Second Amendment

[xouper]

severin: Incidentally, how do you quote someone else's post and make it come out in bol? On most boards people put them inside >< type brackets to indicate a quote, but that doesn't work here.

AmateurScientist already answered your question, but I thought I'd show off a little. I posted my answer in the Help Section at this link:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29732

If you have more questions about this, please ask them in that other thread.

 

[DanishDynamite]

AmateurScientist:

The Viet Cong comes to mind as a modern example. They made quite a difference. Ask any U.S. Army or Marine veteran of the Vietnam conflict in the bush.

I'm sure there are others. I don't care to research it further at the moment.

I think DialecticMaterialist addressed this one.

How is this obvious? Wouldn't factions within the U.S. presumably rebel against the tyrannical government, including many National Guard units, around whom many other citizens could organize themselves with their own arms?

Well, perhaps "obvious" was a bit too definitive. Even near-zero probabilities can happen. However, things such as no precedent, no organization, no reason that individual gun owners would be on the same side, the vast superiority of the military in firepower, tactics, intel, etc, etc, make it unlikely that the population could have much influence against a determined military force.

DD, that is not at all what I said. Yours is a prime example of quoting someone out of context and changing the meaning entirely.

I beg to differ. I quoted the context at the beginning of the very same post!

I said that the CSA formed its own military from the ranks of the people and from the resigned soldiers and sailors from the USA. The ranks of the people used their own weapons, which they probably wouldn't have owned if not for the 2nd Amendment.

OK. Would you say that handguns privately owned today stand in the same relation to weapons of the military as they did then?

Let me throw out a new argument. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared in civil cases that the police do not have a duty to protect citizens from crime. Where does that leave the citizens? Clearly, it leaves them with the responsibility to defend themselves, or fail to do so at their peril.

It leaves them in almost exactly the same position which most European citizens currently enjoy. I say "almost" because most European countries today are not flooded by guns.

An armed populace is one which can defend itself from criminal attackers.

Complete crapola and an argument not in line with your basic claim.

This is hardly an anachronistic notion.

Indeed it is completely anachronistic as a look at other free, democratic nations shows.

AS [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[AmateurScientist]

DD,

Thanks for responding and for being reasonable and not insulting in your arguments. I appreciate debating with you, but I hope you will excuse and forgive me for discontinuing further debate in this thread and perhaps on this topic.

I've said most of what I could on the matter. As I mentioned in my first post, this topic tends to bring out a lot of invective and insults.

We can just leave it with our having differing opinions and perspectives on the matter, I hope.

See ya in another thread.

AS

 

[DanishDynamite]

DD,

Thanks for responding and for being reasonable and not insulting in your arguments. I appreciate debating with you, but I hope you will excuse and forgive me for discontinuing further debate in this thread and perhaps on this topic.

Completely.

I've said most of what I could on the matter. As I mentioned in my first post, this topic tends to bring out a lot of invective and insults.

Again, I agree completely.

We can just leave it with our having differing opinions and perspectives on the matter, I hope.

Certainly, we can. Untill next time.

See ya in another thread.

See you AS. It's been a pleasure. And I mean that.

 

[AmateurScientist]

DD,

Oh yeah. Keep your hands off my guns!!!!



AS

 

[DanishDynamite]

DD,

Oh yeah. Keep your hands off my guns!!!!



AS

 

[Cleopatra]

LW

I haven't ignored your question, I will reply to it

 

[severin]

Epepke - Um. Have you actually used a pistol to hit a target at a distance?

Yes. Hard to get a bulls eye but not that hard to get close enough to do some damage, even with little practice. Hey, maybe I'm a natural shootist...

And I'm not saying that UK society is perfect - far from it. It's not us we are discussing.

 

[severin]

Oh, and thanks for the debate, guys. It's been very informative, which is what I hoped for. I've learned a lot.

Happy Halloween.

 

[Kodiak]

Well, perhaps "obvious" was a bit too definitive. Even near-zero probabilities can happen. However, things such as no precedent, no organization, no reason that individual gun owners would be on the same side, the vast superiority of the military in firepower, tactics, intel, etc, etc, make it unlikely that the population could have much influence against a determined military force.

Thanks, but I'd rather have the option of a fighting chance as opposed to relying on the benevolence of the government and the military.

I can see it now:

Thomas Paine, Samual Adams, Paul Revere, George Washington, et.al.: "The King would never take unfair advantage of us brave colonists here in the New World. The redcoats are sufficiently armed to protect us. Besides, they are our countrymen and fellow citizens. They would never fire on their own. Even if we did decide to revolt, we wouldn't have a chance in hell since some would run to Canada while others might even side with the government troops."