28-05-2005 03:54									#1
	Do you like guns or gun control? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Open to anyone but aimed at Americans....

quote: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

National guards are NOT a militia... since they are funded partially by the federal goverment, they are not the property of the state.... hell, the federal goverment can force the "militia" into active server in a war.

Almost all gun control laws are unconstitutional because the point of the second amendment is to let us take out an oppresive federal goverment.

Most of the founding fathers echoed that sentiment and if you wish to say that it is old and outdated.... well how does the date effect its validty? That argument means the rest of the constitution is meaningless too.

Bans on owning cruise missles or biological or chemicals violate the second amendment too but personally, I would not mind that since they would likley kill more civilians then an oppresive goverment... but that would also be unconstitutional.

I do not even own a gun, or have a liscence for one but I really like the second amendment.... it is a shame our constitutional right to take out an oppresive goverment is long gone........


Thoughts?

	28-05-2005 04:03									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

And this was written when exactly? and under what circumstances? Good thing the world hasn't changed than hey, so that this is as true as the day when it was written.

	28-05-2005 04:24									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The time it was written has no importance, at all. If you want to ammend the constitution to get rid of the second ammendment, that is fine. Right now however, all gun control is illegal and unconstitutional.

You think times are different and want guns to be illegal? Fine, do it properly.

Right now we are having our rights repressed by anti gun idiots who don't understand the constutition or the way our goverment is supposed to work-they just know what THEY want.

	28-05-2005 05:08									#4
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen The time it was written has no importance, at all. If you want to ammend the constitution to get rid of the second ammendment, that is fine. Right now however, all gun control is illegal and unconstitutional.

Yeah, and the Supreme Court has no say in that?

	28-05-2005 05:26									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The supreme court, is wrong. Their rulings in favor of gun controll are OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional-does it take more then a cursory glance to realize that?

	28-05-2005 05:29									#6
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen The supreme court, is wrong. Their rulings in favor of gun controll are OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional-does it take more then a cursory glance to realize that?

The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.

	28-05-2005 05:37									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Supreme court decisions have also been overturned by later courts in the past.


There are plenty of cases of laws relating to gun controll laws which have NOT been brought before the supreme court, and thus are still illegal.

	28-05-2005 05:49									#8
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If the government can regulate speech and religion, it can sure as hell regulate gun ownership.

Maybe you have been absent the last few years, but most effective ways of getitng rid of a bad government are carried out peacefully. Anhd most armed revolts against even the most noxious governments fail unless the vast mayority of the populace supports the revolt, or the revolt is also backed by the military.

A bunch of guys with machines guns and explosives would not stand a chance against a trully repressive military bent on their total annahilation and not giving a damn about world opinion.

On top of all of this, most guns used for crime (handguns) are also those less worthwhile for fighting "the government". So lets control handgun ownreship up the ying yang.

	28-05-2005 07:39									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen Right now we are having our rights repressed by anti gun idiots who don't understand the constutition or the way our goverment is supposed to work-they just know what THEY want.

Just a question.

Do you think a bunch of people with small arms can take on the US military? This is not the 18th century, when the "oppressor" wasn't much better armed than the "rebels."

The rationale for gun ownership is obsolete, dead, buried.

	28-05-2005 07:52									#10
	Support Apolyton

Small arms? No.

Heavy machine guns?

Heavy, full auto, assault rifles?

Anti air craft devices?

LAWS(light anti tank weapons)?

All the good stuff currently illegal?

Maybe.

Any revolutionary conflict would not involve aircraft or much armor, the collatoral damage would be too high and the troops would proboably refuse to fire on civilians with them anyway.


The rationale is as valid today as ever, citizens need to have the proper weapons to keep the goverment in check. The fact the needed weapons have been made illegal, does not mean anything.

Last edited by Vesayen on 28-05-2005 at 07:58

	28-05-2005 07:59									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen Small arms? No. Heavy machine guns? Assault rifles? Anti air craft devices? LAWS(light anti tank weapons)? Maybe. Any revolutionary conflict would not involve aircraft or much armor, the collatoral damage would be too high and the troops would proboably refuse to fire on civilians with them anyway.

What world are you from?

Chechnya and Iraq both disprove one of your points outright (unless you want to claim the Russians and the US have not used airpower and armor in their anti-insurgency fight?)

As for troops refusing to fire on civilians:

If this were true, then it would not matter if the civilians were armed or not, does it, since in the act of refusing order to fire the military condemns the regime to collapse...

And of course, as in Uzbekistan, and China, the soldiers could decide to shoot....

	28-05-2005 08:13									#12
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen Any revolutionary conflict would not involve aircraft or much armor, the collatoral damage would be too high and the troops would proboably refuse to fire on civilians with them anyway.

If you don't have any weapons, soldiers may not fire on you. If you have nice toys, OTOH, you can bet the shirt you are wearing that not only they will fire, but will fire first.

When you are armed, you are no longer a civilian. You are the Enemy.

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen The rationale is as valid today as ever, citizens need to have the proper weapons to keep the goverment in check. The fact the needed weapons have been made illegal, does not mean anything.

You have so far failed to establish such a case.

	28-05-2005 08:18									#13
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap What world are you from? Chechnya and Iraq both disprove one of your points outright (unless you want to claim the Russians and the US have not used airpower and armor in their anti-insurgency fight?) As for troops refusing to fire on civilians: If this were true, then it would not matter if the civilians were armed or not, does it, since in the act of refusing order to fire the military condemns the regime to collapse... And of course, as in Uzbekistan, and China, the soldiers could decide to shoot....

Chechnya and Iraqi do *NOT* have civilian uprisings with the majority of popular support, nor the possible sympathy of the army fighting them...... an american civil war would have both.

The point is that I am supposed to be able to protect myself, even if the military says they will act against the populace-even though they never will.

The soldiers wont shoot, but it is a moot point, completley unrelated.








What is unclear? I have a right in the constitution to defend myself from an oppresive goverment, simply because this right has been infringed on and is very hard to act on now, does not mean that right has been revoked.

I'm not sure if I could explain it any more simply.

	28-05-2005 08:28									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen Chechnya and Iraqi do *NOT* have civilian uprisings with the majority of popular support, nor the possible sympathy of the army fighting them...... an american civil war would have both.

Chechnya sure did- it was a local separatist attempt. The Russians came in guns blazing.

Plus WE ALREADY HAD AN AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WON.

quote: The point is that I am supposed to be able to protect myself, even if the military says they will act against the populace-even though they never will.

And having a gun won't actually protect you from government repression genius. All that would need to be done is accuse you of a minor crime, have the police go in to bring you for questioning-if you resisted, then you would be a criminal and then the government will be 'justified' in getting rid of you by any means necessary.

quote: The soldiers wont shoot, but it is a moot point, completley unrelated.

Actually, NO, this is the WHOLE POINT. If you assert that the army would never shoot, then you have no rational case to state you would need a gun to protect yourself, since you are stating that a threat does NOT exist.

Jesus H Christ

quote: What is unclear? I have a right in the constitution to defend myself from an oppresive goverment, simply because this right has been infringed on and is very hard to act on now, does not mean that right has been revoked.

Actually, I don;t see the "right in the constitution to defend myself from an oppresive goverment" writen ANYWHERE in the consitution. You have the right to bear arms in the consitution, just as you have the right to free speech, free assembly, and freedom to practice religion. The government does regulate your right to speak (you can be arrested for inciting to violence), your right of assembly (in most locales you need a permit to carry out a political protest) and religion (certain religious practices can be banned, including animal sacrifice and the use of various halucigens) so your claim that the right to bear arms simply can't be regulated stands on, well, nothing.

quote: I'm not sure if I could explain it any more simply.

Correction, you could not explain it worse.

	28-05-2005 08:52									#15
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Plus WE ALREADY HAD AN AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WON.

So?

quote: And having a gun won't actually protect you from government repression genius. All that would need to be done is accuse you of a minor crime, have the police go in to bring you for questioning-if you resisted, then you would be a criminal and then the government will be 'justified' in getting rid of you by any means necessary.

Thus why gun control is insane.

quote: Actually, NO, this is the WHOLE POINT. If you assert that the army would never shoot, then you have no rational case to state you would need a gun to protect yourself, since you are stating that a threat does NOT exist. Jesus H Christ

Because the promise is in the constitution.

quote: Actually, I don;t see the "right in the constitution to defend myself from an oppresive goverment" writen ANYWHERE in the consitution. You have the right to bear arms in the consitution, just as you have the right to free speech, free assembly, and freedom to practice religion. The government does regulate your right to speak (you can be arrested for inciting to violence), your right of assembly (in most locales you need a permit to carry out a political protest) and religion (certain religious practices can be banned, including animal sacrifice and the use of various halucigens) so your claim that the right to bear arms simply can't be regulated stands on, well, nothing.

As I said....

'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

How exactly do you interpret that as anything but what it says? We have lord knows how many documents by the founding fathers TELLING us what it means if it unclear. The constitution clearly says that an armed citizenry is neccesary to keep us free.

	28-05-2005 09:20									#16
	Inflate your Upload Space

Don't worry, in a couple of decades guns will be made obsolete by progammable nano-robots.

	28-05-2005 09:24									#17
	Full PM-box? Change here!

As cool as nano tech is and boy is it cool, it will proboably be the death of us...... wait till someone makes a nano dissasembler that can self replicate and use energy from its enviroment as a power source .



LOTS of cool stuff in the mean time though!

	28-05-2005 10:20									#18
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Smiley Don't worry, in a couple of decades guns will be made obsolete by progammable nano-robots.

Yes, we'll all have to move on to the enhanced radiation weapons then.

	28-05-2005 10:30									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The constitution says "keep and bear arms". it says nothing about not being allowed to regulate how people get those weapons.

	28-05-2005 10:33									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Rule:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

Explination:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


Very few things in the constitution have specific clarafication on them.... the second amendment does.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Obviously regulating how people get arms, prevents them from bearing and keeping them.

	28-05-2005 10:49									#21
	Got spare money?

Look... as long as I don't have a gun, and no one I know has a gun, and I never see or hear any guns... farmers can keep their damn guns. They better stay the **** away from cities, though.

	28-05-2005 10:55									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen Rule: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " Explination: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Very few things in the constitution have specific clarafication on them.... the second amendment does. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Obviously regulating how people get arms, prevents them from bearing and keeping them.

So do you think "Congress shall make no law" restricting freedom of speech means that all defamation laws are unconstitutional?

	28-05-2005 11:21									#23
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen So?

SO:

1. Obviously the Army might shoot
2. The disparity between the Feds and rebels today will not only be that of numbers and supplies. It will be a grand chasm of capabilities.

quote: Thus why gun control is insane.

NO, actually, why your thinking that a gun might save you is insane. It amazes me that you can be given a simple example of how having a gun would do nothing to protect you, yet you can be so dense as to think it in any ways helps you case.

quote: Because the promise is in the constitution.

What "promise"?

You have a right, but 220 years of American practice shows your rights are NOT absolute as you claim them to be.

quote: As I said.... 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' How exactly do you interpret that as anything but what it says? We have lord knows how many documents by the founding fathers TELLING us what it means if it unclear. The constitution clearly says that an armed citizenry is neccesary to keep us free.

Are you a member of a well REGULATED militia? If not, obviously you are breaking what the constitution plainly says.

Oh, and Einstein....since you are such a crack constitutional scholar, who exactly REGULATES said militias?

	28-05-2005 11:22									#24
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Freedom of speech is not clearly defined, nor freedom of the press..... the second amendment could not possibly be written any more plain.



Dictionaries are wonderful:

Regulated-"To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits."

	28-05-2005 11:26									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

NOt knowing how to use a dictionary thought is terrible, since that is clearly not the ONLY definition of the word.

Intellectual dishonesty is also a bad thing.

And how is "bear arms" "CLEARER" than "freedom of speech"?

	28-05-2005 11:29									#26
	Remove this text

From Dictionary.com if you put in "regulated"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regulated

quote: regulated adj 1: controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law; "well regulated industries"; "houses with regulated temperature" [ant: unregulated] 2: marked by system or regularity or discipline; "a quiet ordered house"; "an orderly universe"; "a well regulated life" [syn: ordered, orderly]

NOte how

what you put is actually part of REGULATE

quote: reg·u·late Audio pronunciation of "regulated" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rgy-lt) tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law. 2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature. 3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning. 4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

AND not even the first, but the last, definition.

	28-05-2005 11:45									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen Freedom of speech is not clearly defined, nor freedom of the press..... the second amendment could not possibly be written any more plain. Dictionaries are wonderful: Regulated-"To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits."

Actually I'd say the 2nd amendment is FAR more vague than the 1st. What exactly are 'arms'? Can a nuclear weapon be considered? Does registration of guns really infringe a person's right to bear arms? What does the dependant clause really mean, exactly?

Plenty of questions. Freedom of speech seems pretty clear to me. However, NO RIGHT is absolute. Each has limits.

	28-05-2005 11:50									#28
	Re: Do you like guns or gun control? Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen Almost all gun control laws are unconstitutional because the point of the second amendment is to let us take out an oppresive federal goverment.

Ah yes -- that cliche myth of average Joe citizen with his Colt revolver being capable of defending himself against a unit of Abram tanks in the event the government becomes repressive.

	28-05-2005 12:42									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen Obviously regulating how people get arms, prevents them from bearing and keeping them.

You miss one thing. Just because you have a right to do something does not automatically imply you have the ability to do so.

For example, you have the right to private property, but you don't have enough money to buy a house. Does that mean real estate developers are conspiring against you to prevent you from exercising such a right?

	28-05-2005 12:43									#30
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen The soldiers wont shoot, but it is a moot point, completley unrelated.

Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are gunning us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?