Posts by freemindfade

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

freemindfade

Well then Freemindfade when you are at movie theater and someone comes up in front of the audience and starts to open up with a semiautomatic military gun at you, make sure you have a gun yourself to fire back or at least keep down.

I'd do the same thing as everyone else and get the hell out. But I will tell you this, I will never be lying on my face waiting in line to get executed like some of the people in Paris. Having a conceal carry permit is not so you can get in gun fights, but also I am not going to die like a b*tch. Personal preference :)

You all think we who own guns are cowboys waiting for any reason to have a good ol fashioned shoot out. Not really the case. Brains before bullets

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

freemindfade

I understand what you are saying fink

All I can tell you is what i can do and that's be responsible and safe.

My experience with a prohibition people really don't want is creation of lucrative black markets., big money means big risk, big risk means big violence. Banning alcohol (in america) resulted in this. The anti-drug culture of america has done this. Banning guns here won't change the culture. And its not even a gun culture, its a "no one is going to tell me what to do" culture. Trying to take that away from america is a tough sell.

And I am admitting that is the way it is here, and I know you all loathe it, but that's why I say it is what it is. I grew up here, I tolerate it, and maybe sometimes I'm part of it. Sorry

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

freemindfade

Its always some THINGS fault, not someone.

Remember when people didn't blame the guns? They said it was the music, oh wait, no its the video games!! that's it, violent video games.

How about you all move to america and vote to ban guns entirely??? Then it will be the gunless utopia with everyone riding unicorns and chasing rainbows you desire lol. Otherwise it seems like the people have spoken for now. And there are still guns.

And limits don't make safety if you still haven't addressed the issue of deranged dangerous people. Timothy McVey never fired a shot.

........really ? What guns were used in the Columbine or Sandy Hook school massacres ?
Or the recent attack in San Bernardino ?
They were all semi-automatics, they weren't recreational hunting rifles were they now ?

Cherry picking... what guns were used in Paris?? I can cherry pick too. Paris should really look into banning fully auto AK47's! Oh wait they did. This concludes my cherry picking

When it comes to limits and laws they are only as good as the people who CHOOSE to follow them.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

freemindfade

In 2016 we are far past the ball and Musket days of when the 2nd. amendment was written , in view of that fact guns ownership and the sale of certain guns needs also to evolve.

This is a deceiving idea fed to you by the media, that in america people are running around with AR15's, AK's and UZI's committing murder. And I'll be the first to say that yes its extreme to posses certain weapons however lets be totally honest.

If you delve into statistic of gun deaths, or mass shootings and guns used, you are going to find most would fall into an area that doesn't involve what you are speaking of. Its most often a handgun, a rifle, or shotgun.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

freemindfade

No, America should be what the people decide it should be.

I'm gonna throw some internet shade here and say I think a lot of the consensus on here is to the contrary, america is what the people decide, but the feeling from many on this forum is america should be what the UK, Canada and Australia decide. My point in saying america is america is just what you said, we decide not you.

Isn't that why we gunned up in the first place??? UK trying to run our sh*t lol

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

freemindfade

I think the same is true, more or less, in gun owners and anti-gun activists.
Everybody knows better than everybody else. Except--they don't.
We create our own heaven or hell by how strongly we believe our own nonsense

I agree with this, except "gun owner" should be replaced with "gun nut". Gun nuts are the activists of sorts, the other extreme. A plain-jane gun owner, is just exercising their right, not necessarily promoting any agenda. And they only know for themselves, not the masses or anyone else.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

freemindfade

I don't consider myself American, I'm a New Yorker first, American second :)

"But if a man test my Stuy

I promise he won't like my reply

Boom bye bye like Buju I'm crucial

I'm a Brooklyn boy I may take some gettin' use to"

Jay-Z

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

freemindfade

America is america take it or leave it.

If america was Australia we'd have no guns, but as a russian friend of mine would say, "if my grandma had balls she'd be my grandpa."

if if if if

I have the choice and I choose to carry. I'll never get around to starting a militia and don't care about amendments-shmendments. I live in america and can tell you its got bigger problems. Yes Obama crying like a little b*itch and the blood-lusting media wants you to believe the almighty gun is the downfall of america but its not. There are such more subversive things going on costing more lives and lending to more deaths and keeping the need for illegal guns and drugs flowing. But no one wants to talk about that in this age of micro internet aggression... but that's none of my business.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

freemindfade

Bottom line just because nut cases exist in the world doesn't mean I don't have the right to protect myself and my family.

Excellent point

Let me tell you a story about a non militia situation.

I lived in NYC during hurricane Sandy. A friend of mine, lifelong new yorker, lived on a affluent area of the south shore of Long Island. Early 40's, never owned a gun in his life, never thought about owning one. After hurricane sandy his whole community became completely cut off, declared a disaster area and left to its own. The were no civil anything there, no police, no fire, nothing, but the people were still there, families in their homes. Rules change when there is no police, he told me he never felt so vulnerable in his life. Those intent on harming and stealing entered other peoples houses at will. Here is a grown man, with a wife and two young children and no options for protection. From that day forward he realized the insurance value of owning a firearm, some of his neighbors had written on their houses that they were armed and not to try to break in. This was not an overnight thing by the way.

You see a gun can be like care insurance. Its something you hope you never need. But the time you might need it can be out of your control. In his situation it wasn't rising up against the government, the WAS NO GOVERNMENT. Gone overnight. An affluent relatively safe place turned into a lawless free for all in a very short amount of time. No police, no national guard. It happens.

166

2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

by Simon in

one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

so muskets all round.

freemindfade

I know a lot of people from a lot of different walks of life from all over America that do own guns. I can safely say not one of them do so that they can form a militia.

People watch the news and see a bunch of hillbillies in oregon, and listen to the NRA and think that is the typical American gun owner. Well its not.

You also have

hobbiests (yes its hard to believe some people just like guns)

Hunters.

People who have them for protection (from people or animals or both)

Gangs (big and small. I don't think they are trying to form militias)

So while the second amendment may be used to protect peoples rights to have guns based on an age old american principle, its probably the last reason most people own guns. People from the the UK and Canada and Australia are so terrified of us and our craaaaazy gun laws. Stay home. America is just to scary for you. You are better off arm chair quarterbacking from the safety of your home.

*wildly shoots guns in air screaming yeeha merica!*