Forums | MacLife

freecat wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No no, didn't you get the memo? Those guns are America's defense against government excesses.

That thought was in the framers' minds, yes. We are talking about many tens of millions of armed citizens out there. It makes it harder to go all Burma on them.

I think if there was a determination to go all Burma on them, those guns wouldn't prevent a thing.

It certainly hasn't averted any number of government abuses over the years that, while milder than "going Burma," are still blatant violations of the constitution. Indeed such things have become commonplace.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

freecat wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No no, didn't you get the memo? Those guns are America's defense against government excesses.

That thought was in the framers' minds, yes. We are talking about many tens of millions of armed citizens out there. It makes it harder to go all Burma on them.

I think if there was a determination to go all Burma on them, those guns wouldn't prevent a thing.

It certainly hasn't averted any number of government abuses over the years that, while milder than "going Burma," are still blatant violations of the constitution. Indeed such things have become commonplace.

Also, the sort to stockpile weapons are often the sort to want a military dictatorship for America.

Tallgeese wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

freecat wrote:

That thought was in the framers' minds, yes. We are talking about many tens of millions of armed citizens out there. It makes it harder to go all Burma on them.

I think if there was a determination to go all Burma on them, those guns wouldn't prevent a thing.

It certainly hasn't averted any number of government abuses over the years that, while milder than "going Burma," are still blatant violations of the constitution. Indeed such things have become commonplace.

Also, the sort to stockpile weapons are often the sort to want a military dictatorship for America.

Indeed. Few fears ever seem expressed by the threat to democracy posed by an armed citizenry.

Usually when the govt goes all Burma on people, its freaks like David Koresh, and everybody cheers them on.

wellfleation wrote:

Well, so they left it a state's issues. Want liberal gun laws? Move to Texas or numerous other states with slack gun laws. Or change your state's gun laws.

My state's gun laws are more or less acceptable, it's New York's that aren't.  I have family up there that I'd like to visit without leaving all my guns behind.  Further, if you want to go from anywhere else in the country to anywhere in New England, you have to go through New York.  I can fly over it; most people can't.  While there are federal protections if you're traveling through a state which bans your guns to a state which allows them, the amount of paperwork New York wants to see to prove this makes it damn near impossible.

jerwin wrote:

Conversely, an out of state gunman will have to file  paperwork before entering the state of Florida.

An out of state gunman?  Nice attempt to re-frame the argument there.

jkahless wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Poor eye dialect attempts aside, in this country there is a right to bear arms. Second Amendment to the Constitution and all that.

Indeed you do have a legal entitlement to bear arms in your country.  That doesn't mean I understand the obsession with that right, and the constant drive to expand it as much as possible with a fervor usually reserved for mothers defending their children.  I also don't understand the culture of fear that drives people to feel the need to protect themselves from their neighbours and irrational threats.

It's not an obsession, it's an aggressive defensive posture, because we don't seek to expand the right, we seek to restore it.

Last edited by Daniel (2009-07-24 6:24 am)

Tallgeese wrote:

When everyone is polishing a gun and waiting for someone else to look suspicious, nobody will do anything suspicious. Brinksmanship as a way of life!

Wasn't it said that an armed society is a polite society?

Daniel wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Burma," are still blatant violations of the constitution. Indeed such things have become commonplace.

Things such as?

Toxic nuclear testing without consent (e.g. injecting plutonium into pregnant women)
LSD testing without consent
COINTELPRO
Opening mail without permission
Widespread wiretapping
Invading other countries without permission of Congress
Extraordinary renditions
Gitmo
Torture

... all of these prevented by an armed citizenry!

Oh, wait.

Daniel wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Why should a state that requires gun carriers to be educated about gun safety be forced to allow people from states like Oklahoma that will give a permit to any bubba smurf kicker that asks for one?

Because that's not the actual problem.  There are states that are restrictive, but the problem is there are also states that are prohibitive.  I'd have no problem paying the fees to get the New York pistol permit, but they won't issue to out-of-state residents, so my pistols are de facto banned in the state.  And NYC is its own game, and Chicago is as well, despite Chicago not actually legally being able to make the gun laws that it does due to a state preemption law.  But things being illegal has never stopped Dick Daley from doing it.

This bill is not the way to fix these problems.

jkahless wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Daniel wrote:

Things such as?

Toxic nuclear testing without consent (e.g. injecting plutonium into pregnant women)
LSD testing without consent
COINTELPRO
Opening mail without permission
Widespread wiretapping
Invading other countries without permission of Congress
Extraordinary renditions
Gitmo
Torture

... all of these prevented by an armed citizenry!

Oh, wait.

It's almost like the founding fathers were wrong.  But that's constitutionally impossible, so you must be wrong!

The most important thing is gun. Big, shiny, killorific guns!

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Daniel wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Burma," are still blatant violations of the constitution. Indeed such things have become commonplace.

Things such as?

Toxic nuclear testing without consent (e.g. injecting plutonium into pregnant women)
LSD testing without consent
COINTELPRO
Opening mail without permission
Widespread wiretapping
Invading other countries without permission of Congress
Extraordinary renditions
Gitmo
Torture

... all of these prevented by an armed citizenry!

Oh, wait.

I've never heard of the first two, COINTELPRO was before my time, and I've strongly rallied against the remaining items.  You'll note how I scored Obama a 3 of 10 in the other thread.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Daniel wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Why should a state that requires gun carriers to be educated about gun safety be forced to allow people from states like Oklahoma that will give a permit to any bubba smurf kicker that asks for one?

Because that's not the actual problem.  There are states that are restrictive, but the problem is there are also states that are prohibitive.  I'd have no problem paying the fees to get the New York pistol permit, but they won't issue to out-of-state residents, so my pistols are de facto banned in the state.  And NYC is its own game, and Chicago is as well, despite Chicago not actually legally being able to make the gun laws that it does due to a state preemption law.  But things being illegal has never stopped Dick Daley from doing it.

So "states rights" goes out the window when its a matter of getting what you want?

No, states rights goes out the window when the federal government is exercising one of the few powers reserved to it.