News:

If you need instructions on how to get through the hotels, check out the enclosed instruction book.

Main Menu

More than 1 school shooting per week in the land of the free

Farted by Thor, January 22, 2013, 02:40:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TropicanaClock

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937365How about the fact that if you tried to take guns from Americans a civil war would break out. Is that good enough for you?

We dont need no civil warr :rockin:

Marlin Clock

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937365How about the fact that if you tried to take guns from Americans a civil war would break out. Is that good enough for you?

I hope people don't have so much ignorance and anger in their hearts that they see these dangerous weapons being taken from them and decide to go kill people. Does anyone who owns guns seriously think an armed rebellion would be able to take on the United States Armed Forces?
They wouldn't.

EvilBeanClock


Slurpee

Quote from: FamineClock;1937342Oh sweet, do you ever thing they'd be able to edit the second amendment?

Realistically? Not for at least a couple decades, if ever.

Constitutional amendments have to be passed by a two-thirds majority by the houses of congress, both of which give disproportionate representation to the smaller, more rural states, which would never modify or revoke the second amendment with a sitting Democratic president anywhere left of Reagan. Even if they wanted to, it'd be a flatly moronic political move. After that, proposed amendments have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states of the union, a process which can take upward of two hundred years. The mentality of the entire culture would have to shift to even put it on the table, and even so would be quite a feat. We have, as I've mentioned, a fondness for our own legacy, which makes it difficult to buck tradition, and Americans love their guns.

The only progress to be made in the short term is going to be from lefties stretching the interpretation of the spirit of the amendment, and hoping the Supreme Court doesn't strike them down.
 
Quote from: FamineClock;1937363I agree to a point, I still fail to see the use of letting civilians carry arms.
When the United States was formed, we had a division of power between the individual states and the federal government. Power was given to the states to arm their citizens into militias, which were to be under command of the President during wartime. There was a fear that without a standing civilian army in peacetime there would be a federal takeover of the military, making succession from the government impossible- the states wished to maintain a greater deal of independence from the federal government than they currently have. The federal government began forming a larger centralized military after a failure to suppress the Shay rebellion, and the second amendment was adopted to assure the states that the government wouldn't dissolve their militias (one of the first things the Brits tried to do in the early stages of the American Revolution was disarm the colonies to prevent armed insurrection against the crown.) The United States was a crazy experiment and everybody was afraid of fucking up and accidentally creating a tin pot dictatorship. We wanted assurance that if we couldn't change our government, we'd be able to overthrow it and have another go. Armed insurrection against the federal government no longer being what it once was, the second amendment's looser ancillary interpretation of maintaining civilian firearms as an extension of the natural right to individual self-defense is generally what's under discussion in modern times.

Thor

Slurpee just said what I was about to; the point of the second amendment isn't about self defense or malitias. It's about making sure that the American people COULD OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT if it got corrupt.

Here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson to give some context:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."


Or more recently,  Abraham Lincoln said:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."


How are we supposed to violently overthrow the government if we don't have our guns??

For those wondering btw, we're overthrowing the government next week, on sunday. Bring your assault rifles and a bagged lunch.
Quote from: MafiaMettaurWhat the hell is with that shit you posted? You know what, I'm joining the Locks, just to stop stuff like you!
Quote from: polyhedronclockYou're a fucking clock, what else do you have?
To be fair, you don't have anything. Clocks are just machines that tick.

AbsintheClock

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937381I hope people don't have so much ignorance and anger in their hearts that they see these dangerous weapons being taken from them and decide to go kill people. Does anyone who owns guns seriously think an armed rebellion would be able to take on the United States Armed Forces?
They wouldn't.

I think that in theory if shit went downhill that people could give the government a run for it's money. People probably wouldn't win the fight, but they would probably gain international sympathy because let's face it there's always somebody in an authority figure who takes enforcement way overboard. I think that beyond guns people would start doing other things like destroying infrastructure, hacking computers, creating homemade bombs out of cheap household materials, and all kinds of other fucked up things. The fact is there are a lot of really crazy people who are kept in line by the fact that they can sleep with their rifles.

buttplug

Quote from: FamineClock;1937330But would you guys ever revoke an amendment?

Yes, the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment.

Marlin Clock

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937397I think that in theory if shit went downhill that people could give the government a run for it's money. People probably wouldn't win the fight, but they would probably gain international sympathy because let's face it there's always somebody in an authority figure who takes enforcement way overboard. I think that beyond guns people would start doing other things like destroying infrastructure, hacking computers, creating homemade bombs out of cheap household materials, and all kinds of other fucked up things. The fact is there are a lot of really crazy people who are kept in line by the fact that they can sleep with their rifles.

I'd say thats a textbook case of treating a symptom and not a cause. I'd rather my crazy people be getting psychiatric help not deadly pacifiers.

SpongeClock SquarePants

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937350Problem is I'm pretty sure Newtown guy's guns weren't his own, they were his mom's. How are you supposed to stop that kind of contingency?

you don't

AlbinoClock

Five, actually. Sandy Brook was in December, the 10th school shooting in the US last year.
 
If you want to address the murder rate in the country you tackle institutional racism and the toxic culture it's created. Without the violence created by crippling poverty the US suddenly has a murder rate like that in Western Europe. You need financial infrastructure in these neighborhoods so people can feel like they have a decent alternative to crime and violence.
 
If it's just the white children you're concerned about and you want to address school shootings specifically you go after bullying. Most of these shootings are involving students who've just snapped. It's hardly surprising that occasionally someone loses their shit and kills the people they perceive as their tormentors. School, for many kids, is nothing short of torture. Maybe taking that a bit more seriously is a little more worthwhile than freaking out about guns. Personally, it's the suicide rate that makes me want to do something about that. Worrying about school shootings is like worrying about getting hit by lightning.
 
Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937381I hope people don't have so much ignorance and anger in their hearts that they see these dangerous weapons being taken from them and decide to go kill people. Does anyone who owns guns seriously think an armed rebellion would be able to take on the United States Armed Forces?
They wouldn't.

It would never, ever get that far. Any politician trying to enforce a ban on guns would most likely be assassinated. They could maybe get away with it in some Northern states, but try that shit south of the Mason-Dixon and we're gonna have some dead bodies on our hands.

AlbinoClock

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937351"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."

The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson has only one comma. "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." It's a very important comma. The portion before the comma is the reasoning for the conclusion after the comma. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, yes? Well, then, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, but a right of the people. We may say that "well yes, their intention was to keep a well regulated militia", but they clearly state that the result of their intention is that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because otherwise, who's to say that the militia is well-regulated? You can have a corrupt militia leader just as readily as you can have a tin-pot dictator. But if the people are well armed, you don't have to worry about who runs the militia, because if he's a dick you can just shoot him.

Thor

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937381Does anyone who owns guns seriously think an armed rebellion would be able to take on the United States Armed Forces?

A lot of the people in the Army are the kind of people who would be willing to revolt because their guns got taken away. The US military is full of ignorant people.
Quote from: MafiaMettaurWhat the hell is with that shit you posted? You know what, I'm joining the Locks, just to stop stuff like you!
Quote from: polyhedronclockYou're a fucking clock, what else do you have?
To be fair, you don't have anything. Clocks are just machines that tick.

d u m p y


AbsintheClock

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1937437Solid point about the comma

You're right about that, and the result is that anyone can kill just about anyone. The question is how many people can you kill before somebody stops you from ever killing again, and could you survive it? Whether it's in the setting of a movie theater, or on a battlefield that's the big question and a lot of people really don't like the answer.

FamineClock

Quote from: Slurpee;1937383Realistically? Not for at least a couple decades, if ever.

Constitutional amendments have to be passed by a two-thirds majority by the houses of congress, both of which give disproportionate representation to the smaller, more rural states, which would never modify or revoke the second amendment with a sitting Democratic president anywhere left of Reagan. Even if they wanted to, it'd be a flatly moronic political move. After that, proposed amendments have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states of the union, a process which can take upward of two hundred years. The mentality of the entire culture would have to shift to even put it on the table, and even so would be quite a feat. We have, as I've mentioned, a fondness for our own legacy, which makes it difficult to buck tradition, and Americans love their guns.

The only progress to be made in the short term is going to be from lefties stretching the interpretation of the spirit of the amendment, and hoping the Supreme Court doesn't strike them down.
 

When the United States was formed, we had a division of power between the individual states and the federal government. Power was given to the states to arm their citizens into militias, which were to be under command of the President during wartime. There was a fear that without a standing civilian army in peacetime there would be a federal takeover of the military, making succession from the government impossible- the states wished to maintain a greater deal of independence from the federal government than they currently have. The federal government began forming a larger centralized military after a failure to suppress the Shay rebellion, and the second amendment was adopted to assure the states that the government wouldn't dissolve their militias (one of the first things the Brits tried to do in the early stages of the American Revolution was disarm the colonies to prevent armed insurrection against the crown.) The United States was a crazy experiment and everybody was afraid of fucking up and accidentally creating a tin pot dictatorship. We wanted assurance that if we couldn't change our government, we'd be able to overthrow it and have another go. Armed insurrection against the federal government no longer being what it once was, the second amendment's looser ancillary interpretation of maintaining civilian firearms as an extension of the natural right to individual self-defense is generally what's under discussion in modern times.

Oh as I said before, I do understand WHY the second amendment was useful when it was proposed. But nowdays it seems to be a relic of the past, just like on Ireland (or was it scotland?) you're allowed to shot Englishmen with a bow on Sundays.

I understand the mentality of the more rural US citizens, but as I said before, apart from the now problems of having spread so many guns around: I fail to see how arming civilians is ever a good idea. Even if there was an uprising against a sitting president, a mob with guns are no more an army than a heap of building-material is a house. Without military training civilians with guns couldn't even put a dent on the US military.


Thank you for the very evolved answer by the way, much love :D

Thor

Owning a gun makes you almost 3 times more likely to be a gun homicide victim

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

And people buy self defense guns so they WON'T get shot. Isn't that ironic?
Quote from: MafiaMettaurWhat the hell is with that shit you posted? You know what, I'm joining the Locks, just to stop stuff like you!
Quote from: polyhedronclockYou're a fucking clock, what else do you have?
To be fair, you don't have anything. Clocks are just machines that tick.

SpongeClock SquarePants


Slurpee

Quote from: SpongeClock SquarePants;1937509also shooting guns is hella fun

yeah

AlbinoClock

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937441You're right about that, and the result is that anyone can kill just about anyone. The question is how many people can you kill before somebody stops you from ever killing again, and could you survive it? Whether it's in the setting of a movie theater, or on a battlefield that's the big question and a lot of people really don't like the answer.

Certainly fewer with an armed populace.

Quote from: Thor;1937487Owning a gun makes you almost 3 times more likely to be a gun homicide victim

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

And people buy self defense guns so they WON'T get shot. Isn't that ironic?

Where's the adjusted odds ratio for being poor and black? Because I'm pretty sure that creams all the others to the extent that it makes them more or less irrelevant.

Quote from: whothefuckisfamineclockI understand the mentality of the more rural US citizens, but as I said before, apart from the now problems of having spread so many guns around: I fail to see how arming civilians is ever a good idea. Even if there was an uprising against a sitting president, a mob with guns are no more an army than a heap of building-material is a house. Without military training civilians with guns couldn't even put a dent on the US military.

See my previous comment on murder rates in the US. It's not guns, it's poverty and racism.

AlbinoClock

Quote from: Thor;1937487Owning a gun makes you almost 3 times more likely to be a gun homicide victim

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

And people buy self defense guns so they WON'T get shot. Isn't that ironic?

Where's the adjusted odds ratio for being poor and black? Because I'm pretty sure that creams all the others to the extent that it makes them more or less irrelevant.

Quote from: whothefuckisfamineclockI understand the mentality of the more rural US citizens, but as I said before, apart from the now problems of having spread so many guns around: I fail to see how arming civilians is ever a good idea. Even if there was an uprising against a sitting president, a mob with guns are no more an army than a heap of building-material is a house. Without military training civilians with guns couldn't even put a dent on the US military.

See my previous comment on murder rates in the US. It's not guns, it's poverty and racism.