Thread: The End is Nigh says 3 million americans .

Originally Posted by Iolo

They are when they're allowed to vote and take over political parties.

Someone has to be responsible...

Originally Posted by Iolo

Any competent soldiers will wipe out a drunken mob in no time flat, lad. Your posturing is just silly.

You make a strawman...I fail to see the relationship between a fundamental right to self defense and soldiers attacking mobs. Pretty easy to demolish an argument I did not make.

Originally Posted by JIMV

You make a strawman...I fail to see the relationship between a fundamental right to self defense and soldiers attacking mobs. Pretty easy to demolish an argument I did not make.

Why on earth do you want to give every nutter, drunk and inadequate in the United States the means to murder people unless they are supposed to fight the elected government? If organised troops come for individuals, they will take them away. If untrained clowns attack them, they will be shot. If you are not arguing for arming the mob, what are you arguing for?

In my opinion, we should be lowering our tax burden by not enforcing purely religious laws with our secular tax dollars.

Originally Posted by Marlowe

AFAI understand there are different interpretations to f that so-called "right"

i.e. :

There are three predominant interpretations of the Second Amendment:
1.The civilian militia interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place.
2.The individual rights interpretation, which holds that the individual right to bear arms is a basic right on the same order as the right to free speech.
3.The median interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms but is restricted by the militia language in some way.


Where the Supreme Court Stands:

The only Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history that has focused primarily on the issue of what the Second Amendment really means is U.S. v. Miller (1939), which is also the last time the Court examined the amendment in any serious way.

In Miller, the Court affirmed a median interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia. Or maybe not; interpretations vary, partly because Miller is not an exceptionally well-written ruling.
Apparently, there is nothing in the Second Amendment which gives any individual the right to own a gun. At most, it gives the states the inalienable right to form state militias--effectively it protects the National Guard


----





-----

This is so very wrong on so many levels...You misinterpret Miller and ignore Heller, today's prevailing opinion from the court.

The collective (militia) right argument is dead. Even if it wasn't, current law notes the existence of the militia which is the entire body of able bodied folk capable of bearing arms, and Heller recognized the right a fundamental.

Your argument would have been wrong 5 years ago and today has simply been overtaken by legal events.

The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

District v Heller 26 June 2008

The opinion went on to call the right 'fundamental'...

Originally Posted by Iolo

Why on earth do you want to give every nutter, drunk and inadequate in the United States the means to murder people unless they are supposed to fight the elected government? If organised troops come for individuals, they will take them away. If untrained clowns attack them, they will be shot. If you are not arguing for arming the mob, what are you arguing for?

We as individuals have a fundamental right to self defense that exists and trumps the right of the state to act so as to remove that right. As we have reduced restrictions on arms, our violent and gun crime rate has plunged. We have over two decades of steady reductions in such crime while we have increased the number of arms and the number of folk carrying them.

On the issue of confronting government, have we not seen a year or so of normal folk confronting despots around the world. It would have been a lot easier for their success if they had owned their own arms. You also assume the military would without comment agree to assault on a large scale citizens. While it is true that government can use force to violate an individuals rights, the more widespread that use the more resistance from the military one will find.

Originally Posted by danboy9787

3 million? So less than 1%. Now that is scary.....................

What is really scary is 6% of Americans dont beleive in the Moon landing. It jumped to 20% after Fox did the documentary in Feb 2001.

A change of American opinion of 14% from a fictional Fox TV show which I vagely remember watching as a joke.

Yep, lots of simple minds out there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_la...iracy_theories

Originally Posted by pmoores

What is really scary is 6% of Americans dont beleive in the Moon landing. It jumped to 20% after Fox did the documentary in Feb 2001.

A change of American opinion of 14% from a fictional Fox TV show which I vagely remember watching as a joke.

Yep, lots of simple minds out there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_la...iracy_theories

LOLOL.. Wouldn't you expect 6% of Americans to be stupid?

That's about the same as the birthers and the Contrails folks...

What is the literacy rate in the US these days?

I'm preparing for the end of civilization by going into as much debt as I possibly can!

Originally Posted by AtsamattaU

I'm preparing for the end of civilization by going into as much debt as I possibly can!

Hmmm .perhaps "civilization " as you might believe it to be in america. Hehehe - keep getting into debt (to the loan sharks delight) + you'll very likely end up homeless, living off food stamps .

....