hoofhearted4 Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) >snip<militia isnt defined by numbers. one person can be his own militia. as such, even if what you say were to be taken as true, that the second amendment only correlates to a militia, it would still then apply to every person in the US because he or she could be their own militia. Lol, I´m rather sure that if I walk around in full warpaint, loaded with weapons, shouting: "I´m my own militia", I would either get gunned down by police, or taken to a mental hospital.Don´t think that argument works. there is a difference between militia and military....everyone is a part of a militia at all times. (well anyone who wants to be. since its not a law to be a part of or anything) and as such, anyone who considers them self a militiaman can own a gun (which is just an argument to what the other post i quote above was saying)....you dont actually have to be in a militia or consider yourself a militiaman to have weapons. if you did do what you describe, you belong in a mental hospital, as there is no reason to do such a thing. nor would there ever be a situation that would call for such an act. i never said anything about war paint or walking around with your own armory. point being, you took my context way out of proportion. but i guess that fits the nature of this thread, as a lot of people who dont believe in gun ownership seem to think that if everyone owned guns, then we would have a bunch of murder and suicides and serial killers and end the world in WWIII Edited February 1, 2012 by hoofhearted4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Freedom archived through weapons in the 21st century is always invalid and no freedom at all . Welcome to the 21st century!Even Ghandi's revolution had to use some violence, welcome to the actual way the world works. My dear @Aurielius, I can not resist this.Ghandi´s revolution used nothing but disobedience. Those who used violence/weapons did not have Ghandi´s support.While we are at it: how much power did the British weapon had when facing such a strong opponent as a determent mind? Nothing.My conlusion weapons a good for nothing more than keeping a high rate of violence. Then I would suggest that you read the history of the Indian resistance to to the Raj pre WW2, there was violence since Ghandi was not the only leader of the movement to gain independence from Imperial Britain.You phrased it as Ghandi's revolution. Which is another thing. saying that Ghandi wasn't wiped out in mere seconds because the British were being such ever good sports about the whole thing. Edited February 1, 2012 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 You phrased it as Ghandi's revolution. Which is another thing. saying that Ghandi wasn't wiped out in mere seconds because the British were being such ever good sports about the whole thing.The second part is all you, my post said what I meant. Reduced to line parsing it seems...how droll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I missed the part when Ghandi was about this violence thing. Perhaps you can enlighten me what you mean by Ghandi's revolution was violent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I missed the part when Ghandi was about this violence thing. Perhaps you can enlighten me what you mean by Ghandi's revolution was violent. If the topic and not the author interests you so much then start a thread on the Indian Independence Movement and it's history. Your motive is plain, your intent easy to discern and your method is the same old tired foray. Yawn...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverDNA Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 may i endorse to you some good old reading ... about the subject ..?Point blank: guns and violence in America By Gary Kleck from 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The subject does interest me, but it's what you have said on the matter that I have asked about, not you. Check your ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The subject does interest me, but it's what you have said on the matter that I have asked about, not you. Check your ego.The essence of tactics is learning what offensive stratagems don't work and not repeating them. This won't work, you might want to make note of that for the next charge you mount.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Well what ever tactics I am playing at are still to be determined, but you're obviously just making nonsensical statements and then shooting smoke out your ass when someone asks WTF you are actually on about. It's your prerogative if you just want to be a douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisnpuppy Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Stop taking pot shots at one another and stay on topic or I am going to shut this one down and start issuing strikes. -Lisnpuppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts