Author Topic: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)  (Read 13796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #90 on: December 23, 2012, 03:12:06 PM »

Offline thirstyboots18

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 2182
I am torn right down the middle over this issue, too.  (Seems to be a favorite perch of mine...the middle.

I imagine that one of the reasons our forefathers left the right to bear weapons clause in, was to protect the citizenry from the government, itself.  As British subjects, the country was attacked by Britain, after all.

Even today, Iraqis were attacked by their government, Serbs have been attacked by their government, etc.  If the U. S. had not gone through the Civil War, I wonder if it would be as powerful a unit as it has become.  That was surely a factor in centering power in the Federal part of the government, rather than in individual  States.


Yesterday is history.
Tomorrow is a mystery.
Today is a gift...
   That is why it is called the present.
Visit the CelticsBlog Live Game Chat!

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #91 on: December 23, 2012, 03:29:05 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1384
  • Tommy Points: 105
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #92 on: December 23, 2012, 06:15:46 PM »

Offline thirstyboots18

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 2182
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.
Yesterday is history.
Tomorrow is a mystery.
Today is a gift...
   That is why it is called the present.
Visit the CelticsBlog Live Game Chat!

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #93 on: December 23, 2012, 06:40:18 PM »

Offline IndeedProceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37762
  • Tommy Points: 1867
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #94 on: December 23, 2012, 06:45:16 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10417
  • Tommy Points: 810
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?

Have we ever, even once, had any hint of a tyrannical government? That's the worst excuse for gun ownership that I have heard. That threat has never existed since the U.S. was founded after the revolutionary war.

Also, with the weapons our military and that of other nations have in tanks and fighter jets, a bunch of civillians with rifles wouldn't stand a chance, just ask the people in the middle east.

Should we allow citizens to purchase rocket launchers and other surface to air weapons now too?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2012, 06:53:15 PM by hpantazo »

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #95 on: December 23, 2012, 06:52:15 PM »

Offline vinnie

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8352
  • Tommy Points: 390
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?

Have we ever, even once, had any hint of a tyrannical government? That's the worst excuse for gun ownership that I have heard. That threat has never existed since the U.S. was founded after the revolutionary war.

Also, with the weapons our military and that of other nations have in tanks and fighter jets, a bunch of civillians with rifles wouldn't stand a chance, just ask the people in the middle east. S

hould we allow citizens to purchase rocket launchers and other surface to air weapons now too?

The tyrannical government exists in the minds of all of the conspiracy theorists who read evil into everything that is done in Washington. It also exists in the minds of all of the people who listen to nutjobs like Alex Jones. I don't know how these people live their lives every day knowing that someone around the next corner is going to capture them and put them in a FEMA prison camp --  ;D

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #96 on: December 23, 2012, 06:57:05 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10417
  • Tommy Points: 810
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?

Have we ever, even once, had any hint of a tyrannical government? That's the worst excuse for gun ownership that I have heard. That threat has never existed since the U.S. was founded after the revolutionary war.

Also, with the weapons our military and that of other nations have in tanks and fighter jets, a bunch of civillians with rifles wouldn't stand a chance, just ask the people in the middle east. S

hould we allow citizens to purchase rocket launchers and other surface to air weapons now too?

The tyrannical government exists in the minds of all of the conspiracy theorists who read evil into everything that is done in Washington. It also exists in the minds of all of the people who listen to nutjobs like Alex Jones. I don't know how these people live their lives every day knowing that someone around the next corner is going to capture them and put them in a FEMA prison camp --  ;D

LOL. Yea, there is that. Do any of those people actually believe that owning an automatic weapon will prevent them from ending up in a FEMA camp? I don't think so. They are even more frightened by the technological weapons and trained agents our government has than most NRA members.

Or do they think that having guns will prevent the government from passing policies such as Obamacare? Nope. From enforcing unfair tax regulations or health policy or you name it? Nope.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #97 on: December 23, 2012, 06:58:33 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1384
  • Tommy Points: 105
I know that is silly because there is no way the citizens can compete with the firepower of the state.

The idea that we can arm ourselves to the extent necessary to defeat the might of the US is a silly as the folks who believe that we can sustain the level of development and social infrastructure we have in a capitalist society without an adequate tax structure.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #98 on: December 23, 2012, 07:00:10 PM »

Offline thirstyboots18

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 2182
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.
Aren't police considered local government as opposed to federal government?
Yesterday is history.
Tomorrow is a mystery.
Today is a gift...
   That is why it is called the present.
Visit the CelticsBlog Live Game Chat!

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #99 on: December 23, 2012, 07:02:09 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10417
  • Tommy Points: 810
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.
Aren't police considered local government as opposed to federal government?

Does it even matter? The whole idea is ridiculous.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #100 on: December 23, 2012, 07:03:48 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10417
  • Tommy Points: 810
I know that is silly because there is no way the citizens can compete with the firepower of the state.

The idea that we can arm ourselves to the extent necessary to defeat the might of the US is a silly as the folks who believe that we can sustain the level of development and social infrastructure we have in a capitalist society without an adequate tax structure.

I agree with you on both points. We aren't getting anywhere as a nation on agreeing on tax structure either unfortunately.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #101 on: December 23, 2012, 07:47:52 PM »

Offline IndeedProceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37762
  • Tommy Points: 1867
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
let me get this right..

The NRA believes that we need guns to protect us against a tyrannical government, but their response to gun violence is to allow the government more gun presence in our everyday lives. WOW, that makes no sense at all.

Wont giving the government more gun presence in our lives require us to carry more guns to prevent the government from tyranny?
Wait a minute, Ogaju.  Did the NRA say that, or are you attributing my statement to the NRA?  I am not a member of the NRA, don't even own a gun.  That was just my take it.

NRA said they wanted armed policemen (or guards, they used both terms) at all schools.
Aren't police considered local government as opposed to federal government?

Most times, not all the time (a lot of townships have no local police force, and rely on county sheriffs or state troopers.)

The thing that kinda annoyed me about the whole thing was 'We protect airports with policemen, we put policemen at sports games and rock concerts, but we won't protect our own children??'

With all the emphasis and implied finger pointing at the most offensive parts.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #102 on: December 23, 2012, 08:02:10 PM »

Offline thirstyboots18

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 2182
I know that my old high school in NH has a policeman on campus.  I think he is available to any student who wants to talk to him regarding bullying, drugs, gang related things, etc.

Sorry, I fail to see the problem.  If it were an armed soldier I may have a problem, although the school also offers ROTC, I believe, and I don't have a problem with that.   As I said, I am very conflicted about this question.
Yesterday is history.
Tomorrow is a mystery.
Today is a gift...
   That is why it is called the present.
Visit the CelticsBlog Live Game Chat!

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #103 on: December 23, 2012, 09:47:28 PM »

Offline mgent

  • Antoine Walker
  • *****
  • Posts: 5535
  • Tommy Points: 592
As unsafe as my old high school was, there sure as heck would never be any problems with an outside threat.  We even had German Shepherds sometimes.   ;D ;D
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #104 on: December 23, 2012, 10:37:59 PM »

Offline KCattheStripe

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10120
  • Tommy Points: 751
I know that is silly because there is no way the citizens can compete with the firepower of the state.

The idea that we can arm ourselves to the extent necessary to defeat the might of the US is a silly as the folks who believe that we can sustain the level of development and social infrastructure we have in a capitalist society without an adequate tax structure.

Especially when it failed in 1865.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog