Lawrence Hunter Explains the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Merkava_4, Dec 30, 2012.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    From Lawrence Hunter, in his words:


    LINK
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #2
    Thank you Mr Hunter.

    Unfortunately most of the readers on this website will not understand this, as they have already decided to cede all of their choices to the government so they can be "taken care of" rather than take personal responsibility for themselves.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #3
    Interesting argument against a standing army but I don't think most Americans will buy into it.
     
  4. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #4
    Just another extremist who thinks in black and white in a world dominated by gray. This holds for extremists at both ends.
     
  5. macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #5
    How is everyone having guns going to stop a tyrannical government? Especially when that government has access to nukes?

    The proper solution is to just give everyone nukes.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #6
    What does a government do after it nukes all its people and the US is a nuclear wasteland/

    The US military cannot take down a 300 million armed guerilla army, they couldn't even handle Vietnam.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    Solution is simple.

    Get rid of the standing army.

    I'm all for it.
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Zach Vega

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Location:
    Singapore
    #8
    I'm tired of governments trying to violate rights such as these.
     
  9. zioxide, Dec 30, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012

    macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #9
    hahaha. Me too. It never will happen though. Republicans love their military and the illusion of feeling "protected" and "free".



    This article is a bunch of tin-foil hat garbage. The US government isn't becoming a tyranny in the 21st century. It's not happening. Anyone who thinks this needs to get their head checked out and shouldn't have access to firearms anyways due to mental instability.

    The 2nd amendment does have limits. Civilians have the right to bear arms, but it's not unlimited. It's not like you can legally own ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads or a stockpile of RPGs to "protect" yourself from the "evil government". :rolleyes:

    Time to move on, gun nuts. It's not 1789 anymore, it's almost 2013. There's no place for civilians to own most of these assault weapons (and similar high capacity semi-auto guns) in a modern society. We are already falling behind the rest of the first world in terms of health care, education, and many other issues, and if we don't fix this we'll only fall further behind.


    I'm tired of waking up EVERY morning to news of another shooting in this country and people pointlessly losing their lives. There comes a point where the greater good of the population becomes more important that your individual right to pretend you're living in a call of duty video game.
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #10
    Oh jeez...this again? Is there really a subset of people who think the government is going to enslave them and that the only way we will keep this from happening is to give everyone guns? Seriously? If you believe this, I think you're a wackjob.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    Totally agree.

    It's ironic how some people apply circular reasoning to this issue ...

    We have to have our guns to keep the government from becoming tyrannical.

    But we can't get rid of our standing army because then we'll be vulnerable to our enemies.


    Paranoia applied both internally and externally has resulted in many hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.

    Who needs tyranny?

    Freedom has proven it can be just as deadly.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #12
    the insurgents in Afghanistan have done a good job of standing up to us..
     
  13. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    True, but Gandhi did a pretty good job of standing up to the British without violence.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    They've done a much better job of killing Afghanistan civilians than U.S. troops.

    It's amazing how some gun advocates romanticize insurgency when it's evident that fellow citizens bear the brunt of the violence.
     
  15. macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #15
    He's right that anyone who really wants to restrict access to firearms needs to accept that they have to address the constitution and states rights.

    Every other word out of his mouth is sheer lunacy.

    Guns aren't making you safer, and anyone with two braincells to rub together that isn't a total partisan hack is capable of recognizing that. I'm not going to put forth the idea that it's as simple as adopting Australian-style gun policies (only ~22 million people with no borders) but to pretend that there isn't a problem or position it as a problem wherein the solution to too many guns is somehow more guns is willful stupidity. It's not a question of left vs. right or ideology vs. ideology, it's a question of the constitution vs. ~31 000 dead people.

    It's not guns vs. the government, or guns vs. bad guys, it's guns vs. obituaries. You've got a legitimate constitutional right to own a gun, and your choice is to give that up and see less people dying of gunshot wounds, or simply come to terms with the fact that the price you pay for your gun is blood. Man up and admit that your constitutional right is worth a certain amount of innocent blood* and shut up about the contrived, ridiculous anti-government conspiracy theories or hollywood-esque self-defense narratives. Because they are nonsense and they are not furthering your position. They only serve to position you as someone with a tenuous-at-best grasp of reality.

    ________
    *note: only a certain number of victims of firearm violence are "innocent," and the number who are "random" is even smaller. Not that criminals getting shot to death is necessarily a good thing, but that so many murder victims are criminals themselves implies a certain assumed risk.
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #16
    Bravo!
     
  17. macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #17
    For all of you who are screaming that an "assault rifle" ban will fix all the problems you should probably do a little research and see what firearms produce the most casualties. Let me tell you it's not even close. Handguns are BY FAR the biggest cause of problems, however we don't hear anything about them do we? Gotta get those assault rifles away from people and then no one will ever get shot again right?

    By the way just so we are clear about what an assault rifle is let me show you two pictures.

    This is NOT an assault rifle...

    [​IMG]

    This IS an assault rifle...

    [​IMG]

    Any questions?
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #18
    Yes.

    What value is your "no true Scotsman assault rifle" argument?

    I just don't get it.
     
  19. macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #19
    Because people keep saying "We have got to ban assault weapons" but as you can see in the case of the AR-15 if you simply remove the "assault" features it is now just a regular semi-automatic rifle. Even if the ban names the AR-15 by model name a couple specs can be changed and it can be re-branded the AR-20 or whatever and it is good to go without the scary "assault features" of course.

    Instead of banning the cosmetic features, why not require a tool to remove the magazine and limit the magazine size? That is all I am trying to say is that people keep going on and on how terrible these assault weapons are and how they think they are killing more people then all other firearms combined, but check the stats and you will see that is so far from the truth it isn't even funny.

    So the value of this information is to show people that the so-called assault weapon is all about cosmetics. That's it. I see it as just another rifle, however I assume you see it as a SBG (Scary Black Gun).
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #20
    Why are you saying assault rifles? Assault rifles and assault weapons are two different things.
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #21
    How so? Please educate me. The AR15 can either be a plain old rifle or an assault weapon by changing it's cosmetics and removing features. That was the only point I was trying to make. As far as I know all fully automatic weapons are already illegal so please tell me what other semi-automatic weapons are an assault weapon and cannot be made into a regular weapon by changing cosmetics or deleting features?
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #22
    Not having too much interest in guns aside from fps I don't know of a definitive reference but it is my understanding that assault rifles are by definition automatic and thus have been highly regulated in the US since before they were even invented.

    "An assault rifle (as opposed to weapon) refers to a specific type of firearm designed – fully automatic, lightweight and reliable"

    http://www.guns.com/2012/12/18/editorial-do-strict-gun-control-laws-prevent-tragedies/
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #23
    Well unless you want to go through a huge amount of hurdles to try an obtain an automatic weapon legally as a civilian in our country then it is illegal. There are many lightweight weapons on the market and if it's not reliable chances are most people wouldn't buy it.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #24
    I've been around a lot of black guns and they've always tended to behave...maybe it was just a fluke? ;)



    An automatic firearm resembling the modern AR15 (Colt M4) is not available for civilian ownership in the US. Automatic firearms are forbidden if made after 1983, and in order to buy a pre-ban, you are looking at an extensive background check, fingerprinting, a few month wait, waiver of certain Constitutional Rights (specifically search and seizure), and thousands of dollars. For an older version of a fully automatic AR, 15 grand is usually a steal. The 'black guns' being attacked by congress now are all semiautomatic. Making a semiautomatic into a fully automatic firearm in the US will put one in federal prison for a few decades, and I know of no one who's ever done it.
     
  25. citizenzen, Dec 30, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012

    macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    People tend to speak in generalities.

    Is the semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 used to kill 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook and 2 firefighters in Webster N.Y. an "assault weapon"?

    Does it really matter what that weapon is technically called?

    I frankly couldn't care less what category the weapon falls in to.
     

Share This Page