+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: "Why do you need an AR15?" (/showthread.php?tid=15447)
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-01-2018
montana Wrote:A bunch of quotes saying that citizens should be able to have guns for self defense, and to be able to overthrow the government.And yet, the Second Amendment does not cite either as reason for the right to keep and bear arms.
Not only that, the Constitution says that the militia can be called upon to put down armed rebellion.
montana Wrote:The 2nd Amend is about preserving a big stick for the citizens, so the security of a free state remains a free state. With out a big stick all citizens have are opinions. Not much use against a state that has both.Citizens do not have big sticks. An AR15 is a teeny, tiny little twig compared to the Apache attack helicopters, Abrams main battle tanks, F-16 fighter bombers, etc, etc, that the government has.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-01-2018
keystone183 Wrote:I don't think it says anything CLEARLY. That is the point. That you think it does, especially in light of the myriad of writings of the time, is interesting.What is unclear about a militia being needed for state security?
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-01-2018
montana Wrote:So you operate on disbelief...No, I operate on facts and logic.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - keystone183 - 03-01-2018
stanc Wrote:What is unclear about a militia being needed for state security?
Are you seriously going to argue that you can read the 4 separate statements in the 2nd, and WITHOUT INFERENCE, tell me exactly what it means? Because you cannot.
Thusly, we go back to my previous statement, you believe your inferences are greater than other inferences.
And we haven't even broached nuances yet.....:p
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-01-2018
keystone183 Wrote:Are you seriously going to argue that you can read the 4 separate statements in the 2nd, and WITHOUT INFERENCE, tell me exactly what it means? Because you cannot.Repeat it as many times as you like, but you're still wrong. Unlike you and others, I'm making no inferences.
Thusly, we go back to my previous statement, you believe your inferences are greater than other inferences.
I am just going by what is written, and the only reason it explicitly gives for having a militia is state security.
There is no mention whatsoever of self defense, and no mention of being able to overthrow the government.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - keystone183 - 03-01-2018
stanc Wrote:Repeat it as many times as you like, but you're still wrong.And that is where you are wrong!!
stanc Wrote:Unlike you and others, I'm making no inferences.The words, as written, DO NOT explicitly state that. Sorry. Read. And read again. There is not any sort of transition, besides a comma, that directly links the phrases. You may INFER given the context that the reason to keep and bear arms is in order to be a member of a well regulate militia that secures a free state. But again, there are no words that create this direct link. You may believe your superior intellect grants you the power to INFER correctly, and you may indeed by right, or partially. But given only the words, and their accepted meanings, you cannot derive the conclusion you suggest from merely the written words.
I am just going by what is written, and the only reason it explicitly gives for having a militia is state security.
There is no mention whatsoever of self defense, and no mention of being able to overthrow the government.
Also, would you please answer my question regarding how many times an ar has been used in defense? I would appreciate it. I'm trying to reason and logic you.:p
"Why do you need an AR15?" - Keef - 03-01-2018
At this point it only matters what 9 supreme people read it as.....
"Why do you need an AR15?" - jonny rotton - 03-01-2018
i believe that some of the "we the people" can read and understand the meaning. putting on a black robe does not make you god.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-01-2018
keystone183 Wrote:Nonsense. If that were true, it wouldn't be possible to conclude anything from most of what you just wrote, since most of your sentences are composed of "phrases linked only by commas."stanc Wrote:Unlike you and others, I'm making no inferences.The words, as written, DO NOT explicitly state that. Sorry. Read. And read again. There is not any sort of transition, besides a comma, that directly links the phrases. You may INFER given the context that the reason to keep and bear arms is in order to be a member of a well regulate militia that secures a free state. But again, there are no words that create this direct link. You may believe your superior intellect grants you the power to INFER correctly, and you may indeed by right, or partially. But given only the words, and their accepted meanings, you cannot derive the conclusion you suggest from merely the written words.
I am just going by what is written, and the only reason it explicitly gives for having a militia is state security.
There is no mention whatsoever of self defense, and no mention of being able to overthrow the government.
In actuality, the "phrases" in the Second Amendment (as well as in your sentences) are directly linked by virtue of being parts of the same sentence. Each "phrase" is meaningless by itself.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What shall not be infringed? The right to keep and bear arms.
Why should the people have a right to keep and bear arms? Because in the 18th century, members of well regulated militias were often required to furnish their own individual weapons, so they needed to have guaranteed access to said weapons.
What is the purpose of a well regulated militia? State security. Explicitly stated (in red, above). No mention of being able to overthrow the government. No mention of self defense. Only state security.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-01-2018
jonny rotton Wrote:i believe that some of the "we the people" can read and understand the meaning. putting on a black robe does not make you god.True, but it does give them the power to "interpret" the law according to their philosophical leanings.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-02-2018
keystone183 Wrote:Also, would you please answer my question regarding how many times an ar has been used in defense? I would appreciate it. I'm trying to reason and logic you.:pA thousand pardons. I was at lunch when you made the post below, and somehow missed it upon my return.
keystone183 Wrote:LOL. I always answer straight up. My answer is: I don't know how many times. Do you?stanc Wrote::confused: Weapon effectiveness has not been a subject of discussion.How many times do you think an assault weapon has been used in defense? Please answer this straight up.
keystone183 Wrote:You guessed wrong. I have not the faintest idea where you're headed, so I guess you will really have to type it out. :pstanc Wrote:Very few, I'd wager. And even for those who do have an AR15 at bedside, that's fine for the hours one is in bed, but completely useless the rest of the day when one is at work, running errands, etc.You know where i'm going to go with this i'm guessing? Do i really have to type it out?
"Why do you need an AR15?" - keystone183 - 03-02-2018
stanc Wrote:Nonsense. If that were true, it wouldn't be possible to conclude anything from most of what you just wrote, since most of your sentences are composed of "phrases linked only by commas."
In actuality, the "phrases" in the Second Amendment (as well as in your sentences) are directly linked by virtue of being parts of the same sentence. Each "phrase" is meaningless by itself.
And alas, you have made my point very eloquently form me! Because they are meaningless, by themselves, you must INFER their(founders) meaning from context. Inarguable, even for you!
"Why do you need an AR15?" - keystone183 - 03-02-2018
stanc Wrote:A thousand pardons. I was at lunch when you made the post below, and somehow missed it upon my return.Granted!
stanc Wrote:LOL. I always answer straight up. My answer is: I don't know how many times. Do you?
You guessed wrong. I have not the faintest idea where you're headed, so I guess you will really have to type it out. :p
And so i shall.
No, i do not know the #, as i suspect that the instances aren't innumerable, but they are very high. I can't imagine you would disagree?
In light of such we shall review you original thesis:
stanc Wrote:Indeed. However, assault rifles are offensive weapons. And one is unlikely to have an assault rifle on one's person when desperately needed.So, this, coupled with this:
stanc Wrote:Weapon effectiveness has not been a subject of discussion.Tells us that since a weapons use is the topic of discussion, and we know that indeed assault rifles have been, and will continue to be, used as weapons of defense.....and that an unknown portion of the population(though i would argue more sizable than you think) does rely on them for home defense........... regardless of your position on the effectiveness of such a strategy....my original thesis stands....
keystone183 Wrote:[ATTACH=CONFIG]11220[/ATTACH]
(too many commas??)
"Why do you need an AR15?" - gmaxx - 03-02-2018
How can you define an assault rifle as either offensive or defensive? If I'm using one to clear a compound, then it's an offensive weapon. If using it to keep someone else from getting into my compound, then it's defensive. How it is being used defines this, not any physical characteristic of the weapon itself.
An AR-15 is by definition not an assault rifle.
The government does not decide what rights we have or don't have. The constitution and bill of rights have already decided this. The government gets to make laws, regulations, set policy....etc as long as these laws, regulations and policies don't infringe on the rights of the people.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - Keef - 03-02-2018
jonny rotton Wrote:i believe that some of the "we the people" can read and understand the meaning. putting on a black robe does not make you god.
They certainly are not my God and I wasn't implying that they are anybodies. Calling them supreme was kinda sarcastic...
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-02-2018
keystone183 Wrote:And alas, you have made my point very eloquently form me! Because they are meaningless, by themselves, you must INFER their(founders) meaning from context. Inarguable, even for you!You're wrong on both counts. Context and linkage gives the meaning. Those who infer meaning, do so because they want it to mean something different than what it says.
"Why do you need an AR15?" - keystone183 - 03-02-2018
stanc Wrote:You're wrong on both counts. Context and linkage gives the meaning. Those who infer meaning, do so because they want it to mean something different than what it says.
Perhaps our definitions are not congruent.
' Wrote:in·fer: deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
You cannot conclude a meaning from the words in the statement alone. You must indeed use context and linkage. I'm not sure what you are confused about.
' Wrote:The bird is red.No inference needed.
' Wrote:The color of embers glowing in a fire, silhouetted on the horizon, the bird perched on a limb.Inference required.
Those who infer meaning do so...... as it is often required in reading of all kinds.
One out of two ain't bad.......
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-02-2018
keystone183 Wrote:No, i do not know the #, as i suspect that the instances aren't innumerable, but they are very high. I can't imagine you would disagree?Once again you are wrong.
I'd bet that the number of times rifles like the AR15 have been used to fend off an attack inside the home are very few, and that their use to defend against attack in public places is near zero.
keystone183 Wrote:In light of such we shall review you original thesis:Your original statement was about weapon effectiveness, not strategy.
So, this, coupled with this:
Tells us that since a weapons use is the topic of discussion, and we know that indeed assault rifles have been, and will continue to be, used as weapons of defense.....and that an unknown portion of the population(though i would argue more sizable than you think) does rely on them for home defense........... regardless of your position on the effectiveness of such a strategy....
"Why do you need an AR15?" - keystone183 - 03-02-2018
stanc Wrote:Once again you are wrong.
I'm afraid i'm going to have to define THIS word for you, too.....:p
stanc Wrote:I'd bet that the number of times rifles like the AR15 have been used to fend off an attack inside the home are very few, and that their use to defend against attack in public places is near zero.I might disagree with the numbers, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. You concede they have been and that is enough! Additionally, your original argument was regarding 'assault weapons', not the AR15. I don't believe i have ever narrowed the scope. And we can both agree that 'assault rifles' have been used in defense...well...a lot.
stanc Wrote:Your original statement was about weapon effectiveness, not strategy.
My original statement was "Wrong". You're really just muddying the waters now.....
"Why do you need an AR15?" - stanc - 03-02-2018
keystone183 Wrote:You cannot conclude a meaning from the words in the statement alone. You must indeed use context and linkage. I'm not sure what you are confused about.I'm not, but you obviously are.
keystone183 Wrote:LOL.Quote:The color of embers glowing in a fire, silhouetted on the horizon, the bird perched on a limb.Inference required.