Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Today's Posts Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-05-2013, 10:02 PM   #1
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,694
The thing is.. I'm all for gun ownership. I just get very peeved when I listen to pro gun people rationalize their rights to gun ownership. We don't need to have any of these weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 01-05-2013, 10:18 PM   #2
ReelinRod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
ReelinRod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Upper Bucks County PA
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
So lets be clear. People do not need weapons like this. They WANT THEM. There's a difference you know.
Weapons like what, a Minigun, semi-auto rifle, pistol, shotgun?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
The thing is.. I'm all for gun ownership. I just get very peeved when I listen to pro gun people rationalize their rights to gun ownership. We don't need to have any of these weapons.
I'm not rationalizing anything.

I reject the entire "need" discussion out of hand (except for the aforementioned requirement of government to explain the premise constitutional support for any power claimed to impact the personal arms of the private citizen).



You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
ReelinRod is offline  
Old 01-06-2013, 05:37 AM   #3
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
yes, I thought questioning someone's "wants and needs" had become passe' and even frowned upon.....
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	68850_10200142398588559_921303211_n.jpg
Views:	425
Size:	32.3 KB
ID:	54362  
scottw is offline  
Old 01-06-2013, 09:53 AM   #4
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
The thing is.. I'm all for gun ownership. I just get very peeved when I listen to pro gun people rationalize their rights to gun ownership. We don't need to have any of these weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
A little history might help
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[79][80] Noah Webster similarly argued:
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[80][81] George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[80][82]
The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[80][83]
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[84]
While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[80][85]
By January of 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[86]Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 01-06-2013, 10:22 AM   #5
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
A little history might help
Thanks for the history, I hadn't hear about the part with the king and all.

By this line of reasoning today then the general public should have unfettered access to all sorts of weaponry. I mean, if the real intent is to be able to repel the government, you're going to need a lot more firepower than an AR-15 with an extended magazine and folding stock.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-06-2013, 03:26 PM   #6
ReelinRod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
ReelinRod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Upper Bucks County PA
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
By this line of reasoning today then the general public should have unfettered access to all sorts of weaponry.
The 2nd Amendment is not a provision mandating tactical equivalency. It only is intended to keep the original ratios of numerical superiority the framers embraced and recognized as "securing the free state".

The framers stated that in 1788 the largest standing army that could be maintained would, at most, amount to 1% of the total population. These government forces would be outnumbered ("opposed" was the word James Madison used) by "citizens with arms in their hands" by a ratio of 17 to 1.

In modern times that superiority has grown a bit, it now stands at 25 armed citizens to one soldier (2.9 million active duty and reserve military vs 75 million "citizens with arms in their hands" in a nation of 311 million "total souls".

While the framers did not envision every person being armed they certainly desired a significant percentage (at least 17-20% of the population) to be properly situated with small arms to effectively resist the government's standing army (1% of the population) with violence.

That ratio is the only condition they intended to preserve with the enactment of the 2nd Amendment, for that mass of armed, civic minded citizens would allow the civil authorities to form of a "well regulated militia" when necessary, mustering the farmers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers of the community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I mean, if the real intent is to be able to repel the government, you're going to need a lot more firepower than an AR-15 with an extended magazine and folding stock.
At the height of the resistance, estimates of the number of Iraqi insurgents ranged between 8000-20,000 (US) up to 40,000 (Iraqi intelligence).With 160,000 troops in country our guys enjoyed at worst a 4 to 1 advantage and at best a 20 to 1 advantage. And in the opinion of many we were in a quagmire and losing bad.

Imagine if there were 2.8 million insurgents (Madison's 17-1 ratio) and many of them were very familiar with American heavy weapon platforms and endeavored to seize and offensively use those weapons instead of just blowing themselves up?

Last edited by ReelinRod; 01-06-2013 at 10:27 PM..



You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
ReelinRod is offline  
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com