patrick.net

Protip: never argue on the internet with crazy people

Bap--

Where to begin? You clearly are drawing a line with projectiles that explode. So as Kevin said--by your own account you already advocate a restriction on arms. Any mention of 2nd Amendment rights is hogwash. It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society. Your idea of anything that explodes is one way to go, but so is banning automatic weapons. Or semi-automatic weapons. Or handguns. etc. There is no constitutional argument to be made unless you are proposing no restrictions on "arms" at all. Letting citizens buy any weapon they choose.

Your next example is completely ridiculous. If I understand you correctly, it assumes the government would stand by and let an armed group terrorize its citizens? Really? Do you think that could ever happen?

Bap33 says

I trust the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be correct yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Clearly you don't though. You advocate a restriction on what "arms" a citizen can legally buy.

"It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society.""It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society.""It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society.""It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society."

what more is there for me to say. game, set, match. Thanks for playing.

Bap33 says

It boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the rights of society.”

or maybe in this case, it boils down to balancing the rights of the individual versus the safety of society.

What I learned from this thread, is people get pretty weird about their guns, and maybe that's okay. We need extremists negotiating that side of the argument, not well balanced types who are pragmatic and can objectively look at both sides of the issue.

hmmmm...

tatupu70 says

Your next example is completely ridiculous. If I understand you correctly, it assumes the government would stand by and let an armed group terrorize its citizens? Really? Do you think that could ever happen?

yes .. it is happening all the time. You may call them gangsters. They are armed, and they terrorize Americans, and the Gov stands by. Also, at the polls there were Black Panthers armed with Billy Clubs (that was their choice of weapon). No action was taken to protect the voters. I'm sure you saw the video. But, I'm ridiculous.

elliemae says

2- if it’s legal, they should own it. If my govt can use a gun - in most circumstances - I should be afforded the same courtesy.

Elliemae wants to possess nuclear weapons. Somebody invade!

Bap33 says

yes .. it is happening all the time. You may call them gangsters. They are armed, and they terrorize Americans, and the Gov stands by. Also, at the polls there were Black Panthers armed with Billy Clubs (that was their choice of weapon). No action was taken to protect the voters. I’m sure you saw the video. But, I’m ridiculous.

It's really scary how black people are keeping white men down. Lets march!

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

See: Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, West Bank, Gaza etc

#1–fighters in those countries had more than just guns.

#2–With the exception of Vietnam(which is now 40 yrs ago), none of the people in those countries was successful.

Tatu has once again shown why no one need bother reasoning or conversing with him. He would have us believe that since something happened 40 years ago it is no longer relevant. Furthermore he is ignoring the fact that Afghanistan outlasted the Soviets in a war that bankrupted the Soviet Union an led to its collapse. The freedom fighters in Iraq, Afganistan, Gaza, West Bank and Vietnam have and continue to stand up to "stealth bombers, drones, nuclear warheads, tanks, jet fighters, spy satellites to get intelligence" which is what I was reminding simcha as he seems to have trouble remembering these other freedom fighters (some call them insurgents, as would the American Patriots in 1776 have been similarly characterized). BTW in case you hadn't realized it, many of us here actually believe that citizens should be able to own arms more powerful than just firearms.

Kevin says

Elliemae wants to possess nuclear weapons. Somebody invade!

I wouldn't do it on a day I'm pms-ing. A bit of advice, there.

This is a quandry. There does need to be a line drawn - I don't know where. I believe that we should be able to own handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. But I don't believe it's necessary for me to own a fully automatic machine gun. All it takes is some minor modifications and a semi- becomes a fully auto. I don't think it's necessary. That ain't right.

I believe that we should be able to hunt animals, as long as we eat their meat. It's a way of life for some people in some places. But not if we're just gonna hang a rack over our fireplaces.

There should be a line. Somewhere. But I'll tell ya - when the police are outgunned and have to go to a gun shop to get reinforcement weapons, there's something wrong.

tatupu70 says

elliemae says

2- if it’s legal, they should own it. If my govt can use a gun - in most circumstances - I should be afforded the same courtesy.

That’s the hard part. What should be legal? Where to draw the line?
When you say government–do you mean military or police force?

police.

AdHominem says

He would have us believe that since something happened 40 years ago it is no longer relevant. Furthermore he is ignoring the fact that Afghanistan outlasted the Soviets in a war that bankrupted the Soviet Union an led to its collapse

I wouldn't have you believe anything--just pointing out facts. And you'll also remember that both Vietnam and Afghanistan had superpowers supporting them in their victories...

AdHominem says

BTW in case you hadn’t realized it, many of us here actually believe that citizens should be able to own arms more powerful than just firearms

I realized it and it scares me...

Bap33 says

yes .. it is happening all the time. You may call them gangsters. They are armed, and they terrorize Americans, and the Gov stands by. Also, at the polls there were Black Panthers armed with Billy Clubs (that was their choice of weapon). No action was taken to protect the voters. I’m sure you saw the video. But, I’m ridiculous.

No offense, but in this case you are completely off your rocker

Bap33 says

what more is there for me to say. game, set, match. Thanks for playing.

Huh? Are you for the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater?

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

yes .. it is happening all the time. You may call them gangsters. They are armed, and they terrorize Americans, and the Gov stands by. Also, at the polls there were Black Panthers armed with Billy Clubs (that was their choice of weapon). No action was taken to protect the voters. I’m sure you saw the video. But, I’m ridiculous.

No offense, but in this case you are completely off your rocker

Not offended, but I would like to know what makes you feel that way. (?) I just answered your question with two examples, that's all I was doing.
tatupu70 says

If I understand you correctly, it assumes the government would stand by and let an armed group terrorize its citizens? Really? Do you think that could ever happen?

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

what more is there for me to say. game, set, match. Thanks for playing.

Huh? Are you for the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater?

absolutly -- as a matter of fact you may be in a position someday where you MUST yell fire in a crowded theater. Great example.

elliemae says

I believe that we should be able to hunt animals, as long as we eat their meat. It’s a way of life for some people in some places. But not if we’re just gonna hang a rack over our fireplaces.
There should be a line. Somewhere. But I’ll tell ya - when the police are outgunned and have to go to a gun shop to get reinforcement weapons, there’s something wrong.

I agree about hunted game. Some game is just for sport though, and not for meat, and I do not agree with that on a personal/spiritual level.

The police are outgunned when facing a BAD GUY holding a SuperKiller9000. The police are better supported when standing alongside a well armed/trained GOODGUY holding a SuperKiller9000. BADGUYS like to live and will avoid (in my opinion) having to face a citizen, who does not have to be nice as policemen are, that is armed and ready to defend life and property.
Bad guys will use bats, knives, bottles, bricks, IED's, hands, cord around the neck .... them bad guys find ways to murder. They don't mind getting RPG's, or a SuperKiller9000. They are without limits. Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire?

As for drug gangs, they intimidate everyone around them ... and the action down in Mexico shows whats coming. Severed heads on stakes and mass graves. Not gonna be pretty when that starts in your town.

Bap33 says

absolutly — as a matter of fact you may be in a position someday where you MUST yell fire in a crowded theater. Great example

OK--now you're just being funny. I think you get my point. You don't have the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater even though one might argue that it violates freedom of speech. The reason is that your freedom of speech can't infringe upon your fellow man's freedoms or endanger his safety. Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others.

Bap33 says

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

yes .. it is happening all the time. You may call them gangsters. They are armed, and they terrorize Americans, and the Gov stands by. Also, at the polls there were Black Panthers armed with Billy Clubs (that was their choice of weapon). No action was taken to protect the voters. I’m sure you saw the video. But, I’m ridiculous.

No offense, but in this case you are completely off your rocker

Not offended, but I would like to know what makes you feel that way. (?) I just answered your question with two examples, that’s all I was doing.

You don't think the Gov is trying to stop the gangsters? Seems to me the police are doing the best they can...
I haven't seen the video about Black Panthers. Did they beat people in the video? Or are you implying that you would like to make it illegal to carry billy clubs? I thought you were all for 2nd Amendment rights--that suprises me.

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

absolutly — as a matter of fact you may be in a position someday where you MUST yell fire in a crowded theater. Great example

OK–now you’re just being funny. I think you get my point. You don’t have the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater even though one might argue that it violates freedom of speech. The reason is that your freedom of speech can’t infringe upon your fellow man’s freedoms or endanger his safety. Your rights end when they infringe upon the rights of others.

You are 100% wrong. I can and should and would yell FIRE in a crowded theater if I felt the need to. For example, if it were ablaze, I could be held liable for not doing what I could (IE alarming others)(IE yelling FIRE). So, like I said, your point is not valid.

NO, the cops do not do "all they can" to rid America of the drug/street gangs. No even close. Lawyers make sure of that ... many from the ACLU. Gun laws ensure that only law-breakers are armed when a crime is commited.

The Black Panthers at the polls ... you honestly will say you never knew about it? Really? Google it, and then we can discuss the difference between intimidation with a weapon, body language, taunting, and the right to bear arms. Besides, just as you say the right to speach in modified in a crowded public venue (I'm pretty sure it's a riot stopper law) - in the same light there are laws about polling areas on voting day ... very very strict laws ... that THe Black Panthers were violating.

Vivia Mexifornia!!

AdHominem says

See: Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, West Bank, Gaza etc…

...

The freedom fighters in Iraq, Afganistan, Gaza, West Bank and Vietnam have and continue to stand up to “stealth bombers, drones, nuclear warheads, tanks, jet fighters, spy satellites to get intelligence” which is what I was reminding simcha as he seems to have trouble remembering these other freedom fighters (some call them insurgents, as would the American Patriots in 1776 have been similarly characterized).

Afghanistan: Really? The people stood up all by themselves against the Soviets and we Americans? No, they're supplied from outside of the country and supported by vast networks of arms dealers. And they don't just have hand guns and rifles. They have many of the same weapons most militaries use. And our military is severely limited in its own rules of engagement due to political pressure from the International Community. If our military were allowed to use its full force, it would be no contest.

Iraq: When did they win? Last time I checked they lost the war in 1991 and they haven't won the second one. Sure Iraq is a destabilized mess, but I wouldn't say that the people are actually able to fight American soldiers with only rifles and hand guns. They also use many weapons brought in from outside of the country that other militaries use that are illegal to own here. And our military is severely limited in its own rules of engagement due to political pressure from the International Community. If our military were allowed to use its full force, it would be no contest.

Vietnam: When did the people win anything there? Chinese backed North Vietnamese won using a full array military weapons and their army. Before we left the South Vietnamese held them off only because the American military was supplying their army and fighting on their behalf with a full complement of American military weapons. Also in this conflict American soldiers were severely restricted in the rules of engagement due to politics. If they would have been allowed to use full force with no restrictions, I suspect we would have seen a different result. However, it was still two militaries fighting one another and not "the people" fighting a military.

West Bank: Really? Are you kidding me? If Israel were actually allowed to invade using full force and they were to completely occupy the West Bank with martial law and were to drive out the "freedom fighters" there wouldn't still be a struggle in the West Bank. What keeps this conflict going on and on and on forever is that the UN and other Arab states and the International Community has made Israel their business and severely restricts what Israel can and can't do in the conflict. If Israel used it's full force, the International Community would come down hard on Israel and isolate it like North Korea. The people on the ground also use more than just hand guns and rifles. They get military grade weapons smuggled in through Syria and Jordan.

Gaza: See "West Bank" above and change "Syria and Jordan" to Egypt.

Thanks for playing. :)

And I completely agree that "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are labels that are context dependent. One person's "freedom fighter" is another person's "terrorist."

Bap33 says

You are 100% wrong. I can and should and would yell FIRE in a crowded theater if I felt the need to. For example, if it were ablaze, I could be held liable for not doing what I could (IE alarming others)(IE yelling FIRE). So, like I said, your point is not valid.

BAP---I'm hoping you're just playing with me, so I won't belabor the point. I'm guessing that you really get it...

And if you really think the government lets gangsters and the Black panthers terrorize US citizens--then I don't think any rational argument will convince you otherwise.

You never answered my question though--what would you say to someone who argues that the 2nd Amendment gives him the right to carry a bazooka? Doesn't it allow him to "bear arms"?

tatupu70 says

You never answered my question though–what would you say to someone who argues that the 2nd Amendment gives him the right to carry a bazooka? Doesn’t it allow him to “bear arms”?

Why not stop there? I want an anti-aircraft gun and my own nuclear silo armed with a multiple warhead ICBM. For extra protection against the gummint, I would also be sure to get a tank.

simchaland says

Also in this conflict American soldiers were severely restricted in the rules of engagement due to politics. If they would have been allowed to use full force with no restrictions, I suspect we would have seen a different result.

WRT to Vietnam, this is not the case. We'd won the war by 1971 but had nobody to hand off the peace to defend the place.

To actually win the war would require providing an indefinite on-the-ground peace-keeper role, like our ROK presence, or bringing the ground war to NVN directly, putting them on the strategic defense.

The problem with defending SVN is that its border is not something a handful of divisions can secure, it's more like geography of California, with an immense, sparsely populated interior to defend against inflitration. in familiar terms, if the DMZ was at the Oregon border, SVN would stretch down to Santa Barbara and Yuba City would be the furthest interior outpost of government control, everything past that would be Indian Country.

The actual population was concentrated in the thin coastal strip stretching in an arc 600 miles, plus the delta region which had 20% of the cropland and was largely pacified, We'd pretty much sorted the VC threat out among the population by 1970, largely by just moving people out of contested areas, making them refugees dependent on the GVN for food, plus signficant land reform in 1971-73 that gave the insurgency much of what it was fighting for.

The problem wasn't "politicians limiting our tactics", the problem was one of terrain and strategy. The war was largely fought in SVN, and all our tactics really tore the place up -- we defoliated about half the country to both interdict movement and prevent crops from growing in enemy-held areas. This made the postwar particular precarious, and the GVN overly dependent on us as a sponsor, a responsibility we largely walked away from, 1973-75.

Jungle-fighting a hundred or more miles from logistics support is no way to fight a modern war, and the Army didn't really want anything to do with it any more as it was tearing their formations up for something with zero applicability to the real war they wanted to fight in Europe.

Se we bailed on Vietnam with the job half-done in 1970-72, leaving the vast interior of Indochina still held by the communist forces, and not significantly impacting NVN's ability to reinforce and attack from this superior strategic position.

Nixon's Cambodian incursion of 1970 was a tactical success but since it was more a form of armed tourism it did not have any strategic impact. ARVN's similar attempt at armed tourism in 1971 failed spectacularly since they were outgunned, outplanned, and outled by PAVN in that area of relative communist logistical strength.

Vietnam was unwinnable without escalating the war beyond SVN, and this was something we could not do without the risk of bringing eager involvement of the PRC and SU forces into the war, and all that to preserve a dictator in Saigon of dubious democratic provenance and popular support was a strategic gamble that the System wisely backed down from.

To get our hostage airmen back, we had to agree to remove our armed presence. We could have returned in force again, but the public had largely grown tired of fighting the war for the SVNese by 1973, and the abrogation of the Peace Accord would mean any further armed action would result in losing POWs to an indefinite and very unpleasant captivity.

Complicating matters was the Russians giving Stinger-like heat-seeking missiles to PAVN. These greatly improved the ability of the ground forces to isolate remote ARVN positions from resupply and aerial fire support.

People who think the war was winnable need to understand that by 1972 PAVN owned every major battlefield where we had tried to stop them. They owned the DMZ outright, Khe Sanh, and the other major bases we had established to defend the DMZ like Con Thien and Camp Carroll. They owned A Shau Valley and the neighboring hill FSBs we had established to monitor and interdict that important logistics corridor. They owned the interior of the Central Highlands, leaving Kontum, Pleiku, and Banmethuot as isolated outposts more of a strategic liability than an asset (indeed, the loss of Banmethuot in early 1975 led to the total collapse of ARVN moral in the entire corps region).

They owned the Cambodian sanctuaries and our guy in Phnom Penh's days were numbered, despite (or perhaps because of) the immense secret strategic bombing campaign we had attempted (until Congress shut this down in 1972).

The VC may had been slaughted by 1974, but PAVN's strategic position in SVN was stronger than ever, and Thieu was f---ed without the return of at least US air support and advisers, and billions of dollars of aid to restore the morale and capability of ARVN.

But in the mid-70s the US had our own serious problems to face and saving vast stretches of jungle and some ricefields from the Communists did not have the same appeal that it had 10 years previously.

my honest answer about the Bazooka. Yes, it should be fine to own a Bazooka for home defense. Bazooka ammo would require a permit - just as most explosives require - like TNT and such. But, If a person can own their own personal use Jumbo Jet, then a Bazooka aint no biggie. That Jumbo Jet could be flown into the Super Bowl, or Vages/New York at midnight on New Years and kill lots of people. Just an example.

tatupu70 says

You never answered my question though–what would you say to someone who argues that the 2nd Amendment gives him the right to carry a bazooka? Doesn’t it allow him to “bear arms”?

In simcha's case, it would give him the right to arm bears...

"In simcha’s case, it would give him the right to arm bears"

A grizzly thought. That might be a big Boo Boo and it would surely be no picnic. My opinion is the polar opposite. I would likely Pooh Pooh your idea. Why? Just be claws.

Bap33 says

my honest answer about the Bazooka. Yes, it should be fine to own a Bazooka for home defense.

OK, good. How about conventional missile or bomb? Nuclear?

there are codes for proper use of land. I am thinking it's tuff to get a missle launch pad permit. lol

Bap33 says

there are codes for proper use of land. I am thinking it’s tuff to get a missle launch pad permit. lol

OK--stick to the bomb then. Would that be OK?

Bap33 says

there are codes for proper use of land. I am thinking it’s tuff to get a missle launch pad permit. lol

OK--stick to the bomb then. Would that be OK?

Bap33 says

there are codes for proper use of land. I am thinking it’s tuff to get a missle launch pad permit. lol

Permits shouldn't matter. My 2nd Amendment rights need protecting. I want my nuclear silo complete with a multi-warhead ICBM with each warhead yielding 5 megatons of nuclear terror. It's my right and I want it, I want it, I want it!

simchaland says

Permits shouldn’t matter. My 2nd Amendment rights need protecting. I want my nuclear silo complete with a multi-warhead ICBM with each warhead yielding 5 megatons of nuclear terror. It’s my right and I want it, I want it, I want it!

Good point. That permit is really a violation of my 2nd amendment rights too.

permits came from the socialist minded leftists as a form of income.

Not an easy issue, huh? All I know is, target shooting is fun. Especially on those rare occasions that I hit something, and those even rarer occasions that I hit the target.

Never underestimate a woman with a gun.

Tenouncetrout says

the Government shouldn’t have a say in the matter.
The Church has every right too, it’s called a religion, not a club where rules are augmented to suit the times. Or adultery, theft, murder, and worshiping idols wouldn’t be a sin by now.
I don’t have a problem with Gays getting married, how ever if their gripe is about what religion is checked on the application or form, and they can’t accept box just labeled “Civil Union” then they are asking to much. Atheists should also marry under the same description.

...but if a religion has churches that are willing to marry these people then the government should uphold and honor their right to marry. If I remember correctly the PROTESTANTS came here because they were running away from the rules of the Catholic Church that they did not wish to follow. So our government was founded on a church that was against its own rules and regulations.

Now your saying that because the members of this "GAY" protestant church are same sex loving the government shouldnt uphold their beliefs.

Bap33 says

@marcus,
my problem is with my vote being tossed away by an activist judge. Same thing they did with my vote on Prop 187. And since folks mentioned rights, I’d love to have my 2nd amendment rights put back into effect. Or, maybe we can get a vote on that too, and just have an activist judge toss out the results?

...because you are voting based on RACE/SEX of the individuals we dont really care that the judges overturned your vote. It would be similar to someone who were against EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION acting as if they were wronged when in fact the bills were aimed at correcting social injustices.

Whites who hate Mexicans voted for: California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to create a state-run citizenship screening system in order to prohibit illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other social services

Ohh really, just what are you saving your state from? Mexicans you say?

People who hate gays are for: Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008, state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Hmm, marriage between a man and woman you say....why? Are all the homosexual priests against marrying one another?
In both instances BIGOTED people voted against the other groups preference not because it would help anyone but because they were simply different.

The common factor in all of this is the hatred that is shared by both types of voters.

Clarence 13X says

Whites who hate Mexicans voted for: California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to create a state-run citizenship screening system in order to prohibit illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other social services

Illegal means exactly as you state. Foreign nationals living or visting who are here illegally are "under the jurisdiction of the foreign powers", not the US government. We have no obligation to provide health care, education or other social services.

Clarence 13X says

“only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Marriage is centuries old institution, since time itself, where the children carry their family name in blood --- blood relatives. There are no blood relatives, family lineage, or ancestry in gay marriage.

Clarence 13X says

If I remember correctly the PROTESTANTS came here because they were running away from the rules of the Catholic Church that they did not wish to follow

No, it was one faction of the Protestants fighting over the other. England wasnt Catholic.

Clarence 13X says

If I remember correctly the PROTESTANTS came here because they were running away from the rules of the Catholic Church that they did not wish to follow

No, it was one faction of the Protestants fighting over the other. England wasnt Catholic.

Bap33 says

permits came from the socialist minded leftists as a form of income.

Let's get back on track then. BAP--what is your view on a private citizen buying nuclear bombs?

lol .. Clarence .... such a silly silly lib. Racebator Extraodinare.

tat,
this may shock you, but all of America's bombs - both nuke and non-nuke - are purchaced by private citizens. lol. Cool huh?