Let's see what happens this time - gun control

[mikenold]

Yeah.. almost want to say, "Nice try", but I can't. You need to get yourself a better dictionary, and look up again the meaning of the words "Militia" and especially "bear". But thanks for including firearms in your explanation of the word "arms", it saves me from pointing that out to you.

And no, the 2nd Amendent wasn't included in the Bill of Rights for "the purpose of repelling foreign invaders". It was included to give the common people the means to take back control of a government turned oppressive. Its a safety check on our government first and foremost.

Excellent points Chant. The best of all the posts in this thread, including my own.

[Chant]

You do an excellent job, as most gun nuts do, of forgetting the first half of the amendment.

Though it must be much more difficult to do right after I spelled it out for you. Seriously, why would they have included the part about militiae and securing the state, if not to outline the specific auspices of the right? You were right, they didn't just write down words that couldn't be understood two centuries later...the words are pretty self explanatory...even the ones you would like to ignore.

All people can say is "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" but can never back it up with fact, source and context. You guys suck as debate opponents!

Funny.. I was just thinking the very same thing.

Oh God... same old same old talking in circles. You didn't spell much of anything out, other then taking a few words and using only one possible meaning for them to support this lame point of view you have. Go look the word 'bear' up in a real dictionary. Only one possible meaning has the phrase 'to exhibit' in it, while several others cite 'to keep on one's person". And where the hell you're getting Militia has anything to do with the Army (which is government run, which a militia by definiation is not) is beyond me.

[run4it]

I'd ask what exactly you think "a well regulated militia" means, or was...but this is getting boring.

I spelled out each clause and explained it to you. All you've said is "you're wrong" without offering much in the way of your own explanation. So not much better than anyone else here.

By the way mike...I've known you're a willing ignoramous, I've known you're an absolute hypocrite, I've known that you're no kind of Christian, but I never knew you were sick enough to entertain thoughts of my family being killed while you sip coffee.

[mikenold]

I'd ask what exactly you think "a well regulated militia" means, or was...but this is getting boring.

I spelled out each clause and explained it to you. All you've said is "you're wrong" without offering much in the way of your own explanation. So not much better than anyone else here.

By the way mike...I've known you're a willing ignoramous, I've known you're an absolute hypocrite, I've known that you're no kind of Christian, but I never knew you were sick enough to entertain thoughts of my family being killed while you sip coffee.

It was your choice, not mine.

[run4it]

edit:

Never mind my original post. Mike has taken this to a truly sickening level and I'm done. Way to "win" an argument...

[NBuffaloResident]

Ask a lawyer if you don't know.

Oh, I know what it means. I'm asking if you know.

You forgot to add, that wounds from FMJ are more survivalable. Its one of the reasons that if you were found with dum-dums on the battlefield they executed your ass.

No, if you were caught with dum-dums, they executed your ass for being in violation of the Geneva Conventions, because dums-dums expand out, and destroy flesh, and kill less often. Leaving a person critically injured for a long time.

Much like a shot to the gut will do. Probably kill you. But it'll take a couple of hours to do.

So intent does play a role in this? Glad you agree. I don't know many people who strap on a gun with intent to go out to main and kill. I do however know many people who strap on a gun to protect themselves from being maimed or killed.

And how do they protect themselves from being killed/maimed? By killing/maiming their target...

Well, if you feel that way, I hope you have enough ball, powder, and caps on you. I'd perfer my Mini-14 or even my bolt-action deer rifle.

I don't intend on participating in an insurrection at this time. No need for it.

So you're saying you never missed? Your targets just stood up for you and held still, shouting "Here I am!". I'm willing to bet your firearm held more than one round in it. If you want to brag about your skill, then you should have bucked up and carried a single-shot or your muzzleloader.

Where did I say I never missed? I said I shot to kill. Every time. I never said I didn't miss, but I never "shot to injure somebody".

Actually, I have trained at a Bujinkan (ninjutsu) school in Ohio. I have carried guns out in the open at work and while hunting. Personally, I'd rather have them hidden for retention purposes. Never said I was scared not to have one, and in fact, I'm probably more dangerous to an attacker without one. (The gun being a far better visual deterrent) In addition to the ninjutsu system, I've also studied Isshin-ryu, Iai-do, and Tantojutsu. I also teach classes in street self-defense, stick fighting, and knife fighting (that focus partially on the folder) I worked everything from night club security to VIP Protection details.

Uh-uh. We have a ninja here... I think I read a thread like this over on arfcom before...

Tell me, if your gun is hidden, how does it act as a visual deterrent lol

And to answer your question... yes, there are some times when its possible to "outdraw a gun that's already trained on you", say in a robbery situation for instance. I'm gonna see if you're smart enough to figure out when they are. And BTW, I'm not saying such an action is advisable, only possible. Let me know if you can't figure it out.

Hm, person standing 5 feet away with a gun pointed at your head... Yeah, sure. It's possible to outdraw him... Ok Mr. Ninja...

Yeah, you probably do need to take something. You have a rather crappy survival attitude from what I can see.

I have no survival skill, huh? You are really starting to sound like the guy on arfcom, who worked for mall security, was a ninja, and had an armored golf cart (Which was approved for Top Secret Missions)...

I never said this.

Um, ok:
"Yeah, the problem with swords (and I own a few and know how to use them) is that they take a certain amount of skill to master. And they don't make everyone equal. I'd rather that a 90# woman be able to defend herself from being raped by a 200# man, or multiple attackers, then have the fun of crossing steel with some other clown. Beside, as someone who teachs self-defense with a knife - not many people have the stomach for up-close-and-personal fighting with a blade. And again, that skill does not make everyone equal as far as self-defense."

Sounds like to me, a gun can be used with no skill, and is preferred to a sword/blade/etc for that very reason... Because guns make everyone equal.

I was speaking as a knife person. Though some gunfights take place at point blank range, they have a longer effective range than a blade. Most people today don't have the stomach to put steel to flesh, its far easier for people to squeeze a trigger. Its not as personal.

Tell that to a person who kills someone. It's not as personal... You've never been in a fire-fight, huh?

Again, firearms are easier to use for most people. It makes them far more equal than physical size and strength. Or in skill using some other weapon like a knife or even a club. Skill learned through practice is nice, but its been my experience that skill sometimes goes out the window when the Freeze, Flight, Fight reactions set in.

Let's take handguns. What are the determinants on who comes out ahead:
* Initiative - ie who is drawn or ready to draw first

Not neccessary so. Just because you can draw faster or already have it out, doesn't mean you can shoot better or more accurately. Also, just because you're shot first, doesn't mean you are out of the fight. Trust me on that.

* Dexterity - For rapid handling and sighting

Again, all meaningless unless you're accurate with shot placement. Also attackers rarely remain still. Sometimes all you got is a quick shot to center mass.

* Eyesight - Not good if you have no idea where to aim

Are we talking vision quality... or knowledge where best to try and place your rounds on the target?

So, using a gun does take skill. As much, if not more than a sword/knife/or other weapon then? Guns are not "The Great Equalizer" then?

The same can be said for anyone who doesn't think a gun doesn't make up for a whole lot of disadvantages between opponents.

The gun doesn't make up for disadvantages... Unless you are saying guns can just kill someone on their own. In which case, you've single-handedly took apart gun advocates entire argument of "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

I hope your ninja skills are a bit better than your debate skills...

[Chant]

So, if the purpose of the amendment was to make it possible to start an insurgency, then under what authority grants the right to carry the weapon with you all the time?

'... the right to keep and bear arms...."
Look up the word 'bear' in the dictionary. And where does it say anywhere in the 2nd Amendment that you can only keep and bear arms during times when removing an oppressive government is neccessary? The whole point is to keep the means to take the government back by force if needed in the hands of the common people at all times. The idea was to keep the government honest and under control of the people. Our forefathers saw the need for this protection first hand.

You can start an insurgency with merely owning the weapon. There's nowhere that says you can carry it. Having it under lock and key in your house is fine.

Where does it say that, "Having it under lock and key in your house is fine." I haven't seen that written anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

And nowhere does the right to kill a trespasser come up either, if the only purpose of the amendment was for insurgencies.

Seeing I never said this (killing a trespasser), I'll have to assume this point was meant for someone else.

[Chant]

I'd ask what exactly you think "a well regulated militia" means, or was...but this is getting boring.

I spelled out each clause and explained it to you. All you've said is "you're wrong" without offering much in the way of your own explanation. So not much better than anyone else here.

By the way mike...I've known you're a willing ignoramous, I've known you're an absolute hypocrite, I've known that you're no kind of Christian, but I never knew you were sick enough to entertain thoughts of my family being killed while you sip coffee.

Well regulated - as in well organized. Doesn't mean that its suppose to be regulated by the government, just within its own structure. Now come on... does it make sense for a oppressive government to 'regulate' a mililtia that's meant to overthrow it for being oppressive?

[mikenold]

edit:

Never mind my original post. Mike has taken this to a truly sickening level and I'm done. Way to "win" an argument...

This was your post:

By the way mike...I've known you're a willing ignoramous, I've known you're an absolute hypocrite, I've known that you're no kind of Christian, but I never knew you were sick enough to entertain thoughts of my family being killed while you sip coffee.

And I aswered with: "It was your choice, not mine. "

The reason I answered this way is:

You chose not to engage. You said:

"And even if I DID have a gun, in no ways am I going to engage in a firefight in my own home. Maybe if I were in yours.."

I will always engage, and I will win the day (or I will be dead). That is why I will be drinking the coffee.

What I do has nothing to do with you or what you do. So get up off the high horse and stop your better than thou tripe.

[NBuffaloResident]

Well regulated - as in well organized. Doesn't mean that its suppose to be regulated by the government, just within its own structure. Now come on... does it make sense for a oppressive government to 'regulate' a mililtia that's meant to overthrow it for being oppressive?

How many gun owners are members of a well regulated militia? I'm even going to count members of the Michigan Militia (People I actually admire. They understand the constitution).

[NBuffaloResident]

'... the right to keep and bear arms...."
Look up the word 'bear' in the dictionary. And where does it say anywhere in the 2nd Amendment that you can only keep and bear arms during times when removing an oppressive government is neccessary? The whole point is to keep the means to take the government back by force if needed in the hands of the common people at all times. The idea was to keep the government honest and under control of the people. Our forefathers saw the need for this protection first hand.

That was a point another poster was making. That the purpose of the amendment was to enable the citizenry to start an insurgency.

If that is the only purpose of the amendment, then it grants no protections to be able to carry the weapon at all. Only to own it.

Where does it say that, "Having it under lock and key in your house is fine." I haven't seen that written anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

Where does it say you have unfettered rights to carry a weapon at all times? Nowhere.

Seeing I never said this (killing a trespasser), I'll have to assume this point was meant for someone else.

Ok, if you never said it. How do you propose to stop a trespasser in your home, if not killing them? Ninja skills? If it's ninja skillz, then you have no need for a gun. If you choose a gun, then you are aiming to kill the perp.

[Chant]

Oh, I know what it means. I'm asking if you know.

Yeah, I do. Read any of Massad Ayoob's books if you need it explained to you.


No, if you were caught with dum-dums, they executed your ass for being in violation of the Geneva Conventions, because dums-dums expand out, and destroy flesh, and kill less often. Leaving a person critically injured for a long time.

Much like a shot to the gut will do. Probably kill you. But it'll take a couple of hours to do.

Correct. Now read how a hollowpoint (dumdum) works, and why its recommended for self-defense today. Hint... it has to do with energy dump. Something a FMJ doesn't do so well.


And how do they protect themselves from being killed/maimed? By killing/maiming their target...

*Sigh* Missed the point totally. They don't start out intending to do so. Only protect themselves from having it done to them. Only using a tool to keep it from happening.


I don't intend on participating in an insurrection at this time. No need for it.

Good for you!


Where did I say I never missed? I said I shot to kill. Every time. I never said I didn't miss, but I never "shot to injure somebody".

But you made reference that a good marksman only needs one shot. I never questioned your intent on the battlefield... just asking have you ever missed and needed that backup shot?



Uh-uh. We have a ninja here... I think I read a thread like this over on arfcom before...

Nope, never been on arfcom. Sorry, Bujinkan was pretty much the only Japanese system available where I was in Ohio. And its pretty interesting.

Tell me, if your gun is hidden, how does it act as a visual deterrent lol

Come on, you've taken two seperate statements and run them together. In an altercation where you have a chance to present your firearm, your attacker is more than likely going to withdraw rather than continue.
Another reason why I think open carry is a bad idea, is that if a person who knows you're armed confronts you, there is a reason for it. That being they have reason to believe that either A You won't use it, or B They can take it from you. And seeing that are perfectly aware where you are keeping your gun, I'm leaning more toward reason B.
The shock value of a victim suddenly having a gun is priceless as far as I am concerned.


Hm, person standing 5 feet away with a gun pointed at your head... Yeah, sure. It's possible to outdraw him... Ok Mr. Ninja...

Okay, follow this if you can. There's a reason I used a robbery as an example. There is going to come a point during the robbery where the criminal is going to demand your valuables. This in essentually him giving you permission to now move. He now expects you obey his command and to reach somewhere.
Now what do you do? Depending on your instincts, you give him your wallet if you believe he or she will just take that and leave. But if your guts are telling you, this person is going to kill me anyway even if they get what they want - what do you have to lose?
Depending on what I feel, my hand is gonna come up with either my wallet, or the pistol that's sitting just above it in a IWB holster. Remember, the guy with the gun to your head is expecting you to come up with something and hand it to them -they've given you permission to do it. Its a established fact: Action is faster than reaction. As soon as my muzzle is level with the area of his groin, I'm going to start squeezing the trigger as fast as I can, and ride the recoil all the way up to their face. (Oh and BTW, you don't stand still while doing this, you angle of the line of attack)
Should you try it... probably not if all they want is your money. Should you go for it if you think they'll kill you anyway. I think so.



I have no survival skill, huh? You are really starting to sound like the guy on arfcom, who worked for mall security, was a ninja, and had an armored golf cart (Which was approved for Top Secret Missions)...

Nope... never worked security in a mall.


Um, ok:
"Yeah, the problem with swords (and I own a few and know how to use them) is that they take a certain amount of skill to master. And they don't make everyone equal. I'd rather that a 90# woman be able to defend herself from being raped by a 200# man, or multiple attackers, then have the fun of crossing steel with some other clown. Beside, as someone who teachs self-defense with a knife - not many people have the stomach for up-close-and-personal fighting with a blade. And again, that skill does not make everyone equal as far as self-defense."

Sounds like to me, a gun can be used with no skill, and is preferred to a sword/blade/etc for that very reason... Because guns make everyone equal.

It can be used with far less skill, and some case none at all. You see it but into practice every day with gang violence.



Tell that to a person who kills someone. It's not as personal... You've never been in a fire-fight, huh?

Yes, I have.



So, using a gun does take skill. As much, if not more than a sword/knife/or other weapon then? Guns are not "The Great Equalizer" then?

Is this your opinion, or are you being words into my mouth? I said guns take less skill than a blade.



The gun doesn't make up for disadvantages... Unless you are saying guns can just kill someone on their own. In which case, you've single-handedly took apart gun advocates entire argument of "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

LOL! 95# woman and a 250# man, both armed with .45acp pistols, both with the same basic understanding of the weapon. Fair fight or no? Who do you bet on to win if the crap hit the fan?

I hope your ninja skills are a bit better than your debate skills...

I do well in both fields... you however...???

By the way, Bunjinkan is just about the only system that has kept up with modern times. Everything in life is included within it.

[Chant]

How many gun owners are members of a well regulated militia? I'm even going to count members of the Michigan Militia (People I actually admire. They understand the constitution).

DICTIONARY....

That will tell you whom is a member of the Militia. No need to ask anyone. BTW, its not made up of only 'gun owners'.

[FisherRd]

Ok, if you never said it. How do you propose to stop a trespasser in your home, if not killing them?

Purposefully obtuse?
A "tresspasser in your home" is called a burglar.
How do you stop one? How about "Stop, or I'll shoot!" How about "Freeze!"? How about shooting them in the leg?

If you've broken in to a home and the owner points his gun at you, you'll either stop or get shot at. That's pretty much common sense.

I find it hard to believe you're at all serious with your scenarios and BS.

[Chant]

That was a point another poster was making. That the purpose of the amendment was to enable the citizenry to start an insurgency.

If that is the only purpose of the amendment, then it grants no protections to be able to carry the weapon at all. Only to own it.



Where does it say you have unfettered rights to carry a weapon at all times? Nowhere.

Okay... we're just circling around the meaning of the word 'bear' some more.

Ok, if you never said it. How do you propose to stop a trespasser in your home, if not killing them? Ninja skills? If it's ninja skillz, then you have no need for a gun. If you choose a gun, then you are aiming to kill the perp.

LOL! Hate to break this to you... but gun skills are a part of ninjutsu training.
There is an old joke going around the Bunkinkan schools that goes, "A karate student was attacked one day and had to defend himself. Later at his dojo, his classmates asked him if he used his karate techniques to defend himself. The student said he did, he used a reverse punch and a straight kick. The same thing happens to a Bunjinkan student, and later his classmates ask him if he used his trainning to defend himself. 'I sure did,' said the Bunjinkan student, 'I pulled out my .357 and shot him!' "

Also, you will never see a ninjutsu person at a martial arts tournament. Why? Because the skills we practice have no sports aspect. They are pretty much down and dirty maiming and killing.

Also, as far as a tresspasser. I'd give them three choices. Turn around and run away now. Lay on the ground and wait for the police. Take another step toward me and die.
Not real complicated.