The Second Amendment

Decimate said:
@Pharaoh Shadon The founding fathers you're searching for are Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Washington, John Adams.

The first one wrote about trading liberty for security; the others wrote about potential american divisions internally beneath the two party system among other possible factors.

*You can throw Abe Lincoln in there even though he isn't an FF.
Click to expand...
there we go ^^ One of my biggest flaw is I'm terrible at remembering names of history. I know what events took place, I know who did what, I can just never remember their names DX (Which is odd because i'm quite good at remembering names in real life and my own childhood -.-) But it's not entirely bad, I still remember George Washington's warning about the 2 party system (Or political parties in general)

My mind seemed have changed since I posted my first post. You guys provided quite a bit of new info I didn't quite know before.

So i'll change what I originally thought (Though a few things still remain)

Each comma is meant to be separated. So people who can have arms are
1. A well regulated Militia (As long as they are fighting for freedom and/or security of the state)
2. The people to keep and bear Arms (As in citizens)

What is considered bearing arms? Considering the new information I have, it is any sort of weapon. HOWEVER, just because you can have it, doesn't mean you should, and it doesn't mean you're immune to consequence from the people and/or government.

The constitution, including the amendments is not designed to keep you safe, it is designed to keep you free. That also includes the negatives of freedom.


That's probably as TL;DR as it gets for me soooo yeah :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dervish said:
Not quite, you got the general idea right but the lethality backwards.

Things like full metal jackets are used in the military because they're extremely basic (and cheap) and are the least likely to leave complicated trauma since they leave comparatively simple holes with minimal tumbling, which is one of the points of the Geneva Convention is that you can't have mushrooming rounds. I was told when I was in the army that even doing something like carving an x on the top of my bullets would be a one way trip to the court martial.

It's mushrooming and fragmenting rounds that are the most lethal, and it's what hunters and police use most of the time. More or less, there's still a lot of momentum behind a round when it's entering a body, so this expanding round is actually causing a larger cavity and if it fragments, it's creating even more trauma that's hard for a doctor to deal with. The idea is to internalize all the force of the round, because if a round passes through your target, it's wasting energy, and in cases like law enforcement, you don't want to over penetrate in case you hit a bystander. Imagine, if you will, if a hollowpoint were to puncture an organ verses a normal bullet; the hole would be massive and there would be a lot more complications.

I'd link some YouTube videos showing ballistics gel comparisons, but I have an appointment I need to run off to. It's pretty awesome stuff to watch, and really surprising.

But yeah, when people are usually talking self-defense rounds, they want something that isn't going to over-penetrate their target and do as much stopping power as possible with as few shots as possible. Ultimately, the desired result is the attacker is dead before he or she can harm you or your family, not just maim them so they flee.
Click to expand...
I've taken a 9mm hollowpoint to the thigh before. Considering the damage done, I am more than happy to have taken the hollow point (which didn't reach bone because of its nature of breaking up) to a full metal, which would have blown through my precious thigh.

Note: Getting shot sucks.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Dervish
Pharaoh Shadon said:
there we go ^^ One of my biggest flaw is I'm terrible at remembering names of history. I know what events took place, I know who did what, I can just never remember their names DX (Which is odd because i'm quite good at remembering names in real life and my own childhood -.-) But it's not entirely bad, I still remember George Washington's warning about the 2 party system (Or political parties in general)

My mind seemed have changed since I posted my first post. You guys provided quite a bit of new info I didn't quite know before.

So i'll change what I originally thought (Though a few things still remain)

Each comma is meant to be separated. So people who can have arms are
1. A well regulated Militia (As long as they are fighting for freedom and/or security of the state)
2. The people to keep and bear Arms (As in citizens)

What is considered bearing arms? Considering the new information I have, it is any sort of weapon. HOWEVER, just because you can have it, doesn't mean you should, and it doesn't mean you're immune to consequence from the people and/or government.

The constitution, including the amendments is not designed to keep you safe, it is designed to keep you free. That also includes the negatives of freedom.


That's probably as TL;DR as it gets for me soooo yeah :D
Click to expand...
This is where gets murky as I was saying to Brovo. You cannot place a restriction on bearing arms as it is a fundamental right in the defense of life and property from a criminal, a foreign nation, or one's own government if need be. Rights are not gifts from the government. And as they are not given, they also cannot be taken away.

But be that as it may, there does come a time when the government has to focus on security because it serves the nation as a whole by responding to possible threats.

And this is where I get conflicting thoughts. I feel that it is intended (given our intended duty is to control our own government as it exists to serve us) that we have equal ability to obtain weapons on par with the military/police force. However, is that a good idea? Probably not. If there is anything conceivable and productive enough to argue about it is this topic right here.
 
Decimate said:
This is where gets murky as I was saying to Brovo. You cannot place a restriction on bearing arms as it is a fundamental right in the defense of life and property from a criminal, a foreign nation, or one's own government if need be. Rights are not gifts from the government. And as they are not given, they also cannot be taken away.

But be that as it may, there does come a time when the government has to focus on security because it serves the nation as a whole by responding to possible threats.

And this is where I get conflicting thoughts. I feel that it is intended (given our intended duty is to control our own government as it exists to serve us) that we have equal ability to obtain weapons on par with the military/police force. However, is that a good idea? Probably not. If there is anything conceivable and productive enough to argue about it is this topic right here.
Click to expand...

I agree with your first and third 100%. (Weather we like it or not >.<. If the people want self destruction, then so it. It's unwise, but the people have spoken. I believe that mindset is that of the founding fathers, especially considering their time, environment.

The second however, is where things get especially iffy, and exactly what the freedom vs security is all about. But security doesn't mean going against the admendmants. If everyone has a gun, everyone is just as secure. Ideally, the same if nobody has a gun, but that's against the admendmants.

Which is why I think security is mostly up to us as individuals, not nessessarily the government (and before someone jumps on me, no, I'm not saying cops need to go DX I'm saying that no matter what, government cannot give 100% protection without breaking MAJOR privacy laws, and probably morals too)

It really comes down to what people consider security. Take away guns, good people actually loose protection. Everyone is trained with weapons/martial arts? Well nobody wants to do that now do they? >.< (personally I think that should be a thing, but it's not so yeah XD)
 
Kakumei said:
I've taken a 9mm hollowpoint to the thigh before. Considering the damage done, I am more than happy to have taken the hollow point (which didn't reach bone because of its nature of breaking up) to a full metal, which would have blown through my precious thigh.

Note: Getting shot sucks.
Click to expand...
As someone who hasn't been shot before, all I can say is... oww.

Might I ask what lead up to getting shot? Considering the topic at hand, you probably have one heck of a story to tell. I hope your leg recovered fully, because holy shit.
 
Dervish said:
As someone who hasn't been shot before, all I can say is... oww.

Might I ask what lead up to getting shot? Considering the topic at hand, you probably have one heck of a story to tell. I hope your leg recovered fully, because holy shit.
Click to expand...
Haha, nothing really special. I was trying to show my friend how to handle and fire a gun appropriately and hit the back of my thigh by accident. It was 3 years ago. Obvious tip for newbies #1) Even if you think you have the safety on, never put your finger on the trigger until you have your target aimed at and are ready to shoot.

Actually, my car accident did more damage to me. Fractured my c7 vertebrae in two places. Now THAT sucks. It was 2 months ago, but still not healed quite right.
 
Last edited:
  • Nice Execution!
Reactions: Windsong and Dervish
Kakumei said:
Haha, nothing really special. I was trying to show my friend how to handle and fire a gun appropriately and hit the back of my thigh by accident. It was 3 years ago. Obvious tip for newbies #1) Even if you think you have the safety on, never put your hand on the trigger until you have your target aimed at and are ready to shoot.

Actually, my car accident did more damage to me. Fractured my c7 vertebrae in two places. Now THAT sucks. It was 2 months ago, but still not healed quite right.
Click to expand...
Never before has the "NICE EXECUTION!" button seemed more appropriate.

But yeah, there's definitely a reason safety courses drill in your head that you should always treat a gun like it's loaded, because you just never know when your gun will get possessed by Skynet and try to betray you. :D I'm glad your hard learned lesson wasn't worse, but I will reiterated earlier: Ow.

Yeah, cars are basically big several thousand pound projectiles waiting to ruin your day. Spinal injuries are really scary, that might end up being a life-long irritation.
 
Dervish said:
Never before has the "NICE EXECUTION!" button seemed more appropriate.

But yeah, there's definitely a reason safety courses drill in your head that you should always treat a gun like it's loaded, because you just never know when your gun will get possessed by Skynet and try to betray you. :D I'm glad your hard learned lesson wasn't worse, but I will reiterated earlier: Ow.

Yeah, cars are basically big several thousand pound projectiles waiting to ruin your day. Spinal injuries are really scary, that might end up being a life-long irritation.
Click to expand...
Lol, probably, but neck pain or not, I'ma headbutt the next person who shoots me. Or annoy me. Whichever comes first. lmao
 
*Cautiously pokes in thread again*

Wait... Things turned Civil?

Wow... O_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovo and Gwazi Magnum
@Kakumei It's actually not been too bad today ... for a debate thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gwazi Magnum
Kakumei said:
Its pretty easy. Just ignore personal attacks and ad hominem fallacies. xD
Click to expand...
It's rare to see all sides do it though.

Usually there's someone who just needs to argue, has a beef with someone, want's to uphold their 'smart guy' reputation, just wants to troll etc.
Cases where everyone universally is able to not only take a step back but then calm things down isn't a common sight.

I'm impressed! XD
 
Decimate said:
@Kakumei It's actually not been too bad today ... for a debate thread.
Click to expand...
This place in general seems a little chill for the most part. Most places I debate at (on the computer) usually consists of

"Fuk you. I win."

Which is about as much win as anybody going up against Ronda Rousey.
 
  • Nice Execution!
Reactions: Gwazi Magnum
Gen. Gwazi Senpai said:
It's rare to see all sides do it though.

Usually there's someone who just needs to argue, has a beef with someone, want's to uphold their 'smart guy' reputation, just wants to troll etc.
Cases where everyone universally is able to not only take a step back but then calm things down isn't a common sight.

I'm impressed! XD
Click to expand...
Well, you wont ever see me like that. I am too confident in my positions/convictions/debating ability to resort to such silliness. Lol.

Then again, I've debated in a couple college forums here in the south. Pretty fun stuff. My friend debated Anita Sarkeesian. Pretty fun to see her squirm in her seat like a doofus.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Gwazi Magnum
Grumpy said:
I concur with the above statements.

Well done for playing nicely, chums.
Click to expand...
We should all go to the chum bucket for some holographic meat loaf...

Sorry, I had to.
 
Kakumei said:
Well, you wont ever see me like that. I am too confident in my positions/convictions/debating ability to resort to such silliness. Lol.

Then again, I've debated in a couple college forums here in the south. Pretty fun stuff. My friend debated Anita Sarkeesian. Pretty fun to see her squirm in her seat like a doofus.
Click to expand...
*Doesn't want to derail this but really wants to hear about this... Expect a PM*
 
@Kakumei I know I'm going to risk sounding stupid and that I live under a rock ... but I never figured out exactly who Anita Sarkeesian is. I remember the whole scandal thing awhile back ... but ignored it I guess?

Sorry for off topic.
 
Decimate said:
@Kakumei I know I'm going to risk sounding stupid and that I live under a rock ... but I never figured out exactly who Anita Sarkeesian is. I remember the whole scandal thing awhile back ... but ignored it I guess?

Sorry for off topic.
Click to expand...
Internet Feminist who's the face behind Johnathan Macintosh. Hates men and video games. All you need to know is that her and Zoey Quinn got to speak in front of the United Nations because they were being 'harassed' online after their respected bullshitting.
image-jpeg.87968

image-jpeg.87969
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back