Stephen King on US gun contols.

[Ducimus]

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.

The purpose of second amendment were woven into our national fabric before the Bill of Rights was even drafted with the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I believe The United States is unique among nations in this regard, in our national history, and the engrained culture of our people as a result of our history, so I wouldn't expect people from Australia, England, or Ireland to understand it.

EDIT:
Great video here:

[HundertzehnGustav]

[dey wunt to teek ur gunz aweh is redneckspeak for serious discussion on gun control]
Yes it is, and yes it does. At least he put a little effort into it. He also doesn't make a habit of mocking people the way you do.

Just turned around the image to offer a different perspective.
the perspective of an euro liberal socialist pig.

as such, also mocking myself a bit.
Playing with the mirror, not intending to diss anybody.

I will soon be armed.
the Bow shall be my weapon of Choice, silent and difficult to master.
and with good care and some spares, much more independent and less complicated than high tecgh guns.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.

The purpose of second amendment were woven into our national fabric before the Bill of Rights was even drafted with the Declaration of Independence.



I believe The United States is unique among nations in this regard, in our national history, and the engrained culture of our people as a result of our history, so I wouldn't expect people from Australia, England, or Ireland to understand it.

EDIT:
Great video here:

I agree with the right to bear arms however if that right keeps the government in check then how come we have the Patriot Act which largely violates many of our rights?
People have lots of guns here yes but rarely do they if you threaten this right I'll stop you with my right to bear arms.

It seems to me that no matter what laws or documents a nations has they can be trampled upon and under the correct guise no one will try to stop it.

The trick in an armed nation is to slowly take other right away and then by that point you have control over most anyone who might try and resist.

To me your video only proves my views people in the US have the right to bear arms yet that fact did not stop that law and many others that clearly violate the Constitution from being passed.Perhaps your take is that they hid the true meaning of the law but they did not because the effect of the law was clear only a pointless statement made that means nothing in particular.Also all the members of Congress knew as well yet they passed it so that clearly shows that they have no fear of the armed citizens rising up against them if the truth was learned.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.

As the unifringed right has never existed how can it be eroded?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

Is that why blacks and non free white men were not allowed guns?

Lets get right down to basics.
Should a convicted violent felon be allowed to buy a nuke?


@HundertzehnGustav

Just turned around the image to offer a different perspective.

Indeed, and by that measure the only actual trolling in this topic was the original post which you altered.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Deal with what was written not with what you want to think was written.

Here is what was written:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No arguments, no debate, just an insult. That's trolling. No more.

So more words is not neccasarily good.
I "mock" what was written not the person and a picture paints a thosuand words
So which is better to write? "that is silly notion" is it not as good as "that is a really really silly notion that even at a stretch makes no sense"?

No, it's not better. Those are also not honest debate. You put up arguments and you justify them. You don't just talk about how something is silly.

Of course it matters. and the answer is arguably "yes".

Then debate the subject or not, but don't post insults just to do it.

So come along Steve cut to the chase. Go to the bottom line or reverse it and go beyond the top line as far as you want.
If the basis of the arguement make no sense either at the top or at the bottom then the whole arguement makes no sense and is a moment.
Feel free to chose your own top line as far up the weapons chain as you like.

If you can't debate the subject honestly, then don't comment at all. The bottom line here is that you are closer to the edge than you have ever been.

You have been warned.

Here is what was written:

Yes

No arguments, no debate, just an insult. That's trolling. No more.

Is D'oh an insult?
Why have you got an insult on the top row of the smilies?
The arguement is that the comment was so obviously preposterous and that D'oh is sufficient to indicate that.

No, it's not better. Those are also not honest debate

So are you saying the initial post which I quoted cannot have been honest debate?
After all Hundertz only followed the vein of the original line so if his line is not honest debate then the original line is not honest debate either.

If you can't debate the subject honestly, then don't comment at all.

Honest debate?
Look at the comment. It got an honest response.
Think about it
History provides untold tin pot dictators, police states and genocidal superpowers to use as examples.
Has any one of those crazy regimes followed Augusts "logical" progression to his conclusion?
As the answer is obviously no then the whole arguement is pure fallacy to even suggest that the US will follow a slippery slope which even the most vile regimes in the world have not trodden.
When the arguement put forward is so illogical then there is no need for a detailed answer in a debate as the ridiculousness of the stated position is self evident.
No matter which way you follow the "logic" in that post it still makes no sense.

[Stealhead]

This getting to be like WWI.

Millions of words marching forward to die and no noteworthy gain.

This getting to be like WWI.

Thats because Schlieffen made no sense

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

This getting to be like WWI.

Millions of words marching forward to die and no noteworthy gain.

Just now getting to be like that? This six-week multi-thread topic has jumped the shark so many times that the Fonz has developed vertigo.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Is D'oh an insult?

It depends on how it's used. You used it to insult someone rather than debate them.

Why have you got an insult on the top row of the smilies?

So people can make fun of themselves, not others.

The arguement is that the comment was so obviously preposterous and that D'oh is sufficient to indicate that.

No. You show that it was preposterous and why, or you don't comment at all.

So are you saying the initial post which I quoted cannot have been honest debate?

You aimed that directly at August's quote. Disagree if you like, but no more insults.

Honest debate?
Look at the comment. It got an honest response.

Whether the comment was valid or not, it was posted honestly. You posted just to insult. Never again.

Think about it

No, you think about it. This isn't about guns or police states. This is about your behaviour on these forums.

I've ignored your futher attempt to try to justify yourself, since that's all it is. I'll say it one last time: If you have a disagreement, then state it and justify it. Do not post insulting smilies or names ("Skybull"). Either you debate honestly or keep quiet.

This is the last warning.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The trick in an armed nation is to slowly take other right away and then by that point you have control over most anyone who might try and resist.

Which is what this latest assault on the second amendment is all about. People like Fienstien were WAITING for the next incident. The proposed assault weapon ban was written a long time ago. The people involved were not about to "let a good tragedy go to waste". Like circling vultures waitig for the next dead carcass, they waited with their legislature already formulated and ready to go.

To me your video only proves my views people in the US have the right to bear arms yet that fact did not stop that law and many others that clearly violate the Constitution from being passed.Perhaps your take is that they hid the true meaning of the law but they did not because the effect of the law was clear only a pointless statement made that means nothing in particular.Also all the members of Congress knew as well yet they passed it so that clearly shows that they have no fear of the armed citizens rising up against them if the truth was learned.

To me that video illustrates one reason why the second amendment is just as relevant and important today, as it was in past history. The problem as i see it is three fold.

1.) Our people have grown complacent or disenfranchised (count me among the latter).

2.) In todays society, within the last 10 to 15 years, i think too many people have become unwilling to take personal responsibility. Whatever it is, its always somebody else's job, or somebody else's fault.

2.) As a result of above points 1 and 2 ; in the years following 911 our government has gotten to big for it's britches.

It depends on how it's used. You used it to insult someone rather than debate them.

No I used it to indicate that the arguement being put forward was rubbish.

So people can make fun of themselves, not others.

So I can expect to no longer see people quoting a post followed with for example, which is a quite common occurance from all directions isn't it.

I've ignored your futher attempt to try to justify yourself, since that's all it is.

You wanted an explaination, you got an explaination.
If you don't want one then don't ask for it.

You posted just to insult.

So you keep saying, repeat it as much as you like, I know why I posted it and I have told you why I posted it.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Which is what this latest assault on the second amendment is all about. People like Fienstien were WAITING for the next incident. The proposed assault weapon ban was written a long time ago. The people involved were not about to "let a good tragedy go to waste". Like circling vultures waitig for the next dead carcass, they waited with their legislature already formulated and ready to go.



To me that video illustrates one reason why the second amendment is just as relevant and important today, as it was in past history. The problem as i see it is three fold.

1.) Our people have grown complacent or disenfranchised (count me among the latter).

2.) In todays society, within the last 10 to 15 years, I think too many people have become unwilling to take personal responsibility. Whatever it is, its always somebody else's job, or somebody else's fault.

2.) As a result of above points 1 and 2 ; in the years following 911 our government has gotten to big for it's britches.

So you seem to be saying that the second amendment is still important(in keeping the government in check) yet many people are complacent and will not take personal responsibility if this is the case then no one even if they have a firearm is going to do anything to challenge things.

In what way are/where you disenfranchised specifically?

[Armistead]

The average 911 national response time for a home robbery is 30 minutes.
Some say I don't need an AR to defend myself, well, tell that to all the cops that now carry assault weapons because they were being outgunned by criminals....Sure, if a criminal breaks in, I could pull my pistol, but it will be secondary to my AR.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The average 911 national response time for a home robbery is 30 minutes.
Some say I don't need an AR to defend myself, well, tell that to all the cops that now carry assault weapons because they were being outgunned by criminals....Sure, if a criminal breaks in, I could pull my pistol, but it will be secondary to my AR.

Again self defense is one thing.What I am saying is that many claim that the 2nd Amendment helps keep the government in check yet the government has done many things over the years long before our times and still does and very clearly the fact the fact that some citizens are armed had no effect on their actions.

So in all reality the government does not care if you have a 2nd Amendment or not they will do what they want to when they want to do it and unless you have one hell of a huge army you will not stop them.In all reality only handfuls of people here and there would actually really fight and of course die.I am not trying to talk smack about anyone on this forum but I know that the vast majority of people that own guns if they became banned would do as they where told simple truth do you really think the guy that plays around with his bump fire stock equipped AK47 or AR15
is willing to die or go to prison to keep it? Hell no he'll take buy back money and buy himself an ATV or something.