Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I don't know...it looks like it might be catching on.



Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

None of your rhetoric is any use if someone shoots me dead. Guns inherently empower the crazy and criminal more than the sane and law-abiding. .50 cal has no place in self-defense. Right to self-defense does not mean right to own whatever weapons one wishes.

The Second Amendment was never about self-defense. Go read the Federalist Papers. Hamilton and Madison (who wrote the damn thing) explain at length that the point of the Second Amendment was to avoid establishing a standing army because it was believed a standing army would drain the country's wealth and threaten its liberty. To base pro-gun arguments on self-defense and use the Second Amendment as a justification is ignorant and flatly wrong.

Slavery existed and was an issue long before the United States existed. Why do you think slavery was widespread 2000 years ago but was almost unheard of a thousand years ago? It wasn't about race, it was about changing views on people and power. You are narrowing the topic to race in America because you don't like that the ethical principle in question debunks your entire argument.

And citizen's arrest is a laugh. It's about as relevant in practice as laws against libel or "fightin' words".



Ridiculous how uneducated military trash use that mannerism to appear precise and clever. Never mind that in this case your usage is completely incorrect since the quantity in question is unequivocally plural.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Nobody who is a Constitutional Originalist has ever actually read the Federalist Papers.

That includes Justice Thomas (but to his credit, not Justice Scalia).

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

My "rhetoric" is the least of the things that will cease to be of any use to you if you're dead. You complain that guns empower the "crazy and the criminal," yet don't see how stripping everyone else of adequate means of defense only tips the scales further in their favor.



If the 2nd Amendment was never about self-defense, then why should it matter if a .50 cal has no place in self-defense?

If you want to argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover the right to self defense, don't take it up with me. Take it up with the Supreme Court. I'm sure your years of scholarship and practice in the area of law will carry its appropriate weight in such a setting.



Slavery, like many other practices, has risen to and fallen from use in societies stretching back into antiquity...yet as much as I'm sure you'd like to enter some antediluvian examples, they're not relevant. You weren't talking about the Jews in Egypt, you were talking about the end of slavery in what is now the industrialized world. It ended in this country over an issue of race...as you often like to point out whenever you're reminded that slavery wasn't the sole reason for the American Civil War. I don't have to narrow an argument that's so badly made that it's transparently pulling the race card any more than I have to disprove the "ethical principle" proposed by someone so mentally incapable that their first attempt to legitimize their irrational idiocy is to equate the other person's point-of-view with racism.



If you say so, Clarence Darrow.



Actually, it's a habit I picked up from a technical writing class I had while attending the college where I received my most recent doses of "un"education. I don't do it to "appear" precise, I do it to be precise. You should take a technical writing class. It teaches the ability to express thoughts, directions, and ideas in a linear fashion and stresses that brevity is the soul of wit, two things with which you could use more than a bit of help.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Nothing is useful to a dead man. Not your rhetoric and not guns for self-defense.



Because that's the argument being used to defend it. If you want to argue that it's for the common defense, that's where "well-regulated militia" comes into play: you don't have the right to keep a cannon under your bed. The right to bear arms is a collective one ("the people").



Most Supreme Court decisions have upheld the reasoning I've cited. This is why gun bans and such are accepted as constitutional. The NRA and gun lobby have worked very hard to influence the selection process because they don't like this and want to change it.



The US is not the entire Western world.



BS. Everyone knows the term is used pretty much exclusively by military trash. Proof being that if you had learned the expression in a technical writing class, you would be using it appropriately.

The "precise" wording would be "states". The states that allowed slavery were plural. The "(s)" is used only when an unknown quantity may be singular or plural.

You're using the syntax incorrectly because you're using it for the same reason every piece of military trash uses it which is that you want to conceal your poor thought processes and lack of real education. Feminists do the same thing, they use excessive grammar, too many "helper words", and long, obscure words to conceal their poor thought processes and lack of education then get all the rules wrong.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Yeah, I know. I just said that.



AH! But that is where you are wrong, grasshopper. I doubt anyone ever stored them under a bed, but people did...and still do...own artillery. I personally know someone who owns an operational Civil War era cannon and uses it in re-enactments.

Further, you don't even understand the argument that the 2nd Amendment was a group right and not an individual right. That argument was based on the phrasing "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," not the phrasing "of the people." The argument was that by reading 2nd Amendment with an emphasis on the "militia" phrasing, the amendment specifically addressed only the use and possession of arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm based on the "right of the people" phrasing. There are a lot of really good reasons for this, not the least of which is that the wording is "right of the people" and not "right of the militia and its members." If the 2nd amendment were not conveying an individual right, and instead conveying a right of a collective or the state, it would be the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that conveyed a new power to the state instead of imposing a check on its power.



There aren't a lot of "banned" guns under federal law. There are some that require special permits to own. There are still others that are by law no longer made available new for civilian purchase. This has the effect of a ban, to some extent, but if I were to apply for and receive the proper permits and find a current owner willing to sell me any of the weapons in question I could own several types of automatic weapons. The idea that the government can "ban" certain weapons and not violate 2nd amendment protections comes from United States v. Miller, wherein the court unanimously held that "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." I think it's important to note that this a challenge to the firearms act, which restricted civilian ownership of automatic weapons, but the challenge specifically addressed sawed-off shotguns. The court made no rulings of which I'm aware regarding whether or not restricting access to other weapons was a violation, and it would be hard to argue that automatic weapons would not qualify as militia weapons as they're in actual use by our military.

Further, the decision rendered in District of Columbia v. Heller completely invalidates your "reasoning." Not only did the court recognize that the operative clause of the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia (the "right of the people"), and that prefatory clause ("a well-regulated militia) announced a purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the the operative clause ("we the people" again), it also recognized that the rights guaranteed under the 2nd amendment extended to the use of arms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.

In keeping with the principle of stare decisis, the court acknowledged the United States v. Miller in the majority opinion, stating that the Miller "does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."



That's cute, but I sincerely doubt you were considering European chambermaids when you wrote your lines of drivel. We all know what you were driving at when you were making your comparison. Stop sulking and just admit you said something daft.



If I had been using the word "states," referring to the individual US states, you'd have point. I wasn't. When I said "state(s)," I was referring to the US in particular but acknowledging other nations that had similar policies...thus the (s). My usage was proper, because, as you said, I was referring to an unspecified quantity. I can't begin to tell you how amusing it is to receive advice on communicating thoughts in written English from someone who couldn't decipher which meaning of the word "state" was being used from the context of what was written, nor how unsurprising it is given it comes from someone who, despite his years of self-imposed exile in ivory towers, constantly fails to correctly decipher the meaning of the things he reads.

If you're any example of the value a "real education," I'll count myself fortunate that I've managed to avoid the blessing.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

That isn't what you said.

You talked about right to self-defense and due process and the consequences of using a firearm inappropriately. None of which is any use to the dead man if he gets shot and is now dead. Someone inclined to murder probably won't even care. As Tuhl said, guns are the ultimate enabler, period.



There is no lawful reason to have a .50 under your bed. If you want to defend your country, do what they do in Switzerland which is run to the local armory in the event of an attack.



Hard counter:





Your ignorance of European history is so total that you have absolutely no idea what I was talking about, so you say "chambermaids" because the limit of your knowledge of the history of servitude in the Old World is limited to some photocopied paintings you saw at the mall.

Europe got rid of slavery for definite reasons long before the US did, and they did it without going to war. Racial slavery in the colonies persisted some time after it was ended in Europe but that too ended before the American Civil War.

There was a definite moral reason this was done. It became seen as evil and wrong that one man have that kind of power over another. Same reason individual gun ownership is unethical.





You were definitely talking about the American Civil War.



You keep conflating "education" with my having a BA (sits in a folio, has creases and spaghetti stains from serial mishandling) which betrays your massive inferiority complex. My sitting in a classroom way too long has nothing to do with my being "educated".

I'm educated and you are not because I read books and think about them, and you Google to corroborate what you read on right-wing blogs and radio. I inquire, and you prefer to have an attitude rather than correct your ignorance.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You can definitely own automatic weapons, but the amount of certifications, taxes, background checks etc is so extensive, criminals likely don't even know HOW to apply for them, much less be able to get them.

The black market however....

For a guy that "reads and then thinks," you certainly miss a lot.



I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with the quoted text that it follows, but I think I explained the principles involved well enough for all the "uneducated" people to understand. I'm obviously going to have to find a way to dumb it down so the "educated" people can follow along, too.

Oh, and the personal weapons of the Swiss militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world. They don't "run to the local armory." Not that we should let facts get in the way of what you allegedly read in a book somewhere, that would be "uneducated" of us.



All of which is completely irrelevant since the right to bear arms has now been recognized as an individual right in the Heller decision. The only way the militia portion of the 2nd amendment is now applicable is that the Miller decision allows the government to limit which arms should be considered to be available to a militia. While you're not going to find saw-off shotguns like the one the Miller decision relates to in regular military use, you can't say the same about a .50 cal rifle, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue that a military weapon in regular use by our armed forces is somehow not a proper militia weapon.



Actually, I said "chambermaids" because slaves were predominantly used for domestic duties in wealthy households in Europe prior to the bulk of Europe deciding to do away with the practice. If Europe had been as reliant upon slavery for industry/agriculture as the American South, the practice would not have disappeared until much later.



No, I was talking about the United States and acknowledging other countries (State: 5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign), exactly as I said. It's not my fault your vocabulary is limited and your reading comprehension is laughable, and I'm not going to accept any blame for shortcomings you continue to fail to acknowledge.



Actually, I'm flatly stating that you're a daft git and that any evidence of your superior cognitive abilities are wholly imagined delusions born of your narcissism. Furthermore, it would be hard to maintain an "inferiority complex" about such trivialities as a piece of sheepskin when individuals like yourself demonstrate how little value such an item conveys upon its recipients. I cannot fathom how 'reading' does you any good when you routinely demonstrate that you misunderstand so much of what you read, neither can I account for what benefit you derive from "thinking" about what you've misunderstood, especially when the lines of reasoning you employ are faulty.

TL;DR--You're one of the dumbest "smart" people I know. You're not just wrong about this subject, you're demonstrably wrong about it, which is why you had to stoop so low as to pull the race card and start this argument in the first place. If you weren't my pal, I wouldn't even bother reading the silliness you post, much less respond to it.

Your Pal,
Jubber

EDIT: Needed to clear up a few formatting errors.

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

He's currently engaged in a shoot out with the LAPD in the mountains. News sources are reported 2 officers down.

You linked but didn't read. Eligible Swiss spend years in training. Owning bullets is illegal and if the individual is not on the short list their weapon must be reconfigured for semiautomatic fire only. To say nothing of heavy weapons.



You have no idea wtf you're talking about. You're 100% wrong on each and every point.

You haven't read a word about the topic, but you assume the facts agree with what you believe. This is why you're ignorant. This is why you're uneducated military trash.



No other country had a conflict between racial slavery and democracy (most obviously because slavery ended in all other countries before the rise of democracy); insulting others to cover up your ignorance makes you look like trash



You haven't demonstrated anything. You've spit a lot of vitriol, tried to appear clever by using pedantic grammar incorrectly, linked links you didn't read, cited a SCOTUS decision you don't understand, made broad assertions about history of which you are 100% ignorant (as in, zero facts, zero knowledge, zero experience, dead zero) and when all else failed, highlighted in red.

Debate was over before it began, moving on...

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I can't but feel like cheering. Hitler vs Stalin, I know who I'm rooting for.

Besides, he is the underdog. Some people talk about being one-man badasses, some people fail hard at it, but man, he's living the dream atm.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The more I think about it...the more I feel like I understand this guy's cause.

Of course the LAPD is requesting a media blackout...and the media has complied...they took their choppers out of the air during the shootout. They've also requested that Google Earth turns off the live satellite feed.


Did this guy kill some innocent people? Absolutely. But the LAPD shooting up innocent people and spending years abusing their power created this monster. In my mind, the blood is also on their hands.


We'll never get the full story. The media will continue to call him a monster and a "cop killer" and never ask any more questions. Anyone who suggests that, while his actions were extreme and despicable, they were the result in part of LAPD injustice we be called a "crazy" and a supporter of cop killers.


I don't know...more than any other shooting over this past year...this one feels different. It just feels like a storm is coming.

Transcript of shooting:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/02/ ... CY.twitter

Audio:

https://soundcloud.com/kpcc/police-repo ... engaged-in

The very fact that being a cop killer is seen as worse than being a civvie killer is testament to how perverse and evil the cops are.

In war, do we think it more disgraceful when our enemies kill soldiers, or when they kill civilians? It's a soldier's job to get in harm's way and it's their job to keep civilians out of harm's way. Same with cops. Except the latter are of the cowardly attitude that their lives are worth more than those they presume to protect.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

How do you reach your keyboard on that high horse?