Justices agree on right to own guns

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Sure, my lone gun will not stop an invading army, but it's not just my lone gun your after, is it? I wonder how hard 300,000,000 guns inthe hands of citizens would make it on that invading army? The Defense rests.

Milton thinks an evil government would march in to town, in formation, wearing brightly colored uniforms, with search warrants in hand and a megaphone to announce their intentions. Just like the Redcoats we so easily mowed down in the Revolutionary war as punishment for poor battle tactics.

If I was an evil government, and I knew that a large percentage of the population I was trying to subvert was "armed," I would make sure I took you down in the least complicated way for me. I would probably vouch for a multi-faceted biological attack simultaneously orchestrated country-wide to immobilize the entire population. Or I may plan ahead and have "subversive" meter readers plant bombs at all the houses of registered gun owners and trigger them at the same moment.

I know this will probably cause Milton more stress than he is already under (probably donning the gas mask, buying bottled water, and checking the meter already).

One of the many benefits of me not having a gun is that I don't have to stress out about having it ready to be used and I don't have to worry about any fascist dictators coming to take it away from me.

On a side note, imagine the immense shame a gun owner would have to live with if he put his family in danger by having "ready" guns in the house for twenty years and one day a burglar finally does break in, ties the gun owner up because he was sleeping, takes all the valuables in the house, and steals the guns. What stress! All that planning and preparation and the one chance that pops up to put plan into action has caught the gun owner sleeping in addition to further arming the criminal element.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Muckraker On a side note, imagine ...

That's all that your side really has going for it, the capacity to imaging the worst, and freak out about it.


As an example, I give you all of the rationale you have put forth thus far.

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: Sonart . Here's what the fck, Mate. Our troops in Iraq are fighting a foreign enemy in a foreign land. If Americans decide they don't like the way things are going, we can simply pull out and go home.

And a theoretical foreign army invading the United States would be different how?

In Vietnam we fought for almost 10 years, losing 58,000 troops. The Vietnamese, fighting for their homeland, lost a million combatants and 4 million civilians dead. Americans eventually tired of the war, so we pulled out and went home.

Yes, and the not very sophisticated insurgency defeated the most advanced military in the world, next...

In Afghanistan, the Soviets fought for another 10 years, losing 15,000. The Afghanis, fighting for their homeland, lost over a million dead and two million displaced.

Once again you point to a case where a low tech insurgency defeats a sophisticated army.

Troops fighting here will be fighting for their own country on their own turf. They can't simply pull out and go home. They are home. During the American Civil War as a base, 600,000 died out of a U.S. population of 30 million. So out of our current 300 million Americans, that would be about 6 million casualties... not including civilian non-combatants.

Gee, no shit sherlock. Now how does a pre-modern, conventionaly fought successionary war fit into the post-modern insurgency as counter-foreign invasion discussion? This is square peg-round hole logic.

The Lebanese fought their civil war for 15 years, and out of a population of 2 million, 100,000 died and a million displaced. Almost 5% of the Lebanese population dead.

Again, the relevance to insurgency as counter-foriegn invasion escapes me.

5% of Americans 300 million is 15 million dead. Take your pick. .

I suppose you think all the sacrifice that led to our independence in the first place was a bad call too? I guess some people would rather live in slavery than die in combat.

Beat your guns into plows, your wheat will feed those who don't.

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: Muckraker ... On a side note, imagine the immense shame a gun owner would have to live with if he put his family in danger by having "ready" guns in the house for twenty years and one day a burglar finally does break in, ties the gun owner up because he was sleeping, takes all the valuables in the house, and steals the guns. What stress! All that planning and preparation and the one chance that pops up to put plan into action has caught the gun owner sleeping in addition to further arming the criminal element.

Listen to this guy...he actually thinks someone could get into my house without making one hell of a racket! Well, unless an actual ninja in a scent proof suit my dog cant smell through magically "jumps" through my walls and into my bedroom, anyone attempting to do what you describe would be rewarded with 5.56mm bullet holes.

[Halofan48]

Yes, and the not very sophisticated insurgency defeated the most advanced military in the world, next...

If i am correct, both examples gained assistance from outside forces. That includes technology.

Listen to this guy...he actually thinks someone could get into my house without making one hell of a racket! Well, unless an actual ninja in a scent proof suit my dog cant smell through magically "jumps" through my walls and into my bedroom, anyone attempting to do what you describe would be rewarded with 5.56mm bullet holes.

Perhaps for you, but you don't represent the main population, do you? I have been able to sneak past many people will ease. Why? Because people are to caught up in other things to notice slight changes. You'd have to be very paranoid or have a heavily locked up home to notice slight changes. Me and my neighbor mess with people around my neighborhood all the time. lol, this one time, a biker stopped by a bus stop. He had a powerade and some magazine. He sat down, put down his powerade, and began to wait for the bus. We get up behind him, take his powerade, and sneak away behind the bushes. Pretty soon, he goes to get it, looks, looks around the bench, totally confused. He starts walking away from where we were, my friend does a quiet run to the bench and puts it under the bench and runs back. Amazingly, the guy didn't see us or hear us. We went back to my house and started laughing. So really, stealth can be quite easy to learn to some degree.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley That's all that your side really has going for it, the capacity to imaging the worst, and freak out about it.

This from the folks who ignore that the U.S. already represents the worst, as far as gun violence, all because they imagine even worse; the need -- someday... maybe -- to overthrow their own government by armed rebellion.

Quote by: BugsBunny And a theoretical foreign army invading the United States would be different how?

What does that have to do with the price of bananas? You were taking about a rebellion against the U.S. government by armed citizens.

I imagine our armed forces would make short work of any foreign army invading the U.S. Should such an endeavor even be attemptable.

Quote by: BugsBunny Yes, and the not very sophisticated insurgency defeated the most advanced military in the world, next...

Go ahead... ask any Vietnam vet if they were ever defeated.

Once again, the U.S. public lost the political will to keep fighting a war of attrition halfway around the world.

Quote by: BugsBunny Once again you point to a case where a low tech insurgency defeats a sophisticated army.

{{YAWN}} No... you miss the point.

Quote by: BugsBunny Gee, no shit sherlock.

Ahhh, so you DO get the point. So your two previous statements were just... what... the need to have some sort of response, no matter how lame???

Quote by: BugsBunny Gee, no shit sherlock. Now how does a pre-modern, conventionaly fought successionary war fit into the post-modern insurgency as counter-foreign invasion discussion? This is square peg-round hole logic.

Quote by: BugsBunny Again, the relevance to insurgency as counter-foriegn invasion escapes me.

Yes, I'm sure it does. An armed insurrection in the U.S. would either amount to a full scale conventional war, or a huge guerilla war... I gave you examples of both and a taste of the bloodbath that would ensue.

Either way the result is so obvious, you're simply not interested in understanding.

Quote by: BugsBunny I suppose you think all the sacrifice that led to our independence in the first place was a bad call too?

Because I see nothing in our current government that would justify such a monumental disaster or couldn't be resolved by massive peaceful resistance and civil disobedience.

You love guns so much, though, I'm sure the thought of a full on bloodbath tickles you pink. Weeee!

.

[Milton Bradley]

Respond to this point Sonart.


You say that like it's a justification to disarm, but that same arguement can be turned against you, in that that same ugly picture you paint doesn't seem to deter you from attempting to subvert the Constitution.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Respond to this point Sonart. You say that like it's a justification to disarm, but that same arguement can be turned against you, in that that same ugly picture you paint doesn't seem to deter you from attempting to subvert the Constitution.

I'll respond to that.

I'm sorry, I don't know what world you live in MB but the socialist armies are Europe are NOT going to marching across the US anytime soon so citizens arms are NOT needed.

Secondly in the event of a civil war or conflict arms are only needed still in the hands of trained fighters under a command. Technology has outpaces anything simple citizens can hope to match. Not like such an event is going to happen.

If the government really was out to subvert the country they have no need for an army. TV, the courts, and the elections are the best ways to steer the nation the way you want. I'm sorry but guns are not going to defend the constitution. Your not a hero, if you make the 5 PM news you'll just be another crazy and an example as to why guns should be banned.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley You say that like it's a justification to disarm, but that same arguement can be turned against you, in that that same ugly picture you paint doesn't seem to deter you from attempting to subvert the Constitution.

I'm not subverting anything, Milton.

I'm reading the 2nd Amendment exactly as it was written, based on reasons written in the Federalist Papers, and as interpreted for the last 70 years by the Supreme Court of the United States and the large majority of lower Federal Courts.

The only one subverting anything seems to be you.


.

[The~Fox]

Is any part of the American Constitution worth the life of a single child possibly your son or daughter slaughtered while sitting learning about the life ahead of them...

If so defend your Right to bear arms....
Or more importantly defend the rights of those in power whose own self serving interests in the Arms industry makes them rich Not through peaceful Humane means but through the taking of countless lives.... Either way The Blood of the Innocent is on all our hands..

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Milton I wonder how hard 300,000,000 guns inthe hands of citizens would make it on that invading army?

Is that it? That is your argument? You are defending a clearly unnecessary social blight by suggesting that guns in the hands of citizens to hold off an invasion force and/or to prevent the rise of a dictatorial government? Those may have been legitimate fears in the eighteenth century; but not any more, today they are paranoid delusions and the substance of novels.

Seriously, dude, you need to get past the eighteenth century.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart I'm not subverting anything, Milton. I'm reading the 2nd Amendment exactly as it was written, based on reasons written in the Federalist Papers, and as interpreted for the last 70 years by the Supreme Court of the United States and the large majority of lower Federal Courts. The only one subverting anything seems to be you.

I'm not talking about your opinion on the Second Amendmnet, I'm talking abpout your whole Liberal, anti-Constitutional philosophy.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Is that it? That is your argument? You are defending a clearly unnecessary social blight by suggesting that guns in the hands of citizens to hold off an invasion force and/or to prevent the rise of a dictatorial government? Those may have been legitimate fears in the eighteenth century; but not any more, today they are paranoid delusions and the substance of novels. Seriously, dude, you need to get past the eighteenth century.

It's only an "unnecessary social blight" if you trust your government, and your local Police.


I don't.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Miltion Bradley I'm not talking about your opinion on the Second Amendmnet, I'm talking about your whole Liberal, anti-Constitutional philosophy.

That's your opinion, Milton. I think the Constitution works just fine.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart That's your opinion, Milton. I think the Constitution works just fine.

BS!


Will Hillary go about bringing Universal Health Care to us in a Constitutional manor, or will she just start spending, like all the other Statists you support?


It's funny too, because whenever she talks about how Bush spends money, it's a "crime". Then she proceeds to tell you how she will spend those same stolen monies, and somehow, it's not criminal any more.


Where do you people get off?

[Halofan48]

Excuse me, but since when do you know what other people think? Also, look at McCain and tell us he won't be spending that much or more. So my friend the real question is where do you get off trying to tell people what they think and then harassing them for what you say they think.

Anyway, this is off topic.

Luxury Cruise liner repels pirates using NLW weapon

Here is one case of progress with Non lethal weapons. You can find the article on many sites. It's even been on TV. If we spent as much as we do on gun production and development on NLWs, we'd likely have weapons with great stopping power great for self defense with good range.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Will Hillary go about bringing Universal Health Care to us in a Constitutional manor, or will she just start spending, like all the other Statists you support?

Ahh, so you prefer rationing out healthcare only to those who can afford it. That sounds about right for someone for whom individual liberty is the end all be all of life... the politics of selfishness. However, the majority of Americans now favor a national healthcare program, as do most of America's physicians.

I am curious, though, as to how you see universal healthcare as being unconstitutional.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Ahh, so you prefer rationing out healthcare only to those who can afford it. That sounds about right for someone for whom individual liberty is the end all be all of life... the politics of selfishness. However, the majority of Americans now favor a national healthcare program, as do most of America's physicians. I am curious, though, as to how you see universal healthcare as being unconstitutional.

I didn't ask for an update on popular opinion there buddy, I asked if you believed your representative would go about implementing their plan according to the legal process, or if he/she will just operate as Bush did, on an assumed "mandate of the people"?

[Sonart]

.

Well, if you listen to her here, she talks about passing a bill through Congress.

.

[brien]

Quote by: Sonart . I'm not subverting anything, Milton. I'm reading the 2nd Amendment exactly as it was written, based on reasons written in the Federalist Papers, and as interpreted for the last 70 years by the Supreme Court of the United States and the large majority of lower Federal Courts. The only one subverting anything seems to be you. .

Cripes there Sonart, are you still hanging your hat on the Miller case from 1939 involving a sawed off shot gun? Also for every case you can cite from 1789 on, one can cited that upholds the right of the individual to keep and bear arms....this whole argument has become so boring from either viewpoint.

Here are the SC cases:

GunCite-Second Amendment-The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

And the Lower Federal cases:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndlow.html

and the state cases:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsta.html


No matter, June is almost here, and the smart odds are the Supreme Court will rule that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms independent of the militia clause. That militia argument is very old, and very tired, and most likely will be retired by the SC this June, once and for all. Good riddens.

I'll check back in June with you...