Court: Illegal immigrants can't have guns - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903406]So you're saying one weapon is dangerous and the other isn't. Guns are a fucking weapon. You don't deserve to handle one if you do not treat them with the proper respect.[/QUOTE] A bomb and a firearm are two completely different animals. A bomb can go off with the right stimulant. A firearm can only go off when a round is chambered. Two different things. Unless, again, you'd like to explain how my firearm could suddenly discharge with nothing going on.

[QUOTE=Noble;35903422]Sure, because the only reason that comes to mind (at this moment) for not allowing illegals to buy weapons would be the issue of background checks.[/QUOTE] Then you are arguing for less stringent immigration enforcement. Every possible measure of solution should come before the act of alienating inalienable rights. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=massn7;35903429]A bomb and a firearm are two completely different animals. A bomb can go off with the right stimulant. A firearm can only go off when a round is chambered. Two different things. Unless, again, you'd like to explain how my firearm could suddenly discharge with nothing going on.[/QUOTE] You aren't understanding the point. I give an analogy and you focus so goddamn much on the analogy that you don't hear anything else. Firearms are dangerous. They were designed to be dangerous. When you carry one, you are dangerous. When you carry one while simultaneously pretending they AREN'T dangerous, you are [I]more[/I] dangerous. That is empowered ignorance. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] You also seem to be confusing hostility with danger.

[QUOTE=massn7;35903429]A bomb and a firearm are two completely different animals. A bomb can go off with the right stimulant. A firearm can only go off when a round is chambered. Two different things. Unless, again, you'd like to explain how my firearm could suddenly discharge with nothing going on.[/QUOTE] if a gun wasn't a dangerous weapon you wouldn't use it for self-defense

[QUOTE=thisispain;35903631]if a gun wasn't a dangerous weapon you wouldn't use it for self-defense[/QUOTE] I daresay it wouldn't be able to drop a fucking mountain lion either

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903438]Then you are arguing for less stringent immigration enforcement. Every possible measure of solution should come before the act of alienating inalienable rights. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] You aren't understanding the point. I give an analogy and you focus so goddamn much on the analogy that you don't hear anything else. Firearms are dangerous. They were designed to be dangerous. When you carry one, you are dangerous. When you carry one while simultaneously pretending they AREN'T dangerous, you are [I]more[/I] dangerous. That is empowered ignorance. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] You also seem to be confusing hostility with danger.[/QUOTE] I focused on your analogies because they're idiotic. And you aren't understanding my point either. Either that or you're intentionally ignoring it so you can scream yours from the rooftops. A firearm cannot load, chamber, aim, or fire itself. Once again for those of us who aren't following, it's a hunk of steel until someone gets it in their hands. Upon which point, whether or not the firearm is dangerous lies completely in the wielder's hands. The firearm itself is not dangerous. It's an inanimate object, no more dangerous than a flower. It is a mechanical device and it cannot operate itself. And once again you assume. I do respect my weapons. I treat them as if they are always loaded and ready to fire, even when I know for a fact that they are not. If I don't know, I check first. I am always aware of where they're pointed and if I do happen to be shooting, I check and make sure that whatever I am aiming at is something I want to destroy. Notice how all of the things I just listed require the weapon to be in my hands. If it's just sitting in my gun safe or on the table, it's not going to do anything and is dangerous to nothing and no one. But go ahead and keep berating me personally as I call out the flaws to your logic. [quote=Lankist]I daresay it wouldn't be able to drop a fucking mountain lion either[/quote] It's pretty simple if you have the proper weapon and know what you're doing. I'm not carrying a .22.

Hey this tool that fires a projectile faster than the human eye can even register using high-explosives for propulsion to drop a fucking mountain lion not dangerous it's like a spork. just a tool.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903247]It's about power, not effectiveness. And I'd like you to try to find a soldier in a volunteer military who is willing to open fire on the civilian populace at large, let alone a [I]conscript.[/I] The moment the military starts opening fire on citizens is the moment the military starts falling apart.[/QUOTE] Not really, depending on how effectively a military is run, it is certainly more than just capable of shooting their own citizens. For evidence, look at just about every single repressive regime in the world. As long as the military is ruthlessly run and well supplied it will fight to the end. Its a lack of supplies, defeat or bad management that leads to armies routing.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903737]Hey this tool that fires a projectile faster than the human eye can even register using high-explosives for propulsion to drop a fucking mountain lion not dangerous it's like a spork. just a tool.[/QUOTE] It's like talking to a wall.

[QUOTE=massn7;35903700]A firearm cannot load, chamber, aim, or fire itself. Once again for those of us who aren't following, it's a hunk of steel until someone gets it in their hands.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about reliability, pal. I'm talking about danger. It is an implement designed for the purpose of killing. It is so proficient at this purpose that it remains among the most efficient and common methods of killing that this planet has ever seen. C4 is among the most stable high-explosives to have ever been concocted. It does NOT explode unintentionally. EVER. Shit they tested that on the Mythbusters. It won't even explode if you SET IT ON FIRE. Yet somehow I doubt you'll be rubbing a pound of C4 on your dick and telling everyone it's fine. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;35903751]Not really, depending on how effectively a military is run, it is certainly more than just capable of shooting their own citizens. For evidence, look at just about every single repressive regime in the world. As long as the military is ruthlessly run and well supplied it will fight to the end. Its a lack of supplies, defeat or bad management that leads to armies routing.[/QUOTE] Those repressive regimes did not face a maximum of 300,000,000 pissed off, heavily armed civilians. A few dissidents here and there doesn't compare to waging an all-out ground war on your own country. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=massn7;35903759]It's like talking to a wall.[/QUOTE] Because your argument is asinine and you shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm if you refuse to respect what it is. "people kill people" sure. but people have a hell of a lot more trouble killing people when they don't have a firearm. That's sort of what "dangerous" means in this context--the effectiveness and ease at which one person can end another.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903765]I'm not talking about reliability, pal. I'm talking about danger. It is an implement designed for the purpose of killing. It is so proficient at this purpose that it remains among the most efficient and common methods of killing that this planet has ever seen. C4 is among the most stable high-explosives to have ever been concocted. It does NOT explode unintentionally. EVER. Shit they tested that on the Mythbusters. It won't even explode if you SET IT ON FIRE. Yet somehow I doubt you'll be rubbing a pound of C4 on your dick and telling everyone it's fine. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] Those repressive regimes did not face a maximum of 300,000,000 pissed off, heavily armed civilians.[/QUOTE] So now your bomb is C4. I'm going to assume you know there's different kinds of explosives, many of which can go off unintentionally, but now you're just twisting shit around to make your analogy work. Goddamn you really are a lawyer. [quote=Lankist]Because your argument is asinine and you shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm if you refuse to respect what it is. "people kill people" sure. but people have a hell of a lot more trouble killing people when they don't have a firearm. That's sort of what "dangerous" means in this context--the effectiveness and ease at which one person can end another. [/quote] How is it asinine, it makes perfect sense. Dude you don't get it, I realize they're designed to kill. I understand that. They can't until someone's pulling the trigger. And until someone is behind the firearm pulling the trigger, it isn't dangerous. That's my point.

[QUOTE=massn7;35903806]So now your bomb is C4. I'm going to assume you know there's different kinds of explosives, many of which can go off unintentionally, but now you're just twisting shit around to make your analogy work. Goddamn you really are a lawyer.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about those explosives. I'm talking about C4. C4 is actually more stable and reliable than any firearm. Throw a firearm in fire, every round in there, chambered or otherwise, is going to flip its shit. So would you juggle a couple bricks of C4 or would you treat them as the extremely dangerous implement that they are, regardless of their reliability? (fyi the mythbusters do because they know what they're doing. don't you want to be like the mythbusters?) [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=massn7;35903806]How is it asinine, it makes perfect sense. Dude you don't get it, I realize they're designed to kill. I understand that. They can't until someone's pulling the trigger. And until someone is behind the firearm pulling the trigger, it isn't dangerous. That's my point.[/QUOTE] How many fucking times do I have to say it? Reliability does not mean they are not dangerous. It does not mean you do not afford them with the respect that they deserve. They are a tool designed to end human life. Not to defend oneself. Not to kill mountain lions. They were invented for homicide. That remains far and away their primary purpose. You respect that. That is why we have them.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903765] Those repressive regimes did not face a maximum of 300,000,000 pissed off, heavily armed civilians. A few dissidents here and there doesn't compare to waging an all-out ground war on your own country. [/QUOTE] This is a completely nonsensical argument. Firstly, you assume every man, woman and child will be out fighting against the government. Secondly, many regimes have weathered revolutions, rebellions, civil wars and the such and have gotten out. For example, Bolshevik Russia. Initially, it started as a small party holding Moscow and Petrograd with a few sailors and factory workers. They then slowly took the entire country, despite opposition from pretty much everyone. Giving people guns alone isn't going to make a government afraid of their people, that's just bullshit.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35903841]This is a completely nonsensical argument. Firstly, you assume every man, woman and child will be out fighting against the government.[/QUOTE] Didn't read the rest because you didn't actually read my post. I said "maximum." Please refer to Mr. Webster.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903864]Didn't read the rest because you didn't actually read my post. I said "maximum." Please refer to Mr. Webster.[/QUOTE] Well the fact you did not read my post is annoying enough, given that your arguments aren't very good ones at all. Maximum? Even 100 million people rising as a unitary force against an oppressive government is insane.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35903900]Well the fact you did not read my post is annoying enough, given that your arguments aren't very good ones at all. Maximum? Even 100 million people rising as a unitary force against an oppressive government is insane.[/QUOTE] "Maximum" Not "guaranteed" There are roughly 3.000.000 military personnel in the United States. ~1.400.000 of them are active-duty. We have 300.000.000 people in this nation. If even 1% of them are armed and pissed off, that'd make a hell of a lot of trouble for the military. Even if you simply match the number of armed, civilian dissidents with military personnel, that situation would require fight a ground war on US soil instigated by the military. A war in which neighbors and families are the enemy. Find a soldier who would be willing to fight that war. Shit, in this day and age you should know how much a civilian insurgent fighting force can be. That simply is not the kind of war anyone in the military would be willing to fight. Not here. Not with neighbors and countrymen.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903946] There are roughly 3.000.000 military personnel in the United States. ~1.400.000 of them are active-duty. Even if you simply match the number of armed, civilian dissidents with military personnel, that situation would require fight a ground war on US soil instigated by the military. A war in which neighbors and families are the enemy. Find a soldier who would be willing to fight that war.[/QUOTE] Well firstly you ignore that fact that the USA is a large and diverse country. Most generals also know that sending soldiers against their own people is a bad idea. So logically they would actually redeploy them to various parts of the country to fight other peoples. If you are from say one state, you would be redeployed to another to maintain order there, rather than do so in your own state. Families and neighbours are not the enemy in this case, but people you probably don't know from a state you don't care about. Humans are a lot more pliable than you idealistically think. A soldier with training and orders will do as he is commanded as long as his commanding officers keep control and the supplies keep flowing.

You're forgetting that it's a volunteer service. Do some research on Vietnam to see how well folk took to being told to fight a war they didn't want to fight.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35904038]You're forgetting that it's a volunteer service. Do some research on Vietnam to see how well folk took to being told to fight a war they didn't want to fight.[/QUOTE] This was in a country which would be a lot freer than the hypothetical scenario whereby the people have reached the stage of open and armed rebellion. There is also the fact that countries without a history of large scale gun ownership are perfectly capable of overthrowing a government. Also by the time that the people would be in rebellion, conscription would probably be in force by that time.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35903751]Not really, depending on how effectively a military is run, it is certainly more than just capable of shooting their own citizens. For evidence, look at just about every single repressive regime in the world. As long as the military is ruthlessly run and well supplied it will fight to the end. Its a lack of supplies, defeat or bad management that leads to armies routing.[/QUOTE] Don't let your own (idiotic) flavor of fascism blind you to the fact that the places like Syria are exceptions not the rule.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35904089]Don't let your own (idiotic) flavor of fascism blind you to the fact that the places like Syria are exceptions not the rule.[/QUOTE] I'm not too sure what an Ad hominem attack has to do with this, but historically it has been shown that countries can be kept in a repressive state for a long time as long as the military is supplied and the leaders harsh. Tsarist Russia, or more recently North Korea can be shown as examples.

Again, it isn't about effectiveness, it is about power. What would happen during a rebellion in the US is irrelevant. Historically, the rebels would lose. That isn't why the framers of the Constitution added the Second Amendment. They did so to disproportionately empower the People. It's less about what would happen and more about not wanting it to happen.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35904195]Again, it isn't about effectiveness, it is about power. What would happen during a rebellion in the US is irrelevant. Historically, the rebels would lose. That isn't why the framers of the Constitution added the Second Amendment. They did so to disproportionately empower the People. It's less about what would happen and more about not wanting it to happen.[/QUOTE] The problem is that guns do not inherently make people more powerful. All you are doing is giving them another path to vent their anger that simply doesn't help. The keyboard is more powerful than the bullet.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35904259]The problem is that guns do not inherently make people more powerful. All you are doing is giving them another path to vent their anger that simply doesn't help. The keyboard is more powerful than the bullet.[/QUOTE] Tell that to massn7's mountain lion. I don't really care what you think of it. I'm telling you why it's there and how it works.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35904317]Tell that to massn7's mountain lion.[/QUOTE] I guess it's why the sword had a bigger impact on world history than the pen did.

Why is Sobotnik for fascism again?

Also on your keyboard thing: That's sort of why the FIRST Amendment is there. You know, the one before the second. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] I don't know why you're arguing that political speech is a powerful force. Yeah, no shit. That's why we have that right, too.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;35904338]Why is Sobotnik for fascism again?[/QUOTE] That was ages ago. I am more of a lefto-pinko liberal commie now.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35891525]Self Defense can be banned. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have that right. Hunting can be banned. Collecting can be banned. And if they ever are banned, then by your logic, no reason remains to permit the ownership of firearms.[/QUOTE] Good thing unlike the Federal Constitution, the Constitution of Texas explicitly gives us the right to bear arms, the right to self defense of our selves and Texas, and the limitations upon the government to regulate arms in the same fucking article. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=massn7;35901761]I somewhat agree with you, but stating a gun is 'inherently dangerous' - not really. A firearm is a lump of steel and wood or plastic until a person gets behind it. [B]A firearm cannot load, chamber, [/B]or fire itself. [/QUOTE] What the fuck is a semi-automatic firearm then?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35904137]I'm not too sure what an Ad hominem attack has to do with this, but historically it has been shown that countries can be kept in a repressive state for a long time as long as the military is supplied and the leaders harsh.[/QUOTE] Provided the relevant populace was powerless to start with. As your point only holds due to personal ignorance, rebuttals are focused on personal ignorance. You might want to say something less banal if you can't handle criticism.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;35904514]Good thing unlike the Federal Constitution, the Constitution of Texas explicitly gives us the right to bear arms, the right to self defense of our selves and Texas, and the limitations upon the government to regulate arms in the same fucking article.[/QUOTE] The Texas state constitution does not override the U.S. Constitution, nor does it overrule federal law. If the Supreme Court says your constitution is bullshit, you just gotta deal w/ it.