MMj card holders no guns

Oh man what plant are you from ? What about all the people that hunt to feed their families or the people that shoot sporting clays. If you want to kill someone you don't need a gun. I guess if people start cubing someone to death with a baseball bat we'll outlaw baseball . Sounds stupid doesn't it well so does taking away everyones guns.The only people that want to get rid of all the firearms are the people that don't have any. I hope you never need one but if I need one I got a couple-Bud

 

Lemme help ya grammer there Bud... asssit:

 

Back when the American constitution was written, the citizens had access to the same type of weaponry as the military. Why the hell is this now a problem, too?


The fact that my fellow Americans have not raised Hell over this kind of BS is also a bit of a downer.


I'm calling for mobs of angry citizens stomping the ever loving shit out of tyrannical government leaders who would take our means of defense and leave us to the crows if they could. Not long ago, the world was at war because governments were oppressing their citizens rights to defense and liberty and happiness. Now we are over our heads in debt to those same countries would have been at war with. We used to kill communists, and now we owe them more than can be repaid without bloodshed. Which I believe is drawing very near.


Our government did this to us, and we did it to ourselves. We've allowed our government to whore us to cheap labor, cheap imports, and we've let them start wars over things that could bring us peace with each other and our neighbors. but instead has lead to murder and mayhem.


We have allowed them to tell us what we can and cannot do for far too long. The line must be drawn. Our governments have grown mad with power. They've been corrupted by greed. We have to stop them before they completely destroy us all.

 

I would use mine to defend myself against some one who had a knife, baseball bat, or was bigger and stronger than me.


When it comes to protecting me and my family, I don't believe in a fair fight. I want superior firepower.

 

So if 5 or 6 guys challenge someone to a "fair fight" but all at the same time does that count? If they beat him to death for not wearing the right color that day, would it be ok as long as noone used a gun, or would you rather that the non-gang member be allowed to defend himself from the impossible odds placed against him; unless he's Jet Li or somebody?


What if your attacker has a screwdriver or a shard of glass or a knife? Still don't think a gun would either be used to make the aggressor decide not to continue attacking and run away or to make sure that the correct person in that situation died; the criminal?


"Violence, death, and saddness", so someone stabbed to death or beaten to death with a baseball bat has relatives that grieve less because at least a gun wasn't used? You're judging things incorrectly in my opinion. It's kind of like judging the need for a police department simply by tal how many criminals that they shot last year. You must also take into account lives saved, crime prevented, property damage prevented, and medical costs prevented by having guns in the hands of trained and licenced law abiding citizens instead of just the criminals and the police that obviously can't be everywhere at all times.


Even the way that the Feds calculate the statistics is bullshit. The famous addage that "Guns are most often used to kill friends and family members" was coined using FBI information about the relationships between the shooters and the victims. The only hurdle that needed to be passed to classify two people as acquaintances was that they knew each other before the actual shooting incident. But there's a huge problem with that; the fact that dueling drug-dealers and gang-members knew each of each others existance before they got into a deadly shooting dosen't make them friends.


You have to look at how some of these uber-liberal (and uber-conservative) statistics that they use to say these things are compiled, man.

 

Only in organized sporting events does the notion of a 'fair fight' hold any merit. In reality, it is an unrealistic concept.

 

I think that Bill Maher said it best, "For the last 30 years we, as a country, have put the bill(money) up our noses and now the bills have come due."

 

I know it's off topic but did anyone see that Onion News Network parody of what would happen if congress passed a law allowing people to have their guns held in their hands at eye level at all times even in public?


Now THAT was some funny shit!:roffl:

 

That's about as fair as a fight gets.


That's why it's a fight. The objective is to hurt the other guy and walk away.

 

Ok, Ok. You guys are right. I guess I should've said a fist fight instead of a fair fight. I guess that would be a more appropriate and realistic term for what we're talking about. Even though more than fists would be used. Kind of like a UFC fight! Hell yeah!

 

There being guns in our homes has nothing to do with why China, or any other country for that matter, has not yet invaded. Nothing whatsoever.


The only reasons we ourselves, the US, have invaded anyone since the end of WWII, were for capitalist imperialist motives. None of the countries we might consider a threat are at a stage of capitalist development such that they would need to invade another country seeking additional markets. They have not yet fully exploited and saturated the markets that are available to them.


Second, nations such as China and Russia could never succeed in an invasion on the US. They would undoubtedly repeal us if we were to invade their shores, but so too would we repeal them.


I would not go so far as to say there are no political or military figures in China or Russia who couldn't be convinced to invade us. However, the Cold War mentality has by and large been weeded out of these nations. I served as a linguist in the Air Force for six years. You can hear, in the interactions between military vessels of our nation and theirs, the difference in mentality. When we fly intelligence flights off the coast of China they don't really get froggy with us anymore. 20 years ago Russia would send up two or three Mig-29s, Mig-31s, or Su-27s to greet our intel aircraft. They'd fly up to where our pilots could see them, then do a half barrel-roll, exposing the underside of their wings so that we could see hey were fully loaded. You could listen to their air defense comms networks, and all their SAs would get their weapons systems up to the highest state of readiness. They don't even yawn anymore. *By and large* (again, excluding a few old school hardheads) we get along pretty well with them.


To recap; the other "powerhouse" nations have not invaded us because A) they have no reason to and B) they would fail. The fact that some civilians have guns under their pillows would quite literally never even be mentioned in discussion on whether or not to invade the US.

1) The only reason a well-armed population ever came into the equation to begin with was because we throttled Iraq's military force pretty much overnight, in both operations, and Afghanistan never had one to begin with. If it appeared I was saying that our military should be disarmed as well, forgive me, it's not what I meant.


2) I'm sorry Lion, but you are incorrect. The reason we have lost every war we've entered since WWII is because our reasons for invading were wrong. We shouldn't have been in any of the wars we've been in since WWII. Go mix it up in WWII? Sure, we'd be speaking German otherwise. We were protecting our own. We're invading for the wrong reasons in the last half century.


We were staging military operations on foreign shores, located 6,000 - 8,000 miles away from our home bases. We did so without popular support from the population in general. The government leadership knew they lacked support, and they did it anyway. We were fighting with people who believed they were 100% justified in shooting at us (whether or not they were I don't really care, and is inconsequential to this argument. The only important factor is that they whole-heartedly BELIEVED they were in the right).


To wit... I was on a routine flight over Afghanistan supporting allied special forces one evening. Boring night, nothing going on, so I was sitting on the flight deck bull shitting with one of the pilots. All the sudden we saw what looked like a huge firework off in the distance.


Those mother fuckers took a shoulder-launched RPG, with no guidance system whatsoever and a range of ~10,000ft, climbed to the top of a 20,000, yes, CLIMBED TWENTY THOUSAND FEET, to the top of a mountain, to pop a 1 in 10,000,000 shot off at us.


Of course they missed by a mile. And they knew they would. The point is, they went to those lengths just to get a snowball's chance in hell of hitting us. In that moment I knew we would never win the war we're fighting right now.


We lost the wars you cited, Lion, because we were fighting with people like the ones I just described. Their status as military or civilian is irrelevant. Every American soldier over there, in their heart of hearts, knows we're wrong and that we don't belong there. Every person we're trying to kill knows that we know we're wrong, and they are fighting for their homeland and their way of life (as misguided as we may consider their way of life).


Losing those wars has nothing to do with a right to bear arms.

You're right, allow me to refine my claim: *The specific section of the constitution detailing the right to bear arms is no longer applicable. The rest is fine.*


That section does NOT still hold true today. History tells us that the specific and overwhelming reason our right to bear arms was guaranteed, was to prevent a corrupt government from staying in power, or to protect against invasion.


Well, we've already addressed the second half of that. How we doing on #1? Ya'll think that our having weapons will make or break the success of our imminent revolution? Let's review the impact that weapons have had on the well-known revolutions of the recent past.


So many sections of Africa are wartorn, in constant states of bloodshed, and have been so for centuries. Is this because both sides are equally well armed? Possibly. However, is it not more likely that the conflict persists because there are so many cultural differences, so many differing opinions on how things should be, that they can never agree? I believe the second possibility much more likely. The only thing that the existence of weapons has accomplished in those conflicts is to ensure infinitely more death and destruction.


I grant you, the lack of weapons in said nations would not settle the conflicts (which only supports my point). It would, however, cause those conflicts to be much more civil, and less destructive in nature.


Serbia, Croatia. The infighting in that cultural melting pot of a geographic region is as old as history itself. The fighting didn't start because one side had weapons and the other didn't. The mayhem ensued due to people with opposing viewpoints on issues living in such close proximity to one another. Again, weapons have proven ineffective in resolving that conflict. Weapons have proven extremely effective in seeing to it that the body count reached astronomical numbers, and nothing more.


Some of you may claim these past few paragraphs inapplicable because the fighting was amongst cultural groups, and not against a corrupt government. You'd be wrong in such a claim, since one of the groups involved always has political power, but I'll play along for the moment.


Perhaps a situation more directly and visually applicable would be a juxtaposition of the revolutions in France from the 16th century through the 18th, to the "revolutions" in England in the same time frame.


If you ask any historian they will tell you the largest difference in the two nations' historical efforts for reform was the level of violence employed. France always saw revolution, while England saw evolution. France was pitch forks, torches, mad mobs and beheadings. Britain was political movements with popular support in parliament, effecting gradual change.


The funniest thing about examining armed revolutionary movements in France, is that they were constantly ice skating uphill. They would violently oust a leader whom they opposed, then stand around asking each other "Ok, uh.... what next", while another dictator took power.


The French failed time and time again, going from the frying pan into the fire, with their violent political movements. The British, on the other hand, while taking longer to effect their gradual political changes, saw results and did so with minimal bloodshed.


Weapons and the employment of violence not only granted the French no greater degree of success in their political movements, it actually set them back. Oh yeah, and more people died due to the use of weapons.


Taking a step back and looking at revolutions on a whole in the history of our planet, they have little to no impact on the success of a revolution. The only true factor that can be seen time and time again that, like clockwork, makes or breaks a government-reforming effort, is how much popular support the reforming party has.


"But what if our army has weapons and we don't, and we want government change?", I'm sure many will ask. If you have to ask that question the reformation effort does not have enough popular support to succeed. In nearly all successful revolutions, when the leader (king, despot, president, w/e he/she was called) called upon the army (militia, armed forces, w/e they are called) to quell the rebellion, they refused to take up arms against the revolting masses. It was not until that moment - when the reform movement gained enough support that even the army, when called upon by its commander, refused to take up arms against the revolutionaries, instead themselves joining those in revolt - that the revolution succeeded, and political change was effected.


All weapons ever do, or have ever done, in any internal / civil struggle, is to ensure that more people die before (if) the issue is settled. Weapons have NEVER, and WILL NEVER, guarantee the success of a revolution. For anyone who wishes to call me out on the scenario of the American Revolution... I will have to cede that *technically* that war proves my last statement wrong. Although, I hardly qualify that struggle as internal. We weren't even truly British anymore at that point.

I would alter nothing else about the constitution, and I disagree with your implied argument that making one change to the constitution necessarily begets an overhaul. I am 31. I do not align myself with one political party or another. I suppose I don't see the benefit.

This point is moving slightly away from our original discussion, that being private ownership of weapons. It moves toward weapons and the outcomes of their existence in general, but I will play along.


Thank you for enlightening us Blackprince. You have so eloquently summed up the other inevitable consequence of prolific possession of weapons; better weapons, more weapons, and more death, and - our current situation - the threat of nuclear war. But nuclear warheads coming down like fire and brimstone in Sodom and Gomorrah is all good, because if I feel so compelled I can purchase a 10 mm Glock.


I'll agree it sucks that a group of thugs can beat someone to death, and that if the victim doesn't have a firearm he can't defend himself against six men. But examine the odds of a resultant death in both scenarios. If there is a six on one fist fight, might it result in death? Of course, it's always a possibility. Arm any one of the seven people involved with a firearm, and then reassess the probability of a death.


There is no panacea when it comes to weapons (or anything for that matter, as there exists not one single panacea anywhere). The only thing we, or those in charge, can hope for is the best scenario from a utilitarian standpoint. I agree whole-heartedly that one person being beat to death out and out sucks. On the same token I think it sucks that 100 guilty people slip through or court system, with the hopes that we don't convict someone who is innocent. Nonetheless, such is our court system. It was designed that way intentionally, from a utilitarian view, and it is still the best possible justice system.


Continuing with your scenario, Prince, it would suck if someone wasn't allowed to have a firearm and therefore was beat to death. Chalk up an innocent death in that scenario. But you fail to acknowledge that if the innocent person has a firearm, then the odds are much greater that so too do the perps have firearms. Looking at the likely difference(s) made by the addition of firearms to this equation:


1) Barring the possibility that the six perps are blind, the innocent guy is almost definitely going to die now, whereas without the weapons he might just end up in the ER, or with some cuts and bruises.


2) If the innocent guy gets a shot off before he himself is shot, now more than one person dies.


For those of you who sleep better at night for having a firearm close by, I'm happy for you, sincerely. If it gives you peace of mind, I truly and entirely sincerely mean it, I am glad that something in this world can help you sleep better. Then again I wonder... God forbid anyone ever break into your house, what are the odds they are unarmed?


Innocent person = I, criminal breaking into your house = C. Generally speaking, I = C. You don't like this so you buy a firearm. Now, I + F > C. Knowing this, criminal buys and carries a firearm as well. We end up with I + F = C + F. You're back at square one, and in the event of a burglary all you've done is increased the likelihood of an ensuing death. Furthermore, in spite of what most gun owners believe, the odds of their own death are about equal to the odds of the death of the criminal, unless you've been extensively trained the use of a firearm in close quarters combat.


I don't care how many of you have, in fact, been trained to such effect but I'm sure you'll chime in to let us all know anyway. It's irrelevant. The facts are, 1) The number of gun owners properly trained in its use is unbelievably low 2) All the presence of a firearm in the above described scenario achieves is to multiply the odds of a death 3) It cannot even be claimed that the odds are in your favor. What those facts add up to is, you're not actually any safer for owning a firearm. Ironically enough, you only put yourself at greater risk.


I'm sure there are convincing arguments for private ownership of weapons out there (for purposes of feeding your family being one). At this point though I just don't see any so beneficial that it would tip the scale and outweigh the detriment that comes from firearms.

 

Jeez, I got carried away in my above post and forgot to address the other major reason why the right to bear arms is no longer valid.


"We have not changed that much, technology may have, but people have not and will not for a long time."


I agree 100%. People will probably never change.


The need for a right to bear arms was given birth by two factors.


1) The nature of people, which we both fully agree has not changed that much.


AND (not or, AND, meaning both must hold true for the result to hold true as well)


2) Lack of a strong, centralized, federal government both during and after the American revolution, and the fact that the weak federal government that did exist was bankrupt for a very long time. Anyone not agreeing with the fact of the nature of post-Revolutionary federal government might well benefit from reading up on American history.


When the Constitution was drawn up, its drafters were uncertain of the future strength of a federal government. Leading up to the Revolution the original colonies had a myriad of differences, and no true sense of unity. So the drafters were faced with an issue: How were they to institute defense against a foreign invading power, or a sovereign corrupt power, without counting on the uncertain fortification of a federal government?


All the drafters knew that without the civilian militias we would have certainly lost the war. The drafters also knew that they could not rely on the federal government, in its condition at that time, to provide military protection.


The answer was the right for all citizens to bear arms.


The nature of people has not changed. The status of our federal government HAS changed. We ARE more centralized. Our military IS well trained, well funded, sufficiently populated, and CAN defend us from invasion by foreign powers. We are no longer without protection from external threat.


Reason #2 no longer holds true, therefore the result - the need for a right to bear arms - also no longer holds true.


I have said nothing subjective, delivered no opinions formulated on my own. I have simply relayed unoriginal, but well known, 100% concrete hard fact. There is no logical or correct conclusion other than that the right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the constitution, is no longer valid.


Everything above this line applies only to the original reasons we were guaranteed a right to bear arms. I'm positive there are many other reasons people may argue the need for a right to bear arms. Many of my opinions on those various reasons would be just that; opinions. Most other arguments will be subjective in nature.


One of those arguments is not subjective in nature, and that argument that I have seen voiced here is that we need weapons to protect against corruption in government. See my above post (which also is based in concrete, inarguable facts) for an absolute decimation of that argument.


Just a parting thought... there has been much talk of corruption in government in the Smoker's Lounge forum of late, and how big money money organizations exert too much influence in the political arena in the US.


The NRA is one of those organizations.

 

I would have to disagree that my statements are off of the subject of private gun ownership. They are very much at the heart of the issue and I don't see how my statements aren't.


You spoke about inevitability but I am sensing a break in the full application of that concept as your reasoning unfolds. You use armed struggles that include guns in your rebuttles but you fail to also realize that many, many wars took place before the invention of guns and bullets so to say that "guns" multiply violence without taking into account that those guns aren't fireing themselves seems to be the break in logic that I sense. It sounds like the old "Having a gun around makes you want to use it" argument all fancified. Violence is unfortunately a part of human nature and is an aspect of the human condition and to seemingly sweep over this fact and place the fault of human misery and pain from violence mostly attributable to an inanimate object is, IMO, sophistry.


IMO your argument is logical but it does not encompass the whole and greater truth about the benifits of private firearm ownership because it starts with picking a side, it seems, and then proceeds forward from there. I could be wrong. I don't want to assume that just because you have not reached the same conclusion as I have that you have some ulterior design or that your logic is flawed, but that in forming an opinion first and then finding facts to support it you may have unknowingly blocked yourself from taking in all of the facts.


I don't know if you've been privy to the underbelly of our society but most criminals, though not always the most intelligent, do tend to be practical. They have to be. Do you honesetly think that if a group of doped up thugs decided that they're gonna beat the crap out of someone that if the someone that they picked pulled a gun out and fired three shots into one of their party that they are going to continue to attack and not run away? These guys may be stupid but they're not suicidal. And if one of the thugs did have a gun what makes you think that they would'nt have used it whether someone had a gun or not? According to your logic the number of lives lost that night is the most important factor, but my logic leads me to reason that the criminals activities are likely to lead to bloodshed, death, misery, and harm anyway, I just want the criminals to be the ones wearing toe tags and not the guy that decided to go to the store for milk. Hell even if the guy dosen't kill all of them; I'd bet they'll think two or three times before going out and fucking with someone!


As far as the break-in situation, are you for real? You think that the only thing a gun would do in that situation would be to multiply death? Once again, my logic brings me to the conclusion that if not for the illegal actions of the burgler there would be no death at all, so to mitigate how many people could possibly die from having a firearm in a home in a situation like that dosen't take into account the fact that this is someones home and they have a right to defend it. Your logic seems to place the blame for any death that occurs in that incident as half the fault of the person that was asleep in their home breaking no laws at all. That doen't seem just to me. Not to mention most situations like this are a surprise to both parties since most situations like these occur because the perpetrator thought that the owner of the residence was away from home. This makes it much more likely that when confronted with an armed person the criminal will flee and if not then there's one less criminal costing society money to incarcerate and police. It's a win-win IMO!


Also please explain how the odds of surviving an armed engagemant do not improve for a person when they are armed themselves. To assume that no one would be killed or seriously injured by simply taking the gun away from the victim in the scenario is IMO fallacious reasoning.

 

The population in Iraq was armed before we dismantled their military. Now, the RPGs and other heavy artillery may not have been as readily available, but they were still out there. Having the military intact would have helped a lot, but the armed militias and general population who were willing to join those militias were already there.


As for Afghanistan, they had no sufficient law or enforcement, except for the fact that most of the tribes were armed.

Might want to back that statement up, more so for the vets around. I never said we "lost" every war because of the population being armed, I said it attributed to our problems during them. Technically we haven't "lost" any wars since WWII. We are still technically at war with North Korea, Vietnam ended in a peace treaty, and we were not fighting a nation in Afghanistan or Iraq, but rather an idea, terrorism, so there is no declaration of won or lost to be had.


If we get rid of the second amendment, there would either have to be a new one saying who can have guns, or it would end up being a states rights issue. If it becomes a states right issue, then you are going to have 20 states with no guns allowed, 28 allowing them, and 2 who will have some weird ass compromise system.


Changing the constitution does not get rid of guns. Change the under cause of violence, not the tool used to execute it.

 

[YOUTUBE]OjlVTl30sgA[/YOUTUBE]

 

....Uh, nevermind.... I've already talked this subject to death (pun intended). I'll just sit this one out... opcorn2:

 

That's where I stopped reading. Most of the US population beleives the US government is too corrupt, wasting our money and resources, and fucking our nation up.


That's where our right to bear arms come into play. When the people have finally had enough, we'll use our arms to take back what's ours.


That is unless, of course, the people allow the government to take away our arms.


Do you think the US government is above and untouchable by corruption?


You'd have to think that to say the 2nd Amendment is no longer applicable for the reasons of ridding ourselves of corrrupt government or fending off a foreign invasion. Both of which are very real possibilities that could happen.


I think the rest of what you said makes some sense though. At least up to the point you say our constitution needs to be revised.


The ONLY part of our consitution I don't approve of, is the part that allow non-citizen women to give bith here and their babies can stay. I won't try to get rid of it though. Our politicians should have been more thoughtful before putting things like that into permanent law.


The only thing I think could have been more clear about the second ammendment is who can posess what types of weapons. This was written in a time when our firearms were pretty crappy and they were all more or less equal in lethality, accuracy, range, reliability etc.... BUT, I see little reason to tell the people they suddenly can't be armed because their choice of weapon is too lethal. High explosives and nuclear weapons being the main exceptions. Machine guns and the like.. nah, a properly trained/educated person can use them without a problem.


And whoever says these types of weapons have no practical use.. ok.. have you ever seen a an airstrip full of deer? A machine gun would be a good pest-control device in those situations to lcear the deer off of the runways quickly. There are special non-lethal munitions that may work, but real bullets are have a longer-lasting effect.