The 2nd Amendment

[CBWx2]

Well, I suppose that propping open the back door and going out to his vehicle to get the explosives, just like he did with his firearms, is virtually impossible.

Right? Lol

Do you know what type pf explosives were found in his home, or the type of damage they would have done on their own? What made Holmes' apartment traps so deadly was the large number of them, and the fact that he had set up 10 gallons of fuel to further the magnitude of the explosion if the traps had been triggered. It would have been quite the feat for him to have transported that much explosive material, undetected, into a movie theater parking lot in one trip, and quite another for him to carry it all inside the theater and set it up, again, undetected.

What appears to have been relatively easy, however, was to legally aquire a mini arsenal and then walk into a public theater and use sed arsenal to kill 12 people and injure 58 more. The rigging the bombs part of the plan appears to have been quite a bit more difficult to execute than that part of the plan.

[Dolorous Jason]

I believe I stated earlier that allowing for open rebellion against the Union was not liberty, it was anarchy. It would appear that the father of our nation agrees with me.

If the father of our nation agreed with you we'd still be a colony of Great Britian , you horse's ass.

Do you even know why the Revolutionary War was fought, you imbecile? Odds are on no. I see some made up quotes from the founders getting posted again to set me straight...

The guy who didn't even realize his quote was from before the 2nd amendment , and didn't even know "republican form of government" was in the constitution is going to give us a history lesson now , LOL.

This ought to be good.

Was the war fought so that we could put down all rebellion against the crown and remain loyal to our rightful soverviegn King George ?? If not , you have no point , numb nuts.

Just because you are too much of a dullard to understand clear and concise arguments doesn't mean that I haven't presented one. The Revolutionary war was fought on the grounds of authority being imposed onto a populace that HAD NO SAY OVER HOW THAT AUTHORITY WAS USED! Does the phrase "No taxation without representation" ring a bell, you moron? Most, if not all of the founders actually would have preferred a peaceful resolution with Great Britain if they believed such a resolution were available.

When we gained our independence, and the founders put in place a representative government that balanced powers between local, state, and federal governments, they eliminated from this society what they believed was just cause to rebel. The goal was a sustainable, malleable, government in which representatives would be elected by a majority vote and disputes would be settled through policy debates and voter activity. Not a state of perpetual insurrection, or fear of insurrection.These rowdy, gun toting, radical anarchist that you seem to have created as representation of the founders are nothing more than a figment of your overactive imagination, jackass.

Washington's own actions prove you embarrassingly wrong . Only you would claim a rebel war general is against rebellion in all circumstances. LOL .

I'd say the fact that Washington raised a force to crush a rebellion, actively lobbied congress to give him further military authority to combat rebellions, and then used that authority to crush another rebellion 5 years later proves me embarrassingly right. Only a true moron would think that anyone would fight a rebellion and implement a government that he would support someone else rebelling against.

This is why the entire board simply laughs at you . Even the guy you thought was your buddy , Durango , thinks you're a dumb ass.

You speak for the entire board? I'm sure they'd be interested in knowing that. And let's keep score, George Washington is in agreement with me, and Durango is in agreement with you. I think I like my chances on which one of us looks more like a dumb ass between me and Durang's in that situation.

I've just gotten you to admit that there are times when rebellion is justified . You've just admitted that Washington agreed , and even explained why.  The argument is officially over , and once again you've lost it.

The funny thing is that you were spinning so hard, during your long-winded diatribe , that you were too stupid to realize you had just conceded the arguement.


spin baby , spin.

[Dolorous Jason]

 " It is true that a semi-auto assault weapons ban won't keep those guns out of your hands if you are Pablo Escobar, but they almost certainly will if you are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or your average, run of the mill street thug."

Tell me something, Captain Nitwit, were you even aware that James Holmes had his entire apartment rigged with explosives? Any proposal that he wouldn't have been able to carry out his plan if he had been denied firearms is totally devoid of merit. Ironically, that makes it a fairly typical CBW argument.

Wait.....crazy people have other ways to kill besides firearms ?

Wait....the problem is the crazy person and not the means he chooses to carry out  is craziness?? ....what ? ....

CBW is thoroughly confused now . Increase RPM's on the spin meter. Full speed ahead !

[spartan]

Sure. I might own a .22 pistol for target shooting, a .357 revolver for self defense, a .306 rifle for deer hunting, a 12 gauge shotgun for quail hunting.

Is that because you choose to use each of those weapons in that capacity, or is it because that is their only purposeful use?

The conversation pretty much ended here.

[deadzone]

Obama threatens some gun control....assault weapons ban, large capacity mag ban........All he's doing is pumping gun sales....at a near record as I type. I won't buy any, I'm already maxed out..............Never misunderstand me, stay away from me..........

[CBWx2]

I've just gotten you to admit that there are times when rebellion is justified . You've just admitted that Washington agreed , and even explained why.  The argument is officially over , and once again you've lost it.

The funny thing is that you were spinning so hard, during your long-winded diatribe , that you were too stupid to realize you had just conceded the arguement.

Actually, what you've just done was move the goal post, not win any argument. My very first sentence in the thread:

"Was the 2nd amendment's purpose to allow private citizens to arm themselves to defend against their own government?"

Meaning, THIS government, you imbecile. Reread through any of my posts and try to find where I ever said that Washington was opposed to rebellion "under any circumstances." That was your sleazy way of trying to mischaracterize my position and then argue against the mischaracterization. God you're dumb, Delirious. You're also a troll. Those two things don't mix to well. I always say, if you are going to be a troll, at least be a clever one. Stealing Vince's schtick isn't clever. It's just sad.

[CBWx2]

 " It is true that a semi-auto assault weapons ban won't keep those guns out of your hands if you are Pablo Escobar, but they almost certainly will if you are Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or your average, run of the mill street thug."

Tell me something, Captain Nitwit, were you even aware that James Holmes had his entire apartment rigged with explosives? Any proposal that he wouldn't have been able to carry out his plan if he had been denied firearms is totally devoid of merit. Ironically, that makes it a fairly typical CBW argument.

Wait.....crazy people have other ways to kill besides firearms ?

Sure they do. But damned if unimpeded access to firearms doesn't make it exponentially easier for them. And that should be the goal, right? To make it easier for them since it's just going to happen anyway?

Wait....the problem is the crazy person and not the means he chooses to carry out  is craziness?? ....what ? ....

Actually, it's both. A crazy person without means or only left to means that are more difficult to execute and more easy to thwart is far less dangerous than a crazy person that can have unlimited guns and ammo delivered to his house via Air Mail.

CBW is thoroughly confused now . Increase RPM's on the spin meter. Full speed ahead !

Not confused in the least. Also not impressed with your typical line of nonsensical rhetoric.

[CBWx2]

There isn't a society in the world that doesn't have any crazy people in it, but there are plenty that don't average 20-30 mass shootings per year. I wonder what statistic the pro-gun crowd can manufacture to explain that away.

[Chief Joseph]

 So he has to take all of the explosives, and rearrange them in the theater like they were at his house or it won't work at all? Those are the only two possibilities? Seriously? The truth is he probably could have killed a lot more people with explosives. He had thirty grenades, put them in a bag and set them off = most of the people in that theater die.

Your argument is totally destroyed and you come back with the old false dichotomy? Exactly as arranged at his apartment or nothing at all? This, sir, is why I carry such a low opinion of your arguments. It's obvious that you're of above average intelligence, yet you will choose willful ignorance to continue support of positions you have chosen based on emotion.

It's like you have no damned common sense.

[Durango 95]

CBW....  This whole song and dance of yours has reached tedious levels of monotony so I now want to see from you a proposal that can be reduced to law.


This is your chance. Let's hear it....

[Durango 95]

"Your argument is totally destroyed and you come back with the old false dichotomy? Exactly as arranged at his apartment or nothing at all? This, sir, is why I carry such a low opinion of your arguments. It's obvious that you're of above average intelligence, yet you will choose willful ignorance to continue support of positions you have chosen based on emotion.

It's like you have no damned common sense."
---------
I don't know if I have ever agreed w/ illuminator more.

CBW...Stop looking at this as an attack, take a minute and reflect. You really are allowing emotion to get the better of you.

I'm sure you are sincere in your motives but you gotta stop, man. You've gone off the deep end here.

[spartan]

I've just gotten you to admit that there are times when rebellion is justified . You've just admitted that Washington agreed , and even explained why.  The argument is officially over , and once again you've lost it.

The funny thing is that you were spinning so hard, during your long-winded diatribe , that you were too stupid to realize you had just conceded the arguement.

Actually, what you've just done was move the goal post, not win any argument. My very first sentence in the thread:

"Was the 2nd amendment's purpose to allow private citizens to arm themselves to defend against their own government?"

Meaning, THIS government, you imbecile. Reread through any of my posts and try to find where I ever said that Washington was opposed to rebellion "under any circumstances." That was your sleazy way of trying to mischaracterize my position and then argue against the mischaracterization. God you're dumb, Delirious. You're also a troll. Those two things don't mix to well. I always say, if you are going to be a troll, at least be a clever one. Stealing Vince's schtick isn't clever. It's just sad.

You're the one that brought up Washington's letter, so if that was moving the goal post, you are the one that did it. Also, apart from the Govt, just who exactly is a rebellion against?

I would also like to point out that you have been all over the place in this thread so I wouldn't get too het up because the 'posts moved.' So, if we are truly back to the original premise, the answer is yes, ultimately as I said on page one, and that would involve a rebellion against the Govt.  Funny enough you said it best before you fell off the rails:

"There is a difference between taking up arms against a dictator or a tyrant and taking up arms against an elected government over a policy dispute."

And what is more, the founding fathers realized this, hence the 2nd amendment. Dictators don't pop up overnight, they ease themselves in. If you were wait until you have a dictator before you start arming yourself you get Nazi Germany. It is not an all or nothing deal where you storm the Whitehouse because you don't like Govt Policy.

[CBWx2]

 So he has to take all of the explosives, and rearrange them in the theater like they were at his house or it won't work at all? Those are the only two possibilities? Seriously? The truth is he probably could have killed a lot more people with explosives. He had thirty grenades, put them in a bag and set them off = most of the people in that theater die.

Your argument is totally destroyed and you come back with the old false dichotomy? Exactly as arranged at his apartment or nothing at all? This, sir, is why I carry such a low opinion of your arguments. It's obvious that you're of above average intelligence, yet you will choose willful ignorance to continue support of positions you have chosen based on emotion.

It's like you have no damned common sense.

Wrong. He didn't have 30 grenades, he had 30 homemade grenades. They were essentially fire**CENSORED**s that he filled with gunpowder. He had an explosive solution set up to activate when triggered and create a spark, and he had 10 gallons of fuel to exacerbate the explosion. The goal of the apartment set up was to go off when he wasn't in it. Holmes didn't want to kill himself, he wanted to kill other people. Using those same materials, there is no way that he could have hoped to have the desired affect at the theater as he did for his apartment building without having to set it up in at least a similar, even if slightly less sophisticated way.

Of course, it also begs the question, if it would have been just as easy for Holmes to blow up the theater, thus yielding a potentially higher casualty rate, which no doubt would have been a good thing in his view, then why didn't he? Why use the firearms at all? Because you and I both know that it isn't just as easy. You and I both know that it's a hell of a lot harder to pull off then sneaking firearms into a theater and opening fire on moviegoers.

Stop playing games here, Luminous. You speak of common sense? Well common sense tells us that making a bomb is not just as easy as pulling a trigger. If it was, bombs would be the preferred means of mass killings instead of semi-automatic rifles. The reason Tim McVeigh made a bomb was because his plan wasn't just to murder a bunch of people, it was to blow up a federal building. The building was the primary target, not the people in it, and you don't use a rifle to blow up a building. The Tim McVeigh argument is lame and insufficient, and deep down, you know as much.

[Durango 95]

[CBWx2]

I've just gotten you to admit that there are times when rebellion is justified . You've just admitted that Washington agreed , and even explained why.  The argument is officially over , and once again you've lost it.

The funny thing is that you were spinning so hard, during your long-winded diatribe , that you were too stupid to realize you had just conceded the arguement.

Actually, what you've just done was move the goal post, not win any argument. My very first sentence in the thread:

"Was the 2nd amendment's purpose to allow private citizens to arm themselves to defend against their own government?"

Meaning, THIS government, you imbecile. Reread through any of my posts and try to find where I ever said that Washington was opposed to rebellion "under any circumstances." That was your sleazy way of trying to mischaracterize my position and then argue against the mischaracterization. God you're dumb, Delirious. You're also a troll. Those two things don't mix to well. I always say, if you are going to be a troll, at least be a clever one. Stealing Vince's schtick isn't clever. It's just sad.

You're the one that brought up Washington's letter, so if that was moving the goal post, you are the one that did it. Also, apart from the Govt, just who exactly is a rebellion against?

I would also like to point out that you have been all over the place in this thread so I wouldn't get too het up because the 'posts moved.' So, if we are truly back to the original premise, the answer is yes, ultimately as I said on page one, and that would involve a rebellion against the Govt.  Funny enough you said it best before you fell off the rails:

"There is a difference between taking up arms against a dictator or a tyrant and taking up arms against an elected government over a policy dispute."

And what is more, the founding fathers realized this, hence the 2nd amendment. Dictators don't pop up overnight, they ease themselves in. If you were wait until you have a dictator before you start arming yourself you get Nazi Germany. It is not an all or nothing deal where you storm the Whitehouse because you don't like Govt Policy.

Your statement is not supported by any historical text or event, spartan. It is supported only by your personal ideology and insecurities. The 2nd amendment was not created to grant the ability to rebel. It was created as a plan for addressing national security. There is countless text and events that support this, and you and your crowd have continuously ignored them in order to cling to an unsubstantiated fantasy.