In partnership with CBSSports.com
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
They deserve the right to try.
Let's be serious. Who is arguing for nuclear weapons? The line is drawn at a critical state purpose that is implemented through narrowly tailored laws. I see none of that in the proposed CA or Federal legislation.
You are right about the personal antecdote.
You are wrong about the broad versus narrow interpretation. The pro-2ndA side does not see the 2ndA as being ambiguous or that the first clause (or your interpretation of it) somehow guts the second clause which provides in absolute terms that the fundamental right to bear arms shall not be infringed. To the contrary, the first clause means that a free people must be armed to protect themselves and their country.
To me, it seems the anti-2ndA crowd wants to twist the amendment to say something other than what it does until everybody is running around with a bbgun.
Then you support banning alcohol, cars, swimming pools....???? I mean, how many more deaths do we have to tolerate.
Who doesn't care about the issues you mentioned? Why do people care so much about guns and not swimming pools? Alcohol? Tobacco?
Gun control laws are not going to stop violent crime. Look at India, Mexico, England.
Anti-2ndA folks just want to prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves. Total nanny state.
Right on. The anti-2ndA crowd just despises the fact that this is a constitutionally guaranteed right and they will do everything they can to subvert the constitution.
Single shot muskets!!!!
It is unlikely that they would have. The vast majority took the view that if they submitted that they would be spared. Many obediently allowed themselves to be herded off to be killed. They enjoyed overwhelming numbers over the armed guards at times. They could have overwhelmed the guards without weapons. However, they believed the safest course was to submit. Obviously, that was a misjudgment.
What about our discussion above? You try to look into your crystal ball and tell us all the world is as you say it is, rather than allowing people a fundamental right to defend themselves that has been around for hundreds of years. You seem to believe the police are always right, but ignore the rampant corruption that has plagued LA vis a vis the LAPD, Rampart scandal, etc. You take broad hypotheticals, assume all the best by the government, and then use your examples to argue against fundamental rights, all the time ignoring why those rights are there to begin with. Sorry, but we don't all live in your little box.
You sum up your position perfectly...."I believe the danger of people choosing to resist...."
There is it is. You believe resistance is a danger and has no place in our society. Much like Leland Yee. "There is no discussion, there is no debate."
No resistance, no discussion, no debate. The motto of the anti-2ndA crowd.
This post was edited by philatrojan 17 months ago
I think modern-day Jews subscribe to a "never again" philosophy (please, correct me if I am wrong), as I have, in particular, heard those in Israel mention this in regards to Iran.
I would imagine that they would react quite differently today.
What you think they would or would not have done is irrelevant. You are not a fortune teller. Let the people whose lives are on the line make that decision for themselves rather than big brother telling them what is in their best interests or what they would have done or what would work.
Alcohol, cars and swimming pools have utility other than killing. Guns do not. If someone dies of alcohol, car accident or drowning., something went wrong with the use of the alcohol, car or pool. If someone dies from a bullet, the gun was used as intended. In any of these situations, there is a balance of utility versus the chance of something bad happening. In the case of cars and swimming pools, virtually everyone believes that the benefits outweigh the negatives. With alcohol, there were those that believed that there were more negatives and that it should be banned. That was tried. We found that the negatives of such restriction outweigh the benefits and prohibition was repealed. In the case of guns, it is a balance of how many people are helped with a gun (e.g. stopping a criminal from committing a violent crime or hunting) versus bad things happening with a gun (e.g. an innocent person being shot).
Continuing with your analogy, we have more regulation of those items than guns. You need to be licensed to have a bar or liquor store. You may not sell alcohol in most, if not all, jurisdiction without a license. There are many people that make a living at gun shows that are unlicensed. In Florida, your pool must be fenced to prevent kids from wandering in and drowning. Cars must be registered, you must have insurance, you must pass a written and practical competency test in most jurisdictions. However, the gun lobby opposes such type of regulations of guns. Why do gun advocates use cars, swimming pools and other things as examples when it is convenient, but do not want regulation of guns as there is for those items?
I think we can look at more modern examples of how those that were oppressed rose up to fight their oppressors - specifically in Bosnia.
Had the Croats and Bosnian Muslims not armed themselves and fought against the Serbs, they would have been wiped out. That is not to say that many, many were not exterminated, but their armed resistance eventually brought the involvement of the UN and US, in particular. Their resistance not only saved many lives, but preserved their very people's continued existence.
The POTUS and VP disagree -- guns are used for target shooting. Based on many of their positions, that is their opinion as to what is the primary use for firearms.
With all due respect Morethan, it is your OPINION that the only utility for guns is to kill people.
In fact many of us who have never fired a weapon in anger or self defense disagree with you. We use them for things other that killing people...in fact, we would most prefer if we never had to be put in the position of having to choose to use it for that terrible purpose.
Obviously, as with any large group, there are differing opinions. However, I believe what you state in your first sentence is the opinion of a large majority of Jews. I am certain that most Jews would react differently today. I find it unimaginable that someone like Hitler gains total power in the U.S. However, if someone was marching me or my family off because of religion, I would rather die fighting/resisting than complying.
...but that is the point of the 2nd Amendment -- if the unthinkable happens, we, as a free population are given the tools to resist in the very way that you describe above.
I would imagine that many Japanese Americans today share your feelings as it has to do with being "marched off" because of a racial, religious or ethnic reason. These things are not unheard of, and the Founding Fathers knew that there is always "a possibility" no matter how difficult they try to make it or how remote it might be.
This post was edited by deetj13 17 months ago
He's right in the sense that a gun's primary purpose is to kill. What he ignores, and has ignored since the last time we had this argument, is that killing in self defense is a more valid purpose than anything served by tobacco, swimming pools and alcohol.
The regulation argument is also bunk. You don't see total bans on cetain kinds of tobacco, hard alcohol versus beer, or pools that are only so deep. You see warning labels and age limits, some laws on importation, etc. Guns are already regulated well beyond that, don't kill nearly as many people, and unlike tobacco, alcohol and swimming pools, ARE EXPLICITLY PROTECTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. That means that any regulations on weapons should receive strict scrutiny. When you look at what's being proposed in CA, the laws are knee jerk BS that is aimed at law abiding citizens rather than criminals.
How many mass shootings (or any shootings) from rifles equipped with bullet buttons. Probably close to zero.
There is a law proposed in CA that bans all semi-auto rifles with a detachable clip. That is INSANE.
This is why when we defend our constitutional rights we have to go to the extreme. The anti-2ndA crowd will go to the opposite extreme with their nonsense laws that accomplish nothing. The line in the sand has been drawn. I just hope Scalia's proding of Kegan and common sense bears out on the Supreme Court.
If you believe that my opinion that you quote sums up my argument, you failed to read or understand my posts. I pointed out above, corrupt cops should be sorted out by courts, not vigilantes. Otherwise, we have no rule of law. I never claimed that there is no discussion or debate. That is what we are having now. That is your strawman. In fact, I have responded to every one of your arguments with facts and logic. Apparently, you just ignored the responses. That is why there cannot be a discussion with you. You love your guns with a fetish and seem unwilling to read anything contrary.
You believe "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" clearly must be interpreted as you like. It is not as clear as you believe. In fact, the SCOTUS has wrestled with that for a great deal of those "hundreds of years."
I am not just trying to read the tea leaves. We know how they actually DID react. By the way, even today, a very small percentage of Jews own guns. On another note, Israel has very strict gun laws. I find it amusing that you want Jews to have something that most of us do not want.
This post was edited by Morethanafan 17 months ago
What happened to the Japanese was terrible, but they were not slaughtered. In fact, the Jews complied probably because they believed that they would be treated somewhat similar to how we treated the Japanese. If the Japanese had resisted with guns, they likely would have died. In their case, they probably had a right to resist, but it would not have been in their interest.
Correct, but Phila also is making the valid point that they did not have weapons to defend themselves or mount a proper resistance...and we do not know what they would have done if they did have those tools to do so.
I think both you and I are in agreement that should something like that happen today, having learned that lesson, modern-day Jews would like to have the option and weapons to fight like hell.
I've seen people on this board state that citizens should have the right to own every type of weapon that the government has in it's possession.
...but you, yourself, said:
"if someone was marching me or my family off because of religion, I would rather die fighting/resisting than complying. "
So, it may not be in YOUR best interest to fight back, but it is something that you would do anyhow...at lest that is what I understand from your post.
Why is killing in self defense more valid than swimming for exercise or driving to work? Far more people get exercise from swimming or are able to get to work with a car than ever need a gun to defend themself. In fact, successfully using a gun in self defense is rare enough that it usually makes national news. I know many people, including myself, that swim for exercise. I know many that use a car to get to work, shop, etc. How many people do you personally know that saved themselves in the U.S. by using a gun in self defense? An even more relevant question is how many people were not able to stop and attack because they were limited to only 10 bullets in a magazine? How would registering guns stop people from defending themselves? How would requiring background checks stop anyone, other than those with a criminal background or mentally ill, stop people from defending themselves? How would having a head of the ATF stop people from defending themselves? All these things would stop is gun manufacturers profits which is what the NRA is beholden to.
This topic is 1 of only 2 issues on which the more I read the "pro" side arguments, the more I more I begin to oppose the "pro" side agenda. Gun control has never been one of my hot button issues, but it is quickly becoming one.
True. That is because of the history of what happened to my family. A lot of my family was wiped out during WWII. For example, my aunt died in a concentration camp after being caught smuggling Jewish children out of Germany. To an extent, I have been indoctrinated with paranoia against submitting to an authority that is capable of something like that by parents that lived through that Hell.
You do know that the NRA has been a LONG-TIME supporter of more complete background checks and preventing those with potentially violent mental-illness, right? That is probably the most significant step towards keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them -- even more than gun registrations.The NRA has been advocating for that since the Clinton years.
If you are going to use certain things against the NRA, make sure they are actually against them.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports