|
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 December 23 2012 11:03 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 10:56 mcc wrote:
I cannot find any statistics, but from my perception of murders in Czech Republic half or maybe more of them are not committed by actual criminals, but are "crimes of passion", mental breakdowns or one-time crimes. So the fact that criminals won't have guns will have smaller effect than you might anticipate. On the other hand all of those murderers would be able to get the gun beforehand as they would be people who did nothing wrong. Whereas without guns they might not be so successful. Basically what I wanted to point out that the perception that a lot of people in this thread has that murderers are mostly professional criminals seems to be quite off. There is no Captain John Anderton to help us with this.. I'm thrilled for you that you are happy to live where you do.. I am.. But here you are (or should be) innocent until proven guilty.. this should matter in for everything.. (unless you are a convicted criminal) I've said this before.. I shouldn't be accused of wanting to kill people just for owning or wanting to own a gun.. If there is no reasonable reason to believe that crime of passion will occur.. then we shouldn't assume it will.. my wife have a few guns.. I'll never assume, unless I've done something bad, that she'll want to kill me..
This is not about assuming someone is guilty or not. We do not assume companies want to kill people and that is why we regulate what their products cannot contain. The question is at what point would you be willing to ban "innocent" people from owning guns. What if such measure saved 10 people a year, 1000 or maybe 10000 ? Or would you never be willing to do that no matter how many people would such a measure save ?
|
On December 23 2012 11:44 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 10:21 iplayBANJO wrote:
I'm reaching back a few pages in these replies, as I don't really wish to discuss whether taxation is or is not robbery. It is a distracting notion which I see as being unimportant to our discussions here on the availability of firearms being necessary for the security of a democracy and on the moral questions surrounding the gun control debate. While many, if not most people seem to agree that firearms are a possible danger to individual safety, the conversation seems to have moved primarily to whether or not the danger posed by firearms is worth the ability to forcibly defend the freedoms of democracy if the need were to arise. The majority of this debate seems to center around the United States as it seems to be the longest running example of both democracy and personal ownership of firearms, and even though I have no direct questions about foreign nations I would be curious to know if people in countries with strict gun control have faith in their political systems to be kept in check. Specifically from people in nations with recent history of political turmoil and/or collapse.
Guns can be used against democracy just as easily as for it. At best it's naive to think that they'll defend democracy (a process 90% of the population doesn't participate in in any meaningful way.) At worst it's a fairy-tale pushed by groups who want to defend gun rights for a different reason.
Gandhi and others in India achieved independence primarily through non-violent means.
|
On February 20 2012 03:30 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:25 MerdaPura wrote:Owning a gun gives you the option of slef defense, but IMO martial arts do that job pretty well. And also, the worst part about having a gun, is that you may want to use it. And from there on countless things may happen, good or bad, impossible to know. Finishing: Learn kung-fu  The problem with your argument becomes apparent when your assailant has a weapon, a size advantage or just more experience in fights.
The problem with your argument.
Your assailant has a weapon, bigger magazine, bigger caliber, is better trained, practices target shooting regularly. And he's wearing body armour.
What now?
Conflict escalation simply leads to more escalation.
This is the problem of America, that fear has gotten into the populace and that's why they clutch on to their guns.
|
On December 23 2012 11:36 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 11:15 jinorazi wrote:On December 23 2012 10:42 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 23 2012 10:18 jinorazi wrote:On December 23 2012 09:48 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 23 2012 09:18 jinorazi wrote:
i find it ironic you call others stupid and full of it with the type of reply you made. Anyone who says there can be a world with no crime or violence.. or anyone who says something isn't debatable.. when it is very much a subject that can be debated to death and back.. IS FULL OF IT.. But please.. as I said.. I love to learn.. so point out to me where I was being ironic.. so I can learn from it and we won't have this problem again.. i never said a world with no crime or violence, i was speaking in terms of countries with already strictly placed gun regulation with low gun saturation, and that world is better than the counterpart. do explain why you would prefer high gun saturation with lax gun control and screening as it is usa. i was pointing out the useless subjects like you first pointed it out, people saying gun control or no gun control in usa without realistic viewpoint on it, which is the majority of this thread. i didnt call them idiots like you did, i said there is no need for same old words. the irony comes from you calling others(me) full of it on their words yet you strongly present your opinion with authoritative tone. You've done it again...first.. where did I say you said there could be a world with no crime and violence.. you assume I said this.. but I can understand because I've made the mistake of assuming before also.. I assumed you were reasonable.. Now for the important part.. do you want me to answer the question to what I'd actually prefer.. or the outrageous preferences you set me to have? Where have I ever said I prefer guns everywhere with lax laws or screening.. I didn't know this was what I preferred.. but if this is the stance you need me to take.. I'll debate it with you if it will make you feel better... I prefer a world where ownership of guns (almost any) is an option to anyone who can pass screening process that is above adequate.. Now do you want me to do your version? thats fine and i agree with that stance for usa. not everyone thinks that way and thats perfectly fine too. i'm not sure where we're disagreeing with except for the part where you picked me out and said i'm full of it, i explained my position and since you pointed me out on what i said, i assumed you're advocating the opposite of or against what i said. Awesome... so then would you agree that should I pass the screening and prove no threat.. that I can own Bushmaster AR 15? Or any other firearm I would want? Where would you draw the line? Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 11:16 Jockmcplop wrote:Where is the line drawn? Is it necessary to allow everybody the right to own a weapon, because some people want to use them for recreational purposes? How about for hunting purposes? Would a schizophrenic person with no violent history be able to own a weapon if they rely on hunting for income/survival? These are the questions that i see pushing the debate forward to some sort of realistic (if temporary) solution. The big questions are inviting, but they inevitably lead to the same boring answers. The little legal grey areas are more important. Most people agree that some restriction would be a good thing, so we are not handing killing machines to psychopaths, but its how that is done which will be important.
^^^^^^^ This is the final edit of my previous post. I honestly think that tackling the finer details such as this is the only way to create a legal system for gun ownership. There are a thousand moral dilemma that need to be tackled. Could someone whose family has a history of dementia own a gun when they are 45 years old? 50? 60? At what point do they become dangerous? Should parents be held responsible (through manslaughter charges) for their weapon if it gets in to the hands of their child? (i don't know what the law is on this topic at the moment) The only way to come up with some final test for gun ownership is to think of every single possible outcome (barring insanely unlikely ones) and legislate specifically for all of them before they happen. Otherwise it would be unfair. I can't see that happening though. There is no headline there. No catchy vote winning phrase. It would take a long time and be very difficult, and expensive to do. I just hope that someone in power decides that it would be worth it in the long term (and it definitely would). Should I be at that table.. Family history towards certain conditions would be looked at.. but I wouldn't have the gun taken away as soon as they hit a certain age.. it would be more like.. at the first sign of said condition being noticed, they would have to turn over their gun.. I might even throw something in there like.. If they lived on their own.. and had family it's up to the family to make the determination on to when they should give up the gun.. I wouldn't want to leave anyone in their house unprotected, but that family must understand they they assume liability for the person suffering from the condition.. So if crazy grandpa murders someone because his son didn't have the heart to take away the gun.. then the son is going to prison.. I believe parents should (and are) held responsible.. I have a son.. and I am legally obligated to have locks on any gun he could get his hands on.. There is a way to make that test.. but me and you couldn't come up with it in an hour.. maybe it should be one of those test where there is no right answer.. but you are evaluated based on what you say..
for usa personally, i'd advocate different levels of license that rewards experience, ability, history, mental review, etc. that allows and disallows certain type of guns. in regards to explosives or suppressors, i wouldnt want them available to civilians without another step in requirements. it would also depend on the local view/attitude towards firearm.
i think majority of gun owners are recreational users so just like cars, people modify to be track driven, often breaking street legal standards. therefore some type of weaponry being allowed in certain areas but banned in others. where do we draw the line on the specifics? thats for experts decide, which i dont think is happening in usa at the moment.
as for place like korea, i wouldnt introduce guns to civilians except for recreational use, rentable firearm at shooting ranges. but this is based on my humble evaluation on korea's view/culture towards guns. civilian use could be considered if we think about north korea, because of conscription i would imagine most men are competent with firearms. but if the people have no interest or sees it as taboo, theres no need for civilians.
|
On December 23 2012 11:45 Eps wrote:
But again, stats and surveys, data and resources do not matter to most of the people here reading in this thread, or even the general population.
Instead they trust that gut feeling that you know having a guns, and having more people on the street armed makes you feel safe. That's the feeling they trust in.
I still trust my gut because an article like that just leaves me with more questions.. The main one I'd really like to know is.. what the writer pro-gun.. anti-gun.. or neutral? Other than that.. the questions could probably only be answered by the writer.
|
On December 23 2012 11:56 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 11:45 Eps wrote:
But again, stats and surveys, data and resources do not matter to most of the people here reading in this thread, or even the general population.
Instead they trust that gut feeling that you know having a guns, and having more people on the street armed makes you feel safe. That's the feeling they trust in. I still trust my gut because an article like that just leaves me with more questions.. The main one I'd really like to know is.. what the writer pro-gun.. anti-gun.. or neutral? Other than that.. the questions could probably only be answered by the writer.
That is the point I was making. For the most part, people come into these types of discussions with preconceived notions and they're only looking for information that reinforces their beliefs. These types of discussions bring out the extremes on both ends.
I can spend hours digging up stats and peer-reviewed journal articles on the hazards of gun ownership, sources of victimization (stranger crime) and other data. And nobody would think much more of other then - I bet the author's biased, the source is unreliable, the data gathering methods have issues, and a plethora of other excuses.
For the most part, I am not anti-gun. I believe in gun ownership and legal use of firearms, however I believe they should be heavily regulated. There's a differences between banning weapons and regulating them.
Firearms are quite abundant in Canada, we rank on 12 highest guns per/capita in the world. But we also regulate it heavily. It is very difficult to obtain firearms legally in Canada, the process takes months - I'm in the middle of it right now.
But rifles/shotguns/handguns are all perfectly legal here - though with magazine capacity restrictions. And we also have a much lower crime rate + murder by firearms compared to our neighbours in the South.
|
On December 23 2012 11:46 mcc wrote:
This is not about assuming someone is guilty or not. We do not assume companies want to kill people and that is why we regulate what their products cannot contain. The question is at what point would you be willing to ban "innocent" people from owning guns. What if such measure saved 10 people a year, 1000 or maybe 10000 ? Or would you never be willing to do that no matter how many people would such a measure save ?
I don't assume a company wants to kill my child with their product.. I assume the company wants to maximize profit and cut corners.. and in doing so puts my child at risk..
I'd ban an innocent person from owning a gun when they don't pass a screening or have demonstrated they couldn't handle it.
I would like to save as many people as possible... it depends.. just how are these people going to die with the guns??
On December 23 2012 11:51 Eps wrote:
This is the problem of America, that fear has gotten into the populace and that's why they clutch on to their guns.
I clutch my guns because I love them... they have a value to me that doesn't involve the protection of my life.. If American's are full of fear.. it is the media's fault because they seriously push crime like is a healthy lunch.. American's are justified in that fear because of this..
On December 23 2012 11:53 jinorazi wrote:
for usa personally, i'd advocate different levels of license that rewards experience, ability, history, mental review, etc. that allows and disallows certain type of guns. in regards to explosives or suppressors, i wouldnt want them available to civilians without another step in requirements. it would also depend on the local view/attitude towards firearm.
i think majority of gun owners are recreational users so just like cars, people modify to be track driven, often breaking street legal standards. therefore some type of weaponry being allowed in certain areas but banned in others. where do we draw the line on the specifics? thats for experts decide, which i dont think is happening in usa at the moment.
I agree.. I'm very much a gun enthusiast who would spend hours showing you around my hardware.. as long as you were interested.. I was raised around guns.. but I believe that people should begin with handguns if they were never around them before.. and slowly move up.
I own a suppressor.. for hunting (the only legal reason I actually believe should matter) Wear plugs if you want to protect your ears.. double up if it really bothers you..
I do not believe there should be a limit to how many guns you own.. and I think it should be very limited on what you can't
|
On December 23 2012 12:06 Eps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 11:56 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 23 2012 11:45 Eps wrote:
But again, stats and surveys, data and resources do not matter to most of the people here reading in this thread, or even the general population.
Instead they trust that gut feeling that you know having a guns, and having more people on the street armed makes you feel safe. That's the feeling they trust in. I still trust my gut because an article like that just leaves me with more questions.. The main one I'd really like to know is.. what the writer pro-gun.. anti-gun.. or neutral? Other than that.. the questions could probably only be answered by the writer. That is the point I was making. For the most part, people come into these types of discussions with preconceived notions and they're only looking for information that reinforces their beliefs. These types of discussions bring out the extremes on both ends. I can spend hours digging up stats and peer-reviewed journal articles on the hazards of gun ownership, sources of victimization (stranger crime) and other data. And nobody would think much more of other then - I bet the author's biased, the source is unreliable, the data gathering methods have issues, and a plethora of other excuses. For the most part, I am not anti-gun. I believe in gun ownership and legal use of firearms, however I believe they should be heavily regulated. There's a differences between banning weapons and regulating them. Firearms are quite abundant in Canada, we rank on 12 highest guns per/capita in the world. But we also regulate it heavily. It is very difficult to obtain firearms legally in Canada, the process takes months - I'm in the middle of it right now. But rifles/shotguns/handguns are all perfectly legal here - though with magazine capacity restrictions. And we also have a much lower crime rate + murder by firearms compared to our neighbours in the South.
This is pretty much true. This is why compromise is so important. Finding the things that anyone who does not extreme views can agree on and focusing heavily on them is the most effective way of starting the ball rolling. The more people stick to their guns -  - the more extreme everybody becomes.
There really is no point in having a bunch of people who say "America should have no guns" and quoting a bunch of studies and 'facts' that prove their point, just as there is no point in people saying "every person in america should be armed" and quoting their own studies and 'facts'. It does nothing, it is literally pointless. All that happens is a bunch of people feel morally superior to a different bunch of people and it positively reinforces their behavior by getting that feeling of being right.
People should think about the end result that they want, and whether or not it is achievable. What steps would you need to take to start achieving that goal? Is there a small step that everybody could agree on?
|
On December 23 2012 12:06 Eps wrote:
That is the point I was making. For the most part, people come into these types of discussions with preconceived notions and they're only looking for information that reinforces their beliefs. These types of discussions bring out the extremes on both ends.
I can spend hours digging up stats and peer-reviewed journal articles on the hazards of gun ownership, sources of victimization (stranger crime) and other data. And nobody would think much more of other then - I bet the author's biased, the source is unreliable, the data gathering methods have issues, and a plethora of other excuses.
For the most part, I am not anti-gun. I believe in gun ownership and legal use of firearms, however I believe they should be heavily regulated. There's a differences between banning weapons and regulating them.
Firearms are quite abundant in Canada, we rank on 12 highest guns per/capita in the world. But we also regulate it heavily. It is very difficult to obtain firearms legally in Canada, the process takes months - I'm in the middle of it right now.
But rifles/shotguns/handguns are all perfectly legal here - though with magazine capacity restrictions. And we also have a much lower crime rate + murder by firearms compared to our neighbours in the South.
I think it's very important to know which side a writer is leaning towards before making my mind up on anything I read that has something to do with what I'd involved in.. After learning that... and having a few more questions answered.. which I feel are important.. then I'll make changes to what I believe..
I see what you're saying, but let me ask you a legit question.. it is said that the U.S. second amendment is for protection against an oppressive government.. would you want the very group that it is meant to protect you from regulating the very thing that you would be using as protection?
It's like allowing the bankers and wall street people designing their own regulations.. they've done something like this and it screwed us..
|
It stuns me that people in America think that we need guns to protect us from the government... If it ever came push to shove there's no way in hell the populace could compete with the might of the US military. And just for the record do you really think that people should be able to carry a device that can kill someone with a push of a button? I don't think any civilian should be able to hold that power.
|
United States24565 Posts
On December 23 2012 13:01 Xenocryst wrote:
It stuns me that people in America think that we need guns to protect us from the government... If it ever came push to shove there's no way in hell the populace could compete with the might of the US military.
I'm kind of undecided on the issue, but it's not as simple as you make it sound. The situation people are worried about isn't:
The US Army VS Xenocryst, round 1.
For the most part, I think what people are worried about is things that would occur on a much smaller scale, or a unification of people that was so significant that the military itself would not be unified to support the government.
And just for the record do you really think that people should be able to carry a device that can kill someone with a push of a button? I don't think any civilian should be able to hold that power.
There are many devices that can basically do this. However, with respect to the United States, even if it was logical to say that gun ownership should be banned for all non-military personnel, there is no way to make that happen in 1 or even 10 years. There's not much point in saying "guns should be banned" in the absence of some perspective of what should be done about it.
|
On December 23 2012 12:31 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:06 Eps wrote:
That is the point I was making. For the most part, people come into these types of discussions with preconceived notions and they're only looking for information that reinforces their beliefs. These types of discussions bring out the extremes on both ends.
I can spend hours digging up stats and peer-reviewed journal articles on the hazards of gun ownership, sources of victimization (stranger crime) and other data. And nobody would think much more of other then - I bet the author's biased, the source is unreliable, the data gathering methods have issues, and a plethora of other excuses.
For the most part, I am not anti-gun. I believe in gun ownership and legal use of firearms, however I believe they should be heavily regulated. There's a differences between banning weapons and regulating them.
Firearms are quite abundant in Canada, we rank on 12 highest guns per/capita in the world. But we also regulate it heavily. It is very difficult to obtain firearms legally in Canada, the process takes months - I'm in the middle of it right now.
But rifles/shotguns/handguns are all perfectly legal here - though with magazine capacity restrictions. And we also have a much lower crime rate + murder by firearms compared to our neighbours in the South. I think it's very important to know which side a writer is leaning towards before making my mind up on anything I read that has something to do with what I'd involved in.. After learning that... and having a few more questions answered.. which I feel are important.. then I'll make changes to what I believe.. I see what you're saying, but let me ask you a legit question.. it is said that the U.S. second amendment is for protection against an oppressive government.. would you want the very group that it is meant to protect you from regulating the very thing that you would be using as protection? It's like allowing the bankers and wall street people designing their own regulations.. they've done something like this and it screwed us..
I do understand your point, about the government legalizing the tools that are meant for the society to use against the state.
But from what I know of US history and the constitution, the second amendment was for the right to keep a well-armed militia against an oppressive state. Now this was adopted in 1787 right? It predates the advent of any known true repeating rifle, much less semi-automatic weapons of the current time.
People, technology and advances change and develop over time - thus laws should too. I'm not sure what America's original forefathers had in mind was this.
But back to your point. While I do understand your concern, what I believe in is restricted regulation of firearms, not banning. The guns will still be there, but the process to obtain it will be more strict for the most part.
This is ultimately to slow down the amount of firearms entering the US population. Banning I believe right now is already out of the question for the US, the market and population is way too oversaturated with guns already. And this viewpoint is too extreme. However that doesn't meant you can't implement stricter regulations, it's a start.
As for the point about protection against an oppressive state. There's various ways I can answer this.
I can say how various countries have achieved independence and overthrown dictators without resorting to civil war.
India - Gandhi for one.
For more current examples. The Egyptians are working on their democracy right now, it's in their early stages and it's imperfect. But they achieved part of their goals without having it turn into Libya/Syria.
On the far opposite end to this. Well, we're in an era of mechanized warfare with automated drones. I really, really fail to see how small arms are going to stop remote drones and heavily armored vehicles.
Rather then worrying about the government taking away guns, and ability to fight a Much better equipped force. I'd worry about what really matters - civil rights and the Patriot Act.
|
Fall of the United States... when the People of the USA use the First Amendment to destroy the Second Amendment...
|
On December 23 2012 13:08 Eps wrote:
But from what I know of US history and the constitution, the second amendment was for the right to keep a well-armed militia against an oppressive state. Now this was adopted in 1787 right? It predates the advent of any known true repeating rifle, much less semi-automatic weapons of the current time.
People, technology and advances change and develop over time - thus laws should too. I'm not sure what America's original forefathers had in mind was this.
I'm no expert on this subject.. but I'd like to believe that our founding fathers knew that there would be advances in technology.
But back to your point. While I do understand your concern, what I believe in is restricted regulation of firearms, not banning. The guns will still be there, but the process to obtain it will be more strict for the most part.
This is ultimately to slow down the amount of firearms entering the US population. Banning I believe right now is already out of the question for the US, the market and population is way too oversaturated with guns already. And this viewpoint is too extreme. However that doesn't meant you can't implement stricter regulations, it's a start.
On the far opposite end to this. Well, we're in an era of mechanized warfare with automated drones. I really, really fail to see how small arms are going to stop remote drones and heavily armored vehicles.
Rather then worrying about the government taking away guns, and ability to fight a Much better equipped force. I'd worry about what really matters - civil rights and the Patriot Act.
You also fail to see (no offense) that my 2nd amendment rights have already be violated since the populace here could not stand toe to toe with a military detachment should the government use it against me..
As for the point about protection against an oppressive state. There's various ways I can answer this.
I can say how various countries have achieved independence and overthrown dictators without resorting to civil war.
India - Gandhi for one.
For more current examples. The Egyptians are working on their democracy right now, it's in their early stages and it's imperfect. But they achieved part of their goals without having it turn into Libya/Syria.
Gandhi's oppressor was a foreign power.. I'd say this has a lot to do with that case..
Egypt didn't shed some blood to get to where they are?
|
Are you suggesting civlians should be armed with portable missile launchers, just so it has a chance to go toe to toe with your own military in the future?
|
WTF, the op says: "in a perfect world, the law enforcement alone would be capable of wielding all the violence "?
in a perfect world there would be no need for law enforcement anyway!
|
On December 23 2012 11:51 Eps wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:30 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 03:25 MerdaPura wrote:Owning a gun gives you the option of slef defense, but IMO martial arts do that job pretty well. And also, the worst part about having a gun, is that you may want to use it. And from there on countless things may happen, good or bad, impossible to know. Finishing: Learn kung-fu The problem with your argument becomes apparent when your assailant has a weapon, a size advantage or just more experience in fights. The problem with your argument. Your assailant has a weapon, bigger magazine, bigger caliber, is better trained, practices target shooting regularly. And he's wearing body armour. What now? Conflict escalation simply leads to more escalation. This is the problem of America, that fear has gotten into the populace and that's why they clutch on to their guns.
At least with legally available guns you can weed out the vast majority of criminals that won't get spec ops gear and training just so they can mug you.
The equalizing factor that guns have and martial arts don't is that it's a matter of maybe months to get a gun and you are all set to defend yourself for life, whereas with martial arts it's three nights a week for the rest of your life and you may still run into someone who's just plain too big or strong for you to fight back.
|
It's funny how people want only the police to be armed, as if the police are some magical force that only does good. My experiences with police tells me these are the last people we want to be armed. They are violent bullies.
|
On December 23 2012 20:11 furymonkey wrote:
Are you suggesting civlians should be armed with portable missile launchers, just so it has a chance to go toe to toe with your own military in the future?
OH YEAH... That's exactly NOT what I'm suggesting.. I'm saying we should have the right to own any weaponry that would allow us, if by some slim chance it happens, to fight against a modern military force..
Once again.. I'm not suggesting that I load the bed of my truck with RPGs and drive across the U.S. just handing them out to EVERYBODY.. As long as the person pass an intense screening before they should be able to own just about anything they want..
On December 23 2012 22:19 TerribleNoobling wrote:
It's funny how people want only the police to be armed, as if the police are some magical force that only does good. My experiences with police tells me these are the last people we want to be armed. They are violent bullies.
Plus One (my plus key is broke)...
From my past experience I would say that 7 out of 10 police have no business on the force.. I've noticed that the police departments are beginning to hire veterans who are returning home.. a huge majority being from infantry.. These people (from experience) don't know jack squat about the law they are enforcing.. They just know how to follow orders like the military taught them..
My 3rd year of college.. I was in a math class with several vets.. and it was disgusting how these men talked about the joys of killing people.. NOW these 3 men are cops..
My cousin.. I love him to death.. served several tours in Afgan and Iraq.. is now a cop.. and if I recorded our phone calls, where he talks about nothing but what I would consider grounds for being thrown in jail... I just can't bring myself to because he's family who I grew up with..
I have a habit of asking questions about things I don't understand, and I actually find it good to have.. but I shouldn't be harassed or accused of being disobedient just because I am questioning something they say that I know is BULL...
I have met some really awesome cops.. and I wouldn't be where I am today without some of those men.. But I still believe that there are more criminals behind the badge then the good guys..
|
On December 23 2012 13:01 Xenocryst wrote:
It stuns me that people in America think that we need guns to protect us from the government... If it ever came push to shove there's no way in hell the populace could compete with the might of the US military.
I'm stunned so many people blindly trust the government with all the concrete evidence out there that shows that it doesn't care about you..
Ok.. so push came to shove.. it's like I've just been robbed/mugged by an armed criminal.. I'm standing there in my boxers with no hope of competing against this armed person.. So I should just surrender everything.. I should tell him my pin numbers and account numbers.. possibly give him my social.. the best way to get into my house and where he can find the best valuables.. maybe I should tell him how my wife like it so he can have his way with her too..
But.. according to you.. Since I stand a snowballs chance, I should just give in and allow the government to mistreat me whichever way they want.. These rich people in the government laugh at us because of how stupid the majority of you are..
You sheeple disgust me more than any other thing in the world.. other than creeps who take advantage of small children, but you're honestly are not far behind..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
