STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127

[Jamdoc]

What about this bill is immoral? Some could say it violates the constitution but the Bible says nothing on the matter.

Lacking the ability to defend yourself and your family could be considered immoral.

 

[Nithavela]

That's only true because the US was trying to avoid civilian casualties. And at the end of the day, who won?

The taliban won.

 

[Gene2memE]

I wouldn't leap to such a conclusion, but the force against the nazis would have been far more sizeable. That would have been a good thing in both our books, wouldn't it have been?

No.

Large numbers of poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly organised and near static militia would have been a major drain on Poland's already limited military resources. A detriment, rather than a benefit.

What Poland needed was a modern, well equipped, mobile army that was well led by commanders experienced in large scale maneuver warfare and well supported by logistics arms. Oh, and a modern air force to cover it.

A universally armed citizenry would have ratcheted up the slaughter on the Polish side, with little impact on German battle plans except for greater expenditure of munitions. The Heer had no compunctions in 1939 about using artillery to clear villages, towns or cities or force their surrender. Similarly, the Luftwaffe had few qualms about attacking cities with strategic bombers - the very first act of the invasion of Poland was the carpet bombing of Weilun, a town with no military targets inside it.

 

[Gene2memE]

Lacking the ability to defend yourself and your family could be considered immoral.

Creating a state where firearms are needed to defend your family could be considered immoral. And I say that both as a firearm owner and a father.

 

[98cwitr]

No.

Large numbers of poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly organised and near static militia would have been a major drain on Poland's already limited military resources. A detriment, rather than a benefit.

Work through that for me...how would an armed citizenry been a train on military resources at all?

What Poland needed was a modern, well equipped, mobile army that was well led by commanders experienced in large scale maneuver warfare and well supported by logistics arms. Oh, and a modern air force to cover it.

No doubt there.

A universally armed citizenry would have ratcheted up the slaughter on the Polish side, with little impact on German battle plans except for greater expenditure of munitions. The Heer had no compunctions in 1939 about using artillery to clear villages, towns or cities or force their surrender. Similarly, the Luftwaffe had few qualms about attacking cities with strategic bombers - the very first act of the invasion of Poland was the carpet bombing of Weilun, a town with no military targets inside it.

So better to be slaughtered on your knees than to fight on your feet then?

 

[Jamdoc]

Creating a state where firearms are needed to defend your family could be considered immoral. And I say that both as a firearm owner and a father.

what do you mean "creating" people are wicked. That's this entire fallen world.
Yes, because people are wicked and some will look to harm you to rob you, you need means of defending yourself.

 

[Direct Driver]

Ah, I thought so. I guess we can add the laffer curve to the things you believe in that have been disproven.

It has? That's news to me. Well, you said it so it must be true.

BTW, the Laffer curve is simply a concept. And it's rock solid.

To put it another way, punish an activity (the acquizition of wealth, for example), and you'll get less of it. Reward an activity (e.g. increase "welfare" when a single woman has another baby out of wedlock) and you'll get more of it.

 

[Direct Driver]

Pro choice as in abortion. We have already established your stance on guns.

Depends. Is the woman's life at risk? Then by all means, yes, if killing another person will save her, and the other person is what is risking her life. But since abortion is the killing of a human being, I'm sort of against it 'cause, you know, like, I value human life.

 

[Direct Driver]

Can you give a citation from the criminal justice field for this theory?

What is that other countries with far lower incarceration rates are doing differently?

I could, but it's not worth the effort here. It breeds a thousand rabbit trails. In fact, frankly, the discussion has run its course. I'll respond to responses from yesterday and then I'll move on to other threads. I've shared my position as much as is needed in this thread.

 

[Direct Driver]

well my point isn't using guns or not it was more just, here is the thing we've been hearing for years why guns are needed, and many believed it was the government being tyrannical and overthrowing the government, yet barely a blink.

Not saying their beliefs were true, just that given the nature of their beliefs and how severe the situation was if they were true, you would expect more.

Now take the left, if trump had used the supreme court to ilegittimatly steal the election, you would definitely have had riots, protests country wide, you wouldn't have had, "Well I can't take my guns." look at the BLM and occupy or far more minor things and they came out in much bigger force. It seems to me the right talks big, but when it's time to show it they cower.

Personally, I expect the left to get out of hand this summer for LOTS of reasons that are coming. And I believe Kyle Rittenhouse was only the beginning.

To be really clear, I'm not talking about me. I'm quite comfortable up here on Galt's Knob. This is a young man's game. And the young men of today have their work cut out for them. And like Kyle, most of it will be clear self defense. But some won't be. Human beings are emotional creatures. Things can ramp up under the right circumstances.

 

[Direct Driver]

If your argument was leigimate then you would have less rapes per capita in the states where you have far more guns per capita.

True, if my argument covered ALL the reasons one culture has more rapes than another. It discusses a single aspect with the assumption that "all other things being equal" is true, except it's not.

 

[Direct Driver]

Except everyone carrying guns is whats killing people, not protecting them.

And bombs and knives and hands. But a gun can hugely protect you, and often merely by brandishing it.

Never bring a fist to a knife fight.

 

[Speedwell]

And bombs and knives and hands. But a gun can hugely protect you, and often merely by brandishing it.

How often has that happened in your own life?

 

[Belk]

Depends. Is the woman's life at risk? Then by all means, yes, if killing another person will save her, and the other person is what is risking her life. But since abortion is the killing of a human being, I'm sort of against it 'cause, you know, like, I value human life.

So being able to own a gun is about one thing "Control of your own life" regardless of the consequences to others but abortion must be subject to the mothers life being in danger?

 

[Direct Driver]

So being able to own a gun is about one thing "Control of your own life" regardless of the consequences to others but abortion must be subject to the mothers life being in danger?

Incorrect inference.

 

[Direct Driver]

How often has that happened in your own life?

Never. I've also never been in an auto accident, but I still wear a seat belt. And depending on the environment I'm walking/driving in, both can significantly improve peace of mind.

It's also why one of my cars is a beater (body wise). I'm not afraid to be hit by another car or be forced to plow through something to prevent me from being pulled out of a stopped car, unarmed. I'm more likely to stop if I'm driving my sports car. But at least it does have a gun in the door panel that I've never had to use and I probably never will.

But I have a feeling this summer will be a good time to stay out of many urban areas, even in some parts of Europe. The world's economy has been destroyed (the impact will be felt more and more every month). The weather will be nice. People will be frustrated. They're already acting out in some parts of Europe. And the weather is warming up stateside.

 

[Strathos]

Are you talking about the three-fifths compromise? Section 2 of the 4th Amendment later superseded this clause and explicitly repealed the compromise.

14th Amendment, and that wasn't until after the civil war. In other words, the original law was good enough for the founding fathers.

 

[Direct Driver]

14th Amendment, and that wasn't until after the civil war. In other words, the original law was good enough for the founding fathers.

That 3/5 rule was sneaky. Most people don't know why it was there. It was there because it increased the "official" population so they got more representatives in the house. It wasn't at all about giving black people some sort of personal status at all. It was about politics. A modern equivalent would be using illegal alien numbers to increase your state's share of representatives in the house.

 

[Direct Driver]

Church Lockdowns while bars and restaurants and strip clubs and casinos are open

Good news is that the SCOTUS has killed that at least for California.
Supreme Court Stops California From Banning Indoor Worship While Allowing Indoor Shopping

 

[Strathos]

That 3/5 rule was sneaky. Most people don't know why it was there. It was there because it increased the "official" population so they got more representatives in the house. It wasn't at all about giving black people some sort of personal status at all. It was about politics. A modern equivalent would be using illegal alien numbers to increase your state's share of representatives in the house.

Point is, the founding fathers weren't God and weren't infallible, so the reasoning that just because something was 'good enough for them' that means it's fine a quarter of a millennium later is flawed.