Hard core 2nd. amenders

[KG1]

We've got the official court case, at the end which he was sentenced to death. There are many others. How's that for a historical record? -- KT

meh

 

[jbombelli]

There are larger pictures and insignificant details. What JFK had for breakfast the day he was assassinated means nothing. JFK's role during the Cold War, however, had great significance. Historians don't memorize historical facts. They build the bigger picture, bigger truths, generally from analysis of veritable details. The big picture is what matters. When a new piece of data emerges, it has to fit the big picture or challenge it thoroughly. That's what I meant when I said the quote made no historical sense. It just wasn't the sort of stuff Yamamoto would have said.

Typically close-minded, uneducated, or ignorant people seize on these minor factual points because they think that means they've wont the argument. But all they've accomplished is usually establishing that JFK had had ham and eggs for breakfast. They usually fail to recognize history is not a collection of facts, but how you link the facts together. There is no truth in ham and eggs. Surely you are too smart to fall into the same trap.

To respond to your other point, the Vietcong wouldn't be easily classified as the sort of armed civilian population that some Americans would like all Americans to be. The Vietcong had both regular army and guerilla units, armed and organized by the communist party.

I see you haven't gone and done your reading. I am giving you free lessons. You need to start paying tuition. I am charging you extra for sarcasm and a bad attitude.

Da Bing

I see. When I suggested we ignore the factoids as you call them, and instead focus on the context and intent behind the 2nd Amendment, you choose to focus on everything BUT that. Again, as an attempt to swerve us away from the true topic at hand.

Your credibility on the debate front is shot, too.

 

[bingley]

I see. When I suggested we ignore the factoids as you call them, and instead focus on the context and intent behind the 2nd Amendment, you choose to focus on everything BUT that. Again, as an attempt to swerve us away from the true topic at hand.

Your credibility on the debate front is shot, too.

Wait, I wasn't arguing about the Second Amendment at all. I like the Second Amendment, but I thought we were arguing about the quote that was misattributed to Yamamoto. That can't possibly have anything to do with the Constitution. After all, that Yamamoto was early 20th century, and the Constitution, George Washington, and the other guy -- what, they were before MTV?

Anyway, I think I've been picking on you guys rather ungraciously. Go on and discuss the glorious 2A!

Da Bing

 

[2A_Tom]

There are larger pictures and insignificant details. What JFK had for breakfast the day he was assassinated means nothing. JFK's role during the Cold War, however, had great significance. Historians don't memorize historical facts. They build the bigger picture, bigger truths, generally from analysis of veritable details. The big picture is what matters. When a new piece of data emerges, it has to fit the big picture or challenge it thoroughly. That's what I meant when I said the quote made no historical sense. It just wasn't the sort of stuff Yamamoto would have said.

Typically close-minded, uneducated, or ignorant people seize on these minor factual points because they think that means they've wont the argument. But all they've accomplished is usually establishing that JFK had had ham and eggs for breakfast. They usually fail to recognize history is not a collection of facts, but how you link the facts together. There is no truth in ham and eggs. Surely you are too smart to fall into the same trap.

To respond to your other point, the Vietcong wouldn't be easily classified as the sort of armed civilian population that some Americans would like all Americans to be. The Vietcong had both regular army and guerilla units, armed and organized by the communist party.

I see you haven't gone and done your reading. I am giving you free lessons. You need to start paying tuition. I am charging you extra for sarcasm and a bad attitude.

Da Bing

Mind if I call you bing?
I just love crooners.

First I notice that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically ignorant or uneducated. \o let me join the crowd.

Second the first post you made that I saw disputed by others was picking apart a quote by a WWII Japanese leader saying that he was not saying what everyone thought he meant. Then we find out he didn't say it. That dosen't matter because that is just a detail that dosent fit with your sense of histort.

Third in Viet Nan the NVA were the regulars ang the guerlas were known as the cong or viet cong.

Conclusion as an historian you might be a pertty good janitor.

 

[jbombelli]

Wait, I wasn't arguing about the Second Amendment at all. I like the Second Amendment, but I thought we were arguing about the quote that was misattributed to Yamamoto. That can't possibly have anything to do with the Constitution. After all, that Yamamoto was early 20th century, and the Constitution, George Washington, and the other guy -- what, they were before MTV?

Anyway, I think I've been picking on you guys rather ungraciously. Go on and discuss the glorious 2A!

Da Bing

I granted you that it was misattributed, and suggested we get away from it. I simply stated that having your facts correct in a discussion of history is important. Especially when you're going to talk about your extensive knowledge of history.

The fact is, that quote is used to support the 2nd Amendment, inaccurately attributed as it may be, and the situation that quote presents is a big part of the reason for, and context of, the 2nd Amendment.

Now regarding civilian fighting forces...

Whether you or anyone else thinks a civilian force would be effective or not against a modern military isn't the issue. History shows many examples of just such a thing.

The VietCong, the Afghani freedom fighters, and many who are called terrorists including the insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban, the IRA and others all over the world have waged long, bloody warfare, and continue to do so to this day, quite effectively.

 

[KG1]

Wait, I wasn't arguing about the Second Amendment at all. I like the Second Amendment, but I thought we were arguing about the quote that was misattributed to Yamamoto. That can't possibly have anything to do with the Constitution. After all, that Yamamoto was early 20th century, and the Constitution, George Washington, and the other guy -- what, they were before MTV?

Anyway, I think I've been picking on you guys rather ungraciously. Go on and discuss the glorious 2A!

Da Bing

Not really sure but i'm getting the feeling that there is a backhanded insult in there somewhere. Anyway us rubes sure do appreciate the history lesson

 

[Lead Head]

Gee, I'm glad it's not me causing such a ruckus this time.

Keep up the good work though since someone has to do it.

 

[Dwhizzle74]

Well here's my opinion on this. I dont believe you should need training courses to get your ltch I would suggest it but not require it, maybe a pysch eval or a test like when you start driving and as far as felons and bein released from Prison I feel you should be allowed to own firearms again as long as it wasn't domestic violence,murder or any violent crime minus some bs battery or they should be required to take some very indepbt evaluations to see if your mentally competent to own firearms. Sorry for the bad grammar everyone

 

[lashicoN]

If charged, punished, and released felons are still too dangerous to own firearms upon their release, then they are certainly too dangerous to be released. I think free people should be free. Free to drive cars, free to own guns.

However, I don't think people should be released from prison for certain crimes - rape, murder, child molestation, etc...

 

[Bunnykid68]

If charged, punished, and released felons are still too dangerous to own firearms upon their release, then they are certainly too dangerous to be released. I think free people should be free. Free to drive cars, free to own guns.

However, I don't think people should be released from prison for certain crimes - rape, murder, child molestation, etc...

They shouldnt be in prison either...i am thinking something like a nap in the dirt for those special ones

 

[NYFelon]

At the risk of going off topic, as it stands the legal requirements to move ahead with rape charges are too insubstantial to make rape a capital crime. As with domestic violence, a woman needs only say that you raped her and you'll be prosecuted. If scientific empirical criterion were required - evidence of battery and physical evidence of unwanted sexual conduct such as vaginal tearing, et al - I'd be entirely for rape being a capital crime.

 

[Garb]

They shouldnt be in prison either...i am thinking something like a nap in the dirt for those special ones

The problem with that is the stereotypes. If a woman says a man raped her, then he did. If the man claims he didn't, he's a liar. It's not always like that, but you know how the story goes. I would much rather help the innocent to stay out of jail then work hard to keep the guilty in jail due to the fact that it's not always easy to tell between the two.