Why The Second Amendment?

[JohnDeereFan]

US Constitution: 1787.

Communism: 1848.

No, [Name calling edited], 1848 was the publication of the Communist Manifesto, not the invention of Communism.

As I said before, you don't know the difference between Marxism and Communism.

Capitalism: 1830.

I hate to break this to you, but capitalism existed long before 1830.

 

[TCassidy]

No, [Name calling edited], 1848 was the publication of the Communist Manifesto, not the invention of Communism.

As I said before, you don't know the difference between Marxism and Communism.

We are talking about Political Communism which is also known today as Marxism. The word "communism" was coined in 1777 by French philosopher Victor d'Hupay and did not refer to the political communism we see today but simply meant "for the good of the community."

I hate to break this to you, but capitalism existed long before 1830.

Capitalism is a direct result of the industrial revolution which was in full force only in the 19th century. Prior to that the prevailing economic system for most western countries was mercantilism, as you have already been informed.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

We are talking about Political Communism which is also known today as Marxism. The word "communism" was coined in 1777 by French philosopher Victor d'Hupay and did not refer to the political communism we see today but simply meant "for the good of the community."

No, you just said "Communism". Marxism is only one philosophy within communism.

Capitalism is a direct result of the industrial revolution which was in full force only in the 19th century. Prior to that the prevailing economic system for most western countries was mercantilism, as you have already been informed.

First of all, "prevailing" and "most" still leaves the door open for capitalism.

Second, who said that capitalism must be practiced by the state to exist?

Third, capitalism was not result from the Industrial Revolution, but was one of the chief motivators of the Industrial Revolution.

 

[TCassidy]

No, you just said "Communism". Marxism is only one philosophy within communism.

The word dates to 1777 and meant something entirely different then than now.

Second, who said that capitalism must be practiced by the state to exist?

Nobody. Did you imagine it?

Third, capitalism was not result from the Industrial Revolution, but was one of the chief motivators of the Industrial Revolution.

Cart before the horse. Mercantilism was the impetus behind the industrial revolution.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The word dates to 1777 and meant something entirely different then than now.

We weren't talking about the word, but about the concept the word represents.

Nobody. Did you imagine it?

No. You said that capitalism didn't exist because mercantilism was the prevailing economic system in most countries.

Did the voices in your head tell you that communism and Marxism are the same?

Cart before the horse. Mercantilism was the impetus behind the industrial revolution.

OK. So, I guess we'll add history and economics to theology on the list of things you know nothing about.

Incidentally, I notice that you edited my post, but then failed to edit out your own childish insults.

That's one way to win an argument, I guess.

 

[TCassidy]

You said that capitalism didn't exist because mercantilism was the prevailing economic system in most countries.

So which of those people are you claiming to be stateless?

Did the voices in your head tell you that communism and Marxism are the same?

No, that is common knowledge for anyone with an IQ greater than his hat size.

OK. So, I guess we'll add history and economics to theology on the list of things you know nothing about.

No, that would be you. Well, maybe not nothing but anything above a 4th grade level. Public school education?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

No, that is common knowledge for anyone with an IQ greater than his hat size.

Really? You're going to impugn my intelligence while tell us you think that it's "common knowledge"
that Marxism and communism are the same thing?

No, that would be you. Well, maybe not nothing but anything above a 4th grade level. Public school education?

I'm not sure I'd mock other people's education, if I were you. You're the one who claimed capitalism and communism didn't exist until the Constitution and then followed that brilliance up by saying that communism and Marxism are the same thing.

 

[TCassidy]

Yes. I know. And backed it up with facts. You are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how wrong it is, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Well it is not PC to say the crime in Chicago is also largely due also to urban collapse of the black community and their failure to keep the family unit afloat. Like a lot of big cities, it is just considered rude to actually admit the truth. Some try to deflect this as a "drug war" problem, but it is a heart problem and it is not doing the black community any favors to continue to lie about it.

And yes, Chicago still is not a gun friendly town as TC points out. Yes you may have a point that perhaps it is now not the most gun unfriendly. But if they had their way, it would soon return to that.

I really don't care about PC. I'd rather search for the truth. Yes, Chicago is a dangerous town.When I was growing up, I had two aunts/uncles's living on the South Side. It really wasn't that dangerous back then and I used to love visiting them in the "big city." Now the area where they lived is very dangerous. I would agree that it's a complex situation but needs to be addressed in a positive way. I personally don't think more guns is the solution.

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

I think most reasonable people would draw the line at nukes,

Why?
Why draw any line that the founders did not draw themselves?

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

Probably.

If that is what rows your boat, go ahead.

Well, except that a "suitcase nuke" is a myth. You've been watching too much television.

Ok, geez... a minivan nuke... does that make you feeel better?

Would you feel safer knowing that your neighbor had a nuke in his minivan in his garage next door?

Should be a simple yes or no question.

It is better than throwing rocks.

Is it?
How?

And there are 140 million people who own 300 million guns in the US. Compare that to the 1.3 million on active duty in the US military and .8 million in reserve/guard units for a total of 2.1 million against 70 million if only half are able and willing to show up.

Right... no army has ever successfully moved against an armed populace. That's been well established

Looks to me as if we are better armed than you assumed.

Looks to me that you are claiming we are armed up plenty already.

How much is enough in your estimation?

The term "suitcase nuke" is a metaphor for a portable device. The minimum mass of a plutonium-239 fission warhead is 33 pounds (15 kg). Add to that the shielding (another 80 pounds) the delivery barrel (another 20 pounds), the conventional explosive trigger charge (5 pounds), and the casing and electronic controls (detonator/receiver and antenna) and you add another 15 pounds. So you have 153 pounds without the carrier.

Again, Minivan Nuke.
You feel safer knowing your neighbor has one?
He's not drinking too much this week and I hear he's back in anger management therapy, so his short fuse temper has probably calmed down a bit...Plus he hasnt threatened to kill himself in at least a month..
With that record, we sould probably encourage Him to get a 2nd nuke, I know I'd feel safer knowing he had 2, wouldn't you?

 

[Reynolds]

Why?
Why draw any line that the founders did not draw themselves?

That is not an item that a well armed soldier would have access to or control over. It is also not an item the central government could realistically use on its own population.
Use the line of thinking the founders had. Its not too complicated. Private citizens owned artillery and ships of war at the time of the ratification of The Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

 

[TCassidy]

That is not an item that a well armed soldier would have access to or control over.

But Saint of Circumstance doesn't care. I said earlier that, in my opinion, the 2nd amendment refers to the ability to keep (own) and BEAR (CARRY) firearms. That is why the mis-named "Suitcase nuke" came up.

So now Saint of Circumstance is claiming his neighbor can CARRY his van with a nuke in it!

That is the main reason I seldom engage with anti-liberty gun control advocates who want to have a "reasonable discussion" on limits of our freedom. Their "reasonable discussion" goes, almost immediately, to the most unreasonable position possible, "well what about nukes?" Trying to have an intelligent discussion with this type person is a waste of time, effort, and band width.

 

[TCassidy]

Why?
Why draw any line that the founders did not draw themselves?

What part of "keep and BEAR arms" is so difficult to understand?

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

But Saint of Circumstance doesn't care. I said earlier that, in my opinion, the 2nd amendment refers to the ability to keep (own) and BEAR (CARRY) firearms.

So then you disagree with Reynolds in his assessment that "Private citizens owned artillery and ships of war at the time of the ratification of The Constitution and its Bill of Rights." falls into the "keep and BEAR arms" definition?

So now Saint of Circumstance is claiming his neighbor can CARRY his van with a nuke in it!

And Reynolds is claiming private citizens could CARRY artillary and warships at the time the constitution was ratified... oddly you don't seem to have your knickers in a twist about that claim tho....

That is the main reason I seldom engage with anti-liberty gun control advocates

Probably a good Idea... but since i'm not one of those, how does that affect OUR conversation?

 

[TCassidy]

So then you disagree with Reynolds in his assessment that "Private citizens owned artillery and ships of war at the time of the ratification of The Constitution and its Bill of Rights." falls into the "keep and BEAR arms" definition?

No.

And Reynolds is claiming private citizens could CARRY artillary and warships at the time the constitution was ratified... oddly you don't seem to have your knickers in a twist about that claim tho....

No.

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

Then please Explain to our readers why Someone in your estimation can "CARRY" a warship but can not "CARRY" a nuke?

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

That is the main reason I seldom engage with anti-liberty gun control advocates

Well, I typically dont engage with anti-liberty nuke control advocates such as yourself, but this time I feel it will benefit our readers edification if I do continue to engage you.

 

[TCassidy]

Proverbs 26:4-5 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.

 

[TCassidy]

Then please Explain to our readers why Someone in your estimation can "CARRY" a warship but can not "CARRY" a nuke?

Please post where I claimed a person can carry a warship. Thank you.