DEVELOPING: Shooting reported at Connecticut elementary school; 27 killed - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38837754]Except the original purpose of it is no longer applicable. The USA has a competent and powerful military force, it need not rely on its citizens (relying on your citizens for defense is a pretty shit idea).[/QUOTE] It's internal defence, the ability to remove ones government. The military can never do that successfully

Plus back when the second amendment was made they didn't have automatic weapons like machine guns and assault rifles.

[QUOTE=coldroll5;38837782]Plus back when the second amendment was made they didn't have automatic weapons like machine guns and assault rifles.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but does it say anything about just using muskets? No, just your right to bear arms. The whole idea is for citizens to defend themselves from the government/foreign invaders/assholes who want your shit.

[QUOTE=download;38837771]It's internal defence, the ability to remove ones government. The military can never do that successfully[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d'%C3%A9tat_and_coup_attempts[/url]

[QUOTE=coldroll5;38837782]Plus back when the second amendment was made they didn't have automatic weapons like machine guns and assault rifles.[/QUOTE] Mkkay, Regan banned "automatic" / "select fire" firearms in 1986, if you want to get one now they're incredibly expensive because they've been banned since 1986. And how do you exactly define an "assault rifle" because my "modern sports rifle" seems to fall under that category even though it's the same design as a rifle from 1891.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38837754]Except the original purpose of it is no longer applicable. The USA has a competent and powerful military force, it need not rely on its citizens (relying on your citizens for defense is a pretty shit idea).[/QUOTE] Part of original purpose may have been that, but more so now it is the idea self-defense for the individual. For example, one of the conclusions from the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) specifically protected the 2nd amendment for individual uses, such as self-defense in a home.

[QUOTE=Valnar;38837814]Part of original purpose may have been that, but more so now it is the idea self-defense for the individual. For example, one of the conclusions from the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) specifically protected the 2nd amendment for individual uses, such as self-defense in a home.[/QUOTE] Except the intended purpose of the law was to aid in national defense. Many of the founding fathers probably couldn't give two shits about what the commoners did with the guns, just that they were pointed at foreigners.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38837833]Except the intended purpose of the law was to aid in national defense. Many of the founding fathers probably couldn't give two shits about what the commoners did with the guns, just that they were pointed at foreigners.[/QUOTE] The founding fathers original intent isn't really that important because we can't know for sure what their exact original intent was. What does really matter is what the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is.

[QUOTE=Valnar;38837857]The founding fathers original intent isn't really that important because we can't know for sure what their exact original intent was. What does really matter is what the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is.[/QUOTE] it's a law being kept on life support simply because its ~~~constitutional~~~

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38837871]it's a law being kept on life support simply because its ~~~constitutional~~~[/QUOTE] It's kept because it is used, among other things, as a means of self-defence for individuals.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38837871]it's a law being kept on life support simply because its ~~~constitutional~~~[/QUOTE] Ja, like that pesky Separation of church and state ALLAHUAUKBARDETHTOTHEINFEDELS

[QUOTE=Valnar;38837877]It's kept because it is used, among other things, as a means of self-defence for for individuals.[/QUOTE] And that issue is currently contested because a lot of people think that it doesn't actually aid in defense. [QUOTE=DevinWatson;38837879]Ja, like that pesky Separation of church and state [/QUOTE] It's not very good when people argue that the basis for the law existing is because its in the constitution. That law originally had a purpose to it. Today, that original purpose is gone, and the present purpose it has acquired is currently debated.

[QUOTE=download;38837771]It's internal defence, the ability to remove ones government. The military can never do that successfully[/QUOTE] I don't know how to break this to you, but if the situation comes down to the US government using the military to create a dictatorship, the average every day American has already lost. A bunch of redneck "militiamen" inna woods with their SKS and Mosin Nagants aren't going to do much against Predator drones, strike fighters, or Abrams MBTs.

This is the most derailed thread I've seen in two years

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38837799][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d'%C3%A9tat_and_coup_attempts[/url][/QUOTE] Yes, because installing a military dictatorship is a good thing... [/sarcasm] [QUOTE=Raidyr;38837975]I don't know how to break this to you, but if the situation comes down to the US government using the military to create a dictatorship, the average every day American has already lost. A bunch of redneck "militiamen" inna woods with their SKS and Mosin Nagants aren't going to do much against Predator drones, strike fighters, or Abrams MBTs.[/QUOTE] That's funny, because I was under the impression that's what the Taliban are already doing

[QUOTE=download;38837982]Yes, because installing a military dictatorship is a good thing... [/sarcasm][/QUOTE] you said "the military can never remove a government" that list basically proved you wrong

It also shows that violent overthrows of existing governments don't always lead to the creation of a new world superpower. In fact most of the time it doesn't.

humans never cease to amaze me with what they're capable of. I don't think there is even a limit to what they can do to each other.

[QUOTE=download;38837982]That's funny, because I was under the impression that's what the Taliban are already doing[/QUOTE] what? you are comparing the taliban to a nation of hundreds of millions of people i doubt even a million people would rise up at once with firearms to overthrow the tyrannical government

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38837986]you said "the military can never remove a government" that list basically proved you wrong[/QUOTE] Successfully. A military dictatorship isn't successfully. Stop twisting words

[QUOTE=download;38837982] That's funny, because I was under the impression that's what the Taliban are already doing[/QUOTE] Terrible comparison. Taliban fighters typically have lived a lifetime under the threat of war from outside aggressors and have vastly more knowledge of a terrain that is difficult for our forces to negotiate. Where as in the continental United States, the US government has the home field advantage. Logistics would be insanely easier to manage because you no longer have to ship things across thousands of miles of ocean and hundreds of miles of rocky desert. And the people they would be fighting typically have no idea how to conduct a war at any level, strategically or otherwise.

[QUOTE=download;38838006]Successfully. A military dictatorship isn't successfully. Stop twisting words[/QUOTE] are you a fuckwit the creation of a dictatorship by definition has [b]successfully[/b] removed the government and replaced it

[QUOTE=download;38838006]Successfully. A military dictatorship isn't successfully. Stop twisting words[/QUOTE] A military dictatorship is simply a form of government taken after deposing the current power. It doesn't matter if it's a junta or a true democracy or a representative republic, they were still successful in tearing down the previous establishment. You are the one re-purposing words. [editline]15th December 2012[/editline] Hell military take over of government is probably the most successful way to do it. You have a well regimented, supplied force with a clear leadership structure already in place to move in when the prior government goes under.

field trip time motherfuckers [img]http://lamarzulli.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/18096_455867214470550_890034234_n.jpg?w=960&h=720[/img] baruch haba le-israel

The military take over the government, saying they will remove the old one then bring in elections, they take over, they stay in power for 30 years, and it's failure. What don't you understand about that. Regardless, that is the point of it, whether or not you understood me

[QUOTE=download;38838060]The military take over the government, saying they will remove the old one then bring in elections, they take over, they stay in power for 30 years, and it's failure. What don't you understand about that. Regardless, that is the point of it, whether or not you understood me[/QUOTE] If you meant failure in the long term, then your opening argument was poorly worded, because it came across to me (and I think Sobotnik?) that you meant the actual act of overthrowing the government.

[QUOTE=download;38838060]The military take over the government, saying they will remove the old one then bring in elections, they take over, they stay in power for 30 years, and it's failure. What don't you understand about that. Regardless, that is the point of it, whether or not you understood me[/QUOTE] this will never happen and even if it did your stupid m16 won't save you from the force of the american military

[QUOTE=Kopimi;38838087]this will never happen and even if it did your stupid m16 won't save you from the force of the american military[/QUOTE] It could happen. Probably won't, but [i]could[/i] Anyway, as I previously said, many countries have held out against the American military pretty well

[QUOTE=download;38838096]It could happen. Probably won't, but [i]could[/i] Anyway, as I previously said, many countries have held out against the American military pretty well[/QUOTE] a rift could open to an alternate universe and dragons could fly out, conquering the land we once called our home however i know it'll never happen so i'm not stockpiling swords

[QUOTE=Skullivan21;38833864]That's a high quality response. Your response also allows me to ignore you because your insults defeat themselves.[/QUOTE] as if i care if you ignored me lmao [editline]15th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;38838120]a rift could open to an alternate universe and dragons could fly out, conquering the land we once called our home however i know it'll never happen so i'm not stockpiling swords[/QUOTE] idk dude i've got my orcist ready [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Came back from a ban to try to provoke personal arguments/further derail the thread" - verynicelady))[/highlight]