|
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 24 2012 01:05 Josealtron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 00:03 AmericanNightmare wrote: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.. First of all- The government does care about us because ultimately we are the ones who decide whether or not they get elected. That's a pretty important thing to remember. If kids in our schools are dying because of psychopath people having semi-automatic weaponry, and the government does nothing about it, than that politician probably isn't getting reelected. So maybe they don't necessarily care for the right reasons, or maybe they don't care as much as they should, but they do care. Next- That situation you described is a perfect example of what someone said earlier in this thread, about people who are strongly pro-gun tending to have this idea that something bad will happen to them and with a gun they could stop it. Well, no. It's not that simple. Say this situation you're describing does happen. This (armed, you said?) robber sees you pull out a gun on him, what the hell do you think he's going to do? Back off? He just tried to rob you, so he knows there's a good chance you might shoot him, so you think he's gonna wait for you to shoot first? No, he's gonna shoot you, because for him it becomes a life or death situation at that point. So your credit cards and such being robbed turned into a gunfight. Instead of putting your money at risk, you put your life at risk. Congrats. Also the fact that those who are trying to protect innocent people(including children) from guns disgust you almost as much as pedophiles is....pretty fucked up. And your ad hominem's were real creative too.
First of all.. we only elect a hand full of people.. I'm of the honest opinion, that should the SCOTUS be elected officials.. citizens united would be gone.. If they cared about us and didn't think we are stupid.. why is every commercial a compete joke or riddled with lies? If you were from Florida.. do you think a rep. or sen. from Alaska or California gives a damn about you?
Next- In the context of the post the robber is the government.. I made no mention about pulling a gun from my boxers and shooting him/her.. It was simply saying that just because I've already been robbed.. I shouldn't help the person out more or make their life easier.. After the armed robber pulled the gun.. I obviously submitted because I'm in my boxers..
Way to use those reading skills buddy.. CONGRATZ!!!
Hey buddy.. you trust the government.. I support your right to do that.. just like I support your right to jump into a debate without reading what was actually said..
|
I don't think a trained military would have any problem with unorganized citizens with various amount of light weaponry. They could never stop an invasion. A successful guerrilla war would be possible but stopping an advancing army with heavy artillery and tanks can not be done by civilians.
|
On December 24 2012 01:36 mcc wrote:
Someone forgot Mexico and the fact that British/Canadians had fun burning your cities 30 years after your Independence.
Were they done by forces looking to take the land for their country? If so why didn't they?
On December 24 2012 00:52 Simberto wrote:
Well, there are multiple reasons for that that are not directly linked to your population having guns. The main factors being that you don't have a lot of land border to anything, and you have a big-ass military.
Hate to nit pick.. but isn't our military a part of our population with guns? Your "main factor" aren't very good in my mind.. we might not have a lot of borders, but we still have some.. and some is all you need.
On December 24 2012 02:19 dronesss wrote:
I am not saying we should own 30 rifles, but I believe we should atleast own a revolver or small hand gun....maybe 1 rifle but I am not for us being 100% gunless.
I was 100% in support of you.. even after your mistake about Japan... you were close though.. they did invade several Island in our possession.. so you could tech be right.. but as soon as you said this you might have lost me..
Why only handguns? What's truly the difference between a gun in the possession of a law abiding citizen.. or 30 guns in the same citizens possession?
|
So.. let me get this right?
If you don't own a gun you are defenceless and weak, whereas with a gun I can defend myself and others?
Seems slightly backward in my opinion :/
I'm not going to pretend to understand the argument completely, and as someone who isn't american i cannot comprehend the pride of constitution and 'freedoms'.. however, what i do know is that weapons never solve anything. Inevitably, guns will escalate potential situations and increase the frequency of tragedies (especially across such a large population).
On a personal note, I have never felt a compulsive need to own a gun in order to feel safe and secure.. the gun laws in the UK are strict and if anything, that allows me to feel more comfortable than the feeling of being surrounded by deadly weapons. Violence never cures violence.. and whilst passivity will never stop others from doing awful things, it just seems obvious to me that possession of weapons can truly yield positive benefits.
|
United States24565 Posts
On December 24 2012 02:15 bardtown wrote:
And for some reason a simple gun isn't enough for self defense, you need to be legally allowed to own fully automatic rifles etc.
No. Very few people are pushing for fully automatic weapons to be available. This is not even remotely relevant to most of what we are discussing in this thread.
Of the frequent gun-massacres that happen in schools there, how many have been stopped by other people with firearms?
You are asking, how many gunman who attack schools, which are almost always gun free zones, were stopped by innocent citizens with guns? Really? Which side of this issue are you even on?
Of those I've heard of they almost always end when the gunman decides he wants it to.
It might have something to do with the fact that nobody in the school besides him has a weapon capable of defending themselves with.
Hopefully there comes a time when you realise this emphasis on guns is perverse. Guns are for killing, nothing else. Millions of people go target shooting every day. Many people use shotguns to shoot at clay pigeons. There are quite a few uses of guns besides killing. Your claim is ridiculous.
There's no reason for them to be legal beyond hunting. So you are okay with hunting? You are okay with people using them to hunt, but not to target shoot? That means everyone will have bad aim and hit deer in the legs and shit. Do you really want that?
And generally speaking the idea of using a gun for self defense is just... If somebody pulls a gun on you, you're not going to have chance to pull your own gun. If it's concealed you have the option of whether or not to pull it out in a given situation. If you are in your home you may know of an intruder before they know of you.
|
On December 24 2012 02:45 Sjokola wrote:
I don't think a trained military would have any problem with unorganized citizens with various amount of light weaponry. They could never stop an invasion. A successful guerrilla war would be possible but stopping an advancing army with heavy artillery and tanks can not be done by civilians.
I 100% agree with you... This is why I believe I should have access to other weapons then what I have now.. If the only reason I have hardcore heavy weaponry to do fight off a government that could one day oppress me.. but they are never going to do it.. why not just allow me to have them? It's a simple question.. don't be crazy and throw "I might get disgruntled or go insane" A teacher can ask me "What's 2 plus 2".. I'd get it wrong if I said.. "Well, if you also add 3.. but then subtract 7.. you get nothing" It would be wrong in the teachers eyes.. So please just answer the simple question in the form it was presented if you'd care to
|
On December 24 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 02:45 Sjokola wrote:
I don't think a trained military would have any problem with unorganized citizens with various amount of light weaponry. They could never stop an invasion. A successful guerrilla war would be possible but stopping an advancing army with heavy artillery and tanks can not be done by civilians. I 100% agree with you... This is why I believe I should have access to other weapons then what I have now.. If the only reason I have hardcore heavy weaponry to do fight off a government that could one day oppress me.. but they are never going to do it.. why not just allow me to have them? It's a simple question.. don't be crazy and throw "I might get disgruntled or go insane" A teacher can ask me "What's 2 plus 2".. I'd get it wrong if I said.. "Well, if you also add 3.. but then subtract 7.. you get nothing" It would be wrong in the teachers eyes.. So please just answer the simple question in the form it was presented if you'd care to
Are you suggesting that civilians be allowed to have RPGs, C4, and other heavy arms/explosives? Those will be pretty necessary to fight off any modern, oppressive government military.
|
considering the prices of assault rifles going way up over the last week. to around 2500 bucks and 200 bucks for a 30 round clip. It is going to make it a lot harder for retards to get one. good thing i got 5.
|
It is very amusing to me that every time Democrats start talking about reducing the "easy access to guns," people go out and buy more guns and flood the available market even more. I would say it is all talk and the country will never let it happen, but I know how these things work. They will ban a meaningless term like "assault weapons" and then steadily widen the definition of the term so that it includes more and more weapons. And as fewer and fewer people own weapons, there will be fewer people decrying the advancement of banning them. People are so easily manipulated.
|
On December 24 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 02:45 Sjokola wrote:
I don't think a trained military would have any problem with unorganized citizens with various amount of light weaponry. They could never stop an invasion. A successful guerilla war would be possible but stopping an advancing army with heavy artillery and tanks can not be done by civilians. I 100% agree with you... This is why I believe I should have access to other weapons then what I have now.. If the only reason I have hardcore heavy weaponry to do fight off a government that could one day oppress me.. but they are never going to do it.. why not just allow me to have them? It's a simple question.. don't be crazy and throw "I might get disgruntled or go insane" A teacher can ask me "What's 2 plus 2".. I'd get it wrong if I said.. "Well, if you also add 3.. but then subtract 7.. you get nothing" It would be wrong in the teachers eyes.. So please just answer the simple question in the form it was presented if you'd care to
I think that even with heavier weaponry civilians couldn't do anything substantial. Untrained, unorganised, and still w/o tanks real AA. You could only stop an invader from keeping you occupied but not from advancing to f.e. the capital.
But to answer your question: heavy weaponry in the hands of citizens would lead to more accidents heavier gang wars and more terrible school shootings. I believe gun ownership should be limited too hunting rifles in area's where people hunt or have dangerous wildlife. Guns for sports should be kept behind a lock at the shooting range.
But having guns is embedded in the US culture. So banning heavy caliber or full automatic weapons is imo the next step that should be taken.
|
On December 24 2012 03:09 Dbars wrote:
considering the prices of assault rifles going way up over the last week. to around 2500 bucks and 200 bucks for a 30 round clip. It is going to make it a lot harder for retards to get one. good thing i got 5.
Lolwut. 30 round magazines for AK-47 are $12 from Cabelas. AK's and AR15's are still in the $400-600 range for cheap ones.
|
On December 24 2012 02:39 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 01:05 Josealtron wrote:On December 24 2012 00:03 AmericanNightmare wrote: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.. First of all- The government does care about us because ultimately we are the ones who decide whether or not they get elected. That's a pretty important thing to remember. If kids in our schools are dying because of psychopath people having semi-automatic weaponry, and the government does nothing about it, than that politician probably isn't getting reelected. So maybe they don't necessarily care for the right reasons, or maybe they don't care as much as they should, but they do care. Next- That situation you described is a perfect example of what someone said earlier in this thread, about people who are strongly pro-gun tending to have this idea that something bad will happen to them and with a gun they could stop it. Well, no. It's not that simple. Say this situation you're describing does happen. This (armed, you said?) robber sees you pull out a gun on him, what the hell do you think he's going to do? Back off? He just tried to rob you, so he knows there's a good chance you might shoot him, so you think he's gonna wait for you to shoot first? No, he's gonna shoot you, because for him it becomes a life or death situation at that point. So your credit cards and such being robbed turned into a gunfight. Instead of putting your money at risk, you put your life at risk. Congrats. Also the fact that those who are trying to protect innocent people(including children) from guns disgust you almost as much as pedophiles is....pretty fucked up. And your ad hominem's were real creative too. First of all.. we only elect a hand full of people.. I'm of the honest opinion, that should the SCOTUS be elected officials.. citizens united would be gone.. If they cared about us and didn't think we are stupid.. why is every commercial a compete joke or riddled with lies? If you were from Florida.. do you think a rep. or sen. from Alaska or California gives a damn about you? Next- In the context of the post the robber is the government.. I made no mention about pulling a gun from my boxers and shooting him/her.. It was simply saying that just because I've already been robbed.. I shouldn't help the person out more or make their life easier.. After the armed robber pulled the gun.. I obviously submitted because I'm in my boxers.. Way to use those reading skills buddy.. CONGRATZ!!! Hey buddy.. you trust the government.. I support your right to do that.. just like I support your right to jump into a debate without reading what was actually said..
The SCOTUS itself isn't elected, but it is chosen by people who are.
A representative is designed to represent your district. Hence the term "representative". That's the point. A representative from Alaska or California represents their people. If you don't like the system, that's fine, but don't act like the government isn't bound by the people. Do you not understand the basic way our government works?
Sorry for misunderstanding your example. It just made zero sense so I assumed you were referring to someone robbing you(like most pro-gun people do). Ok, well, first of all, the government is always put into place by the people, no matter how oppressive. If an oppressive government is put into place, it's not because the people weren't armed enough to stop it, it's because they were stupid enough to support it. So if the people's will is large enough, the government will be overthrown simply because 1% of the population can't stand up to the other 99%, regardless of firepower. This has been the case in every dictatorship/oppressive government ever- a government cannot stand without the support of it's people, period. If a rebellion fails, it's because there are enough people that support the current system to stop the rebels. Now, if the people are being manipulated, that's a different story, but the point is, guns are not a factor here. Guns only serve to make the conflict more bloody. And what I just described is an extreme case that the US is nowhere near reaching, and on top of that, very few people support an outright ban on guns. Most reasonable people(including myself) believe that guns should be highly regulated so random psychopaths can't just buy an assualt weapon, walk into a school, and massacre dozens of people.
Blind following of the government is dangerous and stupid, I agree. I am extremely critical of the government, but when I criticize the government, I do so for legitimate reasons(not out of fear of something that has no indication of happening). I criticize things they do now which take away people's rights, like Gay Marriage being illegal, for example. But blind fear of the government is also dangerous and stupid, because than the government gets replaced with the mob-and the mob can potentially be equally dangerous and probably even more oppressive than government. You should probably think about why humanity established government in the first place.
|
On December 24 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 02:45 Sjokola wrote:
I don't think a trained military would have any problem with unorganized citizens with various amount of light weaponry. They could never stop an invasion. A successful guerrilla war would be possible but stopping an advancing army with heavy artillery and tanks can not be done by civilians. I 100% agree with you... This is why I believe I should have access to other weapons then what I have now.. If the only reason I have hardcore heavy weaponry to do fight off a government that could one day oppress me.. but they are never going to do it.. why not just allow me to have them? It's a simple question.. don't be crazy and throw "I might get disgruntled or go insane" A teacher can ask me "What's 2 plus 2".. I'd get it wrong if I said.. "Well, if you also add 3.. but then subtract 7.. you get nothing" It would be wrong in the teachers eyes.. So please just answer the simple question in the form it was presented if you'd care to
Can I just say it isn't crazy to suggest you might haul off and kill a bunch of people with those weapons? I mean, it keeps happening. I can't vouch for your sanity, just like I can't vouch for the sanity and competency of every person who owns weapons in this country. Which is one of the reasons why I'm against gun ownership.
You mentioned the army a little up as an example of armed citizenry. There's a big difference between the civilian populace and the army, not least that they are monitored, trained, evaluated and controlled. Yes that control slips from time to time, but they are monitored much more than the average citizen. It confuses me that you would ignore that difference.
I do have one question about the second amendment. Doesn't it have a second part, beyond the right to bear arms? Something about being part of a well maintained militia, or something? Which militia do you drill with, with militia has been organised in response to a specific threat to your life, wellbeing, property, country, rights etc? The amendment was created in a certain time when the freedom of the US was in question, and having an armed citizenry was needed to help protect them, similar to the old English law that had every man practice with a longbow every sunday. Thing is, you don't live n those times anymore, just like we're not fighting with bows at Agincourt anymore. Laws become outdated, and sadly this is an outdated law carried on too long by those who fear their government is trying to create a police state and march into their homes and take everything they have. Or maybe you really do think the King of England is going to come over to your house and start taking your jobs. Just so you know, we have a Queen now. She's a nice old biddy, not much of a threat to anyone.
And please, sentences end with a single full stop. Adding a second or third makes it seem like you're saying leading statements for us all to arrive at some obvious point.
|
One thing I don't understand is we have limits to the 1st Amendment. Why can't we have limits to the 2nd Amendment?
You would think that the Founding Fathers would have placed guns as the 1st Amendment if it were that much more important.
|
On December 24 2012 02:55 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 02:15 bardtown wrote:
And for some reason a simple gun isn't enough for self defense, you need to be legally allowed to own fully automatic rifles etc. No. Very few people are pushing for fully automatic weapons to be available. This is not even remotely relevant to most of what we are discussing in this thread. Show nested quote +Of the frequent gun-massacres that happen in schools there, how many have been stopped by other people with firearms? You are asking, how many gunman who attack schools, which are almost always gun free zones, were stopped by innocent citizens with guns? Really? Which side of this issue are you even on? Show nested quote +Of those I've heard of they almost always end when the gunman decides he wants it to. It might have something to do with the fact that nobody in the school besides him has a weapon capable of defending themselves with. Show nested quote +Hopefully there comes a time when you realise this emphasis on guns is perverse. Guns are for killing, nothing else. Millions of people go target shooting every day. Many people use shotguns to shoot at clay pigeons. There are quite a few uses of guns besides killing. Your claim is ridiculous. So you are okay with hunting? You are okay with people using them to hunt, but not to target shoot? That means everyone will have bad aim and hit deer in the legs and shit. Do you really want that? Show nested quote +And generally speaking the idea of using a gun for self defense is just... If somebody pulls a gun on you, you're not going to have chance to pull your own gun. If it's concealed you have the option of whether or not to pull it out in a given situation. If you are in your home you may know of an intruder before they know of you.
Your arguments basically consist of purposefully misrepresenting everything I said. The only relevant point you make is about automatics and that was just a mistake on my part. To rephrase what I was trying to say there, it's not enough to have a simple gun for self defence, instead people are getting assault rifles and sniper rifles, etc. I'm saying a big part of the problem is the fetishisation of guns, so it's relevant. Guns exist to kill, so their fetishisation inevitably results in killing.
As for hunting, whether I'm okay with it is irrelevant. I'll accept hunters being legally allowed to own guns (idiot - this includes training with them). As a completely minor aside I'd accept sport shooting, but this is barely relevant. Most gun owners in the US are not sport shooters. In the UK, where gun ownership is more strictly controlled, both of these are fine. What is unacceptable afaic is the gratuitous purposeless gun ownership that currently exists. It doesn't stop gun crime. This is clear. Gun crime is prolific in the US. As a self defense mechanism, it DOES NOT WORK. The response you imply to this is that there aren't enough guns. No doubt teachers should all be armed and people should go armed to the cinemas. Joy - let's all fear for our lives 24/7.
|
Having weapons to protect yourselves from government might have worked when the constitution was created, but good luck fighting against the U.S. government nowadays while they have an organized military with tanks, jets, bombs, navy, etc...
What other purpose does this amendment have? Having weapons to defend yourself is great, but there are many non-lethal weapons as well!
I'm personally just have very little confidence in people in general. I don't trust half the people on the road to drive a car let alone handle a weapon that kills so easily.
|
United States24565 Posts
On December 24 2012 04:13 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 02:55 micronesia wrote:On December 24 2012 02:15 bardtown wrote:
And for some reason a simple gun isn't enough for self defense, you need to be legally allowed to own fully automatic rifles etc. No. Very few people are pushing for fully automatic weapons to be available. This is not even remotely relevant to most of what we are discussing in this thread. Of the frequent gun-massacres that happen in schools there, how many have been stopped by other people with firearms? You are asking, how many gunman who attack schools, which are almost always gun free zones, were stopped by innocent citizens with guns? Really? Which side of this issue are you even on? Of those I've heard of they almost always end when the gunman decides he wants it to. It might have something to do with the fact that nobody in the school besides him has a weapon capable of defending themselves with. Hopefully there comes a time when you realise this emphasis on guns is perverse. Guns are for killing, nothing else. Millions of people go target shooting every day. Many people use shotguns to shoot at clay pigeons. There are quite a few uses of guns besides killing. Your claim is ridiculous. There's no reason for them to be legal beyond hunting. So you are okay with hunting? You are okay with people using them to hunt, but not to target shoot? That means everyone will have bad aim and hit deer in the legs and shit. Do you really want that? And generally speaking the idea of using a gun for self defense is just... If somebody pulls a gun on you, you're not going to have chance to pull your own gun. If it's concealed you have the option of whether or not to pull it out in a given situation. If you are in your home you may know of an intruder before they know of you. Your arguments basically consist of purposefully misrepresenting everything I said. I tried to interpret it all literally, when appropriate. Please point out where I misrepresented what you said.
The only relevant point you make is about automatics and that was just a mistake on my part.
Indeed, it was a mistake. It is harder to take seriously a post which makes a mistake of that nature right at the beginning, even if your follow up points are good ones. On the other hand, you simply admitted it was a mistake on your end instead of somehow insult me for pointing it out, which I can respect.
To rephrase what I was trying to say there, it's not enough to have a simple gun for self defence, instead people are getting assault rifles and sniper rifles, etc. I'm saying a big part of the problem is the fetishisation of guns, so it's relevant. Guns exist to kill, so their fetishisation inevitably results in killing. More reasonable than what you said earlier... but you are making some major over-generalizations. I think, more specifically, you have a problem with the fetishization of certain types of guns. People collecting revolutionary war muskets probably doesn't bother you, whereas people collecting powerful semi-automatic rifles probably does bother you. The fetishization of guns is not inherently a problem, in my opinion. I suspect you don't have a problem with this view, but feel free to disagree.
As for hunting, whether I'm okay with it is irrelevant. I'll accept hunters being legally allowed to own guns (idiot - this includes training with them). How is a reader supposed to know, without you explicitly saying it, that you mean target shooting will be allowed, despite you saying only hunting, with the pretense that only people who somehow qualify as hunters are allowed to target shoot? Or maybe you actually are generally okay with target shooting too? In which case what the heck were you talking about? If I misunderstood your view because you were unclear (which I assert you were) all you have to do is explain what you really mean. If I persist to give you a hard time, then sure, resort to name-calling then (or better yet, don't). But to call someone an idiot because you didn't say what you meant is obnoxious, and not helpful in a discussion. Just spend some time making sure your post is clear in its meaning (especially on a controversial topic like this, which has had heated debates for hundreds of pages) if you want to avoid this type of a situation.
As a completely minor aside I'd accept sport shooting, but this is barely relevant. Most gun owners in the US are not sport shooters. Where I live most of them are. This probably varies by region. Please feel free to provide some valid statistics if you feel this is an important point.
In the UK, where gun ownership is more strictly controlled, both of these are fine. What is unacceptable afaic is the gratuitous purposeless gun ownership that currently exists. It doesn't stop gun crime. This is clear. Gun crime is prolific in the US. As a self defense mechanism, it DOES NOT WORK. The response you imply to this is that there aren't enough guns. Let's not put words in my mouth; I actually haven't taken an overall stance on this issue; I was simply pointing out what what you were saying was full of holes... and probably it was simply due to you expressing yourself poorly. What is your evidence for your claim that guns as a self defense mechanism does not work? I'm not disagreeing, but I see no reason to be swayed by your self-proclaimed-expert opinion.
No doubt teachers should all be armed and people should go armed to the cinemas. Joy - let's all fear for our lives 24/7. You understand me so well <3
Actually no.
So I ask again... are you proposing something or just insulting?
|
On December 24 2012 03:08 Adila wrote:
Are you suggesting that civilians be allowed to have RPGs, C4, and other heavy arms/explosives? Those will be pretty necessary to fight off any modern, oppressive government military.
Yep.. well I dunno so much about C4 of explosives.. but I feel that anyone should be able to own ALMOST any weapon needed.. IF THEY PASS AN INTENSE SCREENING..
On December 24 2012 03:24 Sjokola wrote:
I think that even with heavier weaponry civilians couldn't do anything substantial. Untrained, unorganised, and still w/o tanks real AA. You could only stop an invader from keeping you occupied but not from advancing to f.e. the capital.
OK.. so then you are suggesting.. that since, in your mind, I MIGHT not "realistically" be able to stand my ground with even modern weaponry.. I should just live on my knees and allow someone to oppress me?
But to answer your question: heavy weaponry in the hands of citizens would lead to more accidents heavier gang wars and more terrible school shootings.
How do you know this? How do you know that by allowing a few citizens, who again would have to pass a very restrictive screening, to mount machine guns on their trucks.. automatically results in those few blowing apart a school?
On December 24 2012 03:31 Josealtron wrote:
The SCOTUS itself isn't elected, but it is chosen by people who are.
A representative is designed to represent your district. Hence the term "representative". That's the point. A representative from Alaska or California represents their people. If you don't like the system, that's fine, but don't act like the government isn't bound by the people. Do you not understand the basic way our government works?
I know very much how our government works.. Where did you get the idea that SCOTUS is elected? While I live in Texas.. actions by a California or Alaska rep or sen effect me... If you don't know this then you don't know how it works..
Sorry for misunderstanding your example. It just made zero sense so I assumed you were referring to someone robbing you(like most pro-gun people do). Ok, well, first of all, the government is always put into place by the people, no matter how oppressive. If an oppressive government is put into place, it's not because the people weren't armed enough to stop it, it's because they were stupid enough to support it. So if the people's will is large enough, the government will be overthrown simply because 1% of the population can't stand up to the other 99%, regardless of firepower.
Great men like Daniel Daly would probably disagree with you.. There have actually been several small incidences that would disagree with you..
This has been the case in every dictatorship/oppressive government ever- a government cannot stand without the support of it's people, period. If a rebellion fails, it's because there are enough people that support the current system to stop the rebels. Now, if the people are being manipulated, that's a different story, but the point is, guns are not a factor here. Guns only serve to make the conflict more bloody.
I could also think of mutliple rebellions that have failed.. not for the dumb reason you said.. but because the oppressor is just to powerful.. so you are wrong.. but it's only because you spoke about it being absolute.. had you not said "every" and "ever" then I could have slightly agreed..
Blind following of the government is dangerous and stupid, I agree. I am extremely critical of the government, but when I criticize the government, I do so for legitimate reasons(not out of fear of something that has no indication of happening). I criticize things they do now which take away people's rights, like Gay Marriage being illegal, for example. But blind fear of the government is also dangerous and stupid, because than the government gets replaced with the mob-and the mob can potentially be equally dangerous and probably even more oppressive than government. You should probably think about why humanity established government in the first place.
There is more indication than you know.. But anyways.. I don't have blind fear.. I don't believe my door will be kicked down tomorrow and me taken to prison or shot in the street.. I tend to think like this.. Hope for the best, but expect the worst. AND It's better to have it and not need it.. then need it and not have it..
I'll keep my guns.. AND my rational fear.. it's served me well this far..
On December 24 2012 03:39 Sanctimonius wrote:
I do have one question about the second amendment. Doesn't it have a second part, beyond the right to bear arms? Something about being part of a well maintained militia, or something? Which militia do you drill with, with militia has been organised in response to a specific threat to your life, wellbeing, property, country, rights etc? The amendment was created in a certain time when the freedom of the US was in question.
Actually it is the first part.. the second part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It says it right there... I have the right to keep and bear arms...
And please, sentences end with a single full stop.
I very much appreciate the request and the please... but no..
|
Wait, that was it? You note there's a first part (my apologies, I got it the wrong way round) but nothing about the militia part? Again, the amendment specifically states the gun owners should be part of a militia in order to preserve the freedom of the state. What militia are you drilling with in an effort to protect the US from outside invaders, of which you obviously have many since you're demanding the right to own guns. The amendment specifically pairs gun ownership with threats to the US from outside - the whole 'militia being necessary to the security of a free state' thing - so what is this threat you're fearing, and how often are you training with this militia?
I made a few more points in my post too, but you didn't answer them. I know it's hard to defend gun ownership beyond 'well these be my guns and I should have them, just because' but I find it hard to take the gun lobby seriously when it blames video games rather than lax gun controls for tragedies. When it demands the rights to carry hand guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles. When you suggest that Cfucking4 should be allowed to citizens of the US, RPGs - can I claim a tank is a weapon? I feel worried when I'm surrounded by people carrying guns, especially when I cannot vouch for their training or mental stability, so I should be allowed to protect myself with an armoured vehicle that can wipe out them and their homes, just because.
|
On December 24 2012 04:55 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 04:13 bardtown wrote:On December 24 2012 02:55 micronesia wrote:On December 24 2012 02:15 bardtown wrote:
And for some reason a simple gun isn't enough for self defense, you need to be legally allowed to own fully automatic rifles etc. No. Very few people are pushing for fully automatic weapons to be available. This is not even remotely relevant to most of what we are discussing in this thread. Of the frequent gun-massacres that happen in schools there, how many have been stopped by other people with firearms? You are asking, how many gunman who attack schools, which are almost always gun free zones, were stopped by innocent citizens with guns? Really? Which side of this issue are you even on? Of those I've heard of they almost always end when the gunman decides he wants it to. It might have something to do with the fact that nobody in the school besides him has a weapon capable of defending themselves with. Hopefully there comes a time when you realise this emphasis on guns is perverse. Guns are for killing, nothing else. Millions of people go target shooting every day. Many people use shotguns to shoot at clay pigeons. There are quite a few uses of guns besides killing. Your claim is ridiculous. There's no reason for them to be legal beyond hunting. So you are okay with hunting? You are okay with people using them to hunt, but not to target shoot? That means everyone will have bad aim and hit deer in the legs and shit. Do you really want that? And generally speaking the idea of using a gun for self defense is just... If somebody pulls a gun on you, you're not going to have chance to pull your own gun. If it's concealed you have the option of whether or not to pull it out in a given situation. If you are in your home you may know of an intruder before they know of you. Your arguments basically consist of purposefully misrepresenting everything I said. I tried to interpret it all literally, when appropriate. Please point out where I misrepresented what you said. Show nested quote +The only relevant point you make is about automatics and that was just a mistake on my part. Indeed, it was a mistake. It is harder to take seriously a post which makes a mistake of that nature right at the beginning, even if your follow up points are good ones. On the other hand, you simply admitted it was a mistake on your end instead of somehow insult me for pointing it out, which I can respect. Show nested quote + To rephrase what I was trying to say there, it's not enough to have a simple gun for self defence, instead people are getting assault rifles and sniper rifles, etc. I'm saying a big part of the problem is the fetishisation of guns, so it's relevant. Guns exist to kill, so their fetishisation inevitably results in killing. More reasonable than what you said earlier... but you are making some major over-generalizations. I think, more specifically, you have a problem with the fetishization of certain types of guns. People collecting revolutionary war muskets probably doesn't bother you, whereas people collecting powerful semi-automatic rifles probably does bother you. The fetishization of guns is not inherently a problem, in my opinion. I suspect you don't have a problem with this view, but feel free to disagree. Show nested quote +As for hunting, whether I'm okay with it is irrelevant. I'll accept hunters being legally allowed to own guns (idiot - this includes training with them). How is a reader supposed to know, without you explicitly saying it, that you mean target shooting will be allowed, despite you saying only hunting, with the pretense that only people who somehow qualify as hunters are allowed to target shoot? Or maybe you actually are generally okay with target shooting too? In which case what the heck were you talking about? If I misunderstood your view because you were unclear (which I assert you were) all you have to do is explain what you really mean. If I persist to give you a hard time, then sure, resort to name-calling then (or better yet, don't). But to call someone an idiot because you didn't say what you meant is obnoxious, and not helpful in a discussion. Just spend some time making sure your post is clear in its meaning (especially on a controversial topic like this, which has had heated debates for hundreds of pages) if you want to avoid this type of a situation. Show nested quote +As a completely minor aside I'd accept sport shooting, but this is barely relevant. Most gun owners in the US are not sport shooters. Where I live most of them are. This probably varies by region. Please feel free to provide some valid statistics if you feel this is an important point. Show nested quote +In the UK, where gun ownership is more strictly controlled, both of these are fine. What is unacceptable afaic is the gratuitous purposeless gun ownership that currently exists. It doesn't stop gun crime. This is clear. Gun crime is prolific in the US. As a self defense mechanism, it DOES NOT WORK. The response you imply to this is that there aren't enough guns. Let's not put words in my mouth; I actually haven't taken an overall stance on this issue; I was simply pointing out what what you were saying was full of holes... and probably it was simply due to you expressing yourself poorly. What is your evidence for your claim that guns as a self defense mechanism does not work? I'm not disagreeing, but I see no reason to be swayed by your self-proclaimed-expert opinion. Show nested quote +No doubt teachers should all be armed and people should go armed to the cinemas. Joy - let's all fear for our lives 24/7. You understand me so well <3 Actually no. So I ask again... are you proposing something or just insulting?
Your literal reading was what I took as misrepresentation. Perhaps that was accidental, but for instance when I said legal guns should only be available for hunting, you jumped on this as saying they wouldn't be able to practice with those weapons. That seemed like a pretty absurd objection, and a much too literal reading of what I said. I also feel like your points are poking at small things without addressing the core of what I'm saying.
Nevertheless. Fetishisation: I have a problem with the fetishisation of live firearms. Those with a historical interest and no interest in shooting can (and do, here in the UK) manage with disabled replicas. You're right, I think an emphasis on killing machines as opposed to historical relics is more of a problem, but laws are universal.
Sport shooting: my argument here is as anecdotal as yours. From my experience gun-owning Americans, while they may go out and shoot these weapons as a pass-time, will tell you that the base reason they have for owning these guns is self-defense. Beyond that, and this is an opinion, I see people picking up these weapons because of, again, fetishisation of their power. You don't sport shoot with assault rifles, handguns or sniper rifles, as far as I'm aware.
My claim that guns do not work as a self defense mechanism is that in the US, where you can legally use firearms in self defense, you have much higher rates of gun crime, including murders. That's it. Understand that this point is not about an individual situation, where possessing a gun may potentially help you to counter a gun attack, but that overall the legality of firearms does not result in an increased ability to protect oneself against gun crime.
I didn't put words in your mouth, hence the word imply. I put thoughts in your head, Tod. Your response to gun massacres not being stopped by legal gun ownership was that guns aren't allowed in schools. I assume you won't offer the same response to the cinema massacre. The fact that schools are an easy target is depressing, but there are other targets should schools arm themselves. Arming everybody as a defense mechanism is also depressing.
The fact that these school massacres are so frequent in the US really should be enough to ring alarm bells in your head. What's different in the US as opposed to other countries? Legality and availability of the firearms used. What's different from other countries with legal firearms? The attitude towards those firearms.
What benefit can there possibly be to the ownership of firearms that outweighs the lives of those children, given the fact that their legality only leads to more gun crime?
As for what I'm proposing, it'd be difficult to go into. I'd propose massive social reform in the US to address the underlying problems (which are so so broad, but include the fetishisation of guns, the fetishisation of murderers (see the video on news reports about massacres) and the pathetic diagnoses and treatment of mental health issues). Stricter gun control would be a start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
