The 2nd Amendment - What does it mean?

[Lou Minotti]

This implies that you believe the IRA to be a benevolent pacifist organisation.

It implies nothing of the sort. You can spin better than that.

[G. Adams]

I don't believe that was the Provo's that used a fast food place, it simply isn't their style. and the IRA, as an organisation, isn't causing any trouble at the moment. The McCartney killing was an IRA job, just a murderer who was also IRA. If you want to point fingers, look at the UDA and UVF, you don't here calls every damned day for their disarmament, even though they carry on crusifying and knee capping anyone who annoys them.

The IRA certainly have faults, but they do illustrate well how weapons can move the argument along. The Catholic minority tried peacefully for years to get equal rights out of Stormont but were just ignored, it was only the Provo's who forced them into dealing with the shit that the average catholic had to take every day.

[tinybear]

What do you mean it's not their style? Remember the Harrod's bombing in December 1983? Obviously the bomb targeted the Christmas shoppers.

http://www.mahk.com/sc1384.htm

That's the style of all terrorists: deliberately create the biggest outrage by killing the greatest number of innocents and hence causing the largest amount of terror.

[Lou Minotti]

I guess the authorities "blaming the IRA" equals "The IRA did it"...and I guess whenever John Gotti did something, that also means "The Mafia did it"....Did ya'll hear about the Catholic Church? They like to molest little boys. :rolleyes:

And Tiny, very little regarding The Troubles in Ulster are "obvious".

[tinybear]

Please, Lou, do me the courtesy of reading the whole article, especially this part of it.

"Sunday, December 18, 1983
(UPI) -- The outlawed Irish Republican Army claimed responsibility Sunday for the car bomb outside Harrods department store that killed five people, including an American, and wounded 91 others. But Scotland Yard denounced an IRA statement claiming it gave warning of the bomb blast to a charity group."

[Lou Minotti]

Tiny, do me the courtesy of researching the history of The Troubles before mistaking yourself as an expert. I read the article. The only difference is that I've read countless OTHER articles that give me a better frame of reference on the subject. You take Scotland Yard and MI5 at their words. I don't. They are proven liars. The Dirty Tricks played against the IRA and other groups (including ones devoted to non violence) by the British government is well documented. You ever been to Belfast, Tiny?

[Lou Minotti]

Dirty tricks and "black ops" via a tyrannical police state:
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/playing_dirty.rm

[The Dunedan]

Tinybear et al,

Before you go spouting off about the Provos, I suggest you do some more thorough research. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has admitted to numerous Crown inquiries that they;

1: Colluded with the UVF and UDA in the intimidation and murder of Catholic/Nationalist civillians and activists.

2: DELIBERATELY withheld the warnings which the IRA called in regarding their bombs, including the Harrods and Canary Wharf bombings, in order to increase the body-count.

These are facts, Tinybear. Educate yourself before you go spouting off at the mouth. I've got friends in Belfast, Derry, and Armagh who have lived through 35 years of The Troubles, and they could tell you quite a few things that would obviously surprise you.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: tinybear What do you mean it's not their style? Remember the Harrod's bombing in December 1983? Obviously the bomb targeted the Christmas shoppers. http://www.mahk.com/sc1384.htm That's the style of all terrorists: deliberately create the biggest outrage by killing the greatest number of innocents and hence causing the largest amount of terror.

No, if the IRA wanted to kill the biggest number of innocents it would bomb places like the Birmingham bull ring or the Metro Centre in gateshead sky-high during christmas shopping, and that is well within their capability. They have always judged their killings to keep numbers down, otherwise they would get no sympathy from the british government, and would never succeed.

Terrorists do have different styles. The IRA plants bombs, then gives warnings. The UDA and UVF, well they just usually sell drugs and murder catholics. ETA, the Basque Seperatists, usually assassinate officials. Baader Meinhoff, if I remember rightly, usually kidnapped people. The Animal Liberation Front, or the more extreme Animal Rights Militants, don't kill but cause panic and fear amongst it's enemies through harassment and break in's at labs and fur factories. In all these cases, there are most certainly exceptions to the rule. But these organisations certainly do have a style, which is a good thing. It means when the bomb went off in Madrid, any person who knew his terrorists was highly doubtful it was ETA, because it is not like them.

[tinybear]

Lou, the IRA admitted the bombing during Christmas shopping time outside London's leading department store, killing 5, wounding 90. No, I haven't been to Belfast. But this doesn't change the fact that the IRA deliberately targetted innocent people with intent to kill and maim.

[Lou Minotti]

Please see the previous posts and respond accordingly. You seemed to have ignored them. Also:

Dirty tricks and "black ops" via a tyrannical police state: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/playing_dirty.rm

[tinybear]

Lou, that's a very large file and I have a crap computer which has seen better days. Could you please tell me what it is? Thanks.

[Lou Minotti]

Ballbag.... Trying to live up to your name by spamming your filth? Get a life...

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: tinybear Lou, that's a very large file and I have a crap computer which has seen better days. Could you please tell me what it is? Thanks.

It is a History Channel UK documentary that proves the assertion that the British government/military is the primary antagonist in NI. The file is only 25 megs or so....

[tinybear]

So Lou, you clicked on the tub girl link, didn't you? I should've warned you. Sorry. Tub girl is actually quite notorious on the internet. I'm surprised you haven't heard of her.

[Lou Minotti]

"Ball Bag" definitely lived up to his name....

[Sonart]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Lack of proof for one viewpoint does not prove that viewpoint false. That's a logical fallacy.

Is it? It's easy to make an arguement in the hypothetical that the right to bear arms is intended as a defense against the excesses of our own government. The only possible use of firearms in resisting the government is in armed insurrection. There's ample proof that such actions against our government are doomed to fail, and no proof at all that it could possibly succeed. I'd say the logic is quite sound.

Quote by: MiltonBradley This is a joke right? What "legitimate" reason would "armed insurgents" have to overthrow the U.S. government twenty five years after its inception?

Who knows, but it happens all the time all over the world, doesn't it. In 1776, the concept of a democratic republic was a dramatic experiment, a form of government unheard of at the time, and its survival was by no means a sure thing. That was one of Lincoln's strongest motivations in pursuing the War between the States... that if portions of the country could just break away when it suited them, then the experiment of government by the people was doomed to fail.

Quote by: MiltonBradley There is a huge difference between attempting to overthrow a legitimate government, and trying to take back what is yours.

Fine. Go for it. Take up arms against the U.S. government and try to "take back what is yours".

Quote by: PatrickHenry Take it easy, Sonart. That's not very nice manners, and I said nothing racist.

It's worse manners to tell someone they don't like America because they don't agree with you. I've already had my President tell me I shouldn't be considered either a citizen or a patriot simply because I don't believe in God. Do you like it when someone tells you that you hate America because you disagree with Bush's policy in Iraq? How dare you suggest that someone hates America because they disagree with a conservative position. I stand by my analogy: racism was once an accepted tradition in the United States, backed by law. Was it un-American to oppose that tradition?

Quote by: PatrickHenry That is a right that has its own Amendment, so unless you and about 150 million of your gungrabbing friends can repeal it, there will continue to be plenty of guns in this nation. If you don't like guns, it is a fact that you don't like America as it is and as it will(likely) be...

We didn't like segregation, an institution that had survived since long before this country was formed. Americans evolved and changed "America as it was and as it would (likely) be.

Besides, the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The Supreme Court of the United States and 10 of the 11 Federal District Courts have clearly stated so, so I see nothing in need of repeal. Quite the opposite, it's up to you to take any one of those onerous 20,000 gun control laws you all so despise and challenge it before the Supreme Court as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Why is it that gun proliferation advocates offer up lots of lip service about what the 2nd Amendment means, yet the 65 year-old Supreme Court precedent in Miller, which totally contradicts that definition, remains the unchallenged law of the land?

Quote by: the Dunedan 1: The Gov't in question cares about popular opinion.

Good lord, what government on earth cares more about popular opinion than that of the United States?

Quote by: PatrickHenry Hey, Sonart. Do you think the Darfurians have any weapons to fight back against the Janjaweed? Maybe that's why they are mutilated, ethnically cleansed, raped and killed?

You expecting such events any time soon here, Patrick?

Quote by: Mia They did that all by themselves? It didn't have anything to do with pressure from the US, who has big guns?

Operative word, "Big" guns... Army, Navy, Air Force. Gun toting citizens? Not likely.

Quote by: Lou Minotti Sonart -- Care to point out the passage in the Bible that says that? What are you talking about?

You claimed that owning firearms is a God-given right. I asked you to show me where it says that. Seems simple enough to me.

Quote by: Lou Minotti Wow, that took the debate down about 10 notches. That was completely ridiculous...

Why? For the first 200-odd years of this nation's history, racial segregation and discrimination were long-standing and perfectly acceptable traditions, backed by law and defended with both the Bible and the Constitution. Not until 50 years ago did Americans finally begin coming around to accepting that such policies were incompatible with our contemporary society. Why then would one argue that unrestricted gun ownership is a good thing simply because that's the way it's always been, a fine American tradition, even when dramatic changes in our nation have made it incompatible with public safety?

Because anyone can make one. And it's your God-given right...

There you go again. Where does God give us that right?


.

[tinybear]

Actually, seeing that you mentioned the subject of God-given rights..etc. From looking at history, there seems to be no such thing. Liberty, democracy, equality...etc are not God-given rights. They have to be fought for, often at the price of incarceration or death. Once you obtain them, you have to fight to preserve them. Anyway, I know I'm off-topic here. So I'd better stop.

[Lou Minotti]

. The only possible use of firearms in resisting the government is in armed insurrection. There's ample proof that such actions against our government are doomed to fail, and no proof at all that it could possibly succeed. I'd say the logic is quite sound.

Right or wrong, this hardly makes a difference. Ever heard of a thing called "principle"?

It's worse manners to tell someone they don't like America because they don't agree with you. I've already had my President tell me I shouldn't be considered either a citizen or a patriot simply because I don't believe in God. Do you like it when someone tells you that you hate America because you disagree with Bush's policy in Iraq? How dare you suggest that someone hates America because they disagree with a conservative position. I stand by my analogy: racism was once an accepted tradition in the United States, backed by law. Was it un-American to oppose that tradition?

Apples meets oranges.

Operative word, "Big" guns... Army, Navy, Air Force. Gun toting citizens? Not likely.

And this matters because?

You claimed that owning firearms is a God-given right. I asked you to show me where it says that.

No, you asked where it says that in the Bible.

Why? For the first 200-odd years of this nation's history, racial segregation and discrimination were long-standing and perfectly acceptable traditions, backed by law and defended with both the Bible and the Constitution. Not until 50 years ago did Americans finally begin coming around to accepting that such policies were incompatible with our contemporary society. Why then would one argue that unrestricted gun ownership is a good thing simply because that's the way it's always been, a fine American tradition, even when dramatic changes in our nation have made it incompatible with public safety?

So apples, have you had time to acquaint yourself with oranges? Gun ownership will never equal racism, Sonart, no matter how many times you propose this straw man.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear Actually, seeing that you mentioned the subject of God-given rights..etc. From looking at history, there seems to be no such thing. Liberty, democracy, equality...etc are not God-given rights. They have to be fought for, often at the price of incarceration or death. Once you obtain them, you have to fight to preserve them. Anyway, I know I'm off-topic here. So I'd better stop.

It seems impossible to me that you can recognize this, and make this statement, and then bash guun ownership in the Society, and Rights section of this website.


How can one both recognize the need to fight to preserve ones liberty, and bash gun ownership in your own philosophy. Those opinions seems mutually exclusive to me.