EPTUnless of course a madman or a criminal got their hands on the trigger and just detonated it for V Tech style thrills. But these are criminals we're talking about. They don't obey the laws preventing law abiding men from accessing nukes because they have level 18 criminal powers. So they're going to nuke us whether us citizens have access to nukes or not. All these weapon control laws are doing is denying honest citizens the opportunity to defend themselves.
Heller vs. DC Decision - Page 7
| Forum Index > Closed |
KwarK
United States43764 Posts
Unless of course a madman or a criminal got their hands on the trigger and just detonated it for V Tech style thrills. But these are criminals we're talking about. They don't obey the laws preventing law abiding men from accessing nukes because they have level 18 criminal powers. So they're going to nuke us whether us citizens have access to nukes or not. All these weapon control laws are doing is denying honest citizens the opportunity to defend themselves. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 28 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote: In other words, "I didn't read any of it, am not interested in hearing any facts that will make anything I said seem foolish, and will continue to hold views based on ignorance." I read it all. Somehow "conventional hunting equipment" doesn't make a compelling argument. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 28 2008 00:18 Jibba wrote: I read it all. Somehow "conventional hunting equipment" doesn't make a compelling argument. First of all, you're dodging the "semi-automatic pistol = safer than the alternative" argument. Secondly, you're not addressing the "semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have only a slightly faster rate of fire than the alternative" argument. You apparently have no trouble advocating the confiscation of a whole category of legitimate sporting equipment which is very rarely used in crime and does not make criminals significantly more effective or dangerous. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
I <3 WKUK | ||
|
rpf
United States2705 Posts
On June 28 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote: In other words, "I didn't read any of it, am not interested in hearing any facts that will make anything I said seem foolish, and will continue to hold views based on ignorance." You catch on quick.  On June 27 2008 17:46 zatic wrote: "Gun Control: It worked for Hitler and the KKK!" This is so unbelievably stupid. You can do much better I think. How is it stupid? It did work for them Hitler slaughtered people en masse after disarming them, and the KKK pushed for gun control laws to disarm African-Americans so they could lynch them without resistance. Adolf Hitler: "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. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. On June 27 2008 17:46 zatic wrote: You contradict yourself a little bit.I am rather indifferent to gun control. However, rpf, can you please give me your position on the following reasoning: If a criminal watches me getting money from an ATM and now wants to rob me, he will probably threaten me with whatever weapon he has and take my money. I am unarmed, robbed, alive. Now, if the mugger has good reason to assume I am armed and trained to use a gun, why would he take chances? He will stab/shoot me in the back straight away and take my money. I am armed, robbed, dead. Essentially, this assumes that if there is gun control, an illegally armed criminal feels he has the upper hand and can use thread instead of actual violence. Please don't give me counter examples where I could have shot the criminal but address this specific point. Either you're carrying concealed or you're open carrying. If the former, the robber doesn't know if you're armed at all, and if the latter, they know you're carrying. Now, I don't claim to know how criminals think, but I highly doubt one of them is going to commit murder for the money you just got out of the ATM to go to the movies. Besides, you can't use deadly force to defend property, and they know that. I understand the point you're getting at, but then again, carrying a sidearm has little to do with stopping crime. It's about having the option to defend yourself if needed. If you're unarmed, and someone tries to kill you, you're fucked--plain and simple. If you're armed, at least you can try. It doesn't guarantee you'll live, or won't be seriously injured, but you can try. On June 27 2008 21:29 AdamBanks wrote: @ rpf I didnt say if you don't think like me your wrong. I said if you think/believe something incorrectly you are wrong. As for defending youself, we don't need guns to do that. Thats been proven numerous times. Who's protecting criminals and how are they doing it ? you think stricter gun laws protect criminals ? hardly....usually stricter laws make it more difficult to be a criminal; speaking from personal experience. You love guns, its cool and im alright with that. But honestly do you really believe that without guns you would be worse off? I doubt it, having a gun doesnt make it less likely your gonna get robbed or shot, it just means you have the option to get in a gunfight, or to kill some tweeked out crack head. Your no safer, its all in your head. You don't NEED a gun to defend yourself, but it's a fuckload better than the obligatory baseball bat behind your bedroom door that's used to go investigate the sounds in the kitchen. Without guns, we'd just be another disarmed society. Right now, the UK, a couple of other countries in Europe and N. Korea, if I remember correctly, are the only societies that have been disarmed. The others are long gone, since they were massacred. No thanks. Oh, and I'm not sure what you don't understand about "dead guy no kill me." If someone tries to kill me, I'm going to try to kill him first (which is perfectly within the law). If he's dead, he can't kill me. Guns don't make you safe at all--they just give you the ability to fight back on even ground. A 115 lb. woman can't fight off a 250 lb. rapist--but a .38 +P to the cranium will. On June 27 2008 22:24 Jibba wrote: Moron. Dense moron. It was a reason to post the Todd. And private sales do occur at gun shows, classified, etc. They are a problem. Wrong.  Oh, how I love ignorance.Private sales are LEGAL. /palmface On June 28 2008 00:12 Kwark wrote: Shit. With all those criminals out there armed with handguns I'm going to need an automatic rifle to defend myself. But what if they get one too.... Maybe a rocket launcher would do the trick. There again, if I can get one of those legally so can criminals. There is only one solution, plant a nuke under every city and give each citizen remote access to the nuke beneath their city. Nobody would dare touch you because with your dying breath you'd take them (and everyone else in the city) with you. This therefore solves the problem of murder. Unless of course a madman or a criminal got their hands on the trigger and just detonated it for V Tech style thrills. But these are criminals we're talking about. They don't obey the laws preventing law abiding men from accessing nukes because they have level 18 criminal powers. So they're going to nuke us whether us citizens have access to nukes or not. All these weapon control laws are doing is denying honest citizens the opportunity to defend themselves. I would respond, but I noticed you're from the UK, which means you voluntarily allowed yourself to be disarmed. If you're ever invaded, or subject to the will of a tyrannical leader, don't call us. On June 28 2008 00:29 Funchucks wrote: First of all, you're dodging the "semi-automatic pistol = safer than the alternative" argument. Secondly, you're not addressing the "semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have only a slightly faster rate of fire than the alternative" argument. You apparently have no trouble advocating the confiscation of a whole category of legitimate sporting equipment which is very rarely used in crime and does not make criminals significantly more effective or dangerous. Well, Jibba doesn't understand any of what you said. He thinks any firearm is a threat to society purely for existing. He makes no distinction between the law-abiding and the criminals. | ||
|
a-game
Canada5108 Posts
the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive (i'm not suggesting the alive scenario is better) and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb. i'm not saying there's no merit to being a prickly cactus rather than easy pickings, but are you somehow under the impression that you owning a firearm is going to prevent a military from ultimately doing whatever the heck it wants to you and your neighbours? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
rpf is rising quickly on the cute meter | ||
|
KwarK
United States43764 Posts
As for tyrannical leaders, an advantage of being the country with the finest democratic tradition in the world with the most stable and effective democracy is that it just doesn't come up much. And to be honest, it hasn't for you. The 13 colonies enjoyed a per capita income higher than England at the time of the rebellion and paid roughly 5% of the tax of your English equivalents. It was never a question of tyranny, it was a question of Government style. Our Parliament in Westminster is a Unitary body, ie it is the sole lawmaking body in the United Kingdom from which all other bodies draw their authority. Documents like the Magna Carta enshrined this. However in emulating the British democracy the colonies were attempting to Federate, ie have a separate body of lawmaking within England. It's one of the ironies of the American Revolution. It was not about taxation, nor about tyranny but rather about a constitutional quirk in which the childs attempt to mimic the father forced them into conflict. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On June 28 2008 01:28 a-game wrote: rpf are you trying to say that owning firearms will prevent you from being ruled by a tyrannical leader, or will prevent nations from successfully militarily invading your country? the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb. i'm not saying there's no merit to being a prickly cactus rather than easy pickings, but are you somehow under the impression that you owning a firearm is going to prevent a military from ultimately doing whatever the heck it wants to you and your neighbours? The militias in Afghanistan weren't crushed by the USSR. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43764 Posts
On June 28 2008 01:35 Mindcrime wrote: The militias in Afghanistan weren't crushed by the USSR. The USSR weren't really trying and the militias were being armed by Western powers (they didn't have those Stinger missiles for duck hunting). If it came down to it they could have killed every man, woman and child in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. If you're really trying to suggest that a modern army would be stopped by hunting rifles and handguns you're delusional. For the "armed citizens are useful in defence" argument to hold any water then they need to have access to the latest weaponry. Tanks, aircraft, missiles and all. They had unlimited access at the time the constitution was made and it was the intent of the writers that they should have. So to use the defence argument you need to be in favour of absolutely unrestricted access to military hardware. | ||
|
Ghin
United States2391 Posts
On June 28 2008 01:31 oneofthem wrote: lol rpf is rising quickly on the cute meter you are probably the biggest troll on this forum and i have no idea why you arent banned. everything you post is total nonsense | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On June 28 2008 01:39 Kwark wrote: The USSR weren't really trying and the militias were being armed by Western powers (they didn't have those Stinger missiles for duck hunting). If it came down to it they could have killed every man, woman and child in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. And why didn't they? The answer is that the price was too high. | ||
|
a-game
Canada5108 Posts
On June 28 2008 01:35 Mindcrime wrote: The militias in Afghanistan weren't crushed by the USSR. ok well i think there's a difference between an "armed" western civilian who values life and an RPG-wielding jihadist lol. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 28 2008 01:39 Ghin wrote: you are probably the biggest troll on this forum and i have no idea why you arent banned. everything you post is total nonsense brilliant. how can i argue against that | ||
|
KwarK
United States43764 Posts
On June 28 2008 01:51 Mindcrime wrote: And why didn't they? The answer is that the price was too high. In what? They could bomb every town to rubble without losing a single man to handguns. They could drive their tanks over everyone. Or they could just utilise a few nukes. The cost certainly would not have been too high in Soviet dead. The problem was that committing genocide was not in the interests of the Soviets, just as it is not in the interests of the Americans in Iraq. But don't confuse unwillingness to win with inability. And don't for one minute think that fear of a man wielding a shotgun is what stopped them from genocide. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43764 Posts
In short, there is absolutely no defence justification for a militia. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On June 28 2008 02:00 Kwark wrote: In what? They could bomb every town to rubble without losing a single man to handguns. They could drive their tanks over everyone. Or they could just utilise a few nukes. The cost certainly would not have been too high in Soviet dead. The problem was that committing genocide was not in the interests of the Soviets, just as it is not in the interests of the Americans in Iraq. But don't confuse unwillingness to win with inability. And don't for one minute think that fear of a man wielding a shotgun is what stopped them from genocide. Who said anything about inability? | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 28 2008 01:34 Kwark wrote: It's one of the ironies of the American Revolution. It was not about taxation, nor about tyranny but rather about a constitutional quirk in which the childs attempt to mimic the father forced them into conflict. I don't think it was that simple. There were four great profits in the American Revolution: 1) no more drain of taxation to be spent outside of America 2) repudiation of debts (esp. to the Crown) 3) "manifest destiny" - the freedom of powerful Americans to slice up the rest of the continent for themselves 4) security of human property As I understand it, the British government was in a state of financial trouble and moral upheaval. Taxes were likely to rise, slaves were in danger of being freed, debts were being called in, and a moratorium was placed on expansion into indian territory (less out of moral concerns or respect for treaties, and more out of fear of the cost of a frontier war). People whose families had gone to America full of ambition and dreams of unlimited scope were being reined in and harnessed up to help solve the problems of the Motherland, and to respect its changing moral standards (which were gradually shifting against colonialism and slavery). They weren't willing to accept that. They tried to solve it by gaining more government influence, and were stubbornly treated as mere subordinates. Since neither side would give way, rebellion followed. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 28 2008 02:07 Kwark wrote: Basically, a legally armed militia is a threat only to an invading power who is reluctant to hit you very hard and is armed with technology that would put WW2 powers to shame. And when you're relying more on the good will of your invaders than upon your own threat for victory it's rather less impressive. Of course an illegally armed militia, say with main battle tanks and a smattering of artillery would be far easier to justify for defence. Throw in a few helicopter gunships and a few years military training and I'd think twice before invading. But there again they already did that. It's called the army and you have one. In short, there is absolutely no defence justification for a militia. An army fights in uniform and is non-productive. It can be eliminated without harming the value of the country it defends. An armed populace (militia, in the constitutional parlance) stubbornly opposed to occupation makes control of settled areas infeasible and rural areas hazardous. There's a sniper in every window. You'd have to depopulate the area to get any profit out of it, and that would: a) be very expensive, b) destroy most of the value of a country, and c) unite most of the world against you for your demonic inhumanity. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 28 2008 01:28 a-game wrote: the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive (i'm not suggesting the alive scenario is better) and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb. I bet our military is wishing the insurgents in Iraq shared your beliefs hehe | ||
| ||
