|
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. |
On July 27 2012 09:31 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:53 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 07:49 oldgregg wrote:On July 27 2012 07:40 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:58 RenSC2 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:19 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:10 Tarot wrote:On July 27 2012 06:06 Esk23 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This is why the 2nd Amendment exists, oppressive, abusive government. To protect the people. Unless you're suggesting that we should pull a gun and cap the TSA, how does this have anything to do with the topic "should people be allowed to own and carry guns" in any way? It has everything to do with it. It's very easy for governments to oppress and control the people if they are disarmed. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was to protect against that very type of government, that the people had a means to overthrow an oppressive, abusive and criminal government if it ever came to that. That's what Americans did during the American Revolution against the British King. The people took up arms and defeated them and won their freedom. A whole population of people should not come under the control of a few corrupt people in government, it's a very simple concept. History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Besides that, you shouldn't let a few psychos dictate the laws that are put in place to protect GOOD people. If you create new laws that punish good people because bad people break the law, it's simply a dwindling spiral where more and more laws are put in place and good people lose more and more rights and freedom. Ahh hah. You've figured it out! If everyone has guns, then the government with their apcs, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, warships, drones, bombs, missiles, satellite networks, and spy networks will never dare to oppress you. War today is just like the American Revolution. The US soldiers stand in lines, fire off a single shot, and then go in for the bayonette charge. As long as our citizens have their own guns and are willing to put their lives at risk to form their own combat lines, we can overthrow a corrupt government. Yeah! I'm going to give you a very important link. It is a link to all the US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq: http://icasualties.org/iraq/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=USI give you that link because I'd love for someone to go through and calculate how many US soldiers have died from "small arms fire" (guns) versus how many have died in IED attacks or rocket attacks. It's a time consuming task, so if you don't want to do that, just page through a few pages and take note of how the majority of them died. Note how few (comparatively) die from gunfire. How effective are guns against the US military? So you might say, "well people in Iraq don't really have very many guns," which allows me to pull out this link: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq Iraq ranks 8th in the world in the number of privately owned guns per person (out of 179 countries). They aren't as high on the list as the US (we're #1 baby!) according to that site's data, but they're still pretty high. I know that a large portion of those guns are AK47s, so it's not exactly a bunch of weakass handguns either. When it comes to defending yourself against government oppression, your gun only gives you a false sense of security. If a government actually tries to oppress you, your gun would only make you a target. In the current era of warfare, it does nothing to actually prevent a government from abusing you. If you really want to defeat a technologically powerful enemy through combat, you'll have to learn how to build IEDs or rockets. Your gun isn't just worthless, it's actually a liability. Wow you discovered that the US military could take us out very easily. Let's give up our rights and hope the government plays nice and follows the rules. Point is, it's better to have guns than none at all. It's some protection, of course you could not defeat the US military with just basic guns but it is better than nothing. The 2nd amendment is very clear, whether the US military is more powerful the than people does not matter in whether the amendment should exist or not. You really just made a good arguement for having guns, since the US military is so powerful and out of control. Anyways, say there was a full scale revolution, it's hard to imagine the entire US military banding together and annihilating their own citizens. There'd be plenty of military who would do the right thing and side with the people. But having easily accessible guns has it's drawbacks, for example the recent shootings in Colorado. That nutjob got those guns waaaay too easily. There needs to be restrictions so that its harder for any random psychopath to go and buy afew guns. Plus when was the last gun-wielding uprising against the government in the USA? The American government has been oppressing it's people with all those Homeland security and internet privacy acts and we haven't seen any sort of popluar uprising led by gun toting civilians It's fine to have stronger criminal background checks when people try to buy guns, but passing laws that restrict guns for everyone that includes people who follow the law and don't abuse it is wrong. That psycho hadn't broken any laws until he went awol. A background criminal check wouldnt have stopped him. less easily available firearms would have
Less easily acquired firearms wouldn't have stopped him either. How would it? Making laws that affect all that are based on what a few psychos do is pretty illogical. It's letting them dictate what you do, what laws you make etc.
Freedom comes at a price, you can never be free and completely safe. Lives have always been sacrificed for freedom to continue on. If you'd rather be safe than free then that's different. Put security cameras in every house and have police at every neighborhood block. This is exactly what happened with 9/11, the government used that an excuse to violate the 4th Amendment and now they want to use incidents where psychos go on shooting sprees to take away the 2nd amedment. Losing more and more freedom for the false sense of security and safety as a result of what terrorists or just bad people do.
|
honestly for me how it all boils down to it people will still murder other people with other weapons, getting rid of some guns might save a few lives here and there but its really the culture that would have to change to make the world actually safe.
just my 2 cents
|
On July 27 2012 14:34 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:32 CrazyF1r3f0x wrote:On July 27 2012 07:26 KalWarkov wrote:
why would u need a gun oO To protect yourself from the other people with guns. Yeah but shooting a guy for trying to shoot you makes you just as bad as the guy who tried to shoot you because you're doing exactly what he was intending to do. Now you can say "yeah but he was intending to shoot me!" but if you used your gun to shoot him instead, then you would also have intended to shoot him. So to not be as bad as him, you should just be the bigger man and get shot while not trying to shoot.
What the... fuck? This has to be a troll post lol.
|
On July 27 2012 08:01 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:53 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 07:49 oldgregg wrote:On July 27 2012 07:40 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:58 RenSC2 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:19 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:10 Tarot wrote:On July 27 2012 06:06 Esk23 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhACAETu3o&feature=g-all-u This is why the 2nd Amendment exists, oppressive, abusive government. To protect the people. Unless you're suggesting that we should pull a gun and cap the TSA, how does this have anything to do with the topic "should people be allowed to own and carry guns" in any way? It has everything to do with it. It's very easy for governments to oppress and control the people if they are disarmed. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was to protect against that very type of government, that the people had a means to overthrow an oppressive, abusive and criminal government if it ever came to that. That's what Americans did during the American Revolution against the British King. The people took up arms and defeated them and won their freedom. A whole population of people should not come under the control of a few corrupt people in government, it's a very simple concept. History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Besides that, you shouldn't let a few psychos dictate the laws that are put in place to protect GOOD people. If you create new laws that punish good people because bad people break the law, it's simply a dwindling spiral where more and more laws are put in place and good people lose more and more rights and freedom. Ahh hah. You've figured it out! If everyone has guns, then the government with their apcs, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, warships, drones, bombs, missiles, satellite networks, and spy networks will never dare to oppress you. War today is just like the American Revolution. The US soldiers stand in lines, fire off a single shot, and then go in for the bayonette charge. As long as our citizens have their own guns and are willing to put their lives at risk to form their own combat lines, we can overthrow a corrupt government. Yeah! I'm going to give you a very important link. It is a link to all the US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq: http://icasualties.org/iraq/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=USI give you that link because I'd love for someone to go through and calculate how many US soldiers have died from "small arms fire" (guns) versus how many have died in IED attacks or rocket attacks. It's a time consuming task, so if you don't want to do that, just page through a few pages and take note of how the majority of them died. Note how few (comparatively) die from gunfire. How effective are guns against the US military? So you might say, "well people in Iraq don't really have very many guns," which allows me to pull out this link: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq Iraq ranks 8th in the world in the number of privately owned guns per person (out of 179 countries). They aren't as high on the list as the US (we're #1 baby!) according to that site's data, but they're still pretty high. I know that a large portion of those guns are AK47s, so it's not exactly a bunch of weakass handguns either. When it comes to defending yourself against government oppression, your gun only gives you a false sense of security. If a government actually tries to oppress you, your gun would only make you a target. In the current era of warfare, it does nothing to actually prevent a government from abusing you. If you really want to defeat a technologically powerful enemy through combat, you'll have to learn how to build IEDs or rockets. Your gun isn't just worthless, it's actually a liability. Wow you discovered that the US military could take us out very easily. Let's give up our rights and hope the government plays nice and follows the rules. Point is, it's better to have guns than none at all. It's some protection, of course you could not defeat the US military with just basic guns but it is better than nothing. The 2nd amendment is very clear, whether the US military is more powerful the than people does not matter in whether the amendment should exist or not. You really just made a good arguement for having guns, since the US military is so powerful and out of control. Anyways, say there was a full scale revolution, it's hard to imagine the entire US military banding together and annihilating their own citizens. There'd be plenty of military who would do the right thing and side with the people. But having easily accessible guns has it's drawbacks, for example the recent shootings in Colorado. That nutjob got those guns waaaay too easily. There needs to be restrictions so that its harder for any random psychopath to go and buy afew guns. Plus when was the last gun-wielding uprising against the government in the USA? The American government has been oppressing it's people with all those Homeland security and internet privacy acts and we haven't seen any sort of popluar uprising led by gun toting civilians It's fine to have stronger criminal background checks when people try to buy guns, but passing laws that restrict guns for everyone that includes people who follow the law and don't abuse it is wrong. Why? After your last arguments got destroyed, all you come up with is this? That guy in colorado was following the laws till he shot all those people...
You just answered your own question, yes, HE BROKE THE LAW. He abused he 2nd amendment and is going to get his deserved punishment. Far more people follow the law and use it as it was meant to be used and you have the few criminals who abuse it. I'm assuming you want guns banned or whatever because of what this guy did except you aren't thinking of all the people who follow the law and the people who have defended their lives and their families lives because of the 2nd amendment.
|
I still think the best solution is a gradual reduction of weapons/tightening of gun control laws over the next fifty years. Unfortunately the NRA has such strong lobbyists that this will never happen ever
|
I think if Americans really feel the need to carry weapons around all the time they should be restricted to owning swords rather than guns- then at least people have a chance to run away when someone decides to go on a killing spree.
|
On July 27 2012 16:23 tomatriedes wrote:
I think if Americans really feel the need to carry weapons around all the time they should be restricted to owning swords rather than guns- then at least people have a chance to run away when someone decides to go on a killing spree.
This kind of thinking is so silly. How often do shooting sprees occur? What are the chances you'll die in a shooting spree? How many shooting sprees have their been in the our long history as a country with all our guns? Hmm? So ridiculous.
Maybe if some of the people in that theater were allowed their right of the 2nd amendment perhaps the shooter could've been taken out with much few casualties. Maybe if the pilots on 9/11 were allowed to use their 2nd amendment rights they could've shot the terrorists and prevented the whole attack. You can look at it both ways.
|
On July 27 2012 16:30 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 16:23 tomatriedes wrote:
I think if Americans really feel the need to carry weapons around all the time they should be restricted to owning swords rather than guns- then at least people have a chance to run away when someone decides to go on a killing spree. This kind of thinking is so silly. How often do shooting sprees occur? What are the chances you'll die in a shooting spree? How many shooting sprees have their been in the our long history as a country with all our guns? Hmm? So ridiculous. Maybe if some of the people in that theater were allowed their right of the 2nd amendment perhaps the shooter could've been taken out with much few casualties. Maybe if the pilots on 9/11 were allowed to use their 2nd amendment rights they could've shot the terrorists and prevented the whole attack. You can look at it both ways.
You realize that concealed carry is legal in Colorado, right? Every state with the exception of Illinois has it.
I can say with certainty that between this, VT, Arizona, and NIU that sprees happen too often. Frankly, these should NEVER be happening. I mean, outside of the Sweden incident(i believe it was Sweden), I haven't heard of anything like this happening outside of the US.
So yeah, thats 4 almost within 5 years.
edit: It was Norway, not Sweden.
|
Liberty to eat what you want does not seem to be as important as liberty to carry and use big heavy guns !
![[image loading]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/698218/thumbs/o-FRENCH-CHEESE-GUNS-570.jpg?4)
It is a pity that french cheeses does not have a lobby such as NRA which gives money to everybody
|
On July 27 2012 16:30 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 16:23 tomatriedes wrote:
I think if Americans really feel the need to carry weapons around all the time they should be restricted to owning swords rather than guns- then at least people have a chance to run away when someone decides to go on a killing spree. This kind of thinking is so silly. How often do shooting sprees occur? What are the chances you'll die in a shooting spree? How many shooting sprees have their been in the our long history as a country with all our guns? Hmm? So ridiculous. Maybe if some of the people in that theater were allowed their right of the 2nd amendment perhaps the shooter could've been taken out with much few casualties. Maybe if the pilots on 9/11 were allowed to use their 2nd amendment rights they could've shot the terrorists and prevented the whole attack. You can look at it both ways.
"The United States experienced 645 mass-murder events between 1976 and 2010"
That would be 19 a year. It isnt as rare as you think. Also, having a bunch of people firing guns in a theatre full of chaos, tear gas, etc... at a fully body armored assailant sounds like it would have just added to the death toll.
|
You should have posted more information with your pic from the bleeding heart blogger. French cheeses aren't illegal in the US.
The cheese ban dates back to the 1940s, when a Typhoid outbreak in Canada was linked to cheddar cheese made with raw milk, Aravosis found. In the 1950s, the Food and Drug Administration banned the sale of imported cheese made with raw milk that was not aged for at least 60 days.
So, the cheeses in the graphic are not banned per se. They're only banned if they're made with raw milk that hasn't been aged a minimum of 60 days. And if they're made with pasteurized milk, they're fine. Thus, newer French Brie cheese made with pasteurized milk can be sold in the US (even though it's reportedly less tasty than the "real" French version - and part of the lost flavor of some French cheeses comes from the fact that their peak flavor comes at a time "less" than 60 days).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/automatic-weapon-french-cheese-gun-control_n_1696200.html
|
You should have posted more information with your pic from the bleeding heart blogger. French cheeses aren't illegal in the US.
Well did not really want to launch the debate here. I just found it funny that on one side people in america are completely reluctant to any regulation on weapons because it would restrict their "liberty" and on the other side the regulation is heavy on other topics which should be less important.
|
|
|
i dont understand, if there is a complete ban on weapons for civilians then there should be less murder. Simple as that. Letting people have 'self defence' is good, but the problem is that they may use it for killing instead. Its not like you are going to be carry weapons with you all the time, so public shootings won't help you either way. And obviously if you don't allow civilians acquiring firearms then there are much, much less possibilities of shootings occurring.
|
On July 27 2012 18:17 SEA KarMa wrote:
i dont understand, if there is a complete ban on weapons for civilians then there should be less murder. Simple as that. Letting people have 'self defence' is good, but the problem is that they may use it for killing instead. Its not like you are going to be carry weapons with you all the time, so public shootings won't help you either way. And obviously if you don't allow civilians acquiring firearms then there are much, much less possibilities of shootings occurring.
It still wouldn't stop people. Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking alcohol, 100% ban on guns won't solve everything either. If people want something that badly, they'll turn to the black market and arms dealers.
Now restricting them to only being usable for hunting purposes or to one's house is what I feel would help. Guns also need to be harder to obtain. The fact he got 4 guns over the course of 60 days is disturbing.
|
On July 27 2012 18:56 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 18:17 SEA KarMa wrote:
i dont understand, if there is a complete ban on weapons for civilians then there should be less murder. Simple as that. Letting people have 'self defence' is good, but the problem is that they may use it for killing instead. Its not like you are going to be carry weapons with you all the time, so public shootings won't help you either way. And obviously if you don't allow civilians acquiring firearms then there are much, much less possibilities of shootings occurring. It still wouldn't stop people. Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking alcohol, 100% ban on guns won't solve everything either. If people want something that badly, they'll turn to the black market and arms dealers. Now restricting them to only being usable for hunting purposes or to one's house is what I feel would help. Guns also need to be harder to obtain. The fact he got 4 guns over the course of 60 days is disturbing.
You can't compare alcohol and weapons. Here is a small list of why:
1. People can make their own alcohol, but not their own guns.
2. I'd argue that guns are more directly dangerous than alcohol.
3. There is a larger social stigma on breaking laws on guns than breaking those of alcohol.
I'd find it hard to believe that people would as often break gun laws as they break alcohol laws, such as drinking before 21.
|
Trok67 France. July 27 2012 16:57. Posts 287
Huh?
French cheese isnt illegal in the usa? (or is it??)
Foie gras is though i saw it got banned in california , though the thread about it is not visable annymore.
Yeld Austria. July 27 2012 07:21. Posts 92
PM Profile Report Quote #
After reading most of the points made in favor of private gun ownership, they seem to boil down to two big factors:
A) I need a gun in order to be able to oppose a suppresive gouvernment.
Like RenSc2 pointed out right above this post. You can not fight a modern gouvernment with just a firearm. It only lends you a fake sense of power. At worst you could get yourself killed and at best you could kill someone else. There is nothing to gain. I have nothing much to add to this point, but I do want to discuss the other big reason in detail:
Am not in favour of guns but the defendands got a point there.
An armed population is verry well suited to throw over anny government, no matter wich weapons the government has.
Even an unarmed population will be able to overthrow most governments in the long run btw.
|
Well the argument is pretty moot at this point, even if guns were made illegal for possession how would you get all the guns that are already out there back? Impossible and just skews the power even more towards the criminals.
Americans have had guns since forever and are used to it already. Having guns is "kick ass awesome" and no one wants to give up something that "fun". I admit guns are cool as fuck to have and shoot.
Having said that I am really happy gun laws are so fucking strict in China. Nut job ex special forces guys around here even rack up 10 kills with just a knife, I don't want to know what they can do with a gun.
The argument "everyone got guns so everyone can protect themselves from everyone" is really shitty. I would not feel safe at all in the US everyone being so trigger happy and psychos can get guns so easily, "stand your ground" laws and that kind of bullshit just scares me.
Oh please, guns in case of a revolution? Hahahahaha been watching too many Jason Statham movies. The only thing guns provides is easy high scores for raging lunatics. Guns + shitty education + bullying in school = shootings.
|
That is wrong for a number of reasons. He did NOT wear a bullet proof vest. It was a blackhawk ammo carrier like this:
![[image loading]](http://www.usnavysealstore.com/images/products/2012/BHW-33UA00BK-SE-TGR-BLCK-XXX-XX-s.jpg)
Secondly this leg guards and such are not bullet proof. They are impact resistant, and may help again shrapnel, but will NOT stop a bullet.
Thirdly, I have read no official reports of him having 100 round beta-c mag. In fact, the pictures I have seen, it was only a standard 30 round magazine:
![[image loading]](http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2012/07/21/how-alleged-colorado-shooter-james-holmes-bought-his-guns/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1342898278043.cached.jpg)
Notice in the top left the gun has a grey magazine, which is a stardard milsurp magazine.
Lastly, the helmet he has was not made of kevlar. Kevlar helmets like the ones used by SWAT teams, FBI HRT, Mil, etc are easily 800+ for the civilian.
He also got ripped off if that is what he paid for ammo.
That is an extremely biased picture. Under the glock it says you just have to chamber a bullet and keep firing. Well, no crap sherlock. That is every semi automatic gun whether it is a .22mag or 50AE. It just tries to make the gun sound soooooo scary.
|
Yeah there was a citizen in the cinema who made use of his second amendment and legally aquired and carried gunns.
Unfortunatly he killed several people at the cinema.
But he defintly should have been allowed to carry that many weapons and that kind of weapons, because if the tyrant comes to the US those people in the cinema would still be dead killed by legally owned and bought guns.
They died an hero to defend the 2nd amendment and to prevent that future tyrant that will be coming some day.
Yeah those are the arguments of the weapon lobby sond rather supid dont they ?
Because they are ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/na0725_denvershooting15001.gif)
