[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Worthless tripe.
[/quote]
Ryan P. McCarter, in your honor on this thread, I went and bought another rifle today.
Here’s to you.
I wish rainjack was in this thread, even if only for comic relief.
'Cuz intellectually, Ryan’s done for.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I know it may seem that way to you, but the Bill of Right does not equal the 2nd Amendment. The other ones are much more important.
Again, please think about things before you post, people.
The most uninformed post of the day.
The 2nd is the foundation of the Constitution. The rest of the Amendments crumble without its support.
Know your history before you wade into a discussion like this one.
By the way, which “ones” do you think are “much more important”? Chances are without something like Google or a book, an ignoramus like you could probably only name one, maybe two, from memory.
Nice. I keep forgetting that Republicans are such masters of elevated discourse. When you’re ready to debate for real, let me know.
You weren’t discoursing with a Republican. And you’re not discoursing rather well at all anyway. Step up to the plate and answer the question, O master of forensics.
Oh, let me guess! You’re a Libertarian! How silly of me for not being able to tell the difference!
I’m sorry I’m not meeting your standards. Calling someone “ignoramus” is an awfully tough act to follow.
I’ll repeat: When you’re ready to debate for real, let me know.
You’ve now proved being unworthy of a debate several times over. You can’t even answer a simple question regarding the alleged hierarchy of the Amendments - a question that you yourself originated.
I honestly have got to think you have no clue. You given us no evidence to come to any other conclusion.
All of this is further support that indeed you are silly, by your own confession, for not knowing the difference between a Republican and a Libertarian.
[/quote]
You’re really assuming a lot today. You know what that makes you, right?
What question regarding the bill of rights did I fail to answer? If you asked one, I didn’t see it.
And please show me where I “confessed” to not know the difference between a republican and a libertarian (I know libertarians typically think that being a libertarian makes them cool, when it actually makes them annoying, does that count?)? Is this really all you have?
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:Are you saying that you have no flashpoint? Will you peaceably accept whatever infringements upon your liberty that the .gov wants?
mike
The point I’ve been trying to make is that in the event of any infringement which actually warranted violent resistance, it wouldn’t matter. I’m assuming a complicit military/police force in this scenario. If they are not, you don’t have to worry anyway.
Besides, if the Bush administration hasn’t been enough to make me take up arms, I’ve got nothing to fear from Obama.
Wait, I want to be 100% with you. So our disagreement is that I think we can depose the government in a revolt and you don’t. As such you think that we should all willingly consent to being sheep to the slaughter rather than to take up arms and roll the dice. Am I right?
mike[/quote]
Basically, but I would add the proviso that I think you people are pretty crazy for even thinking that something like that could happen on anyone’s watch, LET ALONE now that the only plausible threat to democracy we’ve had (Bush) will be gone very soon.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’ll repeat: When you’re ready to debate for real, let me know.
Ryan, I’ve addressed your points in my previous post. I am hereby informing you that I am ready to debate for real, without, I hope, any sniping on either side.
For your consideration, here is another post I made a few days ago, in response to a gentleman in California who opined that a ban of “auto and machine gun ammo, or other extraneous ammunition” would not constitute a violation of the Second Amendment. Naturally, I disputed the point, as follows:
United States Constitution, Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
militia noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
Now, some historical context. In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment specifically protected the right of the civil population (i.e. “the people”) to own and maintain “military weapons in common use” that would be used to supplement the regular armed forces in time of emergency.
In 1939, the military weapons in common use included the Springfield M1903 rifle, the Enfield M1917 rifle, the M1 Garand rifle, the Browning Automatic Rifle and Browning .30 machine gun, the Thompson submachine gun, and the Colt M1911 .45 automatic pistol.
In 2008, the military weapons in common use include the M16A4 rifle, the M14 rifle, the M4 carbine, the M21 sniper rifle, the Beretta M9 automatic pistol, and the Mk 46 and Mk 48 light machine guns.
The right to own these weapons is protected by the Second Amendment, as written in 1789, and interpreted by the court in 1939.
If by association the amendment may also be interpreted as protecting the right to own deer rifles, skeet guns and target pistols, that’s dandy, but what the 2nd amendment is really all about is guaranteeing civilians the right to arm themselves with military weapons, so that they may fight alongside government troops if required, or against them if absolutely necessary.
A few other points:
I have never fantasized about a government takeover. I simply prepare for whatever may come, using ancient and recent history as a guide.
I have never insisted upon a large expensive military, although I was once a member of it. Rather, I suggest that a well-armed, well-equipped civilian militia such as was used by the classical Greek city-states, as has been used by Switzerland for its past five centuries of peace and neutrality, and as was suggested by the anti-Federalists (who gave us our Bill of Rights), is all we need to secure our borders, to repel invasion, and to keep the Federal Government subordinate to the will of the people.
Finally, my nickname at Fort Benning was “Rambo.” However, there is nothing pathetic about my misgivings about this bill, which as you’ll recall is the original focus of this thread.
[/quote]
OK, no offense: what exactly is your point? If it’s that a ban of “auto and machine gun ammo, or other extraneous ammunition” is a violation of the second amendment, I agree. Pass me the petition to stop it and I’ll sign it, but the difference is, I don’t care very much if it gets passed. I think you people are expending quite a lot of energy on what is, at this point, one of the least important issues we’ve faced in a long time.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’ll repeat: When you’re ready to debate for real, let me know…
Ryan, I’ve addressed your points in my previous post. I am hereby informing you that I am ready to debate for real, without, I hope, any sniping on either side.
He’s really not interested in a debate; he’s hopelessly outclassed right from the git-go and he knows it.
[/quote]
Haha, by whom, may I ask? I hope you’re not tooting your own horn, because at this point, the only contribution you could plausibly claim is the observation that a libertarian is not a republican. Not exactly weighty stuff.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I wish rainjack was in this thread, even if only for comic relief.
'Cuz intellectually, Ryan’s done for. [/quote]
Oh boy, the me-tooers! You guys are fun. Irrelevant, but fun.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:Are you saying that you have no flashpoint? Will you peaceably accept whatever infringements upon your liberty that the .gov wants?
mike
The point I’ve been trying to make is that in the event of any infringement which actually warranted violent resistance, it wouldn’t matter. I’m assuming a complicit military/police force in this scenario. If they are not, you don’t have to worry anyway.
Besides, if the Bush administration hasn’t been enough to make me take up arms, I’ve got nothing to fear from Obama.
Wait, I want to be 100% with you. So our disagreement is that I think we can depose the government in a revolt and you don’t. As such you think that we should all willingly consent to being sheep to the slaughter rather than to take up arms and roll the dice. Am I right?
mike
Basically, but I would add the proviso that I think you people are pretty crazy for even thinking that something like that could happen on anyone’s watch, LET ALONE now that the only plausible threat to democracy we’ve had (Bush) will be gone very soon.[/quote]
Ryan, you have got to let the anger go man. You aren’t doing yourself any favors. I didn’t vote for Bush myself and consider him a threat to democracy. That said, Obama is a greater threat. Unfortunately, the tools that Bush opened up to the executive may well be used with frightening power by an Obama administration. The upside of all this is it seems as if Obama sold out all of you guys hoping for change. He’s already backing out of his promised tax hike to the wealthy and is filling his cabinet with insiders as well as keeping Gates online. The guy lied to you.
All this said, who cares if we’re crazy? Perhaps we are annoying. If so, ignore us. But I would expect you to stand just as strongly for my rights as I promise to do for yours, including those rights of yours I may not exercise on a daily basis or find particularly cool.
All I ask of you is to rethink your statement. You have effectively told me that you’re a coward. Just because the .gov is big and bad doesn’t mean we should allow our rights to be stepped on. “Give me liberty or give me death” means something to some of us. Let us then die like men. What harm is there in that? If we’re a bunch of tinpot Rambos then let us die with smiles on our faces. In the event our rights are being infringed are you planning on taking the side of the people taking our rights? Then who cares if we shoot some bad guys on our Quixotic quest for liberty? Kick back and laugh at how stupid we are on the 6’o clock news. Either way, I’ll die a free man while you have freely admitted that you’d rather live as a slave.
Either way, I’ll take Sam Adams’ advice and will seek neither your counsel nor your arms.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:Are you saying that you have no flashpoint? Will you peaceably accept whatever infringements upon your liberty that the .gov wants?
mike
The point I’ve been trying to make is that in the event of any infringement which actually warranted violent resistance, it wouldn’t matter. I’m assuming a complicit military/police force in this scenario. If they are not, you don’t have to worry anyway.
Besides, if the Bush administration hasn’t been enough to make me take up arms, I’ve got nothing to fear from Obama.
Wait, I want to be 100% with you. So our disagreement is that I think we can depose the government in a revolt and you don’t. As such you think that we should all willingly consent to being sheep to the slaughter rather than to take up arms and roll the dice. Am I right?
mike
Basically, but I would add the proviso that I think you people are pretty crazy for even thinking that something like that could happen on anyone’s watch, LET ALONE now that the only plausible threat to democracy we’ve had (Bush) will be gone very soon.
Ryan, you have got to let the anger go man. You aren’t doing yourself any favors. I didn’t vote for Bush myself and consider him a threat to democracy. That said, Obama is a greater threat. Unfortunately, the tools that Bush opened up to the executive may well be used with frightening power by an Obama administration. The upside of all this is it seems as if Obama sold out all of you guys hoping for change. He’s already backing out of his promised tax hike to the wealthy and is filling his cabinet with insiders as well as keeping Gates online. The guy lied to you.
All this said, who cares if we’re crazy? Perhaps we are annoying. If so, ignore us. But I would expect you to stand just as strongly for my rights as I promise to do for yours, including those rights of yours I may not exercise on a daily basis or find particularly cool.
All I ask of you is to rethink your statement. You have effectively told me that you’re a coward. Just because the .gov is big and bad doesn’t mean we should allow our rights to be stepped on. “Give me liberty or give me death” means something to some of us. Let us then die like men. What harm is there in that? If we’re a bunch of tinpot Rambos then let us die with smiles on our faces. In the event our rights are being infringed are you planning on taking the side of the people taking our rights? Then who cares if we shoot some bad guys on our Quixotic quest for liberty? Kick back and laugh at how stupid we are on the 6’o clock news. Either way, I’ll die a free man while you have freely admitted that you’d rather live as a slave.
Either way, I’ll take Sam Adams’ advice and will seek neither your counsel nor your arms.
mike[/quote]
second the motion
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:Ryan, you have got to let the anger go man. You aren’t doing yourself any favors. I didn’t vote for Bush myself and consider him a threat to democracy. That said, Obama is a greater threat. Unfortunately, the tools that Bush opened up to the executive may well be used with frightening power by an Obama administration. The upside of all this is it seems as if Obama sold out all of you guys hoping for change. He’s already backing out of his promised tax hike to the wealthy and is filling his cabinet with insiders as well as keeping Gates online. The guy lied to you.
All this said, who cares if we’re crazy? Perhaps we are annoying. If so, ignore us. But I would expect you to stand just as strongly for my rights as I promise to do for yours, including those rights of yours I may not exercise on a daily basis or find particularly cool.
All I ask of you is to rethink your statement. You have effectively told me that you’re a coward. Just because the .gov is big and bad doesn’t mean we should allow our rights to be stepped on. “Give me liberty or give me death” means something to some of us. Let us then die like men. What harm is there in that? If we’re a bunch of tinpot Rambos then let us die with smiles on our faces. In the event our rights are being infringed are you planning on taking the side of the people taking our rights? Then who cares if we shoot some bad guys on our Quixotic quest for liberty? Kick back and laugh at how stupid we are on the 6’o clock news. Either way, I’ll die a free man while you have freely admitted that you’d rather live as a slave.
Either way, I’ll take Sam Adams’ advice and will seek neither your counsel nor your arms.
mike[/quote]
Well, look. You sound like a pretty reasonable guy. Let me respond to a couple of things you said.
First of all, I’m not angry (not at you, at any rate). I’m not really sure how you came this conclusion, since most of the pro-gun responses are much more abrasive and hostile than mine. Like I said, I am basically pro-gun (though I don’t get excited over them, and I don’t own one), although for me this is really much more a matter of principle, and in my mind is not nearly as relevant as it once was.
I do think it is important to be able to own handguns for self-defense purposes, as the police force is not sufficient to guarantee protection. All I’m saying is, I think it’s pretty silly to get too upset over an assault weapons ban, since they aren’t really practically useful.
Secondly, nothing in my original statement could be construed as confessing to cowardice. Your attempt to paint anyone who isn’t actively hoarding weapons and supplies against some impending takeover as a wimp or a coward is what offends me. If the shit hits the fan, I have a friend who has several firearms, I’ll borrow one of his, since he can’t wield all of them simultaneously. Meanwhile, I’ve got stuff to do, and procuring rifles, shotguns, etc. isn’t high on my list of priorities.
Although here is where we may butt heads. If you seriously think Obama is a greater threat to democracy than George W. Bush (or that he’s ANY threat to democracy), then I have nothing more to say to you. Reasoned discourse requires some modicum of rational thought, and the statement you made displays none. I seriously have no idea how some people can say that they are afraid of Obama taking away their rights and keep a straight face doing it. We’re almost rid of Bush. I’m not kidding, there’s no more room for us to fall after him. It only gets better from here from a civics standpoint.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
OK, no offense: what exactly is your point? If it’s that a ban of “auto and machine gun ammo, or other extraneous ammunition” is a violation of the second amendment, I agree.
Pass me the petition to stop it and I’ll sign it, but the difference is, I don’t care very much if it gets passed. I think you people are expending quite a lot of energy on what is, at this point, one of the least important issues we’ve faced in a long time.
[/quote]
Sigh.
No, that wasn’t my point at all. This has nothing to do with a ban on ammunition.
The Californian over on the other thread (who brought up ammunition, apropos of nothing) didn’t seem to understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, so I explained it to him. You didn’t seem to understand it either, so I repeated myself on this thread.
Now I see that you’re not opposed to the idea of self-defense, or even to the use of handguns in self-defense. That’s a large point in your favor.
The fact, however, that you consider military rifles not to be “really practically useful” indicates to me that you’ve never had the opportunity to handle a really good battle rifle and see for yourself what they are capable of. This is a shame.
Furthermore, the fact that you find nothing worrisome about the bill in question indicates to me that you haven’t really considered the ramifications of a complete disarmament of the civilian population.
Finally, the fact that you really truly believe that the citizens of this country have nothing to fear from a government that wishes to disarm them (not necessarily the Obama administration, but any government with such an agenda), indicates a naiveté tantamount to venturing into the wilderness unarmed, relying on the goodwill of bears, wolves, and mountain lions, and the forbearance of rattlesnakes.
Not that any of this concerns me too much. We can each go our own way without unduly disturbing the other.
May you find nothing but peace and happiness in your life, Ryan. I truly hope that in your lifetime, it never becomes necessary for you to borrow any of your friend’s firearms, but if it ever does, I do hope you’ll remember this little exchange.
Cheers.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I seriously have no idea how some people can say that they are afraid of Obama taking away their rights and keep a straight face doing it. We’re almost rid of Bush. I’m not kidding, there’s no more room for us to fall after him. It only gets better from here from a civics standpoint. [/quote]
The mind conjures up images of optimistic young Germans, having endured a senseless war, a collapse of the economy, and the erosion of the social order of their country under the leadership of Paul von Hindenburg, making a similar statement in 1933:
“We’re almost rid of Hindenburg, I’m not kidding, there’s no more room for us to fall after him. It only gets better from here from a civics standpoint.”
Hindenburg’s opponent had run on a campaign of Change. He delivered it. More Change, in fact, than the Germans had ever dreamed of.
If “military-type” rifles are banned, it opens the door to all rifles being banned because…wait for it…ALL rifle designs have military origins. Every. Single. One. Dad’s hunting bolt action rifle? Military. Grandpa’s lever action? Military.
To think the government would not eventually use this line of thinking to ban all other firearms is foolhardy.
[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
If “military-type” rifles are banned, it opens the door to all rifles being banned because…wait for it…ALL rifle designs have military origins. Every. Single. One. Dad’s hunting bolt action rifle? Military. Grandpa’s lever action? Military.
To think the government would not eventually use this line of thinking to ban all other firearms is foolhardy.[/quote]
Exactly, they were all developed for military usage. See R.L Ermey’s special on rifles or buy Plaster’s book, “The History of Sniping and Sharpshooting”.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I am not anti-gun, but you pople are so annoying that I honestly hope they ban every single thing they can get away with out of spite.[/quote]
There is no more important right that will ensure the maintaining of the American way of life than the right to keep and bear firearms.
It is, to me, the only redeeming quality among the Republican ideology.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I am not anti-gun, but you people are so annoying that I honestly hope they ban every single thing they can get away with out of spite.
There is no more important right that will ensure the maintaining of the American way of life than the right to keep and bear firearms.
It is, to me, the only redeeming quality among the Republican ideology. [/quote]
For me, I’ve learned that it is more important to adhere to conservative ideology than republican ideology. The two are not always the same.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I am not anti-gun, but you pople are so annoying that I honestly hope they ban every single thing they can get away with out of spite.
There is no more important right that will ensure the maintaining of the American way of life than the right to keep and bear firearms.
It is, to me, the only redeeming quality among the Republican ideology. [/quote]
I appreciate the sentiment, Irish, but you’re being too generous: the Republicans can’t lay claim to the sovereign right to keep and bear arms, as it dates back to a common law precedent codified by King Henry of England. It predates the U.S. Republican Party by 673 years, and the Bill of Rights by 608 years.
The 2nd Amendment, and the Bill of Rights generally, were insisted upon by the Anti-Federalists, who opposed a strong federal government, a large standing army, and too much power vested in the executive branch. I don’t think those sentiments are representative of the ideology of any Republican I’ve seen lately, beside, say, Ron Paul.
Two things
First, I think this is worth revisiting
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675
Pertains mostly to conceal and carry but the point at the end is well put.
Secondly, does anyone actually think about what happens when anything is banned?
If making owning or carrying guns illegal got guns off the street, why do we still have a drug problem. Not too hard to get illegal drugs. Banning certain types of guns just provides another revenue stream for criminals.
Who do want to profit from the sale of guns? legal gun shops or drug dealers and terrorists? If you take away legal avenues to own any kind of gun, the same guys that bring in and distribute drugs will now find it profitable to distribute illegal arms.
When this happens, who is more likely to purchase these banned firearms? Law-abiding citizens or criminals? Pretty simple to me.
Also, what is the point of banning a rifle with a 15" barrel but keeping the same gun legal if it has a longer barrel. Special interest groups don?t do “logical” very well, they just do ?emotional? very well. Politician don’t care and long as the special interest groups are happy.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Two things
First, I think this is worth revisiting
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675
Pertains mostly to conceal and carry but the point at the end is well put.
Secondly, does anyone actually think about what happens when anything is banned?
If making owning or carrying guns illegal got guns off the street, why do we still have a drug problem. Not too hard to get illegal drugs. Banning certain types of guns just provides another revenue stream for criminals.
Who do want to profit from the sale of guns? legal gun shops or drug dealers and terrorists? If you take away legal avenues to own any kind of gun, the same guys that bring in and distribute drugs will now find it profitable to distribute illegal arms.
When this happens, who is more likely to purchase these banned firearms? Law-abiding citizens or criminals? Pretty simple to me.
Also, what is the point of banning a rifle with a 15" barrel but keeping the same gun legal if it has a longer barrel. Special interest groups don?t do “logical” very well, they just do ?emotional? very well. Politician don’t care and long as the special interest groups are happy.
[/quote]
This is what the government does without banning weapons. What do you think will happen once they are banned?