Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
“Each generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”

- Thomas Jefferson

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

- Thomas Jefferson
 
Chris Craig said:
“Each generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”

- Thomas Jefferson

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

- Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
Both of those are prominently displayed at the Jefferson Memorial.
 
Phatguysrule said:
*Edit* Sorry, but suggesting civilians should have similar rights restrictions as marines just gets me pissed.
Click to expand...
visit a civilian homeless shelter with bunks and you'll find restrictions....and I'm a vet...if you think Marines don't snack or smoke ...you're wrong...nobody is allowed to have sex in exposed group barracks or bus stations or anywhere within view of the public, Marine or not. You're right, the military is not a democracy at all and you sign off your rights but I've been stationed with Marines and this extreme discipline you're talking about only occurs during bootcamp....same with astronauts and many Olympic athletes.....it's not Sparta in the modern Marines
 
Chris Craig said:
“Each generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”

- Thomas Jefferson

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

- Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
Completely agree that he said that. However, there is not even close to enough political will to do that in the near future.

And that wasn't the point that was being made in the video.
 
riverman said:
visit a civilian homeless shelter with bunks and you'll find restrictions....and I'm a vet...if you think Marines don't snack or smoke ...you're wrong...nobody is allowed to have sex in exposed group barracks or bus stations or anywhere within view of the public, Marine or not. You're right, the military is not a democracy at all and you sign off your rights but I've been stationed with Marines and this extreme discipline you're talking about only occurs during bootcamp....same with astronauts and many Olympic athletes.....it's not Sparta in the modern Marines
Click to expand...
Civilian homeless shelters have restrictions, no question about that. It's one the reason they don't work. They are too restrictive. Many not allowing people to enter after 9pm (so if you work swing shift you're sleeping under a bush tonight).

Every instance you reference people have to agree to those restrictions and put themselves in position to be restricted. They are not forced into it, and I wouldn't support any democracy which did force all of it's civilians into those kinds of restrictions. Those are authoritarian restrictions. But in a democracy people are free to CHOOSE to be restricted if they want to be.

Are you arguing that even the military can't get soldiers to follow restrictions?

NO SMOKING in any Government facility. Smoking areas are located outside of the Barracks. Smoking is NOT PERMITTED within any duty rooms at any time. Personnel found acting in noncompliance will be subject to disciplinary action.
Click to expand...
https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/DOL/BaseCapeCod/forms/pdf/ASCC_Barracks_Regs.pdf
 
Phatguysrule said:
Civilian homeless shelters have restrictions, no question about that. It's one the reason they don't work. They are too restrictive. Many not allowing people to enter after 9pm (so if you work swing shift you're sleeping under a bush tonight).

Every instance you reference people have to agree to those restrictions and put themselves in position to be restricted. They are not forced into it, and I wouldn't support any democracy which did force all of it's civilians into those kinds of restrictions. Those are authoritarian restrictions. But in a democracy people are free to CHOOSE to be restricted if they want to be.

Are you arguing that even the military can't get soldiers to follow restrictions?


https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/DOL/BaseCapeCod/forms/pdf/ASCC_Barracks_Regs.pdf
Click to expand...
Homeless shelters save lives every winter...they keep many people including mentally ill safe from the streets more often than not..so do halfway houses for people struggling with addictions or trying to reenter life from prisons, etc.....you seem to think these people all have choices? Many are victims of circumstance and because some are not and just choose homelessness for whatever reason is not a good counter for those who are in dire need....especially those with children. You choose to be a marine too...same thing..choices...as to smoking...nobody has ever been allowed to smoke in barracks...they smoke outside the barracks ...of course but if you want to invite homeless families into your home to keep them from dangerous shelters...I support that too...as it is freezing to death in Minnesota isn't a choice people are going to make and those shelters keep people from freezing to death...if that's not working I'm going to debate that point because it is and does save lives every winter. As to arguing....I'm debating a topic...different from having an argument or at least it should be. This is in general terms but I'm sure I could dig up some crime in a homeless shelter just like I could dig up crimes in a marine barracks.
 
Last edited:
riverman said:
Homeless shelters save live every winter...they keep many people including mentally ill safe from the streets more often than not..so do halfway houses for people struggling with addictions or trying to reenter life from prisons, etc.....you seem to think these people all have choices? Many are victims of circumstance and because some are not and just choose homelessness for whatever reason is not a good counter for those who are in dire need....especially those with children.
Click to expand...
Yes, homeless shelters do save lives. I didn't disagree with that. I'm simply saying that they are incredibly inefficient and ineffective at reducing our homeless population because so many people refuse to use them, or are unable to use them, largely because of the rules.
You choose to be a marine too...same thing..choices...as to smoking...nobody has ever been allowed to smoke in barracks...they smoke outside the barracks ...
Click to expand...
Correct, so this is a choice. It is not a law. So his point is invalid, in that of course the military is required to do more than civilians. That's their job. The job that they chose. They are paid to spend those 2 weeks training.
If the US government wants to pay my salary, travel and other expenses, and prevent my employer from firing me I will be happy to spend those 2 weeks per year training.
of course but if you want to invite homeless families into your home to keep them from dangerous shelters...I support that too...as it is freezing to death in Minnesota isn't a choice people are going to make and those shelters keep people from freezing to death...if that's not working I'm going to debate that point because it is and does save lives every winter.
Click to expand...
Again, shelters are great for the relatively few people who choose to use them. But they are incredibly inefficient and expensive, and they are a part of our current homeless problem. I have let people live with me to prevent them from being homeless. Multiple times.

As to arguing....I'm debating a topic...different from having an argument or at least it should be.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. I meant, your "suggestion" or "your position".
But please understand that a definition of "argument" is also : a reason given for or against a matter under discussion
 
Phatguysrule said:
Yes, homeless shelters do save lives. I didn't disagree with that. I'm simply saying that they are incredibly inefficient and ineffective at reducing our homeless population because so many people refuse to use them, or are unable to use them, largely because of the rules.

Correct, so this is a choice. It is not a law. So his point is invalid, in that of course the military is required to do more than civilians. That's their job. The job that they chose. They are paid to spend those 2 weeks training.
If the US government wants to pay my salary, travel and other expenses, and prevent my employer from firing me I will be happy to spend those 2 weeks per year training.

Again, shelters are great for the relatively few people who choose to use them. But they are incredibly inefficient and expensive, and they are a part of our current homeless problem. I have let people live with me to prevent them from being homeless. Multiple times.


Completely agree. I meant, your "suggestion" or "your position".
But please understand that a definition of "argument" is also : a reason given for or against a matter under discussion
Click to expand...
Are you a veteran? Have you served in the military? I'm asking because I don't know if you are, not because I am.It's great you've helped folks out...we have too over the years. As to the expense of shelters in the winter...there are empty buildings all over this country that can serve that purpose and many are churches...who don't pay tax....don't know where you get the idea that homeless shelters are failing or more expensive than building missiles....priorities should put humanity pretty close to the top of the list for financial assistance if you ask me.....the poor are not the problem with our economy, the wealthy are. Many wealthy people get tax write offs for sponsoring homeless shelters, etc.....if they don't donate to charities they lose it to the govt anyway...don't see your point about expense being an issue. If money worries you....tax churches...money spent saving lives > money spent on weapons that kill
 
tlongII said:
This thread seems to be going off topic.
Click to expand...
safety in america is very much on topic....weapons for safety vs homeless shelters for safety....and that stemmed from the posts about military freedoms and civilian freedoms...also tied to gun ownership as well as mental illness, poverty, etc....you are welcome to post about the topic too you know. Things can tend to become conversational when topics of controversy are discussed.
 
riverman said:
safety in america is very much on topic....weapons for safety vs homeless shelters for safety....and that stemmed from the posts about military freedoms and civilian freedoms...also tied to gun ownership as well as mental illness, poverty, etc....you are welcome to post about the topic too you know. Things can tend to become conversational when topics of controversy are discussed.
Click to expand...

This thread is about guns and what, if any, restrictions should be placed on them. It has been veering off that topic in my opinion.
 
riverman said:
Are you a veteran? Have you served in the military? I'm asking because I don't know if you are, not because I am.It's great you've helped folks out...we have too over the years. As to the expense of shelters in the winter...there are empty buildings all over this country that can serve that purpose and many are churches...who don't pay tax....don't know where you get the idea that homeless shelters are failing or more expensive than building missiles....priorities should put humanity pretty close to the top of the list for financial assistance if you ask me.....the poor are not the problem with our economy, the wealthy are. Many wealthy people get tax write offs for sponsoring homeless shelters, etc.....if they don't donate to charities they lose it to the govt anyway...don't see your point about expense being an issue. If money worries you....tax churches...money spent saving lives > money spent on weapons that kill
Click to expand...
I'm not a veteran, but many of my HS friends were. I'm constantly reminded to be thankful that I didn't join. It would not have been any better for me than it was for my friends who's lives were destroyed by injuries in the middle east.

The argument about expense is that we aren't spending the money more efficiently and shelters let too many people fall through the cracks. Largely due to rules. Rules aren't always a good thing, and can in fact be very harmful.
 
tlongII said:
This thread is about guns and what, if any, restrictions should be placed on them. It has been veering off that topic in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Exactly all the rest simply throws a little more mud in the water. This country has a gun problem. We need to fix it.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Exactly all the rest simply throws a little more mud in the water. This country has a gun problem. We need to fix it.
Click to expand...
It has a violent crime problem. You can tell, because violent crime rates trend exactly with gun violence. And those tend to trend on how healthy the middle and lower class are.

The peaks happen during economic downturns and a strong economy tends to result in flat or dropping rates of violent crime and murder, as well as gun crime.
 
Phatguysrule said:
This makes perfect sense, as those are the most violent members of society with adult rights. Yet many in that demographic still have a disassociated prefrontal cortex, so make poor choices.
Click to expand...
Right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your stance is that they still need to be able to defend themselves, via a firearm. My opinion is that we should prevent them from having firearms, therefor, defending everyone else.
 
Shaboid said:
Right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your stance is that they still need to be able to defend themselves, via a firearm. My opinion is that we should prevent them from having firearms, therefor, defending everyone else.
Click to expand...

My stance is that there is no way to prevent them from accessing firearms. We already have too many, and we don't even have a chance to get to a nationwide restriction for decades. And I don't think we should wait that long to address these problems.

My preference would be that no adult rights are granted to anybody under 25 years of age (which is the typical age that the prefrontal cortex attaches).

So no military, drinking, etc. until 25.
But I don't think that's possible either.

And that being the case, we need to be focusing on other ways to address these problems. In fact, there are much better ways to address these problems than prohibition, which tends to result in an increased demand for the prohibited item. As happened with the assault weapons ban, the alcohol ban, the marijuana ban, etc...
 
Phatguysrule said:
This guy is a fucking idiot.

Of course American citizens have more rights to do what they want with their property than marines. Marines aren't allowed to do a lot of things in their barracks that civilians are allowed to do. Like fuck their girlfriend or keep midnight snacks on hand. Or smoke cigarettes and get wasted on alcohol.

What an insane and idiotic argument.

He knows nothing about the constitution.
I've already covered this.

"Well regulated" at the time the constitution was written meant to be capable or well functioning. And "militia" meant civilian infantry.

So the constitution intended for civilians to be a capable infantry, and have access to own and train with typical infantry weapons to make that possible.

Regardless of whether you agree with that right or not, it's pretty clear, unless you deny those intentions.
Click to expand...
You have your own opinion.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Exactly all the rest simply throws a little more mud in the water. This country has a gun problem. We need to fix it.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. You can not solve the fact that some people are going to commit crimes. It is true everywhere, has been, and will forever be. What we can solve is limiting the access to tools that make it easy to commit violent crimes and inflict more damage. Everything else is just excuses.

When other first world countries have 1/4 of the murder rates that we do and have much higher limits on firearms, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. You need a lot less "protection" when it is much harder to get access to tools of destruction.
 
Last edited:
stampedehero said:
You have your own opinion.
Click to expand...
Fucking your girlfriend all night sounds vaguely familiar but what does it mean. I seem to recall that it was something good but I can't recollect just what it was. Explain in detail and maybe it will jar my ancient memory.
 
Lanny said:
Fucking your girlfriend all night sounds vaguely familiar but what does it mean. I seem to recall that it was something good but I can't recollect just what it was. Explain in detail and maybe it will jar my ancient memory.
Click to expand...

So there are birds and then there are bees...
 
Phatguysrule said:
My stance is that there is no way to prevent them from accessing firearms. We already have too many, and we don't even have a chance to get to a nationwide restriction for decades. And I don't think we should wait that long to address these problems.

My preference would be that no adult rights are granted to anybody under 25 years of age (which is the typical age that the prefrontal cortex attaches).

So no military, drinking, etc. until 25.
But I don't think that's possible either.
Click to expand...
21 year old or 25 year old firearm ban unless you're in the military. They'll gain access but it'd be due to negligence by the gun owner, who should be held liable.

Trying to tie that into military service or alcohol is not the way this would be able to happen.

Phatguysrule said:
And that being the case, we need to be focusing on other ways to address these problems. In fact, there are much better ways to address these problems than prohibition, which tends to result in an increased demand for the prohibited item. As happened with the assault weapons ban, the alcohol ban, the marijuana ban, etc...
Click to expand...
I'm libertarian with you on that. I'm scared for what happens when all the children that were socially effected by the Covid lockdowns start wanting and getting access to their adulthood.. That's probably a subject for a different thread though?
 
stampedehero said:
You have your own opinion.
Click to expand...
This is true.
And my opinions as stated are:
Civilians shouldn't have the same restrictions as soldiers.

His position on the constitution has no legal basis.
If somebody has some legal ruling or basis that agrees with his statement on the constitution I'd be eager to read about it.

*Edited to change tone and be less argumentative as suggested below by Lanny.

My apologies, @stampedehero
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
This is true.
Civilians shouldn't have the same restrictions as soldiers.

And he's wrong on the constitution. According to everybody who's ruled on it in the last few hundred years...
Click to expand...
Pronouncing someone wrong on an issue is a sure way to change a debate to an argument that will make the Hatfields and McCoys thing look like a childrens' game.
 
Lanny said:
Pronouncing someone wrong on an issue is a sure way to change a debate to an argument that will make the Hatfields and McCoys thing look like a childrens' game.
Click to expand...
Good point. I was just restating my opinions, as was stated.

But point taken. I'll fix it.
 
I like the point made last night by the President that Gun manufacturers should also bear some of the burden on this issue. Exactly how much and when that should be imposed is certainly up for debate. Biden made the point by saying where would we be if Cigarette manufacturers were not held responsible for what their products have done?
It's another tough battle but i think it's one they could start to fight. Nobody thought the mighty RJ Reynolds could be taken down either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top