Welcome to Gaia! ::

Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Keltoi Samurai
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Keltoi Samurai
I can agree on the religious part, at least, which is especially sad considering the long history of scientists being men of God ( though, the Church does have this on-again/off-again love affair with burning said scientific men of God as heretics ).

still, though . . . calling out people for expressing their Constitutional rights is kinda not a good thing to be doing when you're gunning for a job dedicated to protecting and upholding said constitution.


I'd say that's down to a long history of the majority population being men of God, whereas since science killed God, the opposition has arisen.

I don't recall "gun" being mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.


Science has not killed God, as Science is the understanding of the Natural World, and God, by it's very definition, is a supernatural being, thus existing outside of the natural world, thus existing in a realm that science can make no comment on, one way or the other. the only reason the scientifically minded say "there is no God" is the same as the reason the religiously minded say "because God said so," specifically: they are afraid to say "I don't know" where people might hear them.

the US Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which covers the right to keep and to bear arms.

now, unless you contend that "arms" meant something other than "weapons," a la Family Guy, then those as cling to their guns are just exercising their constitutional rights, as are those that cling to their God or Gods.


I meant that science has mostly obliterated the Judeo-Christian God as He exists in the Bible. The natural world He supposedly created has been investigated to the point that it now defies scripture: scripture that is the only communal access to the Divine. Saying that the Judeo-Christian God is beyond the natural world is rather spurious considering the natural world depends upon Him, if one takes a theological approach. In fact I consider that a very poor dichotomy to use to support your argument.

I'm not afraid to say "I don't know for certain if there is a God", because no empiricist should be. However, I can also say "I have been presented with no evidence that causes me to believe in the existence of God", and that is empirically correct, and the result of contemporary science, for all aspects of the natural world that might have been associated with the Divine are now explained through other, testable means.

No, I contend that you are entitled to "weapons", and that what sort of weapons one is entitled to is a question of interpretation. So to profess that to keep guns is a Constitutional right depends on a very specific interpretation of weaponry.


yes, weapons. at the time, that meant muskets, as muskets were what the people were understood to be allowed to keep, and also happened to be the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware.

so, from that, it's pretty safe to infer that in a world where the pinnacle of man-portable military-grade hardware is the musket, then by putting muskets in the hands of civilians shows a clear intent to give them access to the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware, correct?
Old Blue Collar Joe
God Emperor Akhenaton
Old Blue Collar Joe
God Emperor Akhenaton
Joe if you like your guns, then you best be voting Democrat.


Now THAT is funny!!!!

The only thing funny is your bias. I must ask if you are aware that Obama signed a bill with a democratic congress to allow guns into national parks while Reagan signed a bill that banned guns in public? Of course not because your brain cannot absorb facts.


Yet you fail to mention his desire to ban concealed carry nation wide, and to re-enact the assault weapons ban permanently, which is absolutely retarded since it is cosmetic only anyway.
Youre bringing Reagan up? You are reaching, arent you?

The desire to? Saying obama had the desire to ban assault weapons and CCW is almost as ridiculous as saying bush was behind 9/11. I also bring up Reagan because was the man who banned brandishing weapons in public merely on racial grounds.
Tactical Leg Sweep
Er, what? Someone is perfectly capable of killing and or injuring you without a firearm. They did it for quite some time throughout human history.


I didn't ever argue otherwise.
Tactical Leg Sweep
None of this really subverts my point. I am not someone who is suggesting an insurgency like that would ever truly be necessary. I'm not batshit crazy, so I don't honestly believe the government will ever become that tyrannical that it would actually become necessary to overthrow it. I'm merely speaking to the talking point that some people have used, which is that the type of arms that the U.S citizenry are guaranteed would somehow be ineffective against a tyrannical government. This is not true, unless you're deciding that we're fighting in pre modern combat era where we line up artillery and take turns firing volleys at one another.

As I've told Keltoi, the idea of "killing them all" or to use Guardian's example, batshit crazy burning of Atlanta, even from a purely operational stand point it would be a nightmare. This is again, ignoring for the benefit of your point, economics, international relations, etc. Where would the money, supplies and resources come from in a complete crackdown on a genocidal scale of the Continental U.S? How much of the armed forces would defect and outright refuse? How much of the world would turn against the U.S government and aid an insurgency?


The argument is not that the weapons would be ineffective against a tyrannical government: it's that the only time those weapons would actually need to be employed against a tyrannical government is in the event of impossible collective insanity against which said firearms would be useless.
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Tactical Leg Sweep
Er, what? Someone is perfectly capable of killing and or injuring you without a firearm. They did it for quite some time throughout human history.


I didn't ever argue otherwise.

You said the only reason you would need a firearm for self-defense is if the general public has access to firearms as well. What about this did I get wrong?
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Tactical Leg Sweep
None of this really subverts my point. I am not someone who is suggesting an insurgency like that would ever truly be necessary. I'm not batshit crazy, so I don't honestly believe the government will ever become that tyrannical that it would actually become necessary to overthrow it. I'm merely speaking to the talking point that some people have used, which is that the type of arms that the U.S citizenry are guaranteed would somehow be ineffective against a tyrannical government. This is not true, unless you're deciding that we're fighting in pre modern combat era where we line up artillery and take turns firing volleys at one another.

As I've told Keltoi, the idea of "killing them all" or to use Guardian's example, batshit crazy burning of Atlanta, even from a purely operational stand point it would be a nightmare. This is again, ignoring for the benefit of your point, economics, international relations, etc. Where would the money, supplies and resources come from in a complete crackdown on a genocidal scale of the Continental U.S? How much of the armed forces would defect and outright refuse? How much of the world would turn against the U.S government and aid an insurgency?


The argument is not that the weapons would be ineffective against a tyrannical government: it's that the only time those weapons would actually need to be employed against a tyrannical government is in the event of impossible collective insanity against which said firearms would be useless.

And I was contending that even in that insane scenario, in order for the premise to be correct that conventional small arms would be useless, one would have to consider the incident in a vacuum free of economics and international relations. Otherwise, they wouldn't be. It would just make it a whole ******** of a lot worse, since we'd more than likely be fighting over access to WMDs.
Keltoi Samurai
yes, weapons. at the time, that meant muskets, as muskets were what the people were understood to be allowed to keep, and also happened to be the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware.

so, from that, it's pretty safe to infer that in a world where the pinnacle of man-portable military-grade hardware is the musket, then by putting muskets in the hands of civilians shows a clear intent to give them access to the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware, correct?


No, it meant "weapons" then also. If it meant muskets, it would have stated muskets. Not to mention they were inferior weapons to rifles, unless mass produced thanks to a musket's better rate of fire and lower cost. The reason it stated "arms" was to be deliberately broad.

However, if one wishes to observe the modern circumstances under which a real, contemporary militia would operate? I'd argue those "arms" need to include artillery, air support, armour and anti-armour capability. Private citizen militias are clearly not allowed to own these items. Do you think they should be able to?
Tactical Leg Sweep
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Tactical Leg Sweep
Er, what? Someone is perfectly capable of killing and or injuring you without a firearm. They did it for quite some time throughout human history.


I didn't ever argue otherwise.

You said the only reason you would need a firearm for self-defense is if the general public has access to firearms as well. What about this did I get wrong?


That you don't bring a knife to a gunfight? My point wasn't that without guns I am suddenly free from harm: it was that I am more capable of protecting myself from other forms of violence without a gun than I am of protecting myself from gun violence without a gun.
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Keltoi Samurai
yes, weapons. at the time, that meant muskets, as muskets were what the people were understood to be allowed to keep, and also happened to be the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware.

so, from that, it's pretty safe to infer that in a world where the pinnacle of man-portable military-grade hardware is the musket, then by putting muskets in the hands of civilians shows a clear intent to give them access to the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware, correct?


No, it meant "weapons" then also. If it meant muskets, it would have stated muskets. Not to mention they were inferior weapons to rifles, unless mass produced thanks to a musket's better rate of fire and lower cost. The reason it stated "arms" was to be deliberately broad.

However, if one wishes to observe the modern circumstances under which a real, contemporary militia would operate? I'd argue those "arms" need to include artillery, air support, armour and anti-armour capability. Private citizen militias are clearly not allowed to own these items. Do you think they should be able to?

SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd amendment is not contingent upon service in a militia, if that's what you're getting.
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Keltoi Samurai
yes, weapons. at the time, that meant muskets, as muskets were what the people were understood to be allowed to keep, and also happened to be the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware.

so, from that, it's pretty safe to infer that in a world where the pinnacle of man-portable military-grade hardware is the musket, then by putting muskets in the hands of civilians shows a clear intent to give them access to the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware, correct?


No, it meant "weapons" then also. If it meant muskets, it would have stated muskets. Not to mention they were inferior weapons to rifles, unless mass produced thanks to a musket's better rate of fire and lower cost. The reason it stated "arms" was to be deliberately broad.

However, if one wishes to observe the modern circumstances under which a real, contemporary militia would operate? I'd argue those "arms" need to include artillery, air support, armour and anti-armour capability. Private citizen militias are clearly not allowed to own these items. Do you think they should be able to?


honestly, I see no difference between responsible private citizens owning those items, and responsible private citizens owning anything else.
Tactical Leg Sweep
And I was contending that even in that insane scenario, in order for the premise to be correct that conventional small arms would be useless, one would have to consider the incident in a vacuum free of economics and international relations. Otherwise, they wouldn't be. It would just make it a whole ******** of a lot worse, since we'd more than likely be fighting over access to WMDs.


I agree: the entire situation whereby the USA's citizenry needs a militia to stop their government from killing them all needs to take place in an environment without the confines of economy or international relations.

Essentially the only scenario I can envisage where it's the citizen militia that is necessary to prevent the death of all American citizens is one where they're already spraying you with anthrax spores from a giant, baby-powered tripod.
Tactical Leg Sweep
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Keltoi Samurai
yes, weapons. at the time, that meant muskets, as muskets were what the people were understood to be allowed to keep, and also happened to be the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware.

so, from that, it's pretty safe to infer that in a world where the pinnacle of man-portable military-grade hardware is the musket, then by putting muskets in the hands of civilians shows a clear intent to give them access to the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware, correct?


No, it meant "weapons" then also. If it meant muskets, it would have stated muskets. Not to mention they were inferior weapons to rifles, unless mass produced thanks to a musket's better rate of fire and lower cost. The reason it stated "arms" was to be deliberately broad.

However, if one wishes to observe the modern circumstances under which a real, contemporary militia would operate? I'd argue those "arms" need to include artillery, air support, armour and anti-armour capability. Private citizen militias are clearly not allowed to own these items. Do you think they should be able to?

SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd amendment is not contingent upon service in a militia, if that's what you're getting.


Thanks for the information. Not being an American I'm not always clued in with what your Supreme Court has ruled on all matters. The gun debate is very downplayed here (mainly because such a debate is not at all desired by the British government).
Keltoi Samurai
honestly, I see no difference between responsible private citizens owning those items, and responsible private citizens owning anything else.


"Responsible" citizens have demonstrated themselves to, repeatedly, cease to be responsible, which is the inherent issue with any weapon ownership.
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Tactical Leg Sweep
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Tactical Leg Sweep
Er, what? Someone is perfectly capable of killing and or injuring you without a firearm. They did it for quite some time throughout human history.


I didn't ever argue otherwise.

You said the only reason you would need a firearm for self-defense is if the general public has access to firearms as well. What about this did I get wrong?


That you don't bring a knife to a gunfight? My point wasn't that without guns I am suddenly free from harm: it was that I am more capable of protecting myself from other forms of violence without a gun than I am of protecting myself from gun violence without a gun.

Ok so ... get a gun? From what I'm understanding your point is, let's ban guns because I wouldn't want to have to face someone who has a gun without having one myself. Ignoring what I think is a bad reasoning, have you ever heard of zip guns? s**t, low level criminals are still able to operate with smuggled and modified firearms in places that have banned them like Japan, or where they're heavily restricted like your own UK. What makes you think that criminals would obey that law out of the others they choose to break? Yes, it might be harder to gain access to them and maybe you'd curb the non criminal, under the radar crazy who decides to go on a shooting rampage, but crime statistics show those people are outliers. The majority of people who are shooting others are not people with no criminal history.
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Tactical Leg Sweep
And I was contending that even in that insane scenario, in order for the premise to be correct that conventional small arms would be useless, one would have to consider the incident in a vacuum free of economics and international relations. Otherwise, they wouldn't be. It would just make it a whole ******** of a lot worse, since we'd more than likely be fighting over access to WMDs.


I agree: the entire situation whereby the USA's citizenry needs a militia to stop their government from killing them all needs to take place in an environment without the confines of economy or international relations.

Essentially the only scenario I can envisage where it's the citizen militia that is necessary to prevent the death of all American citizens is one where they're already spraying you with anthrax spores from a giant, baby-powered tripod.

I think we both can agree that the people who honestly think something like that would happen are crazy. I am arguing strictly from a logical stand point. While the 2nd amendment was originally afforded to citizenry for this reason, I support it on a basis of self-defense. I mean, when was the last time the 3rd amendment was actually needed? Still, I enjoy the fact that it's there just in case.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games