Jump to content

philpot123

Members
  • Content Count

    1,795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by philpot123

  1. Well, I'm not sure about the curse of Cain, but the idea that "Africans deserve slavery" has been wrongly inferred from the curse of Canaan. Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When N
  2. Well, there's one more idiot who won't ever be allowed to own a gun again. And we can all be happy about that. In my state, pointing a firearm at someone you don't intend to shoot in self-defense is a felony, loaded or unloaded. I didn't see specified if that was a felony conviction in that state, but any sort of violent misdemeanor will keep you from legally obtaining a firearm in some states. My libertarian sensibilities lead me to the conclusion that seeking out gun safety courses is absolutely a responsibility that every gun owner has; however, the government shouldn't enforce
  3. Which makes sense. No guns = little to no gun violence. The question is whether or not it would materially affect the violent crime rate overall, and whether or not disarming the many who defend themselves every day would lead to an increase in muggings, rapes and the like. Depends on where you hit em and what you're hitting em with. Soldiers overseas have reported that the .223 round is pretty ineffective against someone who's pumped up on adrenaline. You can hit them a lot of times, but unless you hit the right place, they'll just keep coming. Really the only guaranteed "stoppin
  4. "Assault weapon" is a manufactured term used to refer to a scary looking gun, it has nothing to do with functionality. A fully automatic rifle is considered an assault rifle. An "assault weapon" is loosely defined, and as a term was created for the sole purpose of banning certain weapons BASED ON LOOKS. So I have a right to own one unless the government decides to take it away? Then that's not a right, it's a privilege. But the constitution grants RIGHTS. So somebody is wrong here. You assume the military would be fully on board and willing to fire on civilians.
  5. Oh wow. Where to start. Where to start... First, define "normal guns"? What guns do you not have a problem with? Because nowadays, saying "semi-automatic firearm" is like saying "gasoline car." My AK is functionally identical to most hunting rifles. Second, I'm sorry you don't like my choice of firearm. Excuse me while I borrow some internet meme argumentation, but I need this... About as badly as Rosa Parks "needed" to sit at the front of the bus. It's not a question of quantifiable necessity, it's a question of rights. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "the right of the people
  6. Lol. The Emancipation Proclamation. Let's issue a proclamation that only applies to the states "in rebellion" who we know won't follow it. It doesn't apply to us. One of the least productive and most historically lauded documents in our history. I would argue that just because there's precedent for Presidents ignoring the constitution does not by any means require us to continue that trend. If we refuse to adhere to our founding documents that are supposed to fence the power of the national gov't, then the powers they possess are both arbitrary and conceivably totalitarian. Where does it
  7. Oh, it could be. And you could argue that it should be. But I'm saying according to our current system of government, any such efforts would be unconstitutional and illegal. Change to the Constitution SHOULD come before action.
  8. Well, in the US, it would be unconstitutional for sure. 2nd and 10th amendments. Whether or not that's a good thing, that's arguable. Ehh, "probably"? That's really reaching. The fact that people use guns so often in self-defense testifies to the fact that it IS useful in certain situations to have one on hand. If the madman would probably win, why are so many people successful at defending their homes? They shouldn't. But again, we have a situation that could have been prevented with simple gun safety. A gun lock or a gun safe could have saved 20 lives.
  9. The 2nd Amendment does not solely apply to the legal definition of the militia. As the Supreme Court has ruled, it's an individual right. That law only provides weight to the fact that common people can be considered part of a "militia," even if they are not part of the Guard. So, I was saying that EVEN IF the 2nd Amendment only applies to those in a militia, which is an erroneous conclusion if you're basing your interpretation on legal precedent and original intent, common citizens still have that right, because many of us are part of the informal militia. Women have the right to
  10. “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?...Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress.
  11. Very few people that I know of suggested forced armament of teachers in schools or mandatory armed guards or anything of the sort, so a choice was involved from the beginning. It's more about rights. If a teacher has the legal permission to carry a concealed weapon, I still fail to see why it's such a ridiculous concept that they be allowed to carry that weapon ON THEIR PERSON into the workplace...
  12. Can someone please explain to me how it was ludicrous and offensive when the NRA suggested providing funds for guards in schools, but Obama signs an executive order to provide incentives for schools to hire resource officers, and no one bats an eye? A resource officer IS an armed guard, an employee of the local police department. I'm having sincere trouble understanding why there was so much backlash when this was an NRA proposal, yet silence when it took the form of an executive order.
  13. If they did, it would have been an illegal purchase anyways, because to the best of my knowledge you cannot sell firearms on the internet in/from the US without going through a dealer. Perhaps it was purchased from a below-the-radar .onion site? Do you have any news articles about it? Because I REALLY don't think that's legal, even here. There's something fishy there.
  14. It is my understanding that the firearms safety course only involves showing you can handle a firearm safely. It's pretty basic, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyways, there's no such provisions in the US. I just find it interesting. Even if I have taken safety courses and even have a permit to carry a gun, I still can't purchase a firearm off the internet without going through a dealer and getting a background check and sometimes registering it, depending on the state. For anyone interested, this website is very informative. Interesting slideshow format. Assault Weapons
  15. In Canada, you can have a rifle shipped straight to your door. I could order a semi-automatic SKS with a 10 round box magazine from the internet and get it delivered TO MY HOUSE. In America, gun purchases from internet ordering sites must go through a federally licensed firearms dealer. Of course, this is assuming it's a legitimate website. I've heard whisperings of Deep Web sites where getting illegal guns delivered to your door is not unheard of, but that's already outside the realm of legality. It looks "aggressive," but it's more practical. Synthetic stock makes it lighter, c
  16. I wholeheartedly agree. Many of the same people who are railing against "dem lib'rals wantin to take muh guns" are the same crowd who praised Bush for his actions following 9/11. It's disgusting to me, on both sides. As someone who very much doesn't like the government, it bothers me when people champion certain liberties and ignore others. "You can trample our privacy rights, but dang you'll never get my guns!" I don't like that sort of inconsistency, no matter what camp it comes from. So we're on the same page here as far as our feelings towards them go Thank you. I really appreciat
  17. While I agree that our military budget is bloated, the concept behind "protection from government" isn't a Rambo-ish desire to fight off the entire US armed forces from your fortified suburban home. It's the idea that if EVERYONE had a gun, or at least POTENTIALLY had a gun, the government would be far less likely to attempt anything ridiculously beyond their boundaries, because revolutions can and do happen. Any sane person would agree that if it came down to me vs. any sort of police/military, they'd be dead inside of a minute. What you've said is basically what the restriction
  18. weap·on /ˈwepən/ Noun A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. In Scouts, we were always told that Scouts do not make use of weapons. We use firearms. A hammer is a weapon when used improperly, a tool when used properly. A firearm is a tool/sporting device when used for practice, and a weapon when used against a living creature. It's true, though, it is made to function primarily as a weapon. I don't see that as an inherently bad thing, or something that necessarily warrants government involvement.
  19. I agree that guns which are not kept accessible for defense or on one's person SHOULD be kept locked up in a gun safe. I don't agree that the government has the right to mandate such common sense measures. It's simply not within their rights in my estimation. Further, having laws about what I can and can't do with my guns in my home would be utterly useless unless you have some method of house-to-house enforcement. You simply cannot say that any sort of "gun lock" legislation would have prevented this, because we have no way of knowing if that regulation would have been followed. SHOULD
  20. No, he didn't. He hadn't done anything wrong up until that point, and that means there is no grounds to punish him for anything he "might possibly" do. We all have the potential to commit heinous crimes, and the government can't prevent that. What we can do is properly administer punishment, swiftly and harshly, when people do commit crimes. THAT is something our justice system is failing to do.
  21. For me, it's a principle issue. My political opinions are such that submitting to the government in that area is not something that sits well with me. The government shouldn't be registering my guns, they shouldn't be taking my guns, they should be punishing me when I do bad things with my guns. I haven't done bad things yet, so I don't see why it's any of their business what I have in my closet or under my bed. Again, as with most of my posts, I'm just a disgruntled libertarian pretending my opinion matters.
  22. I have NEVER understood the opposition to other people's holidays. I don't want people yelling at me for celebrating Christmas as an untimely commemoration of the birth of my savior, so I won't yell at anyone for celebrating Hanukkah or Yule or whatever else someone wants to celebrate during a certain season. It's just common courtesy. -sigh-
  23. Essentially, this. Even the most conspiracy-theory-minded man I know, (you know the type, Aurora and CT were in jobs so the gov't can come take my guns) doesn't bother trying to avoid gun registration. He's on the books a hundred different ways. Even IF the government decided to perform mass seizures of firearms, it doesn't matter what measures you take, they'll get them. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that gun seizure isn't likely. It's more likely to take the form of progressive regulations that will affect new sales, not old owners.
  24. In that case, it would be a privilege, not a right. A privilege can be taken away, but a right cannot. "Taking away rights" is merely a colloquial term for when the government ceases to recognize our human rights. If something is a true "right," the government can only affirm it and enforce it, not establish it or get rid of it. Example, black people have always had basic human rights, whether the US government said they did or not. The victims of the Holocaust had a right to life, whether the German government affirmed it or not. Whether or not bearing arms is a TRUE right is something to be