|
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 August 09 2012 12:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 11:29 Focuspants wrote:This story is hilarious. What a paranoid moron. Everyone has some drinks in them and is outgoing and friendly. Thats all it was. If this goofball would have had a gun on him, 2 young guys may not be here because of a paranoid guy with a gun. "They talked to us without being invited to talk to us"? What the hell? Do people just not talk to each other without invitation in the states? I find this so strange. Whenever we go out to any sort of bar/party here, we always talk to tons of other people, thats just how we are! Plus, theres no more aggressive and obvious way to threaten a family than by asking them if theyve gone to the Stampede yet. Rofl. What a joke. Many times people with intentions to beat you down and rob you approach with a simple question such as this. In fact, a while back, my brother was approached immediately upon withdrawing money from an ATM in Washington D.C. My brother's attitude in confronting the guy in his case prevented him from being a victim. Same with the cop visiting Canada, especially since he's there protecting his wife, as any man would realize. Better to be abrasive and street-smart than a victim of whatever crime someone wants to commit.
He was in Calgary during the stampede. He was asked if hed been to the stampede yet. That is not grounds for pulling a firearm on someone. I dont ever want to live in a place so batshit crazy that this would be considered reasonable grounds to be threatened with a deadly weapon. The article says the two men looked bewildered by this Michigan mans responses. Do you want to know why? Because they were probably thinking "man why is this guy being such an asshole? Were just hiking and asking them if they went to the stampede".
I dont know what life is like where you live, but here there is no constant fear of being shot at or attacked. It happens in the odd case, but for the most part, people just live their lives. I actually do go to campgrounds and go hiking from time to time, and campers and hikers like to make conversation with the people they run into or come across while on trails or on sites. For you to instantly hop into a defensive mode where shooting someone runs through your mind because someone talked to you and you didnt grant them permission is just mindboggling. How the hell can that be someones first response to this kind of situation. "Thank the Lord Jesus Christ they decided it was a bad idea to mess with us". Really? More like two hikers asked you a question and you were a paranoid asshole. They then looked confused by your strange behaviour and went on their way.
|
On August 09 2012 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 22:49 Denzil wrote:On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays. So you didn't lose in Vietnam or Afghanistan is what you're saying? This question is bait, but I'll take it. I don't know nearly enough about the Vietnam conflict to comment on it, but with regard to Afghanistan, it's far too complicated to simplify it down to: "Did you win or lose". There is not one simple goal there -- it's not as if the US aims at making Afghanistan surrender, obviously. Many different objectives exist, so it's not a black and white matter of winning or losing as exists in traditional wars between two countries. Most current objectives aren't even contained to Afghanistan -- many problems spill into other areas in the region, most notably into Pakistan. So asking "did you win vs. Afghanistan" is just an awful question.
Just for clarification, Vietnam was a clear loss for the US. People like to say it was a, "tie," but even that is being extremely generous. We went in, armed and trained the capitalists (who were the villains in Vietnam, because like 70-80% of the people wanted a change of government), and tried to prevent another win for communism (because this was part of the Cold War).
Regardless of how many soldiers we had, or how much money we threw into it, we would've lost (unless we burned the entire country to ashen wastes...). We were repelled by highly organized, very efficient guerilla tactics. Whether Americans don't want to admit it (or don't know), the commander of the communist Vietnamese forces was actually very skilled.
If you're interested, look up the Tet Offensive. It could've been much, MUCH worse if that plan had succeeded.
Weaponry wasn't the issue in Vietnam. Also, our country was having a cultural revolution at the time, and the people gave no support for the war at all. It was a combination of a strategic and morale (which some believe was actually the intention of the Vietnamese) loss .
|
On August 09 2012 12:58 TALegion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 08 2012 22:49 Denzil wrote:On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays. So you didn't lose in Vietnam or Afghanistan is what you're saying? This question is bait, but I'll take it. I don't know nearly enough about the Vietnam conflict to comment on it, but with regard to Afghanistan, it's far too complicated to simplify it down to: "Did you win or lose". There is not one simple goal there -- it's not as if the US aims at making Afghanistan surrender, obviously. Many different objectives exist, so it's not a black and white matter of winning or losing as exists in traditional wars between two countries. Most current objectives aren't even contained to Afghanistan -- many problems spill into other areas in the region, most notably into Pakistan. So asking "did you win vs. Afghanistan" is just an awful question. Just for clarification, Vietnam was a clear loss for the US. People like to say it was a, "tie," but even that is being extremely generous. We went in, armed and trained the capitalists (who were the villains in Vietnam, because like 70-80% of the people wanted a change of government), and tried to prevent another win for communism (because this was part of the Cold War). Regardless of how many soldiers we had, or how much money we through into it, we would've lost (unless we burned the entire country to ashen wastes...). We were repelled by highly organized, very efficient guerilla tactics. Whether Americans don't want to admit it (or don't know), the commander of the communist Vietnamese forces was actually very skilled. If you're interested, look up the Tet Offensive. It could've been much, MUCH worse if that plan had succeeded. Weaponry wasn't the issue in Vietnam, it was a strategic loss (and the fact that our country was wildly against it).
That's complete crap. We were dominating Vietnam, no contest. We only lost because we lost support at home. There's absolutely no doubt we would have won otherwise. We were literally wiping them out... completely.
We lost in the sense we didn't accomplish our objective. But to say we would have never won is hilarious.
|
On August 09 2012 12:59 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 12:58 TALegion wrote:On August 09 2012 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 08 2012 22:49 Denzil wrote:On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays. So you didn't lose in Vietnam or Afghanistan is what you're saying? This question is bait, but I'll take it. I don't know nearly enough about the Vietnam conflict to comment on it, but with regard to Afghanistan, it's far too complicated to simplify it down to: "Did you win or lose". There is not one simple goal there -- it's not as if the US aims at making Afghanistan surrender, obviously. Many different objectives exist, so it's not a black and white matter of winning or losing as exists in traditional wars between two countries. Most current objectives aren't even contained to Afghanistan -- many problems spill into other areas in the region, most notably into Pakistan. So asking "did you win vs. Afghanistan" is just an awful question. Just for clarification, Vietnam was a clear loss for the US. People like to say it was a, "tie," but even that is being extremely generous. We went in, armed and trained the capitalists (who were the villains in Vietnam, because like 70-80% of the people wanted a change of government), and tried to prevent another win for communism (because this was part of the Cold War). Regardless of how many soldiers we had, or how much money we through into it, we would've lost (unless we burned the entire country to ashen wastes...). We were repelled by highly organized, very efficient guerilla tactics. Whether Americans don't want to admit it (or don't know), the commander of the communist Vietnamese forces was actually very skilled. If you're interested, look up the Tet Offensive. It could've been much, MUCH worse if that plan had succeeded. Weaponry wasn't the issue in Vietnam, it was a strategic loss (and the fact that our country was wildly against it). That's complete crap. We were dominating Vietnam, no contest. We only lost because we lost support at home. There's absolutely no doubt we would have won otherwise. We were literally wiping them out... completely. We lost in the sense we didn't accomplish our objective. But to say we would have never won is hilarious.
We shouldn't debate this here (as it's probably the improper thread), but I wouldn't consider slaughtering the majority of the population a, "win." The capitalist were seen as the villains by the Vietnamese people, and there was really no winning scenario for America.
If we did repel the communists, it would have to come through slaughter and/or oppression of the people (as evident by the fact that they were angry enough to start a civil war). Which isn't really a win either, because then we would have been the cause of the Vietnamese people's plight after our departure.
If we didn't repel the communists (which we didn't), we supported/armed/fought for the losing side without accomplishing our goal. Not really a win either, as it was just a waste of resources/lives.
It was a valiant effort for sure, but I don't think it could have ever ended in good scenario for America. Really, we had no really good motives other than flipping off the Soviets. We definitely could've, "won," militaristically (making the enemy surrender/destroying all opposition), but there was no real good outcomes of the war (which is what I would call, "winning").
|
On August 09 2012 12:58 TALegion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 08 2012 22:49 Denzil wrote:On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays. So you didn't lose in Vietnam or Afghanistan is what you're saying? This question is bait, but I'll take it. I don't know nearly enough about the Vietnam conflict to comment on it, but with regard to Afghanistan, it's far too complicated to simplify it down to: "Did you win or lose". There is not one simple goal there -- it's not as if the US aims at making Afghanistan surrender, obviously. Many different objectives exist, so it's not a black and white matter of winning or losing as exists in traditional wars between two countries. Most current objectives aren't even contained to Afghanistan -- many problems spill into other areas in the region, most notably into Pakistan. So asking "did you win vs. Afghanistan" is just an awful question. Just for clarification, Vietnam was a clear loss for the US. People like to say it was a, "tie," but even that is being extremely generous. We went in, armed and trained the capitalists (who were the villains in Vietnam, because like 70-80% of the people wanted a change of government), and tried to prevent another win for communism (because this was part of the Cold War). Regardless of how many soldiers we had, or how much money we threw into it, we would've lost (unless we burned the entire country to ashen wastes...). We were repelled by highly organized, very efficient guerilla tactics. Whether Americans don't want to admit it (or don't know), the commander of the communist Vietnamese forces was actually very skilled. If you're interested, look up the Tet Offensive. It could've been much, MUCH worse if that plan had succeeded. Weaponry wasn't the issue in Vietnam. Also, our country was having a cultural revolution at the time, and the people gave no support for the war at all. It was a combination of a strategic and morale (which some believe was actually the intention of the Vietnamese) loss .
Ya we lost Vietnam, but for every reason that isn't military. We won every military battle in Vietnam, but other factors (political blow back from the draft, not understanding why the war was being fought, the locals not liking us very much if at all) forced us out. Of course the military side of the war was actually least important for the US it was a given we would win that from day 1.
edit: I knew I shouldn't have posted this in this thread, it is either a troll (first quoted post) or actually scratch that it is a troll in this thread.
|
On August 09 2012 12:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 11:29 Focuspants wrote:This story is hilarious. What a paranoid moron. Everyone has some drinks in them and is outgoing and friendly. Thats all it was. If this goofball would have had a gun on him, 2 young guys may not be here because of a paranoid guy with a gun. "They talked to us without being invited to talk to us"? What the hell? Do people just not talk to each other without invitation in the states? I find this so strange. Whenever we go out to any sort of bar/party here, we always talk to tons of other people, thats just how we are! Plus, theres no more aggressive and obvious way to threaten a family than by asking them if theyve gone to the Stampede yet. Rofl. What a joke. Many times people with intentions to beat you down and rob you approach with a simple question such as this. In fact, a while back, my brother was approached immediately upon withdrawing money from an ATM in Washington D.C. My brother's attitude in confronting the guy in his case prevented him from being a victim. Same with the cop visiting Canada, especially since he's there protecting his wife, as any man would realize. Better to be abrasive and street-smart than a victim of whatever crime someone wants to commit.
Are you presuming to inform us of our realizations? Just curious.
|
On August 09 2012 13:06 TALegion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 12:59 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 09 2012 12:58 TALegion wrote:On August 09 2012 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 08 2012 22:49 Denzil wrote:On August 08 2012 22:45 DigiGnar wrote:On August 08 2012 22:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 08 2012 22:28 Denzil wrote:
If someone wants to invade you, they will. Don't try to credit people not wanting to invade America with civilians having guns Heh.... America couldn't even win wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan against people using guerilla warfare tactics.Long range Nuke/biological attack by Russia or China is possible (Isn't that why the Americans built the 'Star Wars' defense system , to stop such attacks?) in the future but i don't see any ground invasion happening. Because these "wars" that have not been officially declared can not be fought with our maximum capabilities. We didn't roll into Vietnam like we did Europe. Look up Geneva or however it's spelled. We have a lot of restrictions in war nowadays. So you didn't lose in Vietnam or Afghanistan is what you're saying? This question is bait, but I'll take it. I don't know nearly enough about the Vietnam conflict to comment on it, but with regard to Afghanistan, it's far too complicated to simplify it down to: "Did you win or lose". There is not one simple goal there -- it's not as if the US aims at making Afghanistan surrender, obviously. Many different objectives exist, so it's not a black and white matter of winning or losing as exists in traditional wars between two countries. Most current objectives aren't even contained to Afghanistan -- many problems spill into other areas in the region, most notably into Pakistan. So asking "did you win vs. Afghanistan" is just an awful question. Just for clarification, Vietnam was a clear loss for the US. People like to say it was a, "tie," but even that is being extremely generous. We went in, armed and trained the capitalists (who were the villains in Vietnam, because like 70-80% of the people wanted a change of government), and tried to prevent another win for communism (because this was part of the Cold War). Regardless of how many soldiers we had, or how much money we through into it, we would've lost (unless we burned the entire country to ashen wastes...). We were repelled by highly organized, very efficient guerilla tactics. Whether Americans don't want to admit it (or don't know), the commander of the communist Vietnamese forces was actually very skilled. If you're interested, look up the Tet Offensive. It could've been much, MUCH worse if that plan had succeeded. Weaponry wasn't the issue in Vietnam, it was a strategic loss (and the fact that our country was wildly against it). That's complete crap. We were dominating Vietnam, no contest. We only lost because we lost support at home. There's absolutely no doubt we would have won otherwise. We were literally wiping them out... completely. We lost in the sense we didn't accomplish our objective. But to say we would have never won is hilarious. We shouldn't debate this here (as it's probably the improper thread), but I wouldn't consider slaughtering the majority of the population a, "win." The capitalist were seen as the villains by the Vietnamese people, and there was really no winning scenario for America. If we did repel the communists, it would have to come through slaughter and/or oppression of the people (as evident by the fact that they were angry enough to start a civil war). Which isn't really a win either, because then we would have been the cause of the Vietnamese people's plight after our departure. If we didn't repel the communists (which we didn't), we supported/armed/fought for the losing side without accomplishing our goal. Not really a win either, as it was just a waste of resources/lives. It was a valiant effort for sure, but I don't think it could have ever ended in good scenario for America. Really, we had no really good motives other than flipping off the Soviets. We definitely could've, "won," militaristically (making the enemy surrender/destroying all opposition), but there was no real good outcomes of the war (which is what I would call, "winning").
Considering the conversation was concerning military force, I'd say that's what counts. Did America win the Iraq war? Yes, we did. Did the aftermath go awesomely? No, not really.
|
On August 09 2012 13:38 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 12:37 Kaitlin wrote:On August 09 2012 11:29 Focuspants wrote:This story is hilarious. What a paranoid moron. Everyone has some drinks in them and is outgoing and friendly. Thats all it was. If this goofball would have had a gun on him, 2 young guys may not be here because of a paranoid guy with a gun. "They talked to us without being invited to talk to us"? What the hell? Do people just not talk to each other without invitation in the states? I find this so strange. Whenever we go out to any sort of bar/party here, we always talk to tons of other people, thats just how we are! Plus, theres no more aggressive and obvious way to threaten a family than by asking them if theyve gone to the Stampede yet. Rofl. What a joke. Many times people with intentions to beat you down and rob you approach with a simple question such as this. In fact, a while back, my brother was approached immediately upon withdrawing money from an ATM in Washington D.C. My brother's attitude in confronting the guy in his case prevented him from being a victim. Same with the cop visiting Canada, especially since he's there protecting his wife, as any man would realize. Better to be abrasive and street-smart than a victim of whatever crime someone wants to commit. Are you presuming to inform us of our realizations? Just curious.
If you are reading what I am saying to be that a man knows to ensure the safety of his wife, then yes.
|
On August 09 2012 14:57 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 13:38 sevencck wrote:On August 09 2012 12:37 Kaitlin wrote:On August 09 2012 11:29 Focuspants wrote:This story is hilarious. What a paranoid moron. Everyone has some drinks in them and is outgoing and friendly. Thats all it was. If this goofball would have had a gun on him, 2 young guys may not be here because of a paranoid guy with a gun. "They talked to us without being invited to talk to us"? What the hell? Do people just not talk to each other without invitation in the states? I find this so strange. Whenever we go out to any sort of bar/party here, we always talk to tons of other people, thats just how we are! Plus, theres no more aggressive and obvious way to threaten a family than by asking them if theyve gone to the Stampede yet. Rofl. What a joke. Many times people with intentions to beat you down and rob you approach with a simple question such as this. In fact, a while back, my brother was approached immediately upon withdrawing money from an ATM in Washington D.C. My brother's attitude in confronting the guy in his case prevented him from being a victim. Same with the cop visiting Canada, especially since he's there protecting his wife, as any man would realize. Better to be abrasive and street-smart than a victim of whatever crime someone wants to commit. Are you presuming to inform us of our realizations? Just curious. If you are reading what I am saying to be that a man knows to ensure the safety of his wife, then yes.
"knows to ensure the saftey of his wife by pulling a concealed handgun on 2 hikers who asked if they had been to the stampede yet"
Not such an obvious response if you finish the story. Is thihs actually grounds for pulling a firearm on someone in the US? I am curious. Could this guy legally point a gun at someone for asking a popular and harmless question, simply because they felt "threatened"?
|
On August 09 2012 15:04 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 14:57 Kaitlin wrote:On August 09 2012 13:38 sevencck wrote:On August 09 2012 12:37 Kaitlin wrote:On August 09 2012 11:29 Focuspants wrote:This story is hilarious. What a paranoid moron. Everyone has some drinks in them and is outgoing and friendly. Thats all it was. If this goofball would have had a gun on him, 2 young guys may not be here because of a paranoid guy with a gun. "They talked to us without being invited to talk to us"? What the hell? Do people just not talk to each other without invitation in the states? I find this so strange. Whenever we go out to any sort of bar/party here, we always talk to tons of other people, thats just how we are! Plus, theres no more aggressive and obvious way to threaten a family than by asking them if theyve gone to the Stampede yet. Rofl. What a joke. Many times people with intentions to beat you down and rob you approach with a simple question such as this. In fact, a while back, my brother was approached immediately upon withdrawing money from an ATM in Washington D.C. My brother's attitude in confronting the guy in his case prevented him from being a victim. Same with the cop visiting Canada, especially since he's there protecting his wife, as any man would realize. Better to be abrasive and street-smart than a victim of whatever crime someone wants to commit. Are you presuming to inform us of our realizations? Just curious. If you are reading what I am saying to be that a man knows to ensure the safety of his wife, then yes. "knows to ensure the saftey of his wife by pulling a concealed handgun on 2 hikers who asked if they had been to the stampede yet" Not such an obvious response if you finish the story. Is thihs actually grounds for pulling a firearm on someone in the US? I am curious. Could this guy legally point a gun at someone for asking a popular and harmless question, simply because they felt "threatened"?
Read the article again. Nobody ever said what happened was justification for pulling a gun, nor have I. To save you the trouble, he said he would feel more comfortable with his weapon, just in case things "escalated".
|
On August 09 2012 14:57 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 13:38 sevencck wrote:On August 09 2012 12:37 Kaitlin wrote:On August 09 2012 11:29 Focuspants wrote:This story is hilarious. What a paranoid moron. Everyone has some drinks in them and is outgoing and friendly. Thats all it was. If this goofball would have had a gun on him, 2 young guys may not be here because of a paranoid guy with a gun. "They talked to us without being invited to talk to us"? What the hell? Do people just not talk to each other without invitation in the states? I find this so strange. Whenever we go out to any sort of bar/party here, we always talk to tons of other people, thats just how we are! Plus, theres no more aggressive and obvious way to threaten a family than by asking them if theyve gone to the Stampede yet. Rofl. What a joke. Many times people with intentions to beat you down and rob you approach with a simple question such as this. In fact, a while back, my brother was approached immediately upon withdrawing money from an ATM in Washington D.C. My brother's attitude in confronting the guy in his case prevented him from being a victim. Same with the cop visiting Canada, especially since he's there protecting his wife, as any man would realize. Better to be abrasive and street-smart than a victim of whatever crime someone wants to commit. Are you presuming to inform us of our realizations? Just curious. If you are reading what I am saying to be that a man knows to ensure the safety of his wife, then yes.
A man's judgement is tempered by understanding, intelligence, and restraint. It's a maladjusted fool who thinks to act impulsively to "protect his wife" with the threat of lethal force in the face of something so benign. If it was a real threat they would have been attacked/beaten/robbed/etc. This didn't happen because it wasn't actually a threat, it was only a wildly overblown and exaggerated delusion on the part of the police officer because his judgement isn't tempered by anything but fear and paranoia.
|
On August 09 2012 11:29 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 11:26 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 11:18 biology]major wrote:On August 09 2012 10:44 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 06:31 Slakter wrote:
The fact that it's in the constitution is a stupid argument that people only use when they put too much faith into old scriptures or don't have any other arguments.
However, I am sort of torn in this issue. I believe everyone to have the right to own a gun as long as the police and military does since otherwise there is no way for citizens to revolt against their leaders (if these leaders go all fascist or anything else) so I believe it to be a necessary evil to preserve democracy.
But I still fucking hate guns. sorry but 2 handguns and an AK won't win against the police and government something is better than nothing. That is why its a consitutional right, to protect the people from the government in those extreme situations when everything goes nuts. The founding fathers always intended for the power to originate from the people, and this right is an extension of that. Live free or die trying now let's get out of the drama movie and focus on real life. the constitution was written about 250 years ago, when there was much less public safety. Ironically from my understanding, many christians don't take everything the new AND old testaments say literally (i.e no eating shellfish), but are quick to pull the purist constitution bullshit did u really just compare the constitution to the bible ?
well seeing as both documents have a fanatical following..
|
On August 09 2012 15:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 15:04 Focuspants wrote:On August 09 2012 14:57 Kaitlin wrote:On August 09 2012 13:38 sevencck wrote:On August 09 2012 12:37 Kaitlin wrote:On August 09 2012 11:29 Focuspants wrote:This story is hilarious. What a paranoid moron. Everyone has some drinks in them and is outgoing and friendly. Thats all it was. If this goofball would have had a gun on him, 2 young guys may not be here because of a paranoid guy with a gun. "They talked to us without being invited to talk to us"? What the hell? Do people just not talk to each other without invitation in the states? I find this so strange. Whenever we go out to any sort of bar/party here, we always talk to tons of other people, thats just how we are! Plus, theres no more aggressive and obvious way to threaten a family than by asking them if theyve gone to the Stampede yet. Rofl. What a joke. Many times people with intentions to beat you down and rob you approach with a simple question such as this. In fact, a while back, my brother was approached immediately upon withdrawing money from an ATM in Washington D.C. My brother's attitude in confronting the guy in his case prevented him from being a victim. Same with the cop visiting Canada, especially since he's there protecting his wife, as any man would realize. Better to be abrasive and street-smart than a victim of whatever crime someone wants to commit. Are you presuming to inform us of our realizations? Just curious. If you are reading what I am saying to be that a man knows to ensure the safety of his wife, then yes. "knows to ensure the saftey of his wife by pulling a concealed handgun on 2 hikers who asked if they had been to the stampede yet" Not such an obvious response if you finish the story. Is thihs actually grounds for pulling a firearm on someone in the US? I am curious. Could this guy legally point a gun at someone for asking a popular and harmless question, simply because they felt "threatened"? Read the article again. Nobody ever said what happened was justification for pulling a gun, nor have I. To save you the trouble, he said he would feel more comfortable with his weapon, just in case things "escalated".
The point is that, as I just stated, his instinct was that he was under attack, when he clearly wasn't. This is a distortion typical of those who fanatically overemphasize the necessity for personal protection at any cost, and he likely would have drawn his weapon if he had it.
|
I'm of the opinion that guns should be completely unavailable to the public and made very restricted, very very restricted, and i say this because I live in Oakland and I've seen what they can accomplish when kids with nothing get them, they arent anything that society should have remotely available they are tools of war\hunting and that should be it, if that.
|
On August 09 2012 12:51 Focuspants wrote:
I dont know what life is like where you live, but here there is no constant fear of being shot at or attacked. It happens in the odd case, but for the most part, people just live their lives. I actually do go to campgrounds and go hiking from time to time, and campers and hikers like to make conversation with the people they run into or come across while on trails or on sites.
For you to instantly hop into a defensive mode where shooting someone runs through your mind because someone talked to you and you didnt grant them permission is just mindboggling. How the hell can that be someones first response to this kind of situation. "Thank the Lord Jesus Christ they decided it was a bad idea to mess with us". Really? More like two hikers asked you a question and you were a paranoid asshole. They then looked confused by your strange behaviour and went on their way.
I agree. During my latest handful of hikes I've talked to a lot of people that I didn't know beforehand. (And I didn't even try to remember in which part of my bag my knife (which I did have because of reasons) was, because there was no reason to.)
On August 09 2012 12:58 TALegion wrote:
Regardless of how many soldiers we had, or how much money we threw into it, we would've lost (unless we burned the entire country to ashen wastes...). We were repelled by highly organized, very efficient guerilla tactics. Whether Americans don't want to admit it (or don't know), the commander of the communist Vietnamese forces was actually very skilled.
If you're interested, look up the Tet Offensive. It could've been much, MUCH worse if that plan had succeeded.
Weaponry wasn't the issue in Vietnam. Also, our country was having a cultural revolution at the time, and the people gave no support for the war at all. It was a combination of a strategic and morale (which some believe was actually the intention of the Vietnamese) loss .
As the guy below you already pointed out: no.
The US Army could have killed every single 'VC' if they wouldn't be held accountable for it. Tl;dr: Not nuking Vietnam was a PR trick.
|
On August 09 2012 15:29 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 11:29 biology]major wrote:On August 09 2012 11:26 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 11:18 biology]major wrote:On August 09 2012 10:44 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 06:31 Slakter wrote:
The fact that it's in the constitution is a stupid argument that people only use when they put too much faith into old scriptures or don't have any other arguments.
However, I am sort of torn in this issue. I believe everyone to have the right to own a gun as long as the police and military does since otherwise there is no way for citizens to revolt against their leaders (if these leaders go all fascist or anything else) so I believe it to be a necessary evil to preserve democracy.
But I still fucking hate guns. sorry but 2 handguns and an AK won't win against the police and government something is better than nothing. That is why its a consitutional right, to protect the people from the government in those extreme situations when everything goes nuts. The founding fathers always intended for the power to originate from the people, and this right is an extension of that. Live free or die trying now let's get out of the drama movie and focus on real life. the constitution was written about 250 years ago, when there was much less public safety. Ironically from my understanding, many christians don't take everything the new AND old testaments say literally (i.e no eating shellfish), but are quick to pull the purist constitution bullshit did u really just compare the constitution to the bible ? well seeing as both documents have a fanatical following..
At least the constitution allows for amendments, and doesn't pretend to be divinely inspired....
|
On August 10 2012 03:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 15:29 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 11:29 biology]major wrote:On August 09 2012 11:26 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 11:18 biology]major wrote:On August 09 2012 10:44 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 06:31 Slakter wrote:
The fact that it's in the constitution is a stupid argument that people only use when they put too much faith into old scriptures or don't have any other arguments.
However, I am sort of torn in this issue. I believe everyone to have the right to own a gun as long as the police and military does since otherwise there is no way for citizens to revolt against their leaders (if these leaders go all fascist or anything else) so I believe it to be a necessary evil to preserve democracy.
But I still fucking hate guns. sorry but 2 handguns and an AK won't win against the police and government something is better than nothing. That is why its a consitutional right, to protect the people from the government in those extreme situations when everything goes nuts. The founding fathers always intended for the power to originate from the people, and this right is an extension of that. Live free or die trying now let's get out of the drama movie and focus on real life. the constitution was written about 250 years ago, when there was much less public safety. Ironically from my understanding, many christians don't take everything the new AND old testaments say literally (i.e no eating shellfish), but are quick to pull the purist constitution bullshit did u really just compare the constitution to the bible ? well seeing as both documents have a fanatical following.. At least the constitution allows for amendments, and doesn't pretend to be divinely inspired....
Shh don't remind people that the constitution was drafted as a living document for the most part and is suppose to change with the people under it. Some take both as sacrosanct.
|
On August 10 2012 09:08 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 03:10 Millitron wrote:On August 09 2012 15:29 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 11:29 biology]major wrote:On August 09 2012 11:26 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 11:18 biology]major wrote:On August 09 2012 10:44 darthfoley wrote:On August 09 2012 06:31 Slakter wrote:
The fact that it's in the constitution is a stupid argument that people only use when they put too much faith into old scriptures or don't have any other arguments.
However, I am sort of torn in this issue. I believe everyone to have the right to own a gun as long as the police and military does since otherwise there is no way for citizens to revolt against their leaders (if these leaders go all fascist or anything else) so I believe it to be a necessary evil to preserve democracy.
But I still fucking hate guns. sorry but 2 handguns and an AK won't win against the police and government something is better than nothing. That is why its a consitutional right, to protect the people from the government in those extreme situations when everything goes nuts. The founding fathers always intended for the power to originate from the people, and this right is an extension of that. Live free or die trying now let's get out of the drama movie and focus on real life. the constitution was written about 250 years ago, when there was much less public safety. Ironically from my understanding, many christians don't take everything the new AND old testaments say literally (i.e no eating shellfish), but are quick to pull the purist constitution bullshit did u really just compare the constitution to the bible ? well seeing as both documents have a fanatical following.. At least the constitution allows for amendments, and doesn't pretend to be divinely inspired.... Shh don't remind people that the constitution was drafted as a living document for the most part and is suppose to change with the people under it. Some take both as sacrosanct.
Everybody accepts the document is "living" via Amendments. The problem people have is when people either ignore it or add shit to it through means other than amendment. Such as the Court's role of "interpreting" turning into "creating."
|
This is another area which has no simple answer. You have people who are against weapons, and in an ideal America, this would be the perfect choice. However there are already people with guns and even if guns were banned, it would be hard to conduct investigations for seizure of weapons by US policemen if this is even legal. Thus people in the US will almost always have weapons regardless of its banning.
Then you have the other solution where people should carry guns everyday in the backpack, bags, etc. However then there will be more accidents and unexpected shootings due to some people being more spontaneous and less able to control their emotions. It's hard to come to a solution and I doubt there's a simple solution to this ongoing problem.
|
On August 10 2012 20:19 Kavallerie wrote:
This is another area which has no simple answer. You have people who are against weapons, and in an ideal America, this would be the perfect choice. However there are already people with guns and even if guns were banned, it would be hard to conduct investigations for seizure of weapons by US policemen if this is even legal. Thus people in the US will almost always have weapons regardless of its banning.
Then you have the other solution where people should carry guns everyday in the backpack, bags, etc. However then there will be more accidents and unexpected shootings due to some people being more spontaneous and less able to control their emotions. It's hard to come to a solution and I doubt there's a simple solution to this ongoing problem.
For sake of argument even if guns were banned tomorrow, you can't confiscate folks weapons -- that would violate the ex-post facto law. This is the same reason why you can still own automatic weapons if you owned/purchased them before 1986, and you can still sell those today, no problem. Never mind the fact that any large-scale confiscation of weapons would result in revolution..., just not feasible. It's much more likely they'll go for ammunition, or manufacturing, etc.
I've pretty much given up trying to change anti-non Government ownership of weapons folks (they're not anti-gun, since they obviously don't mind folks in fancy uniforms and with shiny badges carrying them around oppressing folks because they're unarmed...), but you know...I'd be fine with banning ALL ownership of weapons if you could guarantee to me that it is impossible for tyranny to ever arise. If you can't do that, then we'll, your only argument is an accessory to bringing tyranny to this land. I wonder how successful Stalin would have been if the Russians never disarmed themselves...ah, Solzhenitsyn.
(Or for you, if the Jews were never disarmed in 1936 by the same type of legislation folks are pushing here in the States today)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
