The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5481 - 5500 of total 5646 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
perswig

climber
Apr 8, 2015 - 10:14am PT
"We're gonna need a bigger boat!"

Pretty sure the Second Amendment guarantees our rights to F-16 ownership if the gubmint is gonna use F-16s to take our guns.

Right?
Dale
jonnyrig

climber
Apr 8, 2015 - 12:36pm PT
rinse and repeat. Bold text for those who think firearms are only owned by those who fear.

Apr 7, 2015 - 09:33pm PT
In light of the new forum policy regarding personal attacks in off-topic threads...

"gun" is not a four-letter word.

Firearms, in a variety of configurations, hold a traditional and valued place in our society. They also have valid modern uses, including hunting, target shooting, self-defense, and competition.

While there are some idiots who own guns, and clearly there are those who should not have them, the vast majority own them responsibly and without incident.

Tactless approaches, such as outright bans and categorically broad restrictions on certain features are, in my opinion, useless and short-sighted attempts to curb violent encounters without curing the root cause for the violent behavior that unduly restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. Same people, I tend to believe, who would applaud other such sacrificial freedoms under the guise of "public safety".

Seems to me this modernly developing fear of the gun is just another indication of a deeper social spinelessness in our country, where the discordant rallying cry seems to whimper "save me from myself" and "sue somebody! It's not my fault!"

It saddens me that so often, there are sooo many self-described intellectual and educated people who, when it comes to guns, seem to just start foaming at the mouth and slobbering out such ridiculously emotion-driven negative rhetoric, I leave in disgust and a vow never to rope up with them. My loss I suppose. Many of them would be a pleasure to climb with in any other sense; but if they're going to judge my intelligence and life's motivation based on firearm ownership, then maybe it's no great loss.

So remember, next time you get tooled for 5mph over or spouting some anti-gun drivel to this thread from behind the wheel on your smartphone, those limitations aren't infringing on your constitutional rights.

Gun is not a dirty word. Intolerance is. And your bias is showing.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 8, 2015 - 02:18pm PT
So true. The very fact that people laugh now about any thought of revolution, saying, "Yeah, right! Like you could have a hope against the US military," indicates how far astray we have drifted. Our government should perpetually be afraid of us, not the other way around.

Right. George Washington should have let the tax cheat moonshiners of Pennsylvania have their way with the republic....

(you've gone round the bend..., as usual)

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 8, 2015 - 03:20pm PT
No, I've gone around the Federalist Papers. Apparently you haven't.

These are the same federalists that would be on the "Yankee" side you are apparently talking about. Perhaps you should read what these "Yanks" had to say about standing armies.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Apr 8, 2015 - 04:27pm PT
If the public is too stupid to accomplish changing their government by voting (which they can still do) then they are WAAAAAY to stupid to accomplish an armed revolution that actually makes anything better.

Right now most of the folks who are crying beware the government do not have the first idea what a government is or should be. They couldn't organize an effective squad let alone an army.

Guns don't help stupid.

Most of the folks I know who like guns and worry about government and "Barry" are too stupid not to point a gun at a person accidentally while doing anything with it.

I enjoy shooting.. I don't like many gun owners.. a lot of em are dangerous and don't follow even basic safety.

Not talking about you johnnyrig :)

Gun of the week THe Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum, 4" barrel.

Hell thats gun of the last 3 decades in my opinion. Cept I'd go with the 7 1/2 barrel to take advantage of such a high powered accurate round. I've kinda wanted one for decades. Very popular in Alaska, great pistol hunting sidearm.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Apr 8, 2015 - 05:30pm PT
No, I've gone around the Federalist Papers. Apparently you haven't.

These are the same federalists that would be on the "Yankee" side you are apparently talking about. Perhaps you should read what these "Yanks" had to say about standing armies.

The same Yankees who argued against a bill of rights, then voted in favor of it? Or the ones who argued against slavery, then voted to allow it to continue?

It wasn't clean and simple then, it still isn't.

TE
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 8, 2015 - 05:56pm PT
The same Yankees who argued against a bill of rights, then voted in favor of it?

Oh, you must be talking about the ones that had principled reasons for opposing the inclusion of the bill of rights... principled reasons that now have proven to be surprisingly prescient: namely, that people would start to argue that the bill of right GRANTS the rights it was designed to PROTECT, and that people would argue that the bill of rights expresses the ONLY real limits on federal power.

Or are you talking about the ones that, despite such principled reasons (that were surprisingly prescient), were faced with such stupid and short-sighted opposition that they were forced to abandon their principled reasoning in the hope (that has proved to be vain) that the compromise with the stupid to get a constitution passed AT ALL would not ultimately result in the very distortions that have indeed resulted from the bill of rights.

Oh, ooops... same guys. Turns out that they were right about why not to include it! And at least their compromise got us a constitution at all, although now it could well be argued that what we got was so compromised that the stupid of today can make of it any nutty thing that crosses their "minds," and they do.

Or the ones who argued against slavery, then voted to allow it to continue?

Oh, you must mean the same guys who were trying desperately to reach some sort of compromise with the stupid in order to get a constitution at all.

If anything, you are making a strong case AGAINST compromising one's well-reasoned principles. The compromises have resulted in horrendous confusions and problems, and it could well be argued that having two nations here instead of one would have been much better for both. If the only way you can "come to terms" is by compromising core principles, then it's better to not "come to terms" at all.

The very fact that some of you float the idea that managing to do away with the second amendment would then make it legal for the feds to engage in sweeping gun control MAKES Madison's points about why to not have a bill of rights.

The federalists' compromises to get a constitution at all have proved to be our undoing, as they could only hope that they were not sowing the seeds of that undoing into the constitution they did get. They hung their hope on the idea that Americans would never tolerate the slide into tyranny that we have actually embraced.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Apr 8, 2015 - 06:48pm PT
Meh..China is probably the best government going these days. They might just save civilization... unlikely though.

Whatever.. the human race will continue anyway.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Apr 8, 2015 - 07:04pm PT
madbolter posted
Oh, you must be talking about the ones that had principled reasons for opposing the inclusion of the bill of rights... principled reasons that now have proven to be surprisingly prescient: namely, that people would start to argue that the bill of right GRANTS the rights it was designed to PROTECT, and that people would argue that the bill of rights expresses the ONLY real limits on federal power.

This is utter horsesh#t. Those guys were some rights depriving motherf*#kers and Jefferson knew damn well that without things being spelled out it was going to be tyranny straight up and down. Somehow I don't think the slave owning guys who only allowed landowning white men vote shared the same principles as you. In fact, the rights that you take for granted as "given" largely only exist BECAUSE OF judicial interpretations of the Bill of Rights. Lay off the looney toons propaganda wesbites. They are hurting your brain.
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Apr 8, 2015 - 07:11pm PT
I vividly recall, during my outdoor industry days, the reps, mostly from the Southeast, who bragged about the iron they were carrying on roadtrips. Not one of them could have fought their way out of a paper bag with a Bear Grylls signature Bowie Knife.
The more a guy talks about his guns the less I think about their ability to deal with tough situations.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 8, 2015 - 07:25pm PT
I would encourage the historical illiterate to educate themselves.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

http://www.constitution.org/afp.htm (Anti Federalist Papers)

http://www.constitution.org/as/dcg_000.htm (Algernon)

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html (Bastiat)

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/ (now he was a successful propagandist)

http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/locke/government.pdf

it's all free too.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 8, 2015 - 09:19pm PT
In fact, the rights that you take for granted as "given" largely only exist BECAUSE OF judicial interpretations of the Bill of Rights.

Ahh, another of the sheep that (wrongly) believes that the Bill of Rights GRANTED the rights to which it refers.

Honestly, it really is sad HOW far down the toilet we've spiraled since the founders were solid about the basis of rights and legitimate government.

At this point, it's really over, because the sweeping educational project it would take to get the majority of "Americans" back in touch with the founding principles is too daunting to ever be accomplished.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 8, 2015 - 09:27pm PT
Insane perspective.

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 8, 2015 - 09:49pm PT
Really? You really think it's insane to believe, as the founders did, in genuinely inalienable rights that can only be acknowledged and are never granted by any government's founding documents?
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Apr 8, 2015 - 09:53pm PT
I would encourage the historical illiterate to educate themselves.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

http://www.constitution.org/afp.htm (Anti Federalist Papers)

http://www.constitution.org/as/dcg_000.htm (Algernon)

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html (Bastiat)

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/ (now he was a successful propagandist)

http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/locke/government.pdf

it's all free too.

I read all of these, twice.

They say that you are wrong.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Apr 8, 2015 - 09:55pm PT


Good times.
perswig

climber
Apr 9, 2015 - 03:39am PT
...during my outdoor industry days, ...

JD, before I read the rest, my brain said "What an interesting and typically-Donini understated way to describe his time in SE Asia!"

Made me laugh. Thanks, and for your perspective as well.
Dale
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 9, 2015 - 06:21am PT
Really? You really think it's insane to believe, as the founders did, in genuinely inalienable rights that can only be acknowledged and are never granted by any government's founding documents?

I think its a moot point and has been for 200 and some odd years. George Washington settled it when he threw down on the Pennsylvania tax cheats.

But when you reveal this perspective,

Our government should perpetually be afraid of us, not the other way around.


and I see the worldwide results of an out of control arms industry coupled with governmental fear of armed populations what I see is civil war and chaos, everywhere; the death of innocents.

I think you give reason to insanity. You guild escalation with principle but its naked fear that propels your perspective. You've said so many times. Well your fear is not worth the disintegration of my country. And I don't give a damn about your so-called inalienable argument.

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 9, 2015 - 10:37am PT
I think its a moot point and has been for 200 and some odd years. George Washington settled it when he threw down on the Pennsylvania tax cheats.

What does that example have to do with my points about standing armies (to which you were supposedly replying)? Washington appealed to the states to call up militias, which was a legitimate approach to the issue! Washington honored states' rights in his appeal, and he employed no federal standing army.

I have repeatedly stated that I have NO problem with the feds flexing their muscles in constitutionally legitimate ways, just as Washington did. Washington's actions have exactly zero relevancy to my points about a vast, standing military.

I see the worldwide results of an out of control arms industry coupled with governmental fear of armed populations what I see is civil war and chaos, everywhere; the death of innocents.

I totally agree about the out of control arms industry insofar as you are talking about the mega-military/industrial-complex that furthers our "non-wars" of aggression and imperialism all over the world!

Regarding your line about "governmental fear of armed populations" leading to civil wars and the deaths of innocents, you'll have to provide examples that clearly show that "governmental fear of armed populations" being the proximate cause of all this supposed "chaos".

I think you give reason to insanity.

Okay, this is twice in two posts that you've called me insane. That's beyond the pale, even for you. You should back off, get sober, and get your frothing under control.

You guild escalation with principle but its naked fear that propels your perspective.

"Escalation with principle"? Oh, you mean like our founders did regarding England, and that over grievances far less odious than we face today from "our own" government? Or do you mean like the Scots did regarding England? Or do you mean like every other effort by human beings to throw off the tyranny of other human beings? "Escalation" must always be founded on principle, and all legitimate reformations and revolutions have "guilded escalation with principle."

"Naked fear"? ROFL!

Okay, is naked fear in contrast with partially-clothed fear? Or perhaps its in contrast with pornographically-explicit fear! Or perhaps its in contrast with Victorian-era-covered fear. I don't know. It's hard to see how naked fear is a particularly unworthy form of fear.

And you have never indicated why fear is a bad thing to begin with. After all, most "Americans" today are so afraid of terrorism that they happily submit to invasions of their privacy, including utterly unlawful searches and seizures, as long as the whole "homeland security" approach to life can keep them (in their own minds only) even a shred more "safe." If anybody is motivated by "naked fear," it is most "Americans," and what's pathetic about that fear is that it is both essentially unfounded and it sacrifices the most basic principles of legitimate government in its blind groping for a "security" that is a chimera.

What about the fear experienced in climbing? Is that bad or "naked" fear? Or do you respond to that fear BY holding to certain principles in spite of that fear that is indeed a very legitimate motivation?

Your "naked fear" line is purely pejorative and actually conveys no useful propositional content.

You've said so many times.

What does the "so" pick out in that sentence? Provide examples.

Well your fear is not worth the disintegration of my country.

What a hoot! I mean, that is a genuine knee-slapper! You are really on a roll here.

There's so much to say in response to this crap-packed line that I scarcely know where to begin.

Okay, I'll settle on this part: "my country." WHAT do you think "your country" even IS? You come off like the endless goofballs with their "Proud to be American" bumper stickers. But ask any ten of them what "being American" even means, and you'll get at least fifteen different answers. And those answers will be vague, hand-waving, unprincipled crap.

I was once at an air show, and one of the fighter pilots was addressing a gathered group of attendees. He said, "I'm in the air to protect your Sunday barbecues." There was some applause, and then I said, "I hope you are in the air to protect much more intangible and deeper things than barbecues." There was silence, with people turned staring malevolently at me. I said, "I get that you're basically saying 'way of life,' but even that is a chimera. I would hope that you recognize that you are protecting something far more fundamental that any of that." Again, silence, and then he lamely sputtered, "Yes, obviously, I fly to protect freedom."

Ackk, gag! Yeah, right! He has no idea what "freedom" even means, which is the same as the vast majority of present "Americans," including the ones sporting their bumper stickers.

And you don't either! I have NO idea what you think "your country" even is, and I bet you can't define it with a shred of rigor, because to do so with rigor, you'd have to appeal to the very foundational principles that you are so quick to dismiss to maintain the (sick) status quo. "Your country" has already disintegrated in every meaningful sense. It is corporate-owned, PAC-controlled, and even "your" money is literally worthless and manipulated by a "fed" that has NOTHING to do with the actual fed and has NONE of your best interests at heart.

"Your country"? What the hell is that???

And I don't give a damn about your so-called inalienable argument.

That much is crystal clear, and that fact reveals how utterly unprincipled you are in your (like most "Americans'") quest for the (sick and apathetic) status quo.

If you want to argue like a civilized person, fine. But your repeatedly calling me insane is childish and outlandish. Grow up, and see if you can find a principle worth dying for.
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Apr 9, 2015 - 11:49am PT
DMT, it isn't worth it to argue with a person that thinks guns and cars are on the same level whan it comes to murder or one that correlates children in school with inmates of prisons.
Messages 5481 - 5500 of total 5646 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews