Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

Las Vegas Shooting Mass-Murder and Concert targeting

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
6,183
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Colorado Panhandle
But can it flatten everyone across the country all at once?

No.

If you think armed citizens cannot turn back a Government, you should learn more about history.
I definitely do. Vietnam vs. USA, Afghanistan vs. Soviet Union. And they didn't need a "constitution" (piece of paper) to do it.

What I find curious is that when the 2nd Amendment was written, the firepower of munitions the government possessed were roughly equal to that which could be possessed by a citizen. A musket - maybe you could buy a cannon if you were rich. Today there is a huge disparity between what citizens can purchase, and what force the government has at its disposal.

Bokanovsky argued, "The right to bear arms originated from the 1689 English Bill of Rights that states that citizens of England (including colonists) have the right to have 'arms for their defence suitable to their conditions'. It's hard to imagine conditions where nuclear bombs, drones and stingers would be suitable as personal defensive weapons."

If the King of England was okay with a citizen carrying a musket in 1689, why shouldn't the US government be okay with something equal to its own firepower? Some of you have argued about governments going rogue and tyrannical but are telling me the 2nd amendment stops with rifles. The founders did not specify what arms we are guaranteed to bear. Some of you are telling me you are pro-2nd Amendment, but you don't think your neighbor should be allowed to launch a missile. Why not and where in the constitution is this prohibited?
 

Warning!

Do not subscribe to The SoSuave Newsletter unless you are already a chick magnet!

The information in each issue is too powerful for most guys to handle. If you are an ordinary guy, it is not for you. It is meant for the elite few – not the unwashed masses.

image

If you think you can handle it...

If you already have girls calling you at all hours of the day and night, showing up at your door, throwing themselves at you everywhere you go...

Then sign up below.

But if you're just an average Joe, an ordinary guy, no one special – and wish to continue being so – then skip this. It's too much power for you.

ChristopherColumbus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Messages
2,395
Reaction score
1,328
Age
53
Location
korea
If the King of England was okay with a citizen carrying a musket in 1689, why shouldn't the US government be okay with something equal to its own firepower? Some of you have argued about governments going rogue and tyrannical but are telling me the 2nd amendment stops with rifles. The founders did not specify what arms we are guaranteed to bear. Some of you are telling me you are pro-2nd Amendment, but you don't think your neighbor should be allowed to launch a missile. Why not and where in the constitution is this prohibited?
The real revolution of Cromwell and Parliament against the King was the earlier one [1640s], which saw Charles the 1st's head chopped off. After the Restoration, there was a perceived danger that Monarchy would re-establish itself again with the King James, a Catholic. The so-called 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 saw a figure-head king, William of Orange [champion of the Protestant cause in Europe] invited to invade and take the throne, being supported by powerful Protestant political parties and interests. No doubt, this is why you also saw the amendment to the 'Bill of Rights' regarding the right to bear arms.
 
Last edited:

Macaframalama

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 14, 2017
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
707
Age
41
This is what I don't get. The government could flatten you and your gun collection in no time if it wanted to. It has tanks, missiles, bombs, and soldiers. Of course it would have no one to tax if it annihilated everyone so there's that...
Uhhh, yea. Like we're doing in Afghanistan, or Russia did in Afghanistan. Or like we did in Vietnam.
 

Von

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
2,114
Reaction score
1,134
Age
31
I definitely do. Vietnam vs. USA, Afghanistan vs. Soviet Union. And they didn't need a "constitution" (piece of paper) to do it.

What I find curious is that when the 2nd Amendment was written, the firepower of munitions the government possessed were roughly equal to that which could be possessed by a citizen. A musket - maybe you could buy a cannon if you were rich. Today there is a huge disparity between what citizens can purchase, and what force the government has at its disposal.

Bokanovsky argued, "The right to bear arms originated from the 1689 English Bill of Rights that states that citizens of England (including colonists) have the right to have 'arms for their defence suitable to their conditions'. It's hard to imagine conditions where nuclear bombs, drones and stingers would be suitable as personal defensive weapons."

If the King of England was okay with a citizen carrying a musket in 1689, why shouldn't the US government be okay with something equal to its own firepower? Some of you have argued about governments going rogue and tyrannical but are telling me the 2nd amendment stops with rifles. The founders did not specify what arms we are guaranteed to bear. Some of you are telling me you are pro-2nd Amendment, but you don't think your neighbor should be allowed to launch a missile. Why not and where in the constitution is this prohibited?
Vietnam war was interesting... you had the army and the National Guard shooting students on campus, shooting rioters etc... it was close to civil war

The special forces were protecting the capitol in the open

Yet, the people in peaceful riots and getting shoot... made the US say... ''Enough we pulling out of Vietnam''... Vietnam wasn't lost on the battefield, it was lost on american soil by protesters in the USA

Samspade.. you gotta check the videos they even mention muskets lol

One point, I believe... is that the right to ''bear arms'' or ''militia'' means they were actually parts of the army... like conscript. In a time of colonial expansion, native american war, british forces vs american forces, mexican expansion etc... you need quick soldiers for conquest.
 

Red Legg

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 11, 2016
Messages
940
Reaction score
751
Location
USA
I think there is a clear distinction on "personal".

WMD's are not what I would call a personal weapon as they cannot be individually carried or targeted individually.
God damn..... a Minuteman 3 nuclear missile with MIRV re-entry vehicles would make one hell of a bulge in your pocket...
 
Read the 22 Rules for Massive Success with Women. Everything you need to know to become a huge success with women. And it's free!

Bible_Belt

Banned
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,833
Reaction score
4,042
Age
44
Location
midwestern cow field 40
The word "people" does not change meaning for only the second amendment to suddenly mean only the military.

....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The definition of "the people" certainly has changed over time. The idea of slaves accessing weapons would have mortified any of the founding fathers. In the Dred Scot days, were blacks allowed to own 3/5ths of one gun?

The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, and *especially* the Equal Protection Clause, are full of abstract terms that mean whatever the Supreme Court of the day says they mean. That's why it is a "living document."
 

Von

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
2,114
Reaction score
1,134
Age
31
The definition of "the people" certainly has changed over time. The idea of slaves accessing weapons would have mortified any of the founding fathers. In the Dred Scot days, were blacks allowed to own 3/5ths of one gun?

The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, and *especially* the Equal Protection Clause, are full of abstract terms that mean whatever the Supreme Court of the day says they mean. That's why it is a "living document."
The reason, everything is an amendment.
Interestingly, the system has become so big and complex that any changé to a living "document" is clearly near impossible

I mean, in Canada, we dont even want to change the constitution cause we need all States approval before even opening it and voting on it

In 1982, we even made à constitution within à constitution cause my state Québec didnt sign the Canadian constitution... so legally we outside of Canada lol.

Right to bear arms came from Latin Rome

Bear... In old English also said : carry/ready

England added the 1689 the right to gun ownership to Protect the protestant against the catholics but also the people versus the goverment of the day (they were in civil war, so it changed daily)... also, back tend... you had "local ruler" that bend the knee to a "high lord king"... without the High king.. the local lord had full power.

Eventually what emerged in England was added in the USA in the 1800s

England reversed the law by prohibiting any gun use and carry.. it did so without any issues. Even the frontline police have no guns.

England was able to go "pro" to "anti" without issues. Likely due to the Political reforms that allowed central power

In the USA, seems unlikely it will happens.. you still have a strong "anti-central governement feeling" also they love their guns (they dont need it. They just love it)

History show its possible. England historically had massive threats from outside (Spain, WW german, french napoleon) etc.. they needed to unité the power centrally to be efficient as a counterforce (cause if you dont have soldiers following you.. What's the point of an army). They did that after the internal threat (civil war)

I guess the USA pro-gun believe they are in a civil war.. since USA has no réal outside enemy. They have assault gun cause they love it and fear for their life..
 

Bible_Belt

Banned
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,833
Reaction score
4,042
Age
44
Location
midwestern cow field 40
The best argument I have read for why an American needs an assault rifle is from ranchers in Texas who are susceptible to attacks by packs of feral hogs, at which time having a large clip becomes quite handy.

After the fall of Saddam's Iraq, the price of an AK-47 dropped to about $10 US. But even with dirt cheap assault rifles and no effective government yet in place, insurgents almost always chose explosives as their main weapon, simply because they work better. Explosives are usually made from fertilizer, and if the government in power bans fertilizer, then the people will starve, and it will be impossible to win the "hearts and minds of the people," which is the ultimate goal of any occupation. No occupation can be forced forever; eventually the people have to consent. Fertilizer, and especially the kinds that can go boom, are a much bigger equalizer than guns.
 

ImTheDoubleGreatest!

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
5,361
Reaction score
2,480
Age
21
Location
Right behind you
I never thought of that...

But if you take into account the multiple windows thay shots were allegedly being fired from, how so much weaponry was brought to this room, the wired 100k to another country.....this is not all that implausible.
It’s how it is with all suicides. “Oh yeah he killed himself. With a gun. A shotgun.
The best argument I have read for why an American needs an assault rifle is from ranchers in Texas who are susceptible to attacks by packs of feral hogs, at which time having a large clip becomes quite handy.

After the fall of Saddam's Iraq, the price of an AK-47 dropped to about $10 US. But even with dirt cheap assault rifles and no effective government yet in place, insurgents almost always chose explosives as their main weapon, simply because they work better. Explosives are usually made from fertilizer, and if the government in power bans fertilizer, then the people will starve, and it will be impossible to win the "hearts and minds of the people," which is the ultimate goal of any occupation. No occupation can be forced forever; eventually the people have to consent. Fertilizer, and especially the kinds that can go boom, are a much bigger equalizer than guns.
$10 for an AK? Where the hell was I when this happened? Oh wait....

Most shootings are done with guns that have been attained through illegal means. Making guns illegal won’t do anything. I say to lower the prices to the point where everyone in that concert could have afforded one very easily. Let’s watch what happens to the shooter then...
 
Last edited:

taiyuu_otoko

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,533
Reaction score
2,769
Location
象外
It does not have to be about "need". This is a common framing of the argument by the alt-left.
It should never be about need. The idea that there is even a reason needed presupposes that some reasons are "good" and some reasons are "bad" and only those in authority (or those that like to pretend they are in authority as they claim the same moral and intellectual arguments) are capable of deciding whether ones "reasons" are "good enough."

People love the idea of being in control of other people. One way that comes out is through discussing what "reasons" are acceptable and which "reasons" aren't.

The whole constitution is a con anyway.

Ten years before the constitution was written, were people not allowed to have guns, and they needed a piece of paper and a central government to "give people" the "right" to own guns? Were people wandering around, unarmed, thinking, "Gee, I'd like to buy a gun, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed. I wish we had an all powerful central government that told me it was OK to buy a guy."

If this WAS the case, why was the constitutional convention done is as much secrecy as possible?

The constitution itself is very much like Obamacare.

1) you have to pass it to see what's in it

2) If you like your guns, (and free speech, etc.) you can keep your guns.

In reality, the constitution was just a power grab by those who wanted absolute power, and they used the idea of "giving citizens rights" as a selling point.

It was NEVER about the rights, it was always about a small group of elites who wanted as much power as they could grab.
 
Read the 22 Rules for Massive Success with Women. Everything you need to know to become a huge success with women. And it's free!

taiyuu_otoko

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,533
Reaction score
2,769
Location
象外
Ironically, it does give you the right to make that statement in public.
The idea of free speech is also a con.

It only exists on property that is owned by the government, and not private individuals.

Free speech cannot exist on private property. My right to kick you out of my house trumps your right to say whatever you want in my house.

The idea of "public property" is what allowed the government to pay men to hunt down and kill all the buffalo so they could steal the land for the railroads, for example.

The con is always the same. Government grants "right" in exchange for having power over people.
 

Bible_Belt

Banned
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,833
Reaction score
4,042
Age
44
Location
midwestern cow field 40
Private property exists in large part because of the government, in that it is the government that enforces private property rules. Unless you're a Somali war lord with your own army, you have to depend upon the government to enforce your rights when others infringe upon them.
 

taiyuu_otoko

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,533
Reaction score
2,769
Location
象外
Private property exists in large part because of the government,
Nope

Private property came first, governments came later.

The cycle of societies ever since the neolithic revolution is pretty consistent.

Private property leads to business, which leads to prosperity, which leads to government, which leads to waste and corruption, which leads to decay and downfall.

Most people confuse correlation with causation.

https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-Prosperity-Evolves-P-S/dp/0061452068/

Governments are always behind private property and technology, yet they always do their best to claim credit.
 

Von

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
2,114
Reaction score
1,134
Age
31
Nope

Private property came first, governments came later.

The cycle of societies ever since the neolithic revolution is pretty consistent.

Private property leads to business, which leads to prosperity, which leads to government, which leads to waste and corruption, which leads to decay and downfall.

Most people confuse correlation with causation.

https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-Prosperity-Evolves-P-S/dp/0061452068/

Governments are always behind private property and technology, yet they always do their best to claim credit.
Don't agree... Private property is a western concept... it's actually a ''evolution stage''

It's mentionned in Hobbes and Lockes (recent discussion philosopher)

People in order to survive banded together... under band that became tribes... the only one who had a ''private property'' was the leader of the pack who is the strongest/leader of the tribe.

Look in Asia and Africa... alot of tribes living in prehistoric stage, they have no concept of the '' I '' or the private property... everything belong to the tribe in order to share ressources that will help us win against nature and survive

As people got stronger and more numerous, you need to control them better and offer service in return for the ressources, they brought for the group. Hence, Governements emerged (Tribal, Chieftain, Depostic, Dictatorship, Republic, Direct Democraties, Indirect Democratif, Parlimentary, Absolute Monarchy, Constitutionnal)... you had to bound people through races, gender, colour, culture, belief, language etc..

From the emergence of the power of Government... emerged private property... Private property emerged in the 1500's with the concept of Individualism (Individualism is still a western concept)

How an individual can become an element of the government... etc...

So Individualism emerged as a reaction of governement and society stability... thus came private property... and private property was taken as a distinct English concept and later became an American Core Belief.

Only in America, you will have private property and individualism as a concept distinct for the ''greater collective (society and its governement''

Look at Asia, Middle-East, Africa... you still have there 1 leader calling the shoots for everybody and everyone under his blood/territory/name share all the ressouces.... and those who arent of his ''clan'' well have no access to it
Ask your moroccans friend if they had the ''king last name'' would they get a better and easier job
Ask your Libia friends, who know have access to the ressources that were reserved to the 1 millions Khaddafi clan members (on 7 millions people)
Ask your Iraq friend if the leader of the mosque would ask something would everyone move
Ask your afghanistan friend, when the male of the tribe ask for something what happens if you don't follow the order
Ask your chinese and japanese friend, how important is to be the ''honour of your family''
 
Read the 22 Rules for Massive Success with Women. Everything you need to know to become a huge success with women. And it's free!

Fatal Jay

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
1,769
Reaction score
115
Cool, this cleared up alot as to why this las vegas shooting is not called a terrorist act
 

backseatjuan

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
4,100
Reaction score
1,254
Age
39
Location
Россия
The conditions in your country, free speech, guns, other stuff, are there to produce technological advances, which require riches. Nobody is trying to take your guns away, just limit to the point of sane.
 

speed dawg

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
4,629
Reaction score
1,038
Location
The Dirty South
Nope

Private property came first, governments came later.

The cycle of societies ever since the neolithic revolution is pretty consistent.

Private property leads to business, which leads to prosperity, which leads to government, which leads to waste and corruption, which leads to decay and downfall.

Most people confuse correlation with causation.

https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-Prosperity-Evolves-P-S/dp/0061452068/

Governments are always behind private property and technology, yet they always do their best to claim credit.
You lost me here, man.

Private property doesn't exist without government, unless you are man enough to fend off everyone who wants your property. Doesn't make sense. Look at Zimbabwe. There's no private property there because they can't trust the government. And if there was no government, could they fend off the gangs of roving thugs? Do you think a gang of pirates gives 2 sh*ts about private property?

I am sure that private property did come first, before government. The people who owned property were the alpha males who could convince everyone else to do what they wanted. But private property as we know it today came about with civilized government. The Indians didn't give a sh*t about metes and bounds, remember, because they weren't under our government, until we forced them to be.
 

speed dawg

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
4,629
Reaction score
1,038
Location
The Dirty South
Tell that to Michael Moore.
And herein lies the problem with this:
The conditions in your country, free speech, guns, other stuff, are there to produce technological advances, which require riches. Nobody is trying to take your guns away, just limit to the point of sane.
We all know too well that the end game is to take away ALL guns. It's been said too many times.
 

Trunks

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
397
Reaction score
172
http://theantimedia.org/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/

"Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.


Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point [...]

The Real Reason Gun Control Will Never Work:


Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem [...]

We have a society that panders to the basest desires and instincts. One of those is violence. We live in a society where women are given dirty looks for breastfeeding in a restaurant, while over their heads on the wall-mounted television plays a movie that graphically depicts someone being tortured to death. We are desensitized to violence, and we have a generation of people that do not have the coping skills necessary to deal with reality."
 
Top