NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all:
Really Really Big Arms (http://www.strangesports.com/images/content/3849.jpg)

Now that that's out of the way:
At what point does the right to bear arms cease to exist?
Most people would agree that indinviduals don't have the right to own WMDs. What about assault rifles? Hand Guns?

I think that if a weapon can be useful for hunting and/or protecting oneself and family, then the government has no buisiness getting involved.

I think that if a weapon can be useful for hunting and/or protecting oneself and family, then the government has no buisiness getting involved.

That's why you aren't in charge.

First of all:
Really Really Big Arms (http://www.strangesports.com/images/content/3849.jpg)

Now that that's out of the way:
At what point does the right to bare arms cease to exist?
Most people would agree that indinviduals don't have the right to own WMDs. What about assault rifles? Hand Guns?

I think that if a weapon can be useful for hunting and/or protecting oneself and family, then the government has no buisiness getting involved.

What the 2nd Amendment DOESN'T PROTECT:Artillery, mortars, anti aircraft, tank cannons, etc-EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS

What the 2nd Amendment DOES PROTECT: Assault rifles, deer rifles, pistols ,machine guns, large caliber rifles, etc.

Liasia']That's why you aren't in charge.

Bush has the same idea on gun control.

Wait, is this topic serious or not? I'm confused.

Bush has the same idea on gun control.

And that's why he isn't in control.

Liasia']And that's why he isn't in control.

Really? That whole presidency thing is out the window then?

Does the right to (bear? bare? Never could tell) arms extend to hypothetical laser weaponry? What about swords? Lightsabres?

What the 2nd Amendment DOESN'T PROTECT:Artillery, mortars, anti aircraft, tank cannons, etc-EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS

What the 2nd Amendment DOES PROTECT: Assault rifles, deer rifles, pistols ,machine guns, large caliber rifles, etc.
Supreme court disagrees.

What the 2nd Amendment DOESN'T PROTECT:Artillery, mortars, anti aircraft, tank cannons, etc-EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS

What the 2nd Amendment DOES PROTECT: Assault rifles, deer rifles, pistols ,machine guns, large caliber rifles, etc.

So it isn't so much "the right to bear arms" it's "the right to bear the arms the government will let you have"?

First of all:
Really Really Big Arms (http://www.strangesports.com/images/content/3849.jpg)

Now that that's out of the way:
At what point does the right to bare arms cease to exist?
Most people would agree that indinviduals don't have the right to own WMDs. What about assault rifles? Hand Guns?

I think that if a weapon can be useful for hunting and/or protecting oneself and family, then the government has no buisiness getting involved.
I stand in full support of our right to bare our arms. It gets very hot up here in the Pacific Northwest in the summer time; without a shortsleeved T-shirt I sweat profusely.

I'd say the second amendment covers all small arms. So anything .50 cal and under, and shotguns (which are technically over .50) should be covered. Mortars, grenades, rockets, etc aren't, though.

Really? That whole presidency thing is out the window then?

*nods* I've heard things.

Does the right to (bear? bare? Never could tell) arms extend to hypothetical laser weaponry? What about swords? Lightsabres?

Well, I'd imagine laser weaponry that one oculd actually bear would have to be invented first...If it was something excessively damaging it might not be, you'll have to look up swords, and I don't expect light sabers being possible, although if jedis and sith are weilding them, do you really think you could make 'em stop?

Supreme court disagrees.

The SCOTUS also disagrees on property rights and feels the police have no obligation to "serve and protect" even when the law says they do.

I am cool with everything up to WMD's. There is just too much damage that can be done if someone mis-handles them.

At what point does the right to bare arms cease to exist?

I think this (http://www.freedominguez.com/WEB/Bare%20Arms.jpg) is really pushing it.

I think this (http://www.freedominguez.com/WEB/Bare%20Arms.jpg) is really pushing it.


I support that as well.

I think this (http://www.freedominguez.com/WEB/Bare%20Arms.jpg) is really pushing it.

I'ld like to push that.

I am cool with everything up to WMD's. There is just too much damage that can be done if someone mis-handles them.
And if someone 'mis-handles' a tank that's ok?

Supreme court disagrees.

They also said blacks only counted as 3/5ths of a person. They've also said the police don't have an obligation to protect you,and yet they say you don't have a right to own a firearm? They've also said the gov't can take away your property for private use when the Const. says it can only be taken for PUBLIC use.

The wording is so clear noone could mess it up except our OWN leaders....

Does the right to (bear? bare? Never could tell) arms extend to hypothetical laser weaponry? What about swords? Lightsabres?

Plasma rifles? I'd hope so. Doubt I'll be around for when they come out with those.

Although the original purpose was to protect the citizens from authoritarian governments, now that they are one, the current right-wing interpretation is "anything that we can easily deal with." If a large angry mob assembled just outside of Capitol Hill armed to the teeth with semiautomatics, I'm sure many politicians would get out of bed with the NRA in a heartbeat.

Liasia']And if someone 'mis-handles' a tank that's ok?

Tanks are already legal in the US. Never hear of a civilian tank going on a rampage....

Tanks are already legal in the US. Never hear of a civilian tank going on a rampage....

They are? Ammo as well? That seems a bit silly.

Liasia']And if someone 'mis-handles' a tank that's ok?

They cause far less damage then a anthrax outbreak or a nuke warhead leaking.

On another note, who do you think could buy a tank and afford to run it? It would be a rich guy's toy.

They also said blacks only counted as 3/5ths of a person. They've also said the police don't have an obligation to protect you,and yet they say you don't have a right to own a firearm? They've also said the gov't can take away your property for private use when the Const. says it can only be taken for PUBLIC use.

The wording is so clear noone could mess it up except our OWN leaders....

The "blacks as 3/5 of a person" thing actually gave the slave-owning states less power in Congress, and would have come in handy if slavery was voted out of the Union, instead of the Civil War taking care of that.

They cause far less damage then a anthrax outbreak or a nuke warhead leaking.

On another note, who do you think could buy a tank and afford to run it? It would be a rich guy's toy.

I know several that own demil'ed tanks/LAV's.

They cause far less damage then a anthrax outbreak or a nuke warhead leaking.

On another note, who do you think could buy a tank and afford to run it? It would be a rich guy's toy.

A crazy rich guy's tool.

I know several that own demil'ed tanks/LAV's.

Yeah, I had a boss who was wanting a old ruskie tank. I couldn't even run it if I was given the thing. Think of it if were fully operational, I could not imagine how much a single round for those things would run. :p

On another note, there is a guy south of here who sells older Russian fighters. He has a MiG-21 sitting in his hanger now that they have finished rebuilding.

Although the original purpose was to protect the citizens from authoritarian governments, now that they are one, the current right-wing interpretation is "anything that we can easily deal with." If a large angry mob assembled just outside of Capitol Hill armed to the teeth with semiautomatics, I'm sure many politicians would get out of bed with the NRA in a heartbeat.

If the NRA is marching to the capitol armed it's not gonna be because noone is on our side.

Although the original purpose was to protect the citizens from authoritarian governments, now that they are one, the current right-wing interpretation is "anything that we can easily deal with." If a large angry mob assembled just outside of Capitol Hill armed to the teeth with semiautomatics, I'm sure many politicians would get out of bed with the NRA in a heartbeat.

The citizens are an authoritarian regime? I dont really get what you're trying to say. Please elaborate.

I think this (http://www.freedominguez.com/WEB/Bare%20Arms.jpg) is really pushing it.

Hehe... I love it when people spell that incorrectly... Those arms aren't all that big, though. :D

Liasia']They are? Ammo as well? That seems a bit silly.

Yes.

This is America. We drive stupid H1/H2s because they were the biggest civilian passenger vehicle. We go to buffets because we can eat all we want. We want big familys, because we (most of the time) love kids, we want big houses, big trucks, etc. It's not uniquely american, but....

Supreme court disagrees.
The Supreme Court hasn't stated, in any way, the extent to which the right to bear arms ought to extend. It has only ruled that the Constitution extends a guarantee to that right in a limited way. The fact that the constitution does not guarantee a particular right does not mean that legislators should not continue to uphold that right. It only means that they have no obligation to do so.

So it isn't so much "the right to bear arms" it's "the right to bear the arms the government will let you have"?
There is a big difference between a medium sized shotgun and a WMD. WMDs and other ridiculously powerful weapons serve no purpose other than killing massive numbers of people. If someone owns such a weapon, we can safely assume that their intent is illicit.

Hehe... I love it when people spell that incorrectly... Those arms aren't all that big, though. :D
Hey, props ... I made that joke first ...

Yes.

This is America. We drive stupid H1/H2s because they were the biggest civilian passenger vehicle. We go to buffets because we can eat all we want. We want big familys, because we (most of the time) love kids, we want big houses, big trucks, etc. It's not uniquely american, but....

Wish you could buy tanks here... just so i could drive home after parties in it.
'I'm drunk? No, buddy, im in a tank. screw you' *drives over several houses and cars*

The citizens are an authoritarian regime? I dont really get what you're trying to say. Please elaborate.

Although the original purpose was to protect the citizens from authoritarian governments, now that (the right-wing gun nuts) are one, the current right-wing interpretation is "anything that we can easily deal with." If a large angry mob assembled just outside of Capitol Hill armed to the teeth with semiautomatics, I'm sure many politicians would get out of bed with the NRA in a heartbeat.

Tanks are already legal in the US. Never hear of a civilian tank going on a rampage....

Damnit... I can't find the link...

Damnit... I can't find the link...

I believe I know what you're thinking of. It was in San Diego in the mid-90's and was stolen from a Reserve base.

Damnit... I can't find the link...

I know what you're talking about, saw it on "America's Top 10 Car Chases" a few years back. Some nutjob got his hands on a tank, and was chased down by the cops, along with some military personnel, IIRC. I believe it ended with someone crawling on top of the tank, opening the hatch, and shooting him.

I believe I know what you're thinking of. It was in San Diego in the mid-90's and was stolen from a Reserve base.
Heh heh. I think I saw the news video of that .... the guy who stole it was high on meth.

Heh heh. I think I saw the news video of that .... the guy who stole it was high on meth.

I was in SD and watched it live. A guy I worked w/ drove the SD police chief to the scene on his motorcycle.

Damnit... I can't find the link...
Actually, I know what you're talking about. I saw it on the news. Some guy did hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of dollars worth of damage. He was really angry that the local town council wouldn't let him build a pool in his back yard, or something like that, so he spent a year building his own tank. He didn't kill or even hurt anyone but himself, though.

http://www.frif.com/new2002/cul.html

Found it.

You know, I think some of us are refering to completely different events. Apparently, this has happened more than once.

http://www.frif.com/new2002/cul.html

Found it.
That's the one.

You know, I think some of us are refering to completely different events. Apparently, this has happened more than once.

Do you have a link for yours?

You know, I think some of us are refering to completely different events. Apparently, this has happened more than once.

Well, that link is the one that I was alluding to.

Do you have a link for yours?
I'll look for it.

Well, that's what I was aluding to.

Sounded familiar. It wasn't civilian owned. Twas stolen.

Although the original purpose was to protect the citizens from authoritarian governments, now that (the right-wing gun nuts) are one, the current right-wing interpretation is "anything that we can easily deal with." If a large angry mob assembled just outside of Capitol Hill armed to the teeth with semiautomatics, I'm sure many politicians would get out of bed with the NRA in a heartbeat.

What about left-wing gun nuts?

I'll look for it.

Cool, I'ld like to read about it.

There is a big difference between a medium sized shotgun and a WMD. WMDs and other ridiculously powerful weapons serve no purpose other than killing massive numbers of people. If someone owns such a weapon, we can safely assume that their intent is illicit.

So it is the right to bear the arms the government lets you bear?

So...how on earth is it a protection against an authoritarian government, as so many claim?

So it is the right to bear the arms the government lets you bear?

So...how on earth is it a protection against an authoritarian government, as so many claim?

You don't think millions of people w/ firearms can overthrow a regime?

What about left-wing gun nuts?

We aren't in power.

You don't think millions of people w/ firearms can overthrow a regime?

not one that spends $550 billion on its military.

So it is the right to bear the arms the government lets you bear?

So...how on earth is it a protection against an authoritarian government, as so many claim?

Something's better than nothing. Besides, if WMDs overthrew the government, they'd kill a lot of oppressed civilians at the same time. Kind of defeats the purpose of liberation. The guns are so the entire populous can rise up, not just a handful with extremely distructive weapons.

So it is the right to bear the arms the government lets you bear?

So...how on earth is it a protection against an authoritarian government, as so many claim?
Ohhhhh you meant bear arms. My bad.

You do have a right to bear arms. (http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/secondamendment/male)

You don't think millions of people w/ firearms can overthrow a regime?
A couple of million people with pistols and shotguns vs. the strongest army in the world.

Hmm....

The Supreme Court hasn't stated, in any way, the extent to which the right to bear arms ought to extend. It has only ruled that the Constitution extends a guarantee to that right in a limited way. The fact that the constitution does not guarantee a particular right does not mean that legislators should not continue to uphold that right. It only means that they have no obligation to do so.

Which is why the 2nd Amendment should be modernized where it will specify what is allowed and what isn't and end this debate. Really though, anyone who thinks they should be allowed to own something like an RPG launcher is an idiot. I say that without hesitation. Total MORON.

I was in SD and watched it live. A guy I worked w/ drove the SD police chief to the scene on his motorcycle.

He was also shot and killed by a guy on top of the tank with a PISTOL.

A couple of million people with pistols and shotguns vs. the strongest army in the world.

Hmm....

Forgetting that parts of that army wouldn't stand for an oppressive government...

Besides, a few thousand with light arms are giving us trouble in Iraq, so why can't millions cause a lot more damage?

You know, I think some of us are refering to completely different events. Apparently, this has happened more than once.

The incident you're referring to is when the guy took a bulldozer, armored the cab of it up with plate steel, and destroyed his neighborhood. They had to shoot him to stop him.

A couple of million people with pistols and shotguns vs. the strongest army in the world.

Hmm....

In any case it would cause a massive headache to those in power.

Forgetting that parts of that army wouldn't stand for an oppressive government...

Besides, a few thousand with light arms are giving us trouble in Iraq, so why can't millions cause a lot more damage?

Because to admit anything else would acknowledge that the people can have the power pever their gov't through the use of personal firearms.

The incident you're referring to is when the guy took a bulldozer, armored the cab of it up with plate steel, and destroyed his neighborhood. They had to shoot him to stop him.

So we have two armored vehicles stopped w/ small-arms.

So we have two armored vehicles stopped w/ small-arms.

Pretty much, yep. Kind of blows away the theory that we wouldn't be able to do anything against armor, in the event of a civil war.

The important part of the 2nd ammendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." since it concerns all citizens of the USA and not just state militias. Congress seems to have a problem with whats after the comma. That and people try to say that the word "people" refers to the state and not the citizens, though that would be in contradiction to the interpertation of every other ammendment! Basically, any attempt at firearm control would be unconstitutional expect for the fact that the Supreme Court A) gave itself the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison and B) is usually pro guncontrol as was shown in United States v. Miller.

http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews5/rampages.htm
The one of which I was thinking technically involved an "armored bulldozer." Interestingly this sight also includes the other example, plus an additional third example.
Never hear of a civilian tank going on a rampage....
DesignatedMarksman, your statement has proven to be one of the most incorrect statements in the historty of humankind. Congratulations!

http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews5/rampages.htm
The one of which I was thinking technically involved an "armored bulldozer." Interestingly this sight also includes the other example, plus an additional third example.

DesignatedMarksman, your statement has proven to be one of the most incorrect statements in the historty of humankind. Congratulations!

Two involving bulldozers, one involving a stolen tank.

None involving civilian owned LAV's or tanks.

All being stopped w/ small arms.

Thanks for the read though. This is a bookmark.

Forgetting that parts of that army wouldn't stand for an oppressive government...

For the oppressive government to exist in the first place, the military would have to be on their side. Try again, this time without the flaws that anyone who has ever been within 1 mile of a history book could point out.

You don't think millions of people w/ firearms can overthrow a regime?
Liasia']not one that spends $550 billion on its military.

That's assuming that soldiers would be willing to fire on friends and family if ordered...:gundge:

That's assuming that soldiers would be willing to fire on friends and family if ordered...:gundge:

They fire on other people's friends and family in Iraq. Just don't deploy soldiers to thier hometown, and you're ok.

For the oppressive government to exist in the first place, the military would have to be on their side. Try again, this time without the flaws that anyone who has ever been within 1 mile of a history book could point out.

You assume that the entire army is supporting them. That's as big of a flaw as saying they all wouldn't. You're obviously farther than a mile from a history book then.

For the oppressive government to exist in the first place, the military would have to be on their side. Try again, this time without the flaws that anyone who has ever been within 1 mile of a history book could point out.

Once again, parts. There's always that rogue division or two standing against them. I'm not saying the entire armed forces would help the revolt, but I know a few ex-soldiers, and I could tell you that they would take up arms against such a government in an instant.

You assume that the entire army is supporting them. That's as big of a flaw as saying they all wouldn't. You're obviously farther than a mile from a history book then.
In order for an oppressive regime to exist, the vast majority of the military must support them. Is this really so difficult to comprehend?

Which is why the 2nd Amendment should be modernized where it will specify what is allowed and what isn't and end this debate. Really though, anyone who thinks they should be allowed to own something like an RPG launcher is an idiot. I say that without hesitation. Total MORON.
What do you have against Role Playing Games?

Looks up RGP weapon on google...

Rocket Propelled Grenade. Oh, I see.

Anyway, this thread has been puntastic.

Once again, parts. There's always that rogue division or two standing against them. I'm not saying the entire armed forces would help the revolt, but I know a few ex-soldiers, and I could tell you that they would take up arms against such a government in an instant.

But its easier to assume that all soldiers are mindless automotons that get a thrill out of killing people.

Once again, parts. There's always that rogue division or two standing against them. I'm not saying the entire armed forces would help the revolt, but I know a few ex-soldiers, and I could tell you that they would take up arms against such a government in an instant.
Let's see. Germany? Nope, no rogue division. U.S.S.R.? No rogue division. North Korea? Nope. North Vietnam? Nope. China? Nope. Iran? Iraq? I'm sorry. You lose.

But its easier to assume that all soldiers are mindless automotons that get a thrill out of killing people.
The ones who the oppressive regime would LET be soldiers would be. Comprende?

In order for an oppressive regime to exist, the vast majority of the military must support them. Is this really so difficult to comprehend?

And yet the poster said that parts wouldn't, hence giving the armed civilians an advantage.

Millions of armed people vs a few hundred thousand (dubiously) loyal troops.

Don't just stop with really really big arms, go all the way to Heavyarms (http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/katoki/xxxg-01h.jpg)! :D

And yet the poster said that parts wouldn't, hence giving the armed civilians an advantage.

Millions of armed people vs a few hundred thousand (dubiously) loyal troops.
That's the problem. All the parts would. An oppressive regime does not let people who are not utterly loyal join their goddamn military.

Let's see. Germany? Nope, no rogue division. U.S.S.R.? No rogue division. North Korea? Nope. North Vietnam? Nope. China? Nope. Iran? Iraq? I'm sorry. You lose.

Let's see. Germany? No armed populace. USSR? No armed populace. North Korea? No armed populace. North Vietnam? No armed populace. China? No armed populace? Etc. etc. You lose.

The ones who the oppressive regime would LET be soldiers would be. Comprende?

And what exactly does this loyalty test consist of? Seeing who follows the order to return to home soil and kill their friends and neighbors?

And how do they deal with the ships, planes and tanks being run by the disloyal military?

Please someone, point me to a history book with relevant topics on this...

That's the problem. All the parts would. An oppressive regime does not let people who are not utterly loyal join their goddamn military.

You obviously know very little about the military.

Let's see. Germany? No armed populace. USSR? No armed populace. North Korea? No armed populace. North Vietnam? No armed populace. China? No armed populace? Etc. etc. You lose.

Yes, and as several people have already said, we aren't doing that well against Iraq's armed populace, even though we went through their regular army like swiss cheese.

You obviously know very little about the military.
I'm not saying that all militaries are like this. I'm saying that the ones controlled by oppressive governemnts are. Jesus motherfucking Christ.

Yes, and as several people have already said, we aren't doing that well against Iraq's armed populace, even though we went through their regular army like swiss cheese.

But wait. The other arguement is that an armed populace wouldn't be able to effect the US military.

Both can't be true.

Yes, and as several people have already said, we aren't doing that well against Iraq's armed populace, even though we went through their regular army like swiss cheese.
Which, incidentally, were armed when Hussein was in power.

Also, Iraq didn't have anything more than a token military.

I'm not saying that all militaries are like this. I'm saying that the ones controlled by oppressive governemnts are. Jesus motherfucking Christ.

Do you have any proof of this whatsoever? You're trying to say that the militaries of said countries would almost entirely support the regime against a popularist civilian uprising and would fire upon thier own people w/o large scale desertions.

If you read up on Tiananmen square, you'ld find that the Chinese had troubles w/ elements of their military in repressing the protestors. Not all of them opened up on civilians.

If you were within a mile of a history book, you'ld know that.

Let's see. Germany? Nope, no rogue division. U.S.S.R.? No rogue division. North Korea? Nope. North Vietnam? Nope. China? Nope. Iran? Iraq? I'm sorry. You lose.

Germany- Support of the populace, at least those they didn't kill/
USSR- Formed by a revolt of the masses against the government. Ultimately fell because the military turned against the government. Well what do you know...
China- War fought over it, nationalist portion of the military vs. the communist portion. Nationalists lost.
North Korea- Handed over from Japan to USSR at the end of World War II, no standing army of itself.
Iran- Popular revolution. Members of the opposing party fled the country.
Iraq- Mass surrenders during the first and second gulf war. So much for loyalty...

And for the countries where such a thing happened:
France- After Germany took over in World War II, members of the French military launched guerilla warfare operations against the Nazis.
America- BENEDICT ARNOLD.
England- Tribes chosing sides against the Romans.
Rwanda- parts of the military did do something to stop the massacre. Not alot, and not enough, but it still happened.


I'm sorry.
You lose.

Which, incidentally, were armed when Hussein was in power.

Also, Iraq didn't have anything more than a token military.

IIRC, Hussein passed out arms to his people shortly before we invaded. I don't know how well armed they were before that, but it's still interesting that we're having a lot more trouble with the Iraqi people than we did with their "official" military, even allowing for its weakness.

Many of the independance wars throughout history have involved a civilian militia. The American Revolution is a perfect example. We eventually organized ourselves into a proper military force. It would have been next to impossible to do so without previously armed civillians.

I think that, despite the fact that a civillian revolution is very difficult (even with firearms) an armed populace helps to combat authoritarian government for the following reasons:

1. With firearms, a revolutionary civillian group can more easily form itself into a proper military force. Such a force has an outside chance at victory if they use guerilla (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/520375/2/istockphoto_520375_gorilla_face.jpg) tactics.

2. If it is difficult to win this kind of revolution even when the populace is armed, imagine how much more difficult it would be without an armed civilianry.

3. Even if this kind of revolution has little chance of success, it has a very good chance to make life much more difficult for those in power. This causes these powerful people to think twice before making arbitrary authoritarian laws.

Liasia']Wish you could buy tanks here... just so i could drive home after parties in it.
'I'm drunk? No, buddy, im in a tank. screw you' *drives over several houses and cars*

Tank aren't exactly the car and building crushers you seem to think they are.

So it is the right to bear the arms the government lets you bear?

So...how on earth is it a protection against an authoritarian government, as so many claim?
I'm saying that there are limits to the right to bear arms. That does not mean that I think the government should get to define those limits.

Which, incidentally, were armed when Hussein was in power.

Also, Iraq didn't have anything more than a token military.

It was the 4th largest army until it tangled with the US.

Liasia']They fire on other people's friends and family in Iraq. Just don't deploy soldiers to thier hometown, and you're ok.

The national guard who were deployed to New Orleans had a problem with it. They hated the fact they were patrolling an American city. One even said he'd feel more comfortable in Iraq that in NO.

It was the 4th largest army until it tangled with the US.
Actually...
According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated the armed forces to number 389,000 at the time of Gulf War II.

That would place them as the 13th largest army, between Egypt and Syria, when counting active troops - again according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops).


(Iraq was reported to have an army of 545,000 at the time of Gulf War I, by the way. That would have given them 10th place in 2003-2004)

Actually...
According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated the armed forces to number 389,000 at the time of Gulf War II.

That would place them as the 13th largest army, between Egypt and Syria, when counting active troops - again according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops).


(Iraq was reported to have an army of 545,000 at the time of Gulf War I, by the way. That would have given them 10th place in 2003-2004)

GW1.

Liasia']And that's why he isn't in control.

You're an idiot. Gun control is a minority belief. Most American support the freedom of owning what they want.

I'm saying that there are limits to the right to bear arms. That does not mean that I think the government should get to define those limits.
So who should?

So who should?

Noone except the people and common sense.

When it comes to, you know, weapons, and, like, people, it's not that complicated, really. Rights are nothing, stop talking about rights.

Generally, in this western society that most of us share, guns are bad, and people shouldn't have them. They just end up ending lives and hurting others, and that's sick.

It was a long fricking time ago, a primitive age in many political respects, but the US constitution was heading vaguely along the right lines, even if overly hung-up on dominant ideas of statehood and then-new-and-interesting waffle about rights.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."

That's why the 'right' to bear arms is important. It's not to keep some imaginary psycho out of your house, some guy who only exists one per X-thousand head of population and has no disproportionate power, some guy you saw in a movie. It's not to protect against the random maniac, but the organised conspiracy of statehood and improper administration of your damn life.

If you have the wussy 'right' to bear arms, you damn well bear them against your corrupt, murderous, thieving government, and not against the fricking desperate crack-addict robber.

You certainly don't let said government revise what you're allowed to have based on the changing of technology so as every year to tip the balance further and further in their favour. You mount your 'fifty on your hummer and you drive to Washington and politely ask for a resignation or two.

But it's easier to point a 9mm auto at a down-and-out negro or somethin, whatever, good job you've got the 'right'.

[throws up hands in despair]

[Private citizens with guns in a disenfranchised society of the alienated: bad.

Comrades in arms across a democratic society aiming its muzzles against the conspirator: good.]

When it comes to, you know, weapons, and, like, people, it's not that complicated, really. Rights are nothing, stop talking about rights.

Generally, in this western society that most of us share, guns are bad, and people shouldn't have them. They just end up ending lives and hurting others, and that's sick.

It was a long fricking time ago, a primitive age in many political respects, but the US constitution was heading vaguely along the right lines, even if overly hung-up on dominant ideas of statehood and then-new-and-interesting waffle about rights.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."

That's why the 'right' to bear arms is important. It's not to keep some imaginary psycho out of your house, some guy who only exists one per X-thousand head of population and has no disproportionate power, some guy you saw in a movie. It's not to protect against the random maniac, but the organised conspiracy of statehood and improper administration of your damn life.

If you have the wussy 'right' to bear arms, you damn well bear them against your corrupt, murderous, thieving government, and not against the fricking desperate crack-addict robber.

You certainly don't let said government revise what you're allowed to have based on the changing of technology so as every year to tip the balance further and further in their favour. You mount your 'fifty on your hummer and you drive to Washington and politely ask for a resignation or two.

But it's easier to point a 9mm auto at a down-and-out negro or somethin, whatever, good job you've got the 'right'.

[throws up hands in despair]

Hey, if I could, I'd reinforce my walls with concrete, armor my windows, and put XM-312's in the windows and mortar launchers on the roof. Unfortunatly, it costs rougly 10 grand a year to get liscenced for the 3rd part (if I could get an XM312 that'd be insane) and over 300,000 for a machine gun (due primarly to the fact it is impossilbe to get the liscence to have them in the first place!) And why? Because the railroad is exercising eminent domain to build yet another track rather than boost efficiency. Afterall, citizens at the time of the revolution had military grade weapons... they were the military!

It may be an old joke, but the right to arm bears is far more important in my opinion.

Tell me this isn't badass: gun-totting panda bears (http://uploads.blizzpub.net/uploads/cyber_panda_cyber_panda_panda_gun_small.jpg). I thought you couldn't.

Supreme court disagrees.
Actually PD, SCOTUS has never made a 'hard' decision on the subject post 1900. And given that the first case post-reconstruction was about a bunch of white guys keeping blacks from owning firearms, I'm highly fucking suspicious of the 2 cases therein.

When it comes to, you know, weapons, and, like, people, it's not that complicated, really. Rights are nothing, stop talking about rights.

Generally, in this western society that most of us share, guns are bad, and people shouldn't have them. They just end up ending lives and hurting others, and that's sick.

It was a long fricking time ago, a primitive age in many political respects, but the US constitution was heading vaguely along the right lines, even if overly hung-up on dominant ideas of statehood and then-new-and-interesting waffle about rights.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."

That's why the 'right' to bear arms is important. It's not to keep some imaginary psycho out of your house, some guy who only exists one per X-thousand head of population and has no disproportionate power, some guy you saw in a movie. It's not to protect against the random maniac, but the organised conspiracy of statehood and improper administration of your damn life.

If you have the wussy 'right' to bear arms, you damn well bear them against your corrupt, murderous, thieving government, and not against the fricking desperate crack-addict robber.

You certainly don't let said government revise what you're allowed to have based on the changing of technology so as every year to tip the balance further and further in their favour. You mount your 'fifty on your hummer and you drive to Washington and politely ask for a resignation or two.

But it's easier to point a 9mm auto at a down-and-out negro or somethin, whatever, good job you've got the 'right'.

[throws up hands in despair]
Wrong. If that were the only case in which the right applied than the words 'for the common defense' would have been added to it instead of the motion being struck down in the debates over the creation of the BoR.

Enough trend threads on this dumb joke already.