of agreement in the middle of these two sides but the squeaky wheels keep getting the oil

both sides!

most people who talk about gun control advocate just that...taking a look at where we can make an improvement in areas like background checks, high capacity magazines, assault style weapons. There's only one side...well apparently actually now two because we have to meet the happy meter mt has defined...that refuses to even have a conversation...blocks funding for government research on the subject...spends tens of millions on threatening candidates who even consider talking about gun control.

[Thomas]

If anyone wonders why Trump continually antagonizes the other side I think we have a perfect illustration on why he does. An angry political side is a compromised political force.

[Mark68]

The second amendment does NOT state the right to bear unlimited arms of any variety.

It also does state that the right is due to the need for a "well-regulated militia", which we have not had since the advent of the National Guard over a century ago. The British aren't coming.

Neither is the UN despite what conspiracy theorists might believe.

None of the other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is absolute. The government can restrict it, for example, for public safety (not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or incitement to riot, being two examples of freedom of speech being restricted). Why should the second one be any different?

[UndertheHalo]

9 minutes ago, Thomas said:

I gave no qualifier. It's just remarkable how much you sound like the military leaders in the first few episodes of the recent Vietnam miniseries. Peace through superior firepower. Yet all they managed to do was spur recruitment to the Vietcong. Regardless of political opinion of firearms I would have at least hoped that we as a country would have learned that military forces are ill-equipped to handle civic disturbances. Now whether it's worth the curse of firearms for this privilege is a valid argument. But to simply dismiss it as inconvenient to your argument trivializes the lessons we should have learned that we paid for with blood.

I just don't see how the two things are related.   The NVA was a standing army that backed the Vietcong with military hardware support.  I mean the soviets were funneling in support. 

If we were going to have an armed rebellion with china as a benefactor.  Wouldn't they just supply the weapons ?

Just generally, the idea that we need the 2nd amendment to keep the government in check seems silly to me. 

Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on my end.

Edited October 2, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

2 minutes ago, red321 said:

both sides!

most people who talk about gun control advocate just that...taking a look at where we can make an improvement in areas like background checks, high capacity magazines, assault style weapons. There's only one side...well apparently actually now two because we have to meet the happy meter mt has defined...that refuses to even have a conversation...blocks funding for government research on the subject...spends tens of millions on threatening candidates who even consider talking about gun control.

Man you are a "sides" kind of guy.  What are some of you ideas?  You don't havve to be an ass.

[nate]

https://splinternews.com/every-member-of-congress-who-took-money-from-the-nra-an-1819059582

[Mark68]

2 minutes ago, nate said:

https://splinternews.com/every-member-of-congress-who-took-money-from-the-nra-an-1819059582

What do most of them have in common?

Hint: There is an "R" next to their names when on TV.

[Spirit]

I was expecting a thread like this after last weekend's mass church shooting in Tennessee.  Then I remembered it was just Christians who were shot and/or killed, so ... meh. 

 

 

[Spirit]

I guess T&Ps for them too though. 

 

 

[Kevin]

1 minute ago, Geoff said:

I was expecting a thread like this after last weekend's mass church shooting in Tennessee.  Then I remembered it was just Christians who were shot and/or killed, so ... meh. 

 

 

Kneeling/standing>Christians dying.