Des Moines columnist calls for repeal of Second Amendment, death of gun owners - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;39057453]Yeah, I agree this guy is a bit crazy. However, he makes a good point: You don't actually need to own guns personally to uphold the 2nd amendment. They could be owned and controlled as a community. EDIT: I don't agree with anything he says, I am just stating that since many people use the 2nd amendment as a technicality to own guns, this is a technical counterpoint to that.[/QUOTE] First, I think it's important to understand the POINT of the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution gave Congress(ie the Feds) the job of maintaining the army to defend the country. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with defending the country! The 'militia' was to defend the States from the Federal government, in the event of the Feds trying to create a tyranny over the states. So by giving individual citizens the right to bear arms, the PEOPLE would have the means to fight back. If you locked up guns under 'community' control, you have defeated the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. You might as well suggest a community control of free speech and religion while you're at it. Who are these 'community controllers' going to be? Why do they get that power over the rest of us?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39058015]But everyone knows (even gun owners) that the original goal is meaningless these days. Hence why no one really cares that you can't get anti-aircraft missiles or machine guns.[/QUOTE] If we had to actually defend ourselves to the point of needing anti aircraft missiles, mass defections would occur in the military. And you can get machine guns in the US, you can own an M134 if you can get the right permits and paperwork.

[QUOTE=faze;39057485]$20 says he's some fat greasy fuck that lives in his mom's basement.[/QUOTE] Self-description is a hell of a drug.

[QUOTE] By publishing his call for violence against those with whom he disagrees, Kaul proves, yet again, that liberalism has become an ideology of genocidal hate and rage.[/QUOTE] great source OP o wait faze thread lol.

I wonder what he would have the gun owners killed with?

If he wants them, he can come and claim them

[QUOTE=Ownederd;39057692]eye for an eye "this guy made an insanely dumb comment so i can make one too" no, stop[/QUOTE] An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. :eng101:

[QUOTE=Raidyr;39058787]great source OP o wait faze thread lol.[/QUOTE] Google it yourself. It's all over. Keep the personal insults coming. Typical Facepunch replies.

That sounds awfully French revolution-esque.

[QUOTE=faze;39058909]Google it yourself. It's all over. Keep the personal insults coming. Typical Facepunch replies.[/QUOTE] people need to stop with this "Typical facepunch" shit. you post shit what do you expect people to respond to you with

Nobody is anti-gun. You can't be. You can only be pro-putting guns in the hands of a small elite minority. In order to remove guns from society, you would need to use guns. Policemen would still have to have guns to take away the guns from other people. [editline]1st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;39058015]But everyone knows (even gun owners) that the original goal is meaningless these days. Hence why no one really cares that you can't get anti-aircraft missiles or machine guns.[/QUOTE] Why is it meaningless? You don't need to own anti aircraft guns and tanks to win a revolution.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39058729]If we had to actually defend ourselves to the point of needing anti aircraft missiles, mass defections would occur in the military. And you can get machine guns in the US, you can own an M134 if you can get the right permits and paperwork.[/QUOTE] That is exactly what makes the 2nd amendment redundant. Civilian ownership has played no major part in any modern revolution or civil-war. Military defections and/or outside support is what wins armed revolution, where as most modern revolutions are won purely though political and social popularism. There is no correlation between private ownership and democracy world wide. [editline]2nd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=King Tiger;39059000]Why is it meaningless? You don't need to own anti aircraft guns and tanks to win a revolution.[/QUOTE] You don't need a load of civilian weapons either.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39059113]That is exactly what makes the 2nd amendment redundant. Civilian ownership has played no major part in any modern revolution or civil-war. Military defections and/or outside support is what wins armed revolution, where as most modern revolutions are won purely though political and social popularism. There is no correlation between private ownership and democracy world wide.[/QUOTE] An armed population would probably be more able to defend themselves if they had firearms, thats kind of a no brainer. Yes, in the long run military defection and training by defectors (or by the CIA or green berets) wins revolutions, but starting out with the populous already having firearms kind of helps.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39059146]An armed population would probably be more able to defend themselves if they had firearms, thats kind of a no brainer. Yes, in the long run military defection and training by defectors (or by the CIA or green berets) wins revolutions, but starting out with the populous already having firearms kind of helps.[/QUOTE] So does a country with lower obesity levels and health care help. Why are those not as glamorous?

[QUOTE=Ybbats;39057512]I'm being robbed at gunpoint! Better get to the community center and fill out the forms required to get my gun, and quick! Brb, mister robber.[/QUOTE] And as you reach into your jacket and fumble with the holster clip, you get stabbed twelve times in the neck by a mugger, who disappeared into the shadows with your life and your belongings, never to be seen again. I don't know what kind of idiots think that they are going to defend themselves against armed criminals who already have weapons drawn. Have these kinds of people ever shot anything besides a target?

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;39060126]And as you reach into your jacket and fumble with the holster clip, you get stabbed twelve times in the neck by a mugger, who disappeared into the shadows with your life and your belongings, never to be seen again. I don't know what kind of idiots think that they are going to defend themselves against armed criminals who already have weapons drawn. Have these kinds of people ever shot anything besides a target?[/QUOTE] With proper training and a holster that doesn't hold your weapon in with a clip or button you will be fine.

I'm not sure what scares me more, this guy and his article or the fact that there is at least one person who actually agrees with him.

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;39060126] I don't know what kind of idiots think that they are going to defend themselves against armed criminals who already have weapons drawn. Have these kinds of people ever shot anything besides a target?[/QUOTE] Prepared =/= Idiots Classes require that you have the time and response ability, actually. Don't think that you are just handed the gun, it's not that easy.

[QUOTE=faze;39060137]With proper training and a holster that doesn't hold your weapon in with a clip or button you will be fine.[/QUOTE] Yeah okay. I am sorry but there's absolutely no way you're going to be able to make a sudden move whatsoever (like reaching for a gun) if someone's holding you at knifepoint. It's pretty funny that guns are allowed but explosives are not. If you're gonna go by the original reason for this right to bear arms you should be allowed explosives. And tanks. Oh and why not throw in nuclear weapons.

[QUOTE=DeEz;39060355]Yeah okay. I am sorry but there's absolutely no way you're going to be able to make a sudden move whatsoever (like reaching for a gun) if someone's holding you at knifepoint. It's pretty funny that guns are allowed but explosives are not. If you're gonna go by the original reason for this right to bear arms you should be [B]allowed explosives. And tanks. Oh and why not throw in nuclear weapons.[/B][/QUOTE] not to agree with faze in any way at all but you're post is bullshit. especially this

[QUOTE=Ybbats;39057512]I'm being robbed at gunpoint! Better get to the community center and fill out the forms required to get my gun, and quick! Brb, mister robber.[/QUOTE] Well, the point of the second amendment is more to defend your community against the evil nasty government rather than yourself from Johny-shooting-the-clerk-of-a-liquor-store.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39060369]not to agree with faze in any way at all but you're post is bullshit. especially this[/QUOTE] Yeah it is, I think so too. Which is why I think quoting the 2nd Amendment to defend your "right to bear arms" is bullshit, because the original reason for this right is entirely meaningless today.

[QUOTE=DeEz;39060452]Yeah it is, I think so too. Which is why I think quoting the 2nd Amendment to defend your "right to bear arms" is bullshit, because the original reason for this right is entirely meaningless today.[/QUOTE] how? there's a point to being armed when your own government no longer serves you in anyway on a national scale

[QUOTE=DeEz;39060355]Yeah okay. I am sorry but there's absolutely no way you're going to be able to make a sudden move whatsoever (like reaching for a gun) if someone's holding you at knifepoint. It's pretty funny that guns are allowed but explosives are not. If you're gonna go by the original reason for this right to bear arms you should be allowed explosives. And tanks. Oh and why not throw in nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE] So you are comparing firearms to WMDs that can level entire cities, tanks that are incredibly expensive and destructive (and yes, some people have fully working restored tanks in the US) and explosives that can take out buildings? OK there buddy.

I am always astounded to see these people who are supposedly "liberal" and "anti-violence" condoning atrocious genocide and literally the most violent measures possible to try to deal with something they don't like. This is absolutely disgusting, especially since this person will likely try to call every gun owner a violent sociopath, yet he's the one condoning a genocide. Himself and people like him are giving both liberals and leftists a bad name by spouting such bullshit while trying/claiming to promote an ideology of "peace and acceptance." Even those who wish for the repealment of the 2nd Amendment and the prohibition of guns defy the ideology of "acceptance," as they often want it their way, no compromise. Acceptance needs to happen on both sides of the issue for anything to get done, acceptance from the one side that guns are a staple in the United States and their dangers are far overstated, and that legislation of any kind should be based on facts, studies, and research rather than emotional knee-jerk, and from the other side that there does need to be something done to combat gang violence using guns, there needs to be something either stemming the flow of these guns into the hands of these criminals, and/or something done to make a lifestyle of criminality unappealing and/or unnecessary, and that in order to avoid a knee-jerk gun ban and actually do something that will have an effect on crime, tackling mental health issues causing mass shootings and poverty and social issues causing crime is going to cost tax dollars. On the one side is often the Democrats, willing and open to talking about the mental health and social issues, but refusing to budge on their narrow view of firearms, and on the other side is the Republicans, steadfast in their support of the 2nd Amendment, but unwilling to make changes to social and health issues that are the true underlying causes of the crime that is used as a justification for whittling away at their gun rights. I truly hope this man gets arrested for threatening the lives of members of congress, and gets sued for at the very least defamation, and I hope nobody else is idiotic enough to agree with this man, or if they are, then they at least have the sense to keep it to themselves for their own benefit, because being a genocidal maniac is not exactly something that's considered "socially acceptable."

[QUOTE=DeEz;39060355]Yeah okay. I am sorry but there's absolutely no way you're going to be able to make a sudden move whatsoever (like reaching for a gun) if someone's holding you at knifepoint. It's pretty funny that guns are allowed but explosives are not. If you're gonna go by the original reason for this right to bear arms you should be allowed explosives. And tanks. Oh and why not throw in nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE] Glad to see you know you know self-defense. /sarcasm

[QUOTE=faze;39060137]With proper training and a holster that doesn't hold your weapon in with a clip or button you will be fine.[/QUOTE] You know, another fallacy of the people who want a gun in every nook or whatever, is that they all think they are God's own gunslinger and they could hit literally any target at any distance or speed. Guess what pal, you probably aren't a shooting star in the world of shooting or anything. Not to mention, you are just some dude trying to protect his wallet with lethal force, whereas your theoretical opponent is some dude who's life is going to go nowhere and he knows it. You act like someone who is actually going to mug/carjack/whatever at gunpoint is some sissy trying to look scary to get a wallet, and that's really not the case. I wonder how many gunowners in Stockton got a chance to defend themselves! Probably not many.

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;39060588]You know, another fallacy of the people who want a gun in every nook or whatever, is that they all think they are God's own gunslinger and they could hit literally any target at any distance or speed. Guess what pal, you probably aren't a shooting star in the world of shooting or anything. Not to mention, you are just some dude trying to protect his wallet with lethal force, whereas your theoretical opponent is some dude who's life is going to go nowhere and he knows it. You act like someone who is actually going to mug/carjack/whatever at gunpoint is some sissy trying to look scary to get a wallet, and that's really not the case. I wonder how many gunowners in Stockton got a chance to defend themselves! Probably not many.[/QUOTE] K. I'd rather have a fighting chance than bend over for some hood rat piece of shit that may be too trigger happy for his own good.

guns kill people, death penalty for owning them

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;39060567]It's not your place, or congresses place, to declare any amendment "redundant" or "irrelevant". In order to actually be declared "irrelevant" entire referendums must be held, states have to agree to the amendment, etc etc. The entire reason it's so fucking complicated to change the constitution, is a massive check on these knee jerk reactions of "OH GOD GET RID OF X BECAUSE Y HAPPENED, HOLY SHIT"[/QUOTE] The amendment prohibiting alcohol was redundant.