Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
831 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 338


  Reply # 1879614 9-Oct-2017 09:21
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Nope ......... I can't see Trump there!


578 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183


  Reply # 1879672 9-Oct-2017 09:48
Send private message quote this post

Strictly speaking this is a painting of the "creation" of the constitution, not the bill of rights.

See the painter's key to the painting.

It would be funny, if it weren't scary.

http://jonmcnaughton.com/one-nation-under-god/


 
 
 
 


719 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 135


  Reply # 1879847 9-Oct-2017 12:36
Send private message quote this post

If you want to change the Constitution that's fair enough I just don't like people misrepresenting it. What would have to happen is a practical very slow moving change I can't see for example pistols being made illegal anytime soon. The other issue that Americans face is there border to Mexico they can hardly keep people out I don't think firearms are going to be much different so criminals while perhaps not as easily are still going to be able to get their hands on Firearms.

I would argue that the right in America (with the possible exception of Fundamentalist Christians in the 1990s particularly) are firm constitutionalists rather than just 2nd Amendment.



578 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183


  Reply # 1879926 9-Oct-2017 14:21
Send private message quote this post

Stan: What about the multi shot long rifles that where around at that time.


From what I've seen, for high kill rates, US revolutionary soldiers were more likely to use their bayonets than shooting.

One of the quickest and deadliest US revolutionary soldiers was Samuel Whittemore.

In anticipation of an ambush, he loaded his musket, and two dueling pistols. Then he ambushed the 47th Regiment from behind a stone wall. He shot three times and killed three, before they reached him. He could not get off a second volley.

It's claimed he took about 20 seconds to reload one gun.

Fast forward to Las Vegas, a single crazy individual shot 90 shots in 10 seconds.

My point is the kill rate for a single armed person could not have been envisionage by the US founding fathers 241 years ago.

Onward
11400 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5125

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1879936 9-Oct-2017 14:43
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

kingdragonfly:
Stan: What about the multi shot long rifles that where around at that time.


From what I've seen, for high kill rates, US revolutionary soldiers were more likely to use their bayonets than shooting.

One of the quickest and deadliest US revolutionary soldiers was Samuel Whittemore.

In anticipation of an ambush, he loaded his musket, and two dueling pistols. Then he ambushed the 47th Regiment from behind a stone wall. He shot three times and killed three, before they reached him. He could not get off a second volley.

It's claimed he took about 20 seconds to reload one gun.

Fast forward to Las Vegas, a single crazy individual shot 90 shots in 10 seconds.

My point is the kill rate for a single armed person could not have been envisionage by the US founding fathers 241 years ago.

 

 

 

Add that at the time of adopting the 2nd Amendment most of the US was wilderness. There was no organised police, help was probably days or weeks away and they were in the process of invading multiple Nations on the continent. They needed weapons for hunting and self defence. Most of that does not apply now and it is time the US reviewed the amendment.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


719 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 135


  Reply # 1880089 9-Oct-2017 21:10
Send private message quote this post

kingdragonfly:
Stan: What about the multi shot long rifles that where around at that time.


From what I've seen, for high kill rates, US revolutionary soldiers were more likely to use their bayonets than shooting.

One of the quickest and deadliest US revolutionary soldiers was Samuel Whittemore.

In anticipation of an ambush, he loaded his musket, and two dueling pistols. Then he ambushed the 47th Regiment from behind a stone wall. He shot three times and killed three, before they reached him. He could not get off a second volley.

It's claimed he took about 20 seconds to reload one gun.

Fast forward to Las Vegas, a single crazy individual shot 90 shots in 10 seconds.

My point is the kill rate for a single armed person could not have been envisionage by the US founding fathers 241 years ago.

 

 

 

There was the Lewis and Clark Expedition that Thomas Jefferson commissioned.

 

The Rifle used was a Windbüchse a 20 shot rifle while it was powered by air it was defiantly lethal.

 

If we look at the quotes I posted before the founding fathers clearly didn't want the right to bear arms just for external threats or hunting.

 

The tyranny of local government was clearly a concern and the right to defend ones self against local threats.

 

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense" - Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers, NO.28

 

"The Laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man"-Thomas Jefferson Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1774-1776

 

 


10080 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3084

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1880142 9-Oct-2017 23:49
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4:

 

kingdragonfly:
Stan: What about the multi shot long rifles that where around at that time.


From what I've seen, for high kill rates, US revolutionary soldiers were more likely to use their bayonets than shooting.

One of the quickest and deadliest US revolutionary soldiers was Samuel Whittemore.

In anticipation of an ambush, he loaded his musket, and two dueling pistols. Then he ambushed the 47th Regiment from behind a stone wall. He shot three times and killed three, before they reached him. He could not get off a second volley.

It's claimed he took about 20 seconds to reload one gun.

Fast forward to Las Vegas, a single crazy individual shot 90 shots in 10 seconds.

My point is the kill rate for a single armed person could not have been envisionage by the US founding fathers 241 years ago.

 

 

 

Add that at the time of adopting the 2nd Amendment most of the US was wilderness. There was no organised police, help was probably days or weeks away and they were in the process of invading multiple Nations on the continent. They needed weapons for hunting and self defence. Most of that does not apply now and it is time the US reviewed the amendment.

 

 

 

 

Your modern interpretation and bias overlays that. To them, they were clearing space.






Onward
11400 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5125

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1880167 10-Oct-2017 07:08
Send private message quote this post

Geektastic:

MikeB4:


kingdragonfly:
Stan: What about the multi shot long rifles that where around at that time.


From what I've seen, for high kill rates, US revolutionary soldiers were more likely to use their bayonets than shooting.

One of the quickest and deadliest US revolutionary soldiers was Samuel Whittemore.

In anticipation of an ambush, he loaded his musket, and two dueling pistols. Then he ambushed the 47th Regiment from behind a stone wall. He shot three times and killed three, before they reached him. He could not get off a second volley.

It's claimed he took about 20 seconds to reload one gun.

Fast forward to Las Vegas, a single crazy individual shot 90 shots in 10 seconds.

My point is the kill rate for a single armed person could not have been envisionage by the US founding fathers 241 years ago.


 


Add that at the time of adopting the 2nd Amendment most of the US was wilderness. There was no organised police, help was probably days or weeks away and they were in the process of invading multiple Nations on the continent. They needed weapons for hunting and self defence. Most of that does not apply now and it is time the US reviewed the amendment.



 


Your modern interpretation and bias overlays that. To them, they were clearing space.



That is why the 2nd amendment needs to be reviewed, now is now, then was then, the conditions that were present at its adoption no longer exist with one exception.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


578 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183


  Reply # 1880209 10-Oct-2017 09:17
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Stan: There was the Lewis and Clark Expedition that Thomas Jefferson commissioned.


The Rifle used was a Windbüchse a 20 shot rifle while it was powered by air it was defiantly lethal.



Not to be pedantic, but that was really a demonstration weapon;

When the bill of rights was written, and the second amendment, it was only used in Austria.

Even when Lewis and Clark came along some years later, it was used to intimidate Native Americans in highly orchestrated demonstrations.

It was way too delicate to actually use for anything practical.

As an aside, the second amendment was called an "amendment" by the founding father;

They didn't choose to call it "the irrevocable."



719 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 135


  Reply # 1880410 10-Oct-2017 15:40
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

kingdragonfly:
Stan: There was the Lewis and Clark Expedition that Thomas Jefferson commissioned.

 

The Rifle used was a Windbüchse a 20 shot rifle while it was powered by air it was defiantly lethal.



Not to be pedantic, but that was really a demonstration weapon;

When the bill of rights was written, and the second amendment, it was only used in Austria.

Even when Lewis and Clark came along some years later, it was used to intimidate Native Americans in highly orchestrated demonstrations.

It was way too delicate to actually use for anything practical.

As an aside, the second amendment was called an "amendment" by the founding father;

They didn't choose to call it "the irrevocable."


 

 

 

It was in the particular Lewis and Clark expedition but it was used in warfare, I guess point being that in the life time of the founding fathers they did see multi shot weapons and to assume that they never thought weapons would improve over time is a tad naive.

 

I guess it depends the on your perspective on the constitution its the founding document of the United States of America, changing the right to free speech would be near on impossible as would the right to bear arms because of the amount of patriotism.

 

Like I suggested if you want gun laws to change it can't be sudden strict gun control: Because A: It wouldn't work B: It would probably send the country into a civil war as many Americans believe in the right to bear arms.

 

Its harder to see the perspective from New Zealand particularly if you live in an echo chamber of a particular political ideology, look at the trump thread for eg clearly geekzone members want to throw as much mud at trump no matter what he dose nothing positive is ever reported here (from what I have seen). Yet here we are he got elected so a large % of Americans think differently no matter how you spin it.


5111 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2375


  Reply # 1880487 10-Oct-2017 17:20
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Stan:

 

Its harder to see the perspective from New Zealand particularly if you live in an echo chamber of a particular political ideology, look at the trump thread for eg clearly geekzone members want to throw as much mud at trump no matter what he dose nothing positive is ever reported here (from what I have seen). Yet here we are he got elected so a large % of Americans think differently no matter how you spin it.

 

 

Trump and guns should both not be subject to partisan politics.

 

If you want to say something positive about Trump, feel free.  The "echo chamber" you think you see is just a simple fact that on rational analysis, justifying his position on basically everything usually falls apart.

 

"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."

 

People seem to accept that doesn't allow you to carry a rocket launcher around a shopping mall, or a hand gun into a schoolroom or aeroplane - so the "right" is "infringed" routinely, as matter of course.

 

 


719 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 135


  Reply # 1880509 10-Oct-2017 18:21
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

Its harder to see the perspective from New Zealand particularly if you live in an echo chamber of a particular political ideology, look at the trump thread for eg clearly geekzone members want to throw as much mud at trump no matter what he dose nothing positive is ever reported here (from what I have seen). Yet here we are he got elected so a large % of Americans think differently no matter how you spin it.

 

 

Trump and guns should both not be subject to partisan politics.

 

If you want to say something positive about Trump, feel free.  The "echo chamber" you think you see is just a simple fact that on rational analysis, justifying his position on basically everything usually falls apart.

 

"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."

 

People seem to accept that doesn't allow you to carry a rocket launcher around a shopping mall, or a hand gun into a schoolroom or aeroplane - so the "right" is "infringed" routinely, as matter of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what im talking about . 

 

Why do a large % of Americans seemingly disagree with you? Its a different culture.

 

What about the large youtube (millions of subscribers) that agrees with a large amount of what trump is doing? Are people following them not rational? Are you that arrogant to assume your position is the definition of rationality? 

 

 

 

This is my point about gun control you CAN'T just impose strict gun regulations on the USA all at once its not possible because of there culture thats rooted in the constitution.

 

If you want to change its needs to be done slowly and carefully and should not infringe on the millions of responsible gun owners. 


5111 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2375


  Reply # 1880544 10-Oct-2017 19:23
Send private message quote this post

Stan:

 

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

Its harder to see the perspective from New Zealand particularly if you live in an echo chamber of a particular political ideology, look at the trump thread for eg clearly geekzone members want to throw as much mud at trump no matter what he dose nothing positive is ever reported here (from what I have seen). Yet here we are he got elected so a large % of Americans think differently no matter how you spin it.

 

 

Trump and guns should both not be subject to partisan politics.

 

If you want to say something positive about Trump, feel free.  The "echo chamber" you think you see is just a simple fact that on rational analysis, justifying his position on basically everything usually falls apart.

 

"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."

 

People seem to accept that doesn't allow you to carry a rocket launcher around a shopping mall, or a hand gun into a schoolroom or aeroplane - so the "right" is "infringed" routinely, as matter of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what im talking about . 

 

Why do a large % of Americans seemingly disagree with you? Its a different culture.

 

What about the large youtube (millions of subscribers) that agrees with a large amount of what trump is doing? Are people following them not rational? Are you that arrogant to assume your position is the definition of rationality? 

 

 

 

 

On both issues (gun control and Trump) many Americans are profoundly ignorant of how the 95% of people on the planet - who aren't Americans - live and think.


719 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 135


  Reply # 1880552 10-Oct-2017 19:47
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

Fred99:

 

Stan:

 

Its harder to see the perspective from New Zealand particularly if you live in an echo chamber of a particular political ideology, look at the trump thread for eg clearly geekzone members want to throw as much mud at trump no matter what he dose nothing positive is ever reported here (from what I have seen). Yet here we are he got elected so a large % of Americans think differently no matter how you spin it.

 

 

Trump and guns should both not be subject to partisan politics.

 

If you want to say something positive about Trump, feel free.  The "echo chamber" you think you see is just a simple fact that on rational analysis, justifying his position on basically everything usually falls apart.

 

"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."

 

People seem to accept that doesn't allow you to carry a rocket launcher around a shopping mall, or a hand gun into a schoolroom or aeroplane - so the "right" is "infringed" routinely, as matter of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what im talking about . 

 

Why do a large % of Americans seemingly disagree with you? Its a different culture.

 

What about the large youtube (millions of subscribers) that agrees with a large amount of what trump is doing? Are people following them not rational? Are you that arrogant to assume your position is the definition of rationality? 

 

 

 

 

On both issues (gun control and Trump) many Americans are profoundly ignorant of how the 95% of people on the planet - who aren't Americans - live and think.

 

 

Ignorant to what standard? Your standard of intellectualism? Because they disagree with you? 

 

Its a very blanket statement. I can promise you that there are many people who are pro Trump and/or anti gun control that are more intelligent that you or I and thats just statistical.

 

How ever its off topic and it doesn't prove anything.


578 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183


  Reply # 1880570 10-Oct-2017 19:59
Send private message quote this post

Full disclosure ... I'm a former American, I was in the Civilian Marksmanship Program, a lot of my friends still have guns.

For a number of reasons, including the crazy gun violence and the gun violence by crazies, I left the US for good.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

"Do 90% of Americans support background checks for all gun sales?"

"In the first hours after the Las Vegas mass shooting, many leading elected officials in Wisconsin issued statements about prayer and condolences, but Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele went further.

Abele, a Democrat who holds a nonpartisan office, said in a tweet on Oct. 2, 2017:

Americans have overwhelmingly supported common sense gun reform. 90% support universal background checks. Elected officials must act.

In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. The statement was made by Wisconsin state Sen. Lena Taylor, D-Milwaukee.

So, what about Abele’s claim about all Americans?

The latest polls and our checks with four polling experts indicate support is at 90 percent, give or take a few percentage points."


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

UAV Traffic Management Trial launching today in New Zealand
Posted 12-Dec-2017 16:06


UFB connections pass 460,000
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:26


The Warehouse Group to adopt IBM Cloud to support digital transformation
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:22


Dimension Data peeks into digital business 2018
Posted 11-Dec-2017 10:55


2018 Cyber Security Predictions
Posted 7-Dec-2017 14:55


Global Govtech Accelerator to drive public sector innovation in Wellington
Posted 7-Dec-2017 11:21


Stuff Pix media strategy a new direction
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:37


Digital transformation is dead
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:31


Fake news and cyber security
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:27


Dimension Data New Zealand strengthens cybersecurity practice
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:27


Epson NZ launches new Expression Premium Photo range
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:26


Eventbrite and Twickets launch integration partnership in Australia and New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:23


New Fujifilm macro lens lands in New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:16


Cyber security not being taken seriously enough
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:13


Sony commences Android 8.0 Oreo rollout in New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:08



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.