Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Debate on gun control should ask


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#31    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,601 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 14 February 2013 - 12:19 AM

View PostTiggs, on 14 February 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

Interesting. I thought militia's were supposed to be trained by the state, with state-appointed officers.

In fact - that's what I thought the national guard was, more or less.

So - are there no militia's at State level, anymore?

No state owns a militia, but they are protected by the soldiers stationed in the States. By law, the States own the soldiers who are stationed in the forts in their state.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein

#32    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 14 February 2013 - 12:22 AM

Quote

We don't want something crazy to happen but if we are disarmed the likely hood that something crazy happens increases greatly.

But then, once again, isn't the likelyhood of something crazy happening also increased because you are not armed with rocket launchers, grenades and tanks?

Quote

Seriously Stellar, I think you do get it. I think by now you really understand the reasonings. I've seen you post in other matters and you are sensible. You don't need to nitpick me because we've been adversaries on this matter. I don't mind that you don't see the need for 30 round magazines but I'd like you to finally admit you understand the second amendment or at least see why we hold it in such high regards.
While I don't see the need for a 30 round magazine, I also don't see a need to restrict them. I understand the purpose of your second amendment, but just as you have demonstrated in your past couple posts, I also see room for sensible control measure to be inacted in the interests of safety. Unfortunately, and this may come off as a little bit insulting but there's no way to sugar coat it, I don't believe many Americans even understand or hold the 2nd amendment in high regard. I think that most simply use it as a crutch to argue their desire for no change, rather than truely holding up the 2nd amendment for what its supposed to be.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#33    F3SS

F3SS

    FoT

  • Member
  • 9,833 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh

  • Father of Twins
    3-16-16

Posted 14 February 2013 - 12:33 AM

View PostStellar, on 14 February 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:



But then, once again, isn't the likelyhood of something crazy happening also increased because you are not armed with rocket launchers, grenades and tanks?

While I don't see the need for a 30 round magazine, I also don't see a need to restrict them. I understand the purpose of your second amendment, but just as you have demonstrated in your past couple posts, I also see room for sensible control measure to be inacted in the interests of safety. Unfortunately, and this may come off as a little bit insulting but there's no way to sugar coat it, I don't believe many Americans even understand or hold the 2nd amendment in high regard. I think that most simply use it as a crutch to argue their desire for no change, rather than truely holding up the 2nd amendment for what its supposed to be.

No because it doesn't take much to ward off evil. Simply brandishing a small gun is enough to deter a situation from going further than it should. Just ask Michelle.

Yea and a lot of people don't know planet they're on half the time either but not everybody has to understand it. They should but that's people for you. Not all will. But many many many do and so long as there are a whole bunch that do get it that's all it takes to keep it around. I hope you weren't speaking of me or many other posters here. The ones who pop in and out like trolls, ok. But those of us who return day in and day out to continue these conversations do get it and do hold it in high regards or else we'd all be hanging out in the cryptozoology threads instead. No offense to the crypto lovers.


#34    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 10,170 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:31 AM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 14 February 2013 - 12:19 AM, said:

1986 machine gun or not it's still a machine gun. Honestly I don't mind the lack of machine guns. My neighbor could have 50 guns each with hundred round clips but in the event of an accident and a bullet heads towards my house the odds are slim that it'll be right where I am sitting. Now if a machine guns goes off accidentally, however that might happen is regardless, unless it's mounted in a vice it isn't going to hit the same spot twice. There may be dozens of bullets heading my way in various directions.

As a sensible person I can not see a valid argument on the need for an automatic weapon. However, America is about the pursuit of happiness, not needs. If you have the means and the right locations to enjoy such toys I say have at it. Don't mistake me being uncomfortable with a machine gun next door with me wanting the rights to have one hindered. I'm uncomfortable with every teenager in town driving a car but such is life.

I think there's a trade off to be made between allowing the pursuit of happiness and the amount of lives that someone could take with relatively little effort.

I'm sure that having the power to make Mushroom-shaped clouds would make some people very happy, but given that we live in an age where people will fly planes into buildings - I think you have to accept that it's inevitable that anything which is publicly available will also be used against the public.

I think that's the argument that's being made with the proposed ban on assault rifles - I just think it's a poor argument, given that other semi-automatics exist which wouldn't be banned, and are just as deadly.

I personally don't have an issue with assault rifles being owned by the public, especially given the current wide availability of semi-automatics. Restricting the amount of ammo in a magazine? Ehn. From what I've read, the Sandy Hook shooter, for example, changed magazine often enough, with no apparent lower casualty toll.

Automatics I'd be more worried about if they were in general circulation. However - I'm fine with them being rare, expensive and needing a signed permit.

In short - I think that the laws on gun restrictions are probably fine, right where they are,

I do, however, think that there's a constitutional basis for the Government to be able to restrict which weapons are allowed to be publicly available. Which is a good thing. Because suitcase nukes.

I also believe that state-regulated militia's should be allowed access to everything. Including suitcase nukes.

Except, apparently - there are no state-level milita's - which I'm still trying to get my head around.

Edited by Tiggs, 14 February 2013 - 01:51 AM.
Because the UI editor keeps throwing random size tags into my posts


#35    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:37 AM

Google any State and add militia and you will find State militias. There is one in my state.  Im not gonna say I agree with them at this point but it does exist.


#36    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 10,170 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:16 AM

View PostAsteroidX, on 14 February 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

Google any State and add militia and you will find State militias. There is one in my state.  Im not gonna say I agree with them at this point but it does exist.

Such as the State defence forces?

They're like the National guard, but can't be employed for Federal use. Which confused me at first, because I thought Militia's, as per the constitution, were available for Federal call up, but it seems as if they're like a Militia reserve, in effect, for times when the State National Guard has been deployed.


#37    aztek

aztek

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,640 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:21 AM

may be the idea of them not being under feds control is exactly the point of their existence, to protect from forces that are under fed. control?

RESIDENT TROLL.

#38    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,282 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:11 AM

View PostUncle Sam, on 13 February 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

eroding of our constitutional rights by the government. This government is trying to find every loophole they can to bypass the constitution rights we are promised,

The consitutional amendments, even if you believe that those not in a militia can have guns, are not unlimited and not unchangable.

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 13 February 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Can you name a gun or any weapon that isn't considered dangerous?

Nerf.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#39    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,282 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:14 AM

View PostUncle Sam, on 13 February 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

What they mean is stuff like Rockets, Explosives, Tanks, 50 Caliber Mini-guns, and other weapons of war are banned by the government. Civilian uses are Rifles, Pistols, Shotguns, SMGs, Assault Rifles, and sniper rifles to name a few that can be used by civilians for different reasons.

so you're ok with government regulation of arms but don't want that regulation to change.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#40    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,282 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:16 AM

View PostUncle Sam, on 13 February 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

It is a militia formed by the civilians.

since there are almost no one in these anachronistic organizations, and since you must be in one in order to bear arms, that means that almost no one has the right to bear arms.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#41    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,282 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:19 AM

View PostTiggs, on 14 February 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

Which confused me at first, because I thought Militia's, as per the constitution, were available for Federal call up, but it seems as if they're like a Militia reserve, in effect, for times when the State National Guard has been deployed.

no, they are a bunch of guys running around with guns.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#42    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,601 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 14 February 2013 - 09:44 PM

View PostTiggs, on 14 February 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

Such as the State defence forces?

They're like the National guard, but can't be employed for Federal use. Which confused me at first, because I thought Militia's, as per the constitution, were available for Federal call up, but it seems as if they're like a Militia reserve, in effect, for times when the State National Guard has been deployed.

That is where people get things quite wrong. Militia is for the state and civilians. While the military, reserves, navy, etc etc is a government owned militia.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein

#43    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 14 February 2013 - 09:46 PM

Quote

They're like the National guard, but can't be employed for Federal use. Which confused me at first, because I thought Militia's, as per the constitution, were available for Federal call up, but it seems as if they're like a Militia reserve, in effect, for times when the State National Guard has been deployed.

Yes Tiggs. The National Guard I believe ...Im not certain use to be the states militia but somewhere around the Civil War it was federalized. I havent done enough research on this but I believe thats about how it went down.


#44    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,601 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 14 February 2013 - 09:53 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 14 February 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

Yes Tiggs. The National Guard I believe ...Im not certain use to be the states militia but somewhere around the Civil War it was federalized. I havent done enough research on this but I believe thats about how it went down.

National Guard are not a state militia, never was, they always been owned by the government and used to protect the assets of America.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein

#45    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 14 February 2013 - 09:57 PM

Id double check your pre civil war info on that one. Like I said Im not certain. But I know there was a big change from a Republic to a Democracy at that time and after the Civil War everything was Federalized. In part due to the Southern militias aka National Guard rising up from the South against the North. Or if your Southerner protecting there Rights from the Federalized Govmnt. Im not sure there was even a National Guard before then as they were only referred to as militias...I could be way wrong however. Im still studying Revolutionary history. Havent gotten to the Civil War yet.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users