[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49232263]You do realize that signee also made it so the Constitution could be changed right?[/QUOTE]
It was a counter to "the Constitution didn't predict this, so we should ban all the guns that didn't exist in 1787."
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49232282]Except you're now continuing it.[/QUOTE]
Shut up.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Don't tell people to shut up. Rude Gus." - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;49232224]Will a mod please for the love of fuck do something.[/QUOTE]
People are allowed to discuss gun legislation in response to mass shootings. I don't care if you find it annoying, it is relevant. Ignore it if it bothers you.
Police chief says one male one female in SUV, both in tac gear and assault rifles
no mention of outstanding suspect
Has Obama said anything?
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49232263]In fact, it's funny because the Second Amendment wasn't even going to be in the constitution. Many states didn't bring the proposal of such a thing forward. It's just Madison who really brought it close to the front.
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
You do realize that signee also made it so the Constitution could be changed right?[/QUOTE]
nobody has ever missed the point quite like this
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;49232298]Has Obama said anything?[/QUOTE]
don't think there's been any official address. though he was briefed on it earlier and made a short statement
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49232290]People are allowed to discuss gun legislation in response to mass shootings. I don't care if you find it annoying, it is relevant. Ignore it if it bothers you.[/QUOTE]
But in this thread, also, reading it, its mostly people boarder line flaming, but whatever, if you say its okay, then I will shut up about it.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49232178]Except that we can nullify amendments. We did it with Prohibition, we can do it again...[/QUOTE]
Why are people advocating for the removal of that amendment? I thought that they didn't want a national firearm ban? I would understand if it demanded everyone in the country to purchase firearms, but that's not what it actually mentions.
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;49232295]Police chief says one male one female in SUV, both in tac gear and assault rifles
no mention of outstanding suspect[/QUOTE]
The male and female in the SUV are confirmed dead.
The FBI man on TV said there is a third suspect.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;49232298]Has Obama said anything?[/QUOTE]
By this point I am expecting a long string of profanities for 15 minutes straight with him kicking down the door upon leaving.
Like, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to be a guarantee that there will be some way for the people to resist total tyranny as its writers had just come out of by permitting them to own the same types of arms as the military. Obviously there's a common sense line on this, nobody is arguing that we should be able to own nukes or anything so don't even try that. But you can't ban semi-automatic AR-15s because they're "military-style". For one thing, unless you plan on banning all military surplus items, you can't even argue that point. Second, semi-automatic is not the same thing as fully-automatic, which are tightly regulated.
[QUOTE=skatehawk11;49232325]It is sad that these shootings don't even shock or surprise me anymore with shooting(s) every other month. No one will feel safe to go anywhere anymore.[/QUOTE]
I live in one of the most gun-saturated states in the country. I feel safe going everywhere because I recognize that the odds of me becoming a victim to a firearms crime are so low they can almost be discounted entirely.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;49232298]Has Obama said anything?[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/obama-reacts-to-ca-shooting/]Yes[/url]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49232326]Like, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to be a guarantee that there will be some way for the people to resist total tyranny as its writers had just come out of by permitting them to own the same types of arms as the military. Obviously there's a common sense line on this, nobody is arguing that we should be able to own nukes or anything so don't even try that. But you can't ban semi-automatic AR-15s because they're "military-style". For one thing, unless you plan on banning all military surplus items, you can't even argue that point. Second, semi-automatic is not the same thing as fully-automatic, which are tightly regulated.
I live in one of the most gun-saturated states in the country. I feel safe going everywhere.[/QUOTE]
The military has A-10s and drones and laser guided bombs and miniguns and hundreds of thousands of well trained and equipped soldiers.
There are reasons for the second amendment to exist, but "to stop a tyrannical government" is completely irrelevant at this point, the government can do anything they want and no amount of gun owners rising up against them would be able to do anything.
That argument is just being paranoid to an unhealthy degree.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;49232335][url=http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/obama-reacts-to-ca-shooting/]Yes[/url][/QUOTE]
it might just be the lighting, but this guy looks like his hairs completely white now.
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/live/[/url]
Apparently they caught the third. Huh.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;49232335][url=http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/obama-reacts-to-ca-shooting/]Yes[/url][/QUOTE]
Obama is speaking sense in this video regarding firearms controls.
Never thought I'd say that but there you go.
[QUOTE=butre;49232262]puckle gun, giradoni air rifle, etc.
one of the signees predicted the invention of automatic weapons.[/QUOTE]
Impossible to predict the impact that they would have or how the battlefield would have changed, though. Even if one could have foreseen quick-firing guns, not one could have even dreamed up the notion of unmanned aerial drones firing laser-guided missiles at targets using infrared heat-sensitive cameras to spot them from miles up in the dead of night. That shit would sound like straight magic to them.
The idea behind militias keeping the government in check made sense at a time when there was a relatively level playing field in terms of firepower, but that stopped being the case a long, long time ago. At this point, there is literally no chance whatsoever that even the most well-regulated militia would stand a snowball's chance in hell of armed opposition to the government of the US, should the US govt ever become tyrannical.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49232263]In fact, it's funny because the Second Amendment wasn't even going to be in the constitution. Many states didn't bring the proposal of such a thing forward. It's just Madison who really brought it close to the front.
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
You do realize that signee also made it so the Constitution could be changed right?[/QUOTE]
Hate to keep fueling this but: a lot has changed since 1776, but the [i]actual reason[/i] the second amendment exists (ie, more than just recreational hunting & freedoms) is still relevant today. You probably don't know any personally but there are many, many people prepared to defend themselves against a perceived act of tyranny, and even though it'd be murder they feel the constitution grants them that right. Ever seen the bumper stickers that say "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"? That's a huge part of their rhetoric.
If we legitimately try to take away all of the guns (something the right wing has been fearmongering for decades, and lots of people are prepared for), we'd be sowing the seeds of paranoia/anti-government/militias/domestic terrorism for years after the dust is settled. Not to mention as we look back on who knows how many thousands of police & ATF casualties because of the gunowners like agentfaze. Not to say that they're justified or they're insane, either way it's a huge part of American culture that other countries are totally disconnected from. Honestly a sudden ban like that would result in more deaths than if we did nothing.
[editline]a[/editline]
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232343]The military has A-10s and drones and laser guided bombs and miniguns and hundreds of thousands of well trained and equipped soldiers. There are reasons for the second amendment to exists, but "to stop a tyrannical government" is completely irrelevant at this point, the government can do anything they want and no amount of gun owners rising up against them would be able to do anything. That argument is just being paranoid to an unhealthy degree.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The idea behind militias keeping the government in check made sense at a time when there was a relatively level playing field in terms of firepower, but that stopped being the case a long, long time ago. At this point, there is literally no chance whatsoever that even the most well-regulated militia would stand a snowball's chance in hell of armed opposition to the government of the US, should the US govt ever become tyrannical.[/QUOTE]
So that's why ISIS doesn't exist anymore, right? Guerrilla tactics are more effective than you'd think. Imagine an underground group like them but with even larger numbers, a good amount of veterans with US Military training and knowledge, and maybe even some reluctance of the military to kill Americans en masse. Military and gun culture are in a huge overlap, wouldn't defectors become a big problem too?
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;49232305]But in this thread, also, reading it, its mostly people boarder line flaming, but whatever, if you say its okay, then I will shut up about it.[/QUOTE]
If people are flaming, report them. I've already banned two people, but this thread is moving too quickly for me to see every post.
I keep hearing reports and seeing people on another forum i go to saying theres a related situation going on in Redlands
[QUOTE=Kyle902;49232360]I keep hearing reports and seeing peope on amother forum i go to saying theres a related situation going on in Redlands[/QUOTE]
Any links?
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232343]The military has A-10s and drones and laser guided bombs and miniguns and hundreds of thousands of well trained and equipped soldiers.
There are reasons for the second amendment to exists, but "to stop a tyrannical government" is completely irrelevant at this point, the government can do anything they want and no amount of gun owners rising up against them would be able to do anything.
That argument is just being paranoid to an unhealthy degree.[/QUOTE]
the government back then had warships and cannons but we managed to fuck the brits up pretty good with our little muskets
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49232353]Impossible to predict the impact that they would have or how the battlefield would have changed, though. Even if one could have foreseen quick-firing guns, not one could have even dreamed up the notion of unmanned aerial drones firing laser-guided missiles at targets using infrared heat-sensitive cameras to spot them from miles up in the dead of night. That shit would sound like straight magic to them.
The idea behind militias keeping the government in check made sense at a time when there was a relatively level playing field in terms of firepower, but that stopped being the case a long, long time ago. At this point, there is literally no chance whatsoever that even the most well-regulated militia would stand a snowball's chance in hell of armed opposition to the government of the US, should the US govt ever become tyrannical.[/QUOTE]
I don't see that as a reason for mass confiscation or arbitrarily cherry-picking certain guns for bans based on similarity to military patterns even if they lack an automatic function.
[highlight]!!NSFW!![/highlight]
Corpse of female shooter recovered from the Expedition
[url]https://i.imgur.com/e7FUVft.png[/url]
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232343]The military has A-10s and drones and laser guided bombs and miniguns and hundreds of thousands of well trained and equipped soldiers.
There are reasons for the second amendment to exist, but "to stop a tyrannical government" is completely irrelevant at this point, the government can do anything they want and no amount of gun owners rising up against them would be able to do anything.
That argument is just being paranoid to an unhealthy degree.[/QUOTE]
Right, because all of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors wouldn't hesitate to slaughter their own family and friends at a moment's notice.
-snip-
Poster changed it after post.
[QUOTE=butre;49232371]the government back then had warships and cannons but we managed to fuck the brits up pretty good with our little muskets[/QUOTE]
Not to mention many of the artillery companies that got rolled into thr Continental Army were privately owned. And they continued to be privately owned after the war.
there was an audio of the shootout posted earlier [url]https://twitter.com/GadiNBCLA/status/672211841808928768[/url]
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232343]The military has A-10s and drones and laser guided bombs and miniguns and hundreds of thousands of well trained and equipped soldiers.
There are reasons for the second amendment to exist, but "to stop a tyrannical government" is completely irrelevant at this point, the government can do anything they want and no amount of gun owners rising up against them would be able to do anything.
That argument is just being paranoid to an unhealthy degree.[/QUOTE]
i dunno. in a time where the military is all unmanned, completely, requiring no human interaction i could see this
but im pretty sure it would take a lot to convince the entire US military and all it's individually minded units to turn their guns upon their home country without cause
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
