Perfect scenario good guy with gun vs bad guy with gun. What happened?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,733
18,003
146
It doesn't sound very well regulated. Is it? How so?
its not at all. and im not a member, i work 50-60 hours a week, aint nobody got time for that! I jest, but i habe considered joining, as its volunteer. Im not medically fit for standard military.

but seriously, here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_State_Defense_Force?wprov=sfla1

our governor did not sign the doc to keep it going. every man for himself when the feds start getting overbearing....as if theyre not yet
 
Last edited:

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
its not at all. and im not a member, i work 50-60 hours a week, aint nobody got time for that! I jest, but i habe considered joining, as its volunteer. Im not medically fit for standard military.

but seriously, here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_State_Defense_Force?wprov=sfla1

our governor did not sign the doc to keep it going. every man for himself when the feds start getting overbearing....as if theyre not yet
Thanks! I was going to ask its name so I could look it up. I'm very curious to read about any truth that invalidates my points. I'm not sure this could have been seen as a modern militia though. Do you belong to an actual armed group?

"The MSDF assists the United States National Guard forces, assumes state missions when the National Guard is deployed, provides emergency support during disasters, and assists in color guards and funeral details."

So which is it? Were the founders interested in the now defunct state militias, were they just inaccurate or ill-advised with their words, or were they actually interested in the government being able to be violently overthrown if enough armed men disagreed with it or considered it "overbearing"? If the latter was true how did Obama's administration survive this? (edit) By failing to take away your guns? Gun ownership went through the roof under Obama because of that very fear.
 
Last edited:

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,733
18,003
146
the founding fathers were very concerned about a centralized government and banking system.

they wanted a distributed force to reckon with

and a distributed money system to help facilitate growth and progress that wasnt isolated to the tippy top.

funny how things turn out. but its not hard to see why people love what makes them feel safe. thats not a jab at guns in particular, just a general "look around" kinda thing
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,630
82
91
the founding fathers were very concerned about a centralized government and banking system.

The founding fathers were not some homogeneous group of people hell bent on big L libertarianism.

Alexander Hamilton (you know, founding father) supported the formation of the first central bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_America). If that's not good enough for you, Hamilton's next project was (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States), which looks more central bankish and was created by the Bank Bill of 1791 by the first congress and signed into law by George Washington (you know, another founder).

The founding fathers had diverse opinions too (Jefferson opposition to the central bank, for instance). Regardless, almost immediately after formation of the country the central government started consolidating power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
the founding fathers were very concerned about a centralized government
Is that why they created one? Don't you mean a central government's power. Is that not why they created all those checks and balances? To assume they wanted their institutions to be violently overthrown because...reasons...is quite a leap (IMO). Edit: if that were true, wouldn't they have put gun rights in the 1st amendment?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,733
18,003
146
yes, they idea of states rights is to combat a centralized governments potential abuse of power.

since were way past that, the 2A effective intent is long gone, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Thanks! I was going to ask its name so I could look it up. I'm very curious to read about any truth that invalidates my points. I'm not sure this could have been seen as a modern militia though. Do you belong to an actual armed group?

"The MSDF assists the United States National Guard forces, assumes state missions when the National Guard is deployed, provides emergency support during disasters, and assists in color guards and funeral details."

So which is it? Were the founders interested in the now defunct state militias, were they just inaccurate or ill-advised with their words, or were they actually interested in the government being able to be violently overthrown if enough armed men disagreed with it or considered it "overbearing"? If the latter was true how did Obama's administration survive this? (edit) By failing to take away your guns? Gun ownership went through the roof under Obama because of that very fear.
Look what the writers, the Founders and the people that voted to institute the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had to say. You don't even need a Rosetta Stone to interpret it.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,234
136
Guns have one purpose, to kill. That's it. And in the wrong hands they do catastrophic damage. I get it you love your guns, the loss of life is acceptable so we can have our precious guns. Guns are more important than human lives, even children, that point has been made exceedingly clear from you and others who hold the 2a above all else.
We get it.
It's a balance. You simply cannot have 100% safety without giving up all freedom.

Yes. I am willing to give up safety in favor of preserving freedom.

...and I have never owned a gun or derived any sense of enjoyment from shooting one.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
It's a balance. You simply cannot have 100% safety without giving up all freedom.

Yes. I am willing to give up safety in favor of preserving freedom.

...and I have never owned a gun or derived any sense of enjoyment from shooting one.
Pretty good, but you can't have safety even if you give up all freedom, "safe" is an impossible goal.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,023
5,305
136
It's a balance. You simply cannot have 100% safety without giving up all freedom.

Yes. I am willing to give up safety in favor of preserving freedom.

...and I have never owned a gun or derived any sense of enjoyment from shooting one.
Never actually said I wanted 100% or even 60% safety. I just wish we could discuss this gun violence epidemic and stop saying 'thoughts and prayers' that bullshit is beyond offensive. And are you really free if you feel you need a gun on you at all times to be safe? That's pretty counter-intuitive.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
Look what the writers, the Founders and the people that voted to institute the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had to say. You don't even need a Rosetta Stone to interpret it.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm
Your first link makes your point, but I believe all those quotes to be easily refuted especially in modern times, with our modern technology, and modern sensibilities.

The quote from Hitler is particularly useful: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler

He was talking about conquerors, and even if his words are true, anyone agreeing with them would be demonized. But were the American people conquered (outside of Native Americans)? Are we at risk of that anymore from without or within? Wouldn't any attempt be met with a massive, federal force? Isn't that why we have a military (unless it is meant that in a feared scenario, citizens would have to take on the military)? Who we're supposed to fear is seemingly variable among those who own guns and those who don't.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Your first link makes your point, but I believe all those quotes to be easily refuted especially in modern times, with our modern technology, and modern sensibilities.

The quote from Hitler is particularly useful: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler

He was talking about conquerors, and even if his words are true, anyone agreeing with them would be demonized. But were the American people conquered (outside of Native Americans)? Are we at risk of that anymore from without or within? Wouldn't any attempt be met with a massive, federal force? Isn't that why we have a military (unless it is meant that in a feared scenario, citizens would have to take on the military)? Who we're supposed to fear is seemingly variable among those who own guns and those who don't.
OK, well thanks for your quote.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
OK, well thanks for your quote.
I like this one from your link:
  • "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
    -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
How do we differentiate "peaceable citizens" from the violent or the deranged (outside of the limited use of background checks with their own limitations to predict future behavior)?
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,234
136
Never actually said I wanted 100% or even 60% safety. I just wish we could discuss this gun violence epidemic and stop saying 'thoughts and prayers' that bullshit is beyond offensive. And are you really free if you feel you need a gun on you at all times to be safe? That's pretty counter-intuitive.
Yes. My safety is my responsibility. If I felt that a gun was necessary, I would choose to have one. The federal government should protect me from threats originating outside (other countries).