-
-
RSS Feeds
: Posts
: Comments
The As-Yet-Unlearned lesson of 9-11-01
Posted on September 11, 2007 by tiki god |Filed Under Uncategorized and has these tags: 9-11, Dark Humor, Politics
(16 votes, average: 3.94 out of 5)
Loading ...
Standard Disclaimer: Unless specifically mentioned in the post, we have no clue where this picture came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory that is knowledge.
Please link to this page
23 Responses to “The As-Yet-Unlearned lesson of 9-11-01”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!
Amen! The Liberal Party here in Canada tried to go down this road and they got their asses handed to them. Yes we have guns in Canada. Gotta protect yourself from the Moose and Bears.
If every American Citizen had a surface to air missile launcher 9/11 would never have happened.
Imagine how many hijackings could be prevented if people were allowed to bring guns on planes.
Guns solve so many problems!
Pedophilia? Make it compusory for all pre-teens to carry a firearm!
It’s genius!
Imagine how guns would be able to fix the recent economic downturn and mortgage crisis!
I would totally pack a .40 in my carry-on if it was allowed. It’d also make a great anger venting tool if my MP3 player decided to fuck up.
Piece of shit! *BLAM BLAM!*
Of course, unless you had the right kind of ammunition, one shot could crash the plane and kill you all.
Didn’t they disprove the explosive decompression theory?
Well, if one can not have a gun to kill everyone around him/her (or adjusting an unruly electronic device), why bother having one at all? Is that not the foundation of the U.S.? Killing Red Coats and Indians or whoever is in the way? I never had much interest in AmeriCan hIstOry, So, perhaps i aM erroR. HOld on, mY Caps loCk iS messinG Up. **Shoots keyboard** Better now.
Oh yeah, great concept. Arm every people, so they can kill each other faster.
What a load of crap. The founding fathers would be appalled to see how far the 2nd amendment has been taken. They didn’t forsee how much the word “arms” could be liberally interpreted. But that’s neither here nor there.
I love how NRA types always seem to think a world where everyone has guns is safer whereas a world where nobody has them is more dangerous. They always point to Hitler taking guns away and the dangerous of a universal gun control system where the people couldn’t fight against the government, but then they go on to say that gun control doesn’t work. People who want to get their hands on arms will always be able to. That’s true, but it’s incompatible with the other half of their arguments. You can’t have it both ways.
Not only did they disprove explosive decompression, but also, a hole in the fuselage won’t do anything. There are already valves in the fuselage that usually remain open, even at altitude, and they would close with additional holes being punched by bullets.
Note that when the second amendment was written, there WAS private ownership of artillery.
Actually, vygramul, while you’re technically correct, only a vastly wealthy individual might actually own artillery at that time. Virtually all the cannon used in the Revolutionary War were used by the British.
When the 2nd Amendment was written, it was phrased as it was because the United States didn’t have a standing army, and had no provision for creating one. The notion was, if the landowners had weapons - even the single-shot light arms of the day that often misfired - the country could be roused to war more quickly.
Think of the 2nd Amendment as the equivalent of a draft of all able-bodied men into a standing militia whenever the politicians ordered it and you’re closer to the original intent than the idea that everyone could keep assault rifles for their own amusement. The guns weren’t for personal defense. They were the pledge that the landowners were part of the US Army.
Dude, check out Article I section 8, especially the part about, “To raise and support armies,” and, “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia.”
I’d say that had provision for making one, and also provision for arming people. Given that, why bother even writing the 2nd amendment?
Possibly because confiscating all the weapons from the population, and then rearming them would be a waste of energy? Or conceivably because trying to disarm a population that had just fought a revolution might have been unwise?
Or perhaps because no one at that time realized that civilians would have access to weapons that would allow a single individual to wipe out a small town with relative ease?
If the second amendment hadn’t been written, any individual state could have disarmed its population, regardless of article 1. No one wanted to tell the hunters to turn in their fowling pieces, and no one wanted to try to tax the populous to arm an army.
Everything has context. That’s why evil, cruel, stupid, mean-spirited liberals call the Constitution a “living document”.
Being simple-minded, I think almost everyone should be able to own hunting weapons and home protection type weapons, as desired. However, most folks shouldn’t have automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, or nuclear weapons. Of course, that’s just me, YMMV…
True enough, much of what you say, but let me point out that tradition long established the first ten amendments as “The Bill of Rights” and that they collectively have been taught as being the institutionalizing of individual liberties, so much so, that it’s easy to catch someone off-guard by making an off-hand comment that, “The Bill of Rights is not about individual liberties.” Usually, you’ll get a lecture about how you’re wrong. Right up until the point where you state, “So the second amendment is about individual liberties?”
Finally, the semantic argument seems to favor it being an individual liberty. To whom does the right to bear arms belong? There’s only one answer to that question from reading the amendment. The Constitution is remarkably consistent in its use of “the people” and it’s difficult to believe that this was some sort of quillo. (As opposed to typo.)
All this is aside from the moral proposition as to whether an armed society is a good idea or not.
I agree that we’ve wandered away from the question of whether an armed society is a good idea or not.
Now I certainly think that I should have a gun if I want one, as I am level-headed and calm. I’m just not sure you should be allowed to carry a gun, since you might be too hair-triggered. Of course, I realize that from your point of view, our opinions of who should have guns might well be reversed - right?
That’s my problem with arming everyone. If it was knives - no problem, since most random strangers won’t get hurt during a knife fight. If it’s single-shot flintlocks - sure, since by the time yours is loaded I’ll have had time to either draw my flintlock or run away. Since ‘arms’ now include laser scopes, automatic magazines, and armor piercing rounds (at least to extremists), maybe none of us should be carrying arms in public.
Hunting weapons? Sure - everyone except the demonstrably insane can have them. And have to learn basic gun safety rules, like the NRA teaches in their classes.
WTF? since when did innocent = responsible?
Disarming innocent people does protect them, every innocent Kid that plays with the their dads gun for example. I’m not saying people shouldn’t have the responsibility but padded rooms (however stifling) are pretty safe.
Missouri recently enacted a concealed carry law, where if you aren’t semi-retarded, you get a license to carry a small weapon on you person (hidden).
The violent crime rate has gone down drastically.
The property crime rate has gone up, but Stolen TV’s beats dead people.
Excelsior - where are you getting your statistics from? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but your statement doesn’t match these statistics:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mocrimn.htm
The murder rate / 100,000 is the same in 2006 as it was in 2000. The violent crime rate is higher.
Rates *did* drop in 2002, when the law was in the news, but the rates went back up. They’re not as high as in the early ’90’s, of course, but there are other reasons for that.
My Statistic probably is from that period where it fell.
Even apart from statistics though, a simple truth is that people who want to kill other people aren’t going to care about gun penalties.
As for people being clumsy with their own guns- If you shoot yourself, that’s Natural Selection, If you shoot someone else, then remember that we trust people with cars, and they use those to kill people every day.