StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Beowulf wrote:No debating in A&P or I'll toss this thread somewhere else.

Sorry. Split please?

Bah. This isn't really an A&P thread. It's not about discussion of the pic Shep put up, so... hmm... off to OT it goes. -- Beowulf

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Good point.

Okay, the Constitution's 2nd Amendment was put there to ensure the People had the means and tools to enforce our right to make the government respect our rights as citiozens instead of the government's helping themselves and disregarding our rights as they see fit. Unfortunately, it seems as adaptable as the people are in defense against tyranny, the tyrants are just as adaptable in their self-interested predations against us.

I beleive this theory has been trumped easily by the PATRIOT debacle and the utter lack of any civilian force rising up to protect their rights.

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Owning a .50 BMG rifle is victimless; sheep shagging is not. Owning a .50 BMG rifle is exercising a vital Constitutional freedom (albeit to an extreme degree, but the principle is exactly the same from the .50 all the way down to the puniest .22 Short derringer); sheep shagging is not.

When asked to justify that particular rule (which is part of the Constitution), you can't just appeal to the Constitution. This is circular logic.

Good point.

Okay, the Constitution's 2nd Amendment was put there to ensure the People had the means and tools to enforce our right to make the government respect our rights as citiozens instead of the government's helping themselves and disregarding our rights as they see fit. Unfortunately, it seems as adaptable as the people are in defense against tyranny, the tyrants are just as adaptable in their self-interested predations against us.

Devil's advocate time. Einy, if the government was really that interested, the biggest private arsenal in the U.S. wouldn't help you. Shooting a cop won't protect your rights; it'll get them taken away as you go to prison for life. Therefore, having guns for that reason and that reason alone isn't of much use.

SirNitram wrote:

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Good point.

Okay, the Constitution's 2nd Amendment was put there to ensure the People had the means and tools to enforce our right to make the government respect our rights as citiozens instead of the government's helping themselves and disregarding our rights as they see fit. Unfortunately, it seems as adaptable as the people are in defense against tyranny, the tyrants are just as adaptable in their self-interested predations against us.

I beleive this theory has been trumped easily by the PATRIOT debacle and the utter lack of any civilian force rising up to protect their rights.

Yes, I agree completely with that assessment as well.

Rogue 9 wrote:Devil's advocate time. Einy, if the government was really that interested, the biggest private arsenal in the U.S. wouldn't help you. Shooting a cop won't protect your rights; it'll get them taken away as you go to prison for life. Therefore, having guns for that reason and that reason alone isn't of much use.

The Second American Revolution disagrees.

jmac wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:Devil's advocate time. Einy, if the government was really that interested, the biggest private arsenal in the U.S. wouldn't help you. Shooting a cop won't protect your rights; it'll get them taken away as you go to prison for life. Therefore, having guns for that reason and that reason alone isn't of much use.

The Second American Revolution disagrees.

I note that the forum is labeled as "Fiction Page," or I might have used my global EzBoard account to go have a good chuckle at their expense.

Edit: I note that one "MarkSheppard" is logged in there at the moment. Might have to go have a good chuckle anyway.

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Yes, I agree completely with that assessment as well.

The reason is actually obvious; while alot of civilians with rifles was enough in 1700's to stage a massive revolt, it's rather a joke against a modern, 1st world military power. The idea that owning these guns will make people able to 'protect their rights' is disproven by observation. Time to get a new plan to retake rights.

Rogue 9 wrote:I note that the forum is labeled as "Fiction Page," or I might have used my global EzBoard account to go have a good chuckle at their expense.

Edit: I note that one "MarkSheppard" is logged in there at the moment. Might have to go have a good chuckle anyway.

There's at least 5 or 6 SD.net members over on that board, and I think quite a few of us are regular visitors there thanks to the excellent stories in their fictions pages. I know the TBO-verse stories are quite a big hit.

aerius wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:I note that the forum is labeled as "Fiction Page," or I might have used my global EzBoard account to go have a good chuckle at their expense.

Edit: I note that one "MarkSheppard" is logged in there at the moment. Might have to go have a good chuckle anyway.

There's at least 5 or 6 SD.net members over on that board, and I think quite a few of us are regular visitors there thanks to the excellent stories in their fictions pages. I know the TBO-verse stories are quite a big hit.

Yeah, well if I drop by, you'll see the name Renegade Paladin. Okay, enough hijack.

The Second Ammenment's origin is in Renaissance philosophy (read you Machiavelli) where the militia is the guarranteer of the rights of the people and the army is the tool of the king. There was a lot of debate on whether or not the US was going to have an army and the Second Ammenment was a compromise. The army performed better on the field and voila, there is an Army today.

That being said, it is pretty clear what it says and it isn't going to change. It's too damn hard to change the Constitution and political suidide in too many states. That's why it's getting nibbled away at. It's a relic, but it isn't going anywhere.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Imperial Overlord wrote:"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Kindly explain how that applies here, please.

SirNitram wrote:

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Good point.

Okay, the Constitution's 2nd Amendment was put there to ensure the People had the means and tools to enforce our right to make the government respect our rights as citiozens instead of the government's helping themselves and disregarding our rights as they see fit. Unfortunately, it seems as adaptable as the people are in defense against tyranny, the tyrants are just as adaptable in their self-interested predations against us.

I beleive this theory has been trumped easily by the PATRIOT debacle and the utter lack of any civilian force rising up to protect their rights.

Just becuase we dont use it, doesnt mean that right, and the means to defend it should not/dont exist.

And yes, that was the reason t was put in place. Make an inference from history. WHat sparked of the Revolutionary War? The brittish tried to take guns away from the colonists, so they couldnt resist the british military. The colonists said "fuck no" and used those guns to shoot the british.

It would only be natural that the founding fathers would place such a rule saying "no taking citizens guns away" in the bill of rights.

It is a quote from a Supreme Court justice saying that the Constitution should be read/evaluated with some common sense. It was regarding a different issue, but we are discussing the Constitution are we not? It seems applicable to me.

Jon wrote:Why on Earth would a law abiding citizen interested in defending themselves (which im constantly assured by gun toting US friends that's the main reason behind their ownership) be interested in a weapon like that?

Who says every gun you buy must be for personal defence? Lots of guns are bought for the reason that they are fun/useful for hunting/valuable collectors items ect... .50 cal rifles are demonized or no reason. The fact is that the Barrett .50cal rifle was originally designed for hunting big game. It only became a big bad evil military weapon when the CIA bought some of them to give to the Afgans in the 1980's. Its firepower is nothing new or exceptional, the US had trouble with North Korean snipers armed with 14.5mm weapons (twice the power of .50BGM) back in the Korean war. The world is full of .45-.577-20mm caliber cartridges and the rifles to fire them, some designed for hunting, some for blasting tanks (in the 1950's you could buy 20mm anti tank rifles through the mail, my dad had one for a while), all very fun to use, and they are rather rarely used in any form of crime. The reason being that the things can cost as much as 30,000 dollars and a few thousand is the minimal, and when you fire one everyone within a mile is going to hear it very clearly.

Not to mention they are hard to conceal under a trenchcoat.

Imperial Overlord wrote:It is a quote from a Supreme Court justice saying that the Constitution should be read/evaluated with some common sense. It was regarding a different issue, but we are discussing the Constitution are we not? It seems applicable to me.

It would be applicable if the issue at hand involved national death if the letter of the Constitution is followed. It doesn't.

Oh, I'm sorry I forgot the Constitution was holy writ and it should never be examined to see if it was flawed. Silly me. . Sorry, had to get that strawman out of my system.

The Constitution is the law of the land. It is flawed (that's why there is ammendments). What is your objection to examining the document with that particular quote in mind?

Imperial Overlord wrote:Oh, I'm sorry I forgot the Constitution was holy writ and it should never be examined to see if it was flawed. Silly me. . Sorry, had to get that strawman out of my system.

The Constitution is the law of the land. It is flawed (that's why there is ammendments). What is your objection to examining the document with that particular quote in mind?

I have no objection to examination of the Constitution.

I think that having weapons to defend yourself from the government is a silly idea, since you can't win and declaring that you're going to try tends to make the government watch you. But there are myriad other valid reasons to own a firearm, such as hunting, self-protection, or even fun at the shooting range, and I see little problem with allowing such activities.

I agree. I don't have a problem with hunting, although for self defense statistically you are more likely to shoot a friend or relative with a handgun than an intruder. I live in province where one of the easiest ways to get a firearms liscence is to have a geologists permit (surprise a bear up close in the bush and you need a handcannon). The militia "its in the Constitution", the "I need a Kalashnikov for self defense crowd," (although if Shep wants to keep one at the range and shoot it every now and then I can live with it) and the "I need to be able to fight the Army crowd", that bothers me the most. I'm not fond of well armed urban paranoids/mocho men either.

[/quote]

As far as home defense goes, do you really want an assault rifle? In close quarters, they're rather cumbersome. Wouldn't a pistol be a better weapon? Or a shotgun?

Jon wrote:Why on Earth would a law abiding citizen interested in defending themselves (which im constantly assured by gun toting US friends that's the main reason behind their ownership) be interested in a weapon like that?

It's the kind of weapon that's so scary looking you'd never have to use it. If a criminal sees you coming with an AR-15 or an AK, he'll probably high-tail it or just beg for his life. With some prissy little six-shooter, you'll probably have to put a few rounds into him to convince him it's a real gun.

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:

Jon wrote:Why on Earth would a law abiding citizen interested in defending themselves (which im constantly assured by gun toting US friends that's the main reason behind their ownership) be interested in a weapon like that?

It's the kind of weapon that's so scary looking you'd never have to use it. If a criminal sees you coming with an AR-15 or an AK, he'll probably high-tail it or just beg for his life. With some prissy little six-shooter, you'll probably have to put a few rounds into him to convince him it's a real gun.

Simply cocking a 12-gage shotgun should be enough to scare off most criminals.

Durandal wrote:As far as home defense goes, do you really want an assault rifle? In close quarters, they're rather cumbersome. Wouldn't a pistol be a better weapon? Or a shotgun?

That's why you have both. Then you slip your Wakizashi into the waste-band of your trousers incase things get a little too up-close.

When I lived in Oakland, where someone was stabbed to death outside my front door and 2 people shot each other to death a block away, I would not have imagined scoffing at an assault rifle. As it was, I had a sword in every room and was never out of reach of a sharpened knife, letter opener or maglite. (Keep in mind that there was a rash of home-invasion rapes and murders in the area, too.)
One of my roommates wanted to buy a shotgun, but he claimed that he needed it because he was moving to Philidelphia. Another one of my friends was stabbed in the head in Berkeley. He was balding and apparently some guys thought he was a skinhead--fortunately he has a thick skull and an EMT was right there when it happened.

Self defense is nothing to sneeze at.

Durandal wrote:As far as home defense goes, do you really want an assault rifle? In close quarters, they're rather cumbersome. Wouldn't a pistol be a better weapon? Or a shotgun?

The best urban home defense weapon is a short barreled (18 inch is legally the smallest allowed without paying a $200 NFA tax) shotgun loaded with light buckshot.

Powerful, easy to use and maintain, extremely low risk of overpenetration with #4 buck, and the mere sight of it in determined hands will have most badguys pissing in their pants.

Handguns are better only in that due to their size, they're harder for the bad guy to get a hold of in tight quarters.

Of course the solution to that is if the badguy gets to within 15 feet of you, open fire.

Durandal wrote:As far as home defense goes, do you really want an assault rifle? In close quarters, they're rather cumbersome. Wouldn't a pistol be a better weapon? Or a shotgun?

The AWB also banned assault shotguns. These tend to be rather useful in a home defense situation...