|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 10, 2015 13:22:04 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm not following your logic but I'll answer your questions: 1) That's a tough one. Probably a hacker depending on what they got into (ex. power grid). However, 200 guys with weapons hitting Wall St., NASDAQ or a coordinated attack across 3 dozen malls or schools in this country could create enough fear and panic to bring the economy to it's knees. 2) Yes, the Founding Fathers may well be "horrified" at those developments, but I believe their fear would still be greater at the size and power of our standing military and the threat it could pose. 3) No idea what you mean by "You have to buy int the macro because without it your micro isn't valid". Hackers can/cripple Wall Street and the rest of the markets. 200 guys trying to plan that type of attack undetected won't happen either. As for the macro and micro argument, because civilians wouldn't have a chance in hell to defeat our military the 2a isn't very realistic nor up with the times. Without that the micro part falls apart because it's obvious the framers did not have individual gun rights in mind at the inception. Again, agree to disagree. If you don't think that armed civilians wouldn't have a chance to defeat our military if push came to shove (and I hope it never does), then you haven't been paying attention to world events. You are also assuming that the men & women of our great military would even agree (or have the will) to take up arms against their own country if the government ever became so twisted that it gave them orders to do so. One of the factors they would be weighing is would they want to fight hundreds of thousands (if not more) armed civilians. Yes, a portion of the population would roll over in that scenario......but more than you think wouldn't. Let's hope we never have our theories put to the test. |
|
|
|
Post by PK on Feb 10, 2015 13:34:54 GMT -5
You should have to purchase insurance for your gun. Are you a responsible 40 yo with a steady job and a family? You're insurance will be cheap. If you're an 18 yo who lives in a trailer park and has never had a job? You're gonna pay so much that it would be cost prohibitive for an idiot like that to have a gun.
The funniest LOL on this thread is where the Jet fan from CT said most people aren't idiots. Are you effing kidding? 95% of people out there are stupid morons who would do the gene pool a favor if their entire family died in a fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 10, 2015 13:56:07 GMT -5
At the risk of sounding Warfishy, if you were made supreme dictator of the US, spell out exactly who you'd allow to own guns, what kind of guns, and what the process would be to get them? Its obvious you want it more restrictive than today, but how? No need for military style long guns (rifles), in order to own a handgun one must participate in continuing education/safety course on a bi-annual basis. How would you define military style long guns. Thats one of my issues with the "gun control" debate. People talk in generalities, and not specifics. Are we talking just looks/cosmetics, or rate of fire, or capacity or all of the above? It sounds like you would allow us handguns, shotguns, and perhaps basic hunting rifles? |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 10, 2015 13:58:42 GMT -5
I saw this all the time when I lived in Brooklyn. Illegally parked to get something to eat. And his defense is baloney. No one would have a problem with him parking illegally to respond to a crime. But to get Chinese food? cmon. |
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Feb 10, 2015 14:03:24 GMT -5
You should have to purchase insurance for your gun. Are you a responsible 40 yo with a steady job and a family? You're insurance will be cheap. If you're an 18 yo who lives in a trailer park and has never had a job? You're gonna pay so much that it would be cost prohibitive for an idiot like that to have a gun. The funniest LOL on this thread is where the Jet fan from CT said most people aren't idiots. Are you effing kidding? 95% of people out there are stupid morons who would do the gene pool a favor if their entire family died in a fire. The insurance idea is one i havent heard suggested before but I think you may be on to something. It pays out in case of accidents, and like car insurance, rewards the safe and makes it cost prohibitive for the unsafe. And its not denying your right to own a gun. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 14:22:15 GMT -5
Hackers can/cripple Wall Street and the rest of the markets. 200 guys trying to plan that type of attack undetected won't happen either. As for the macro and micro argument, because civilians wouldn't have a chance in hell to defeat our military the 2a isn't very realistic nor up with the times. Without that the micro part falls apart because it's obvious the framers did not have individual gun rights in mind at the inception. Again, agree to disagree. If you don't think that armed civilians wouldn't have a chance to defeat our military if push came to shove (and I hope it never does), then you haven't been paying attention to world events. You are also assuming that the men & women of our great military would even agree (or have the will) to take up arms against their own country if the government ever became so twisted that it gave them orders to do so. One of the factors they would be weighing is would they want to fight hundreds of thousands (if not more) armed civilians. Yes, a portion of the population would roll over in that scenario......but more than you think wouldn't. Let's hope we never have our theories put to the test. Yea the same people who are lining up to fight for our country? Our citizens would hire contractors to fight on their behalf and want the gov't to subsidize it as well. |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 10, 2015 14:52:37 GMT -5
You should have to purchase insurance for your gun. Are you a responsible 40 yo with a steady job and a family? You're insurance will be cheap. If you're an 18 yo who lives in a trailer park and has never had a job? You're gonna pay so much that it would be cost prohibitive for an idiot like that to have a gun. The funniest LOL on this thread is where the Jet fan from CT said most people aren't idiots. Are you effing kidding? 95% of people out there are stupid morons who would do the gene pool a favor if their entire family died in a fire. The insurance idea is one i havent heard suggested before but I think you may be on to something. It pays out in case of accidents, and like car insurance, rewards the safe and makes it cost prohibitive for the unsafe. And its not denying your right to own a gun. It's an idea that's been floated out there. I guess the devil would be in the details. |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 10, 2015 14:54:35 GMT -5
You should have to purchase insurance for your gun. Are you a responsible 40 yo with a steady job and a family? You're insurance will be cheap. If you're an 18 yo who lives in a trailer park and has never had a job? You're gonna pay so much that it would be cost prohibitive for an idiot like that to have a gun. The funniest LOL on this thread is where the Jet fan from CT said most people aren't idiots. Are you effing kidding? 95% of people out there are stupid morons who would do the gene pool a favor if their entire family died in a fire. If you feel that way about 95% of the people you know, then you might want to re-consider your circle of family, friends and acquaintances. I'm sure they'd love to know how you feel.  |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 10, 2015 14:59:28 GMT -5
Again, agree to disagree. If you don't think that armed civilians wouldn't have a chance to defeat our military if push came to shove (and I hope it never does), then you haven't been paying attention to world events. You are also assuming that the men & women of our great military would even agree (or have the will) to take up arms against their own country if the government ever became so twisted that it gave them orders to do so. One of the factors they would be weighing is would they want to fight hundreds of thousands (if not more) armed civilians. Yes, a portion of the population would roll over in that scenario......but more than you think wouldn't. Let's hope we never have our theories put to the test. Yea the same people who are lining up to fight for our country? Our citizens would hire contractors to fight on their behalf and want the gov't to subsidize it as well. People will fight for this country if there is a just cause. There was a surge in enlistments in the period after 9/11. They just don't want to be sent as "rent a cops" to babysit countries that don't want us there. Big difference in my opinion. Most of our contractors are used to protect their people and projects because they can't do it themselves. Not a job for our men and women who enlisted (IMO). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 16:19:07 GMT -5
Yea the same people who are lining up to fight for our country? Our citizens would hire contractors to fight on their behalf and want the gov't to subsidize it as well. People will fight for this country if there is a just cause. There was a surge in enlistments in the period after 9/11. They just don't want to be sent as "rent a cops" to babysit countries that don't want us there. Big difference in my opinion. Most of our contractors are used to protect their people and projects because they can't do it themselves. Not a job for our men and women who enlisted (IMO). Bullshit! Most will look up what they think is going on by using Wikipedia. You better look up the thousands of contractors that are currently employed with U.S dollars all over the ME and they are doing a lot more than simply being security guards. You want to watch this country stop fighting wars? Start a draft. You are a smart guy but you obviously are looking to save your points and not speak honestly about this topic. |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 10, 2015 16:57:24 GMT -5
People will fight for this country if there is a just cause. There was a surge in enlistments in the period after 9/11. They just don't want to be sent as "rent a cops" to babysit countries that don't want us there. Big difference in my opinion. Most of our contractors are used to protect their people and projects because they can't do it themselves. Not a job for our men and women who enlisted (IMO). Bullshit! Most will look up what they think is going on by using Wikipedia. You better look up the thousands of contractors that are currently employed with U.S dollars all over the ME and they are doing a lot more than simply being security guards. You want to watch this country stop fighting wars? Start a draft. You are a smart guy but you obviously are looking to save your points and not speak honestly about this topic. I don't even know what topic we're discussing anymore. I thought we were discussing the right to own firearms and the 2nd Amendment but apparently have gone wayyyyyy off topic. Let's try to keep it on point. |
|
|
|
Post by PK on Feb 10, 2015 18:25:46 GMT -5
You should have to purchase insurance for your gun. Are you a responsible 40 yo with a steady job and a family? You're insurance will be cheap. If you're an 18 yo who lives in a trailer park and has never had a job? You're gonna pay so much that it would be cost prohibitive for an idiot like that to have a gun. The funniest LOL on this thread is where the Jet fan from CT said most people aren't idiots. Are you effing kidding? 95% of people out there are stupid morons who would do the gene pool a favor if their entire family died in a fire. If you feel that way about 95% of the people you know, then you might want to re-consider your circle of family, friends and acquaintances. I'm sure they'd love to know how you feel. Most people don't even know how to drive right. But they should have unfettered access to firearms. Gotcha. |
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Feb 10, 2015 18:51:07 GMT -5
If you feel that way about 95% of the people you know, then you might want to re-consider your circle of family, friends and acquaintances. I'm sure they'd love to know how you feel. Most people don't even know how to drive right. But they should have unfettered access to firearms. Gotcha. Apparently you're late to the party (or can't read) because no one (me specifically) said anything about "unfettered access". That's all you've got to add to the conversation? Gotcha. |
|
|
|
Post by Gunnails on Feb 10, 2015 20:20:16 GMT -5
because it's obvious the framers did not have individual gun rights in mind at the inception. ========================================================================= Can you expand on this concept? Of course I disagree, but I am still interested in your point of view on the 2nd. |
|
|
|
Post by PK on Feb 10, 2015 20:50:10 GMT -5
Most people don't even know how to drive right. But they should have unfettered access to firearms. Gotcha. Apparently you're late to the party (or can't read) because no one (me specifically) said anything about "unfettered access". That's all you've got to add to the conversation? Gotcha. I know you are but what am I? |
|
