Open Carry Of Firearms: Yea Or Nay?

they aren't removed as much as a new amendment can be made to override the undesired one.

also, it's congress that has the power to do that, although it then requires ratification.

so yeah, the power to take that away DOES exist.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

yes

and that can be overridden like he said above

bill of rights makes America what it is, it's the very core of the government, without it the rest of the government should go as well, so anyone who pushes to violate the bill of rights is a traitor/enemy to America.

Anyone who would seek to remove the arming of ordinary citizens in this country I would see as a tyrant, nothing more, nothing less. You know what they say about tyrants.

This is the type of stereotypical arrogant bravado that brings the world's ire on the USA. You wonder why Al Qaeda lashed out at the USA in 2001? It begins with you and your attitude.

I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, but you really have no right, at all to even hint at someone else being 'arrogant'. If what you say is true, then you and your attitude are also why.

The "problem" with the 2nd amendment is that while its intention was very relevant to the era in which it was written, it is much less relevant now.

A couple of muskets above the fireplace mantle gave USA's citizens a means of repelling foreign invaders during the country's infancy. At that time, international imperialism was at or near its peak worldwide. Also, being a nation in its infancy, the USA didn't have adequate organized military personnel or structure to defend its own borders. It was only because of England's widespread/dispersed responsibilities/occupations worldwide, and some timely intervention by French naval vessels, that the Colonial "rebels" even ever succeeded. The last thing the USA needed at the time was a re-invasion by the British once they had recovered the resources to squash the paltry American militias.


That was (obviously) over 200 years ago. Before real rifles, shotguns, pistols, glocks, automatics, assault rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, flame throwers, land mines, aerial bombing, missiles, submarines, stealth bombers, tanks, hovercraft, battleships, aircraft-carrying naval vessels, nuclear warheads, chemical warfare, napalm, helicopters, sonar, radar, etc., etc., etc..
It was before the advent of the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, police, FBI, CIA, ATF, etc.
It was before Facebook, cell phones, the internet, phones, walkie-talkies, television, radios, telegraphs, Morse code, and even the USPS.

The point and bottom line here is that WE NO LONGER HAVE A NEED FOR MILITIA FORCES. If anything, the modern-day versions of American "militias" DECREASE national security, NOT enhance it.

And therefore, I submit, with good reason, that Americans no longer require the "right to bear arms".


Whoa, wait, what?
Jetackuu, I thought for sure that you were brighter than this.
Before there was the Second Amendment, there was the First Amendment, which gave the American citizens the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The right to protest the 2nd Amendment was granted to Americans by the 1st Amendment. If an American wishes to protest the 2nd Amendment, that doesn't make him a f*ckin' traitor. It makes him an American, within his rights in the eyes of the federal Law.


Several or most of you seem to think that the United States of America is going to exist forever indefinitely in the state that we've known it to be for the past "X" number of decades. I hope you realize how myopic and naive that viewpoint is. *ALL* great empires throughout the history of humanity *DO* fall or fail. It's inevitable.

And if I had to wager a bet on what was one of the major factors in most or all of those downfalls, I'd wager it was the inability to adapt to change over the course of time. And I'm not talking about technology, I'm talking about ideology.
There *WILL* come a time in the future when the United States, and yes even the Constitution and Bill of Rights, *WILL* require significant revision, in order to maintain the sovereignty and well-being of the nation. Failure to recognize that fact will only hasten the eventual doom/end of the USA as we've known it.

Laugh if you want, I know some of you numskulls will. But before you do, I'd urge you to study history a bit (or a lot) more.

Did that really just happen? Did someone really justify the actions of Al Qaeda on September 11th? And it's all because someone was tired of someone from another country coming to this one and complaining about it, when they could have stayed home?

So... basically, I could go to someone's house, whine about how dirty it is, and how bad the food is, and when they tell me to leave, I can crash my car into it? And that's cool, right?

Was what Cossack said expressed well? Maybe not... but it also didn't take very much thought at all to see the point... actually I don't really know how someone could have missed it.

In case you missed it, this is what that was in response to:


So where, Elana, is the Al Qaeda backlash against the Canadian arrogant bravado?

And another thing - I don't really care what kind of person anyone is - NOTHING justifies flying planes into random buildings.

It isn't/wasn't meant just for foreign invaders, it's also an insurance policy against a tyrannical government. Doesn't apply so well today, because the last time I checked a rifle won't do much against a Tank or an Attack Helicopter, but that doesn't negate the fact that this was also their way of ensuring that we could fight back against the established government if that government ever took a turn against freedom and liberty.

It was written back when the height of weapons technology was basically cannons and crude muzzle-loaded rifles, the fact that we had the same equipment as the government would have meant we could fight back.

Too busy making silly comments on other peoples pages as if someone suddenly gave a ***about their opinion.

I'm not trying to get into an argument with you either, but your assessment is wrong. While I may present myself sometimes in a way that you (and/or other "f*ck yeah! America! types) disapprove of personally, I assure you that my vision and opinion on world affairs would be generally welcomed by the international populace. While I may not be personally humble, I *DO* take a very critical approach when evaluating my own nation's image and attitude, and I'm more than humble enough to openly-admit that we Americans are our own worst enemies, and we do an outstanding job of planting "bulls-eyes" all over our own back, without any help from anyone else.

Make no mistake, Slipi, I *am* arrogant. The old adage says "it takes one to know one", right? I'm not going to pretend I don't have arrogance written into my DNA, but you've made an error in judgment if you mean to lump me in with Cossack's comments. There's an important distinction between being brash arrogant fool and an annoying arrogant genius. I'm not naive enough to believe there are no common threads between the two, but I'm more than intelligent enough to assure you there are more differences than similarities.

In short, I have *every* right to hint at Cossack's comments being arrogant (among other things). Just as much of a right as you have to call me arrogant. No more, no less.

Terminus, don't be so dense.

Explanation =/= Justification


So, using your example, if you came over to my house, found it to be too dirty for your liking, and you happened to have a short fuse and a strong distaste for dirty houses, so you decided to go outside, get angry, and ram your car into the wall of my dining room ...

That DOES NOT JUSTIFY what you did.

However, IT DOES EXPLAIN it.

God damn it, why are so many of you so dumb sometimes? I really don't understand it. You were given a brain, eyes, ears, schooling, and over time (hopefully) intellectual and emotional maturity. USE THESE THINGS, rather than just (over)reacting to everything you read.

I don't think using the motives of Al Qaeda as an explanation for your argument when you clearly have no actual knowledge of the inner workings of that organization and organizations related to it is a very wise thing to do, or in your words, something an "annoying arrogant genius" would do.

Taking a critical approach to your countries actions would be something like this: "The US Foreign Policy, continued occupation of the Maghreb and other countries of the Middle East, continued support for the country of Israel and continued policing of the world/neo-imperialism played a large contributing factor to the radicalization of many young Muslims and helps to lend credit to leaders of terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda."

This?
Not so much.

Your critical approach seems to be mainly critical and lacking logic or knowledge. That lends itself more to the realm of "I read something someone said and now I repeat it and it is my view.". That's not critical analysis.

You can argue all day about how that's your opinion, that's how you see it, your ideas are the facts, etc. The problem with all of that is your ideas on the matter are not facts and are at best extreme dramatizations one complaint Al Qaeda has launched against the US/West. However, this in itself brings another debate about whether Al Qaeda is legitimate in their beliefs or not and in many cases of dealing with them they are not. The best way to think of Al Qaeda is as a franchise. A good example of a franchise is McDonalds.

You are both arrogant and ignorant and neither of you are the reason some airplanes flew into some buildings.

You're right, but I'm also right. And this snippet from your post here:

is the most salient and most important part.


Americans are so spoiled-rotten, it's disgusting, really. If you take two Americans:
1. A flag-waving, pick-up truck driving, baseball-loving, gun-owning, "proud to be an American" type, and
2, A regular guy with no flags, no pickup truck, no guns, and no baseball bats, "I can see exactly why the world isn't fond of Americans, and I know it's not because the world is jealous" type ...

I can tell you that MOST Americans would emulate/admire/appreciate/cheer for the former, but Americans, if they had any appreciation for the world beyond their borders, SHOULD be celebrating the latter, and we should be trying to elevate people who think like the latter example into positions of power ASAP, before it's too late.

You still don't know me very well.. I'm not a "*** yeah! America!" type.. I'm not even that patriotic.. Where many others would spend their free time learning about American History, I prefer to learn the history of other countries and cultures. The closest to a "*** yeah! <any civilization/country/culture>" I am, is "*** yeah! Rome!".

I'm also not stupid enough to think America will be around forever, I study history in my free time, I'm well aware that societies change, they collapse, they are even sometimes erased from history.. I don't think just because I live here, that here is any different.

My assessment is just your assessment.. You are arrogant, I know it's not the first time you've heard it from me, it's not the first time you've heard it from half the forum, you said that 9/11 happened because of American's generally arrogant attitude (which I will freely admit, a lot of them do have) but they're not going to distinguish between types of arrogance, they see arrogance, and they will hate it, you my friend, are part of that group. So yes, you can be lumped up with Cossack.

As for me, I don't think I've ever came across as if I'm better than anyone, I certainly don't think I am.. If you knew me in person, you'd know that I'm extremely self-conscious and constantly trying to hold myself up to other people's standards, something an arrogant person would never do.


And statements like that, are exactly why plenty view you as arrogant.. You think you're better simply because you have a better vocabulary, or that you're different because you don't think the same as another arrogant person thinks, but you're really not. Those foreign people who hate Americans and call us arrogant, they don't really care what type of arrogance it is, they don't care if you're a fool or a genius, all they care about is that you're arrogant.

Fixed.

Yeah...American History is boring in comparison to the history of other nations.

You're right.


You're very, very wrong.


You're right. However, you'll note that I never claimed Cossack's commentary was the direct cause of 9/11 (which would have been a laughable claim).
What I said was:

Which, by your own analysis, is true, Rearden.

Slip:

I never said you were a "F*ck yeah! America" type.

I said:

That statement does not exclude the possibility that you are not a "F*ck Yeah! America!" type, and I worded it that way intentionally, because, as you confirmed in your reply, I don't really know you.


Wrong. I don't believe myself to be better than other people.
I know I'm more intelligent than most people. And that has very little to do with vocabulary.
However, unlike many or most of the people who chime-in on this forum, I don't leap to the conclusion that intelligent equals "better".
There are MANY people who are "better" humans that I am, or ever will be. However, there are relatively few humans who are more intelligent than I am.


That's fine. I am who I am. If people think me to be arrogant, then they've made an accurate judgment.
However, if people gauge me and then lump me in with Cossack, (as you appear to have done) then they've made an inaccurate judgment.

If you can't distinguish between the two, try harder. I have faith you can do it.
I assure you that your analysis of world opinions about Americans and their arrogance is faulty.

Case closed. I mean there's really not much more to say..

You make me ashamed to be an American on this forum Elanabelle.

ugh...would you guys stop giving Elanabelle more reasons to carry on with his/her "I'm an intellectual blah blah blah" nonsense?

Elan is entitled to (it's?) opinion but the FACT is (and I'll say it again in case Elan missed it the first time) his/her argument is MOOT.

We have the 2nd Amendment,and it's not going anywhere.

What is there to talk about?

lol, Slip, where were you when I pointed out this ludicrous, masterbatory comment?

I lol'd. Let that fact be known, spread it amongst the people!

@Maha, I don't know, I took a break from the thread to calm down because there was a 'discussion' (if you can call it that, was more like a miscommunication or something) between me and 2 others.

Fail.
Seriously, Slip. Fail. Fail. Fail.

I don't believe myself to be better than other people.

I know I am more intelligent than most people.

THESE TWO STATEMENTS DO NOT CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER.

Let me pose this to you:

How do you measure someone's height, Slipi?
In inches, feet, centimeters, meters, or something of that nature, yes?
Let's suppose you break out a measuring tape, or yardstick, or whatever, and you measure "person A" to be 65 inches tall, and "person B" to be 75 inches tall.

Which person is taller, Slipi?
Ok, now, which person is better?

While you can definitely answer the first question, you have NO grounds on which to answer the second question with anything better than a guess.

Now, at this time, for better or worse, there is no more valid and reliable measuring tool for intelligence than standardized IQ testing. Someday we may discover a better means to measure intelligence, but for now, IQ testing is the closest thing we have to a "yardstick" for human intelligence.

So, back to our example:
"person A" has an IQ score of 100 (mean average), and "person B" has an IQ score of 130 (superior intelligence).

Which person is more intelligent, Slipi?
Which person is a better person?

Again, much like the previous ruler/yardstick example, you can definitively answer the first question, and you have very little to base your answer to the second question on.

It's really as simple as that.
Now get off my case.

Oh man. Elanabelle comes out, and now it's a free-for-all. I know I'm going to get ***for this, but how many of you have spoken to Elanabelle one on one? Just wondering. He's really not as bad as everyone claims.

Funny, you often make me question/doubt my position as a straight man who is willing to defend gay rights.

My best advice to you, Hohenheim, is to shut your face. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, fool.






I'll say this again, in case Vandell missed it the first time:



In that case, you probably missed this response:

Back to your crib, please, Mahayaya.