EPTI think he is agaisnt civilians owning guns not aginst guns in general. I cna't say for sure and am not trying to speak for him.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
SayGen
United States1209 Posts
I think he is agaisnt civilians owning guns not aginst guns in general. I cna't say for sure and am not trying to speak for him. | ||
|
3DGlaDOS
Germany607 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:00 SayGen wrote: Why. Let me ask you this. How do you stop oppresison witohut guns? Please explain. I would love to hear ur insights. It's the European way of approach (Security > Freedom)... Americans that support gun ownership obviousely are just stupid. (/sarcasm) Also this UK vs US death toll doesn't really take the problems many major US cities have with violence because of the "melting pot" in the US and the economic situations there. Maine, NH and Vermont have pretty low gun control laws but are also under the top 3 of the states with lowest violence. They are smaller and have a better economic situation, therefore less crime. | ||
|
Goozen
Israel701 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:05 Smoot wrote: A few pages back I read this "Do people seriously believe that a portion of the citizenry armed with handguns and rifles will be able to fight the most powerful military in the world?" My answer is yes. My proof is Vietnam, Afghanistan/Iraq (Taliban), the Philippans (WWII), Germany's invasion of Russia, the American Revolution... etc etc. It is called guerrilla warfare. Wow..... First of all Germany's invasion of Russia dose not belong here at all! Looking at your modern examples. they use weapons such as bombs, RPG's, missiles, suicide bombers etc.. and if the us wanted to "win" all they would need to do is kill of everyone. The risk of the US govt attacking it people is 0, the government IS the people. and if you go in to statistics lets say there is a 0.00000000000000000...001% chance of it happening dose that justify all the people who die from gun violence that may not die if gun control was more strict? (im not saying outlaw guns. im saying make them alot harder to own and more so in high numbers). | ||
|
Leth0
856 Posts
The constitution does not have an expiration date, and it's not open to interpretation by some arm chair lawyers / statisticians who troll a video game forum. | ||
|
humblegar
Norway883 Posts
On July 22 2012 04:07 SayGen wrote: Lol you talk about education and yet based on your comments I can freely say you have never read a history book. Civil war was won with GUNS (US civil war) We beat the European army with guns! no one with a pitchfork was going to charge into a red coat line. Also you have no idea what guerilla warfare is. Again pick up a history book. Small hit and runs over long distances do massive damage. (see German invasion of Russia and how the German forces paid for EVERY inch in EVERY town and the Russian civilian population didn't even have alot of guns or supplies and still did massive damage.) Supply lines are venerable to civilian armed forces. Sure civilians will never beat a real army head to head but they can force troops away from the main battle lines by threatening supply lines, and disorder in occupied cities. Read a history book before you mention the word education ever again please. Your lesson about supply lines do not go hand in hand with believing Japan was ever remotely close to invading the US  Sure, they might mention in some files that all Americans are armed, a smart detail to remember. But the real issue was that the distance is too far, amphibious invations are extremely risky and demanding, and after Midway they would probably not even reach your coast. If you want to be taken seriously, don't leave out the much more important reasons. Add to that the fact that having a navy and an army does not mean you have a navy that can land your army through opposition 2500 miles away :p And that's not even considering supplying their army, repairs and so on. Germany was not really close to invading England except on paper, and that would be a small operation compared to Japan invading the US. Operation Overlord and the failed operations leading to it are other examples of the magnitude of such operations. | ||
|
Smoot
United States128 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:11 Goozen wrote: Wow..... First of all Germany's invasion of Russia dose not belong here at all! Looking at your modern examples. they use weapons such as bombs, RPG's, missiles, suicide bombers etc.. and if the us wanted to "win" all they would need to do is kill of everyone. The risk of the US govt attacking it people is 0, the government IS the people. and if you go in to statistics lets say there is a 0.00000000000000000...001% chance of it happening dose that justify all the people who die from gun violence that may not die if gun control was more strict? (im not saying outlaw guns. im saying make them alot harder to own and more so in high numbers). I tried to keep my answer pointed the quoted portion of script. Can a small armed force fight a significantly more powerful army. My answer to that was yes. I didn't say anything about gun control. I'm not sure where you are making the connection. I also didn't say anything about the American government turning on the populace. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:00 SayGen wrote: Why. Let me ask you this. How do you stop oppression witohut guns? Please explain. I would love to hear ur insights. The position of allowing almost anyone to purchase and own a gun in most US states, without a licence, training or form of registry, for the sake of 'freedom' is so extreme it is hard to take seriously. It's like saying anyone should be allowed to purchase and drive cars -- even if they don't have a licence, training or are legally blind -- because "Cars are the backbone of the 20th century's industry and economy!" Yes, I understand the significance of gun ownership in the US and it's history. And yes, privately owned guns will be useful in the event that some oppressive, facist regime rises out of ashes. But right now, the US's lax, nonsensical, inconsistent gun laws not only protect law-abiding gun owners and enthusiasts, they also empower and protects fools, criminals and idiots by allowing them to obtain a gun with relative ease. It's not unreasonable to demand a more balanced conservation about gun control, without someone like yourself defending the most extreme position with the most extreme, hypothetical scenarios. | ||
|
Goozen
Israel701 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:19 Smoot wrote: I tried to keep my answer pointed the quoted portion of script. Can a small armed force fight the a significantly more powerful army. My answer to that was yes. I didn't say anything about gun control. I'm not sure where you are making the connection. I also didn't say anything about the American government turning on the populace. Well, the Russia part is still not quite right imo. but, It was more of a reply to SayGen who said that you need the guns in order to defend yourselves from the government, when in fact guns alone wont help and if the reason you should be allowed to bear arms in order to defend yourselves from the government then you need to allow people to have alot more serious stuff. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:07 SayGen wrote: I think he is agaisnt civilians owning guns not aginst guns in general. I cna't say for sure and am not trying to speak for him. Yeah pretty much. If the government does decide to fuck civilians, then some will have to fight. But until that day there is 0 reason for a civilian to own a weapon | ||
zatic
Zurich15365 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:00 SayGen wrote: If I say something, I don't want to have to use some random website on the intetnet to prove it factual. The intent is full of lies and bias, so it's hard to tkae sources form the interweb seriously. As far as aggressiveness goes I can't apologise for that. I didn't ask you to apologize for aggressive posting, I am asking you to stop it. And yes, you will have to source your claims. | ||
|
SayGen
United States1209 Posts
Too bad you cn'at wait till the oppression starts to change ur position. Prior preperation prevents piss poor preformance. | ||
|
Smoot
United States128 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:24 Goozen wrote: Well, the Russia part is still not quite right imo. but, It was more of a reply to SayGen who said that you need the guns in order to defend yourselves from the government, when in fact guns alone wont help and if the reason you should be allowed to bear arms in order to defend yourselves from the government then you need to allow people to have alot more serious stuff. I wanted to reply a bit more, so here are my thoughts... Here is my opinion on whether or not violent crime will decline if we had more strict gun control. Now, me personally, I believe that when someone commits premeditated murder, then there really was no way to stop this behavior. Even with strict gun laws, the fact that it was premeditated and planned out ahead of time will not stop the violence from occuring. However, I do feel that gun control would decrease the spontaneous killings. I'm a little bit ignorant of the correct terms regarding murder/killings, so bear with me. My definition of spontaneous killings are killings that occur from a reaction. Such as seeing your wife in bed with another man, or being attacked by someone on the street and shooting them as a reaction. Obviously, if less people had guns, these events should see a decline. Now to summarize, I do not believe that strict gun control will stop events like the shooting in CO, nor do I believe that it will stop mass murder events like school killings. But I do see where it would cause a decrease in spontaneous killings. There is also a significant idea that if more people carried guns, that the premeditated murders would go down as a result, however the spontaneous killings would rise I think. | ||
|
Maxquatre
France493 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:00 SayGen wrote: If I say something, I don't want to have to use some random website on the intetnet to prove it factual. The intent is full of lies and bias, so it's hard to tkae sources form the interweb seriously. As far as aggressiveness goes I can't apologise for that. It's life and death for me. It's what I do for a living. I cna't stand people who want to be ruled and controled. We are HUMANs we are INDIVISUALS. If they accept their chains, then how can I fight mine? You need mass people, not just splinter groups. I could never fight alone. The fact that people have no clue how vunerbale they are to oppression is mind boggleing. I STRONGLY urge people to educate via REAL books and REAL research. I learned alot in War College, and also did outside education in a private university (WKU). I also take a serious intrest in Strategy of all sorts (beyond the obvious SC2/RTS/Video Game). I own numerious copies of The 5 Rings, and Art of War that I would recoemnd for anyone who wants to earn a basic, and simply understanding of Human strategy. You've spent too much time on GLP, it's time to take a break mate. You're also a pretty good example of my earlier post on page 100. Problem isn't with guns, problem is with people owning them being paranoïd and having a "strange" sense of reality. | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:23 Defacer wrote: The position of allowing almost anyone to purchase and own a gun in most US states, without a licence, training or form of registry, for the sake of 'freedom' is so extreme it is hard to take seriously. It's like saying anyone should be allowed to purchase and drive cars -- even if they don't have a licence, training or are legally blind -- because "Cars are the backbone of the 20th century's industry and economy!" Yes, I understand the significance of gun ownership in the US and it's history. And yes, privately owned guns will be useful in the event that some oppressive, facist regime rises out of ashes. But right now, the US's lax, nonsensical, inconsistent gun laws not only protect law-abiding gun owners and enthusiasts, they also empower and protects fools, criminals and idiots by allowing them to obtain a gun with relative ease. It's not unreasonable to demand a more balanced conservation about gun control, without someone like yourself defending the most extreme position with the most extreme, hypothetical scenarios. People really need to stop being ignorant and actually learn that it's not so easy to obtain high powered weaponry in the United States. You cannot simply just go around and buy a fully automatic assault rifle just because you have the money. You have to jump through so many loop holes it is hilarious. And two, Canada has even more lax laws than the United States when it comes to gun control and yet Canda has little to no gun related violence. Want to know why? It has nothing to do with guns. | ||
ranshaked
United States870 Posts
If this was started 200 years ago, we might have a different situation, but it wasn't. I suppose we could enforce stricter gun laws, but that wouldn't eliminate the millions of guns circulating. It's a catch-22. It cannot work in the USA. | ||
|
Smoot
United States128 Posts
I am completely for the current form of the 2nd Amendment. For me it is not a matter of "owning a gun." It is a little bit deeper than that. We have the right to own property. The 2nd Amendment helps ensure that we are able to defend our property, or family, and our home. I'm not talking about defense against invasion or defense against government. But I am saying that it gives us the ability to defend our property. But from what? I'll give you an example. After Katrina when things were going crazy and everyone was running around looting stores, stealing from homes, etc. I would be thankful for my 2nd Amendment so that I had the ability to protect my family and home in that sort of situation. Crazy situations bring out some crazy things, and it is nice to have the ability to defend yourself if need be. I wouldn't want to wrestle 3 people entering my home planning to loot it, and I certainly don't want to let them take everything that my family may need to survive (food, money, etc). Another example is what is happening in Detroit with the high unemployment rate. With a high unemployment theft and crime skyrockets because people are lacking basic necessitous. Being that you also are in need of these necessitous it is good to be able to have a deterrent from those who would take them from you. That is all, thanks for reading. -if this doesn't seem relevant (ie: no-one is arguing gun ownership) you can see my previous post on my belief on gun control and violent crime correlation. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
Personal opinions do not matter here, only facts, so do some research on gun control policy efficacy. Start in OP, there's a link to facts on pg 23. I'm generally liberal but this is one of the topics the Left has completely ass backwards. | ||
|
SayGen
United States1209 Posts
If you buy a M4/M16A1 (currently used by the US armed forces) You have to register it and pay a yearly tax on it. | ||
|
InoyouS2
1005 Posts
On July 22 2012 05:00 SayGen wrote: Why. Let me ask you this. How do you stop oppresison witohut guns? Please explain. I would love to hear ur insights. You honestly think that if you're going to be oppressed by any nation that civilians having guns would help? Lol... See, the people who post stuff like that just don't think about what they are saying. On July 22 2012 05:45 Nagano wrote: Gun control only hurts law-abiding citizens. Criminals will always, and I repeat, will ALWAYS be able to get a firearm. Personal opinions do not matter here, only facts, so do some research on gun control policy efficacy. Start in OP, there's a link to facts on pg 23. I'm generally liberal but this is one of the topics the Left has completely ass backwards. The more people with guns, the more easy it is to become categorised as a criminal. I couldn't count the number of times gun crime has merely been an overreaction by a 'law abiding citizen' in the USA. The whole idea is so silly, it seems the only people who actually would defend it are those who own guns, profit from selling guns or those who are so insecure by their surroundings that they feel they should be allowed to own a gun. | ||
|
Cuce
Turkey1127 Posts
ridicilous retirement ages, limited education, limited healt care, constant financial pressure, enforcing strict psuedo-police state laws. hell someone assasinate most popular president since what lincoln and noone stand up to anything. you need much more then firearms to stand up to a corropt goverment, primarly civilians trusting each other, not managing to live through mud doctrines. | ||
| ||
