|
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 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed.
I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical).
|
On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed.
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I still take issue with your 'defense against tyranny' argument. You're essentially endorsing citizens taking the laws into their own hand, and using deadly force when they feel the government is over stepping its bounds.
I have felt many times that certain laws and policies are grossly invasive of my life, and essentially are tyrannical. When I vote, and my cause still loses, does that justify me using my gun to get what I want?
|
On December 26 2012 04:06 Zandar wrote:
Best way to do this is:
- ok everyone can have a gun license, it's in our constitution anyway so it's hard to change
- you have to attend hunting class 2 full work days each month, do a 20 pages test and a shooting test each month or you will lose your license
Something like this. Guns aren't getting banned anytime soon. Can we at least require everyone to take a class and wait a few days before giving them one?
|
On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical).
Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside.
I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either.
On December 26 2012 04:07 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I still take issue with your 'defense against tyranny' argument. You're essentially endorsing citizens taking the laws into their own hand, and using deadly force when they feel the government is over stepping its bounds. I have felt many times that certain laws and policies are grossly invasive of my life, and essentially are tyrannical. When I vote, and my cause still loses, does that justify me using my gun to get what I want?
No, it does not justify it. You are escalating to violence first. Not only is it immoral for you to initiate violence, its counter productive. You'll be demonized immediately, and have no chance to get your way. As long as you stay peaceful, you still can defend your cause effectively, even if you suffer temporary setbacks. If your opponents choose violence though, that's when you can get violent.
|
On December 26 2012 03:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 03:26 dontforgetosmile wrote:On December 25 2012 22:18 gameguard wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. the difference is that cars are pretty much essential for our day to day activities while guns are not if you think about it. you're justifying death with convenience. Then its the same argument for allowing people to have cars and other household objects that kill more people then guns. Hundreds of farmers die every year in farming acidents but no one ever gives a shit about making it safer for them.
Because they are just that - accidents. Cars are designed to get you from A to B. The elements to make bombs individually are designed for certain tasks, such as cleaning, fuel, etc. But guns are designed to injure or kill, that is there intended purpose, it is what they're made for.
|
On December 26 2012 04:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 03:38 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 22:18 gameguard wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. the difference is that cars are pretty much essential for our day to day activities while guns are not We could ban all privately owned cars. That would be more in line with the argument. That way we cut down on carbon emissions making the world a better place too. I've heard people in this thread saying if we ban guns, then we should also ban cigarettes, cars, alcohol, farm equipment, and everything else that we see in our daily lives that is capable of inflicting personal injury (i.e., everything). Most of these things are essential, or at least very helpful to our daily lives. Most of them have astronomically low chances of causing harm. Almost all of them were not created with the explicit purpose to kill. Taking this same logic the other direction, why shouldn't every home have the right to bombs? Nuclear weapons? Obviously some sort of balance needs to be struck between benefits and costs. Pencils can be lethal, but the benefits vastly outweigh the risk. Cars are a little less clear, but most would still agree that the benefits outweigh costs. I would argue that guns move even further away, and that their costs outweigh their benefits.
People use cars when many times they can either ride a bike, walk, or use public transportation. Right now there is an epidemic in the United States: obesity. If we removed privately owned cars think of how many people would exercise. Even if it is only walking to the end of the street and back. I live 10 miles from my work and I bike to and from work 4 times a week. If I wanted to run on the public transportation schedule I can wait an extra hour each day for the bus to come by. As I am sure some people will choose this it gives incentive to ride a bike over waiting. Some people live farther away from work, that's fine take public transportation. But for groceries you can bring bags on your bike and load up again saving the need for plastics or paper. I legitimately think that everyone should bike or take public transportation to work everyday because the benefits outweigh the costs.
*edit*
The bomb/nukes argument has been dealt with. You get a lot of collateral damage with explosives. With a gun it's a single target.
|
On December 26 2012 04:08 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:06 Zandar wrote:
Best way to do this is:
- ok everyone can have a gun license, it's in our constitution anyway so it's hard to change
- you have to attend hunting class 2 full work days each month, do a 20 pages test and a shooting test each month or you will lose your license
Something like this. Guns aren't getting banned anytime soon. Can we at least require everyone to take a class and wait a few days before giving them one?
And a thorough test by a psychologist
|
On December 26 2012 04:06 Zandar wrote:
Best way to do this is:
- ok everyone can have a gun license, it's in our constitution anyway so it's hard to change
- you have to attend hunting class 2 full work days each month, do a 20 pages test and a shooting test each month or you will lose your license
Absolutely ridiculous. First of all, the cost to the state/federal governments to administer such testing would be extremely high. Perhaps that could be recouped by charging hunters, but politically such a proposal couldn't even start due to citizen objection. Secondly, there simply isn't enough subject material to keep teaching for 2 days a month.
Annual safety and shooting tests are much more feasible and reasonable.
|
On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either.
Yeah but..why? Most civilized countries in the world with proper gun laws doesn't live in fear of a tyranic government. There is no way the government is going to suddenly change to a dictatorship. And its not because you have a gun in your home.
|
On December 24 2012 10:06 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 09:45 sunprince wrote:On December 24 2012 09:36 XsebT wrote:On December 24 2012 09:12 sunprince wrote:On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote:
You can discuss the limitations of personal freedom from now until eternity, but that the end of the day, logic and examples from other countries tell a clear story; that outlawing guns will lower the murder rate in USA. No, they don't. Refer to legitimate criminological sources rather than politically biased ones, and you'll quickly discover that the United States is a major outlier (among first-world nations) in terms of all types of violent crime, not just gun violence. The reasons why are complex, ranging from wealth inequality and population demographics to the war on drugs, but gun control is most certainly not a solution. Local governments in America which have outlawed firearms do not actually see any statistically significant decrease in violent crime. On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote:
I hate reading all this constitutional bullshit. It's like watching christians argue their religion is true by quoting the bible. If you don't understand what a constitution is, or what it's purpose is, please refrain from making bullshit arguments about it. On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote:
Frank Zappa might have said this best: "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible". If you feel there's currently a problem in USA (and I hope you do), you cannot change it through means of nothing. Shitty strawman. No one is arguing that we shouldn't change anything. Those of us who understand the facts are simply pointing out that outlawing firearms is not the solution. 1. Well, I'm not, at least not intentionally, looking at political bias. But I also tried to rougly base my argument on logic. If fewer people had guns, wouldn't that lead to fewer people dying from guns? Two key problems. 1. Outlawing firearms doesn't necessarily mean that the people who kill with guns will have reduced access. It primarily means that law-abiding citizens will have lower access to guns, whereas people who commit gun crimes generally obtain them illegally anyway. 2. People who commit gun violence are trying to commit violence anyway. Even if you take away the gun part of the equation, this doesn't change the fact that they are trying to hurt or kill someone in the first place. There are plenty of means to do so, ranging from stabbing or beating someone, or simply hitting them with a car. In other words, America has a violence problem, and this would be true even if Americans were reduced to curb stomping each other. On December 24 2012 09:36 XsebT wrote:
2. How have I even argued WHAT a constitution is. And please tell me how I'm wrong, not that I'm wrong. You gain no credibility just by being you. Referring to the constitution as though it is a religious fanatic's bible is a fundamental misunderstanding of American law. If you don't understand why you're wrong, you don't even have the basic understanding to have this conversation in the first place. It's like an uneducated child trying to argue about theroetical physics. At least do some basic reading before spouting ignorance. On December 24 2012 09:36 XsebT wrote:
3. Assuming you've already posted exactly what you think should be done instead, please link me to that post. Here. You can also easily read through my post history in this thread by clicking on my profile. 1. "Doesn't necessarily mean that the people who kill with guns will have reduced access". If guns are outlawed, less are produced, and it is necessarily harder to get hold of one.
It is necessarily harder for law-abiding citizens to get hold of one. Violent criminals, on the other hand, are not necessarily significantly deterred. We can see a similarity with bans on drugs and alcohol: outlawing something doesn't eliminate the economic demand for it.
On December 24 2012 10:06 XsebT wrote:
2. I was not saying your constitution is in any way compareable with a religious text. I'm saying that the arguments for the two look a lot like each other and neither add anything of substance to this discussion.
The Constitution is relevant to discussions of legal policies because it is the paradigm under which law and government is understood. Arguments based on the Constitution in America are no different than arguments based on human rights in modern Western civililzation in general, both are appeals to basic assumptions held about law and government by nearly all citizens.
On December 24 2012 10:06 XsebT wrote:
3. So, as I understand it, you simply advocate further regulation. Sure, I just feel like saving a step because I just don't see why anyone would need a gun - and anything that will reduce the production of guns is in my eyes a step in the right direction. It is, after all, made for killing.
"As someone who doesn't use recreational drugs or alcohol, I feel like saving a step because I just don't see why anyone would need recreational drugs or alcohol - and anything that will reduce the production of drugs and alcohol are in my eyes a step in the right direction. They are, after all, made for poisoning people."
Do you see why your argument is flawed?
|
On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either.
Rofl, so you're content with living out the rest of your life in swamps and forests, constantly in fear, losing countless to kill a few, and AT BEST, being a small nuisance to the government?
|
On December 26 2012 04:15 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either. Yeah but..why? Most civilized countries in the world with proper gun laws doesn't live in fear of a tyranic government. There is no way the government is going to suddenly change to a dictatorship. And its not because you have a gun in your home.
Historically, plenty of governments have "suddenly changed to a dictatorship".
And while widespread availability of firearms is not the sole deterrant of tyrannical government, it does contribute to said deterrence.
On December 26 2012 04:17 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either. Rofl, so you're content with living out the rest of your life in swamps and forests, constantly in fear, losing countless to kill a few, and AT BEST, being a small nuisance to the government?
Would you argue that the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq are/were mere "nusiances" to coalition forces?
|
sunprince do you sleep spooning your rifle with one eye open? How can you live in a country you're so afraid is going to turn on you?
Also insurgents in Iraq/Afghan would be no problem at all if we weren't playing by the rules. They know how to use children and women to their advantage knowing that hiding around them prevents them from being hit by return fire or bombing runs.
A tyrannical government would not probably care for such rules of engagement and you would be obliterated by a missile you would never see coming.
|
On December 26 2012 04:34 Marathi wrote:
sunprince do you sleep spooning your rifle with one eye open? How can you live in a country you're so afraid is going to turn on you?
Also insurgents in Iraq/Afghan would be no problem at all if we weren't playing by the rules. They know how to use children and women to their advantage knowing that hiding around them prevents them from being hit by return fire or bombing runs.
A tyrannical government would not probably care for such rules of engagement and you would be obliterated by a missile you would never see coming.
What good is a government if you kill everyone you control?
*edit*
Point is, the rules may change. But they would still be playing by rules.
|
On December 26 2012 04:21 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:15 Excludos wrote:On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either. Yeah but..why? Most civilized countries in the world with proper gun laws doesn't live in fear of a tyranic government. There is no way the government is going to suddenly change to a dictatorship. And its not because you have a gun in your home. Historically, plenty of governments have "suddenly changed to a dictatorship". And while widespread availability of firearms is not the sole deterrant of tyrannical government, it does contribute to said deterrence. Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:17 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either. Rofl, so you're content with living out the rest of your life in swamps and forests, constantly in fear, losing countless to kill a few, and AT BEST, being a small nuisance to the government? Would you argue that the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq are/were mere "nusiances" to coalition forces?
Ultimately, for those behind big desks (and never seeing a second of combat), who are making the decisions, the insurgents were mere annoyances.
|
|
|
On December 26 2012 04:35 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:34 Marathi wrote:
sunprince do you sleep spooning your rifle with one eye open? How can you live in a country you're so afraid is going to turn on you?
Also insurgents in Iraq/Afghan would be no problem at all if we weren't playing by the rules. They know how to use children and women to their advantage knowing that hiding around them prevents them from being hit by return fire or bombing runs.
A tyrannical government would not probably care for such rules of engagement and you would be obliterated by a missile you would never see coming. What good is a government if you kill everyone you control? *edit* Point is, the rules may change. But they would still be playing by rules.
I don't even..
They wouldn't kill everybody. They just wouldn't go through the same terms of engagement that we do when in other countries (coalition forces in iraq/afghan). If you opposed them you would be wiped out quickly as would those who lived with you. If you don't want to be a part of the new regime be prepared to either be killed or put forward for very hard labour. You only need to look at Nazi Germany, Saddam, Communist Russia and China to realize that. You're with them or you're against them and if you're against them they will get rid of you by whatever means necessary.
|
On December 26 2012 04:34 Marathi wrote:
sunprince do you sleep spooning your rifle with one eye open? How can you live in a country you're so afraid is going to turn on you?
Your argument is backwards. I sleep soundly knowing that my government is less likely to turn on me because so many Americans are armed.
On December 26 2012 04:34 Marathi wrote:
Also insurgents in Iraq/Afghan would be no problem at all if we weren't playing by the rules. They know how to use children and women to their advantage knowing that hiding around them prevents them from being hit by return fire or bombing runs.
We play by the rules because to do otherwise would be to invite international reprisal. This would be the case regardless of whether the United States is fighting outsiders or its own people. Regardless, there are plenty of examples in recent history of insurgents going up against governments which don't play by the rules: Libya, Syria, Palestine, Mexico, Sri Lanka, etc.
The point is, it's not easy to crush poorly armed insurgents in a sectarian society who don't even know what they're doing, let alone a potentially unified, heavily armed, and somewhat trained American populace.
On December 26 2012 04:34 Marathi wrote:
A tyrannical government would not probably care for such rules of engagement and you would be obliterated by a missile you would never see coming.
Thanks for confirming you have no idea what you're talking about. Obliterating the people you rule over completely ignores the point of ruling over them.
|
On December 26 2012 04:39 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:21 sunprince wrote:On December 26 2012 04:15 Excludos wrote:On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either. Yeah but..why? Most civilized countries in the world with proper gun laws doesn't live in fear of a tyranic government. There is no way the government is going to suddenly change to a dictatorship. And its not because you have a gun in your home. Historically, plenty of governments have "suddenly changed to a dictatorship". And while widespread availability of firearms is not the sole deterrant of tyrannical government, it does contribute to said deterrence. On December 26 2012 04:17 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either. Rofl, so you're content with living out the rest of your life in swamps and forests, constantly in fear, losing countless to kill a few, and AT BEST, being a small nuisance to the government? Would you argue that the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq are/were mere "nusiances" to coalition forces? Ultimately, for those behind big desks (and never seeing a second of combat), who are making the decisions, the insurgents were mere annoyances.
False. Afghanistan and Iraq have been major political problems for all policymakers and military officials involved.
|
On December 26 2012 04:21 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:15 Excludos wrote:On December 26 2012 04:10 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 04:06 Tarot wrote:On December 26 2012 04:01 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 03:23 Donger wrote:On December 25 2012 19:34 foxmeep wrote:
A gun isn't the only means of protecting your family. Ever heard of a lock? Even a taser would be a viable option over a gun.
Edit: Hypothetical question to all you pro-gun people out there. If the government issued an assault rifle to every single adult in the US so they had the means to defend themselves, would you support this? I would support this because I believe here in America there are significantly more good people than there are bad. Locks don't always stop criminals. If they want in, they're getting in. Tasers are a good option for self-defense against criminals, but that's not why I feel everyone should have a gun. The self-defense argument isn't important to me. I care about being able to defend my rights against tyranny. I would support the assault rifle thing as well, under the assumption that not absolutely everyone gets an assault rifle. I don't want the mentally ill, or felons to have assault rifles. Everyone else though should have one. I am all for background checks, and safety courses for handguns. Other than that though, you should be able to buy any gun you want. If I want a 155mm howitzer, I should be able to just get background checked and be on my way, howitzer in tow. On December 26 2012 04:01 Zandar wrote:On December 25 2012 22:07 Hertzy wrote:On December 25 2012 19:41 Kickboxer wrote:
So, how many more tragedies until the gun lovers change their tune? Here's my problem with your post; every time there's a firearm related tragedy, people start screaming for tighter gun legislation. Hell, it even happens in Finland. Meanwhile, a tragedy of a similar scale happens several times a day on the freeway and it doesn't mae the news and nobody suggests banning private cars. Well I'm a person that doesn't own or particularly need a car and I'd be fine and dandy paying that price for all the lives saved by banning private cars. That's because cars are not meant for killing people. When it happens it's an accident. Guns are made with the purpose to kill, either animals or humans. I have a rifle. I've fired it numerous times. I've never killed anything with it, and not because I missed. I have no idea how you think owning weapons could possibly deter the US government (if it ever becomes tyrannical). Guerrilla warfare. No military on earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, airstrip, dam, levee, canal, powerplant, and harbor in the country. Even all their drones and GPS guided bombs are meaningless if they can't find you, and there are swamps and forests so dense that even infrared cameras can't peer inside. I'm not saying it'd be easy, it wouldn't. But the guerrillas wouldn't be pushovers either. Yeah but..why? Most civilized countries in the world with proper gun laws doesn't live in fear of a tyranic government. There is no way the government is going to suddenly change to a dictatorship. And its not because you have a gun in your home. Historically, plenty of governments have "suddenly changed to a dictatorship". And while widespread availability of firearms is not the sole deterrant of tyrannical government, it does contribute to said deterrence.
And a lot of governments have been overthrown by armed rebels only to become more violent, controlling governments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
