|
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 04:43 Marathi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:35 Donger wrote: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.
Did any of your example dictatorships obliterate their own people with missiles? Since the answer is no, we can conclude that your argument is groundless.
What those governments actually did was rely on overwhelming police states, which are precisely the kind of thing that an armed populace deters.
|
On December 26 2012 04:43 Marathi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:35 Donger wrote: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.
What is this? 1945? The US government can't do anything stupid like making a tyranny, the world is too connected. Eyebrows would be raised and the world would oppose. There is nothing to gain, thus the argument of weak gun control to protect yourself against your own government is void.
|
On December 26 2012 04:46 J_Slim 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. And a lot of governments have been overthrown by armed rebels only to become more violent, controlling governments.
While your point is true, how does it have any relevance to the main point that armed populaces deter tyrannical governments?
|
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?
Guerrilla warfare doesn't rely on those who wage it to hide in the wilderness, it relys on them to hide within the population so that they cannot be found and attacked without the appearance of the enemy attacking the population in general. The image of a guerrilla warrior living in a hole in the jungle is a characterization caused by the illusion that these people come from nowhere, when actually they have been there the whole time, hiding in plain sight. It's another argument used both against and potentially for gun control. Any guerrilla force in the United States could not be differentiated from the rest of the population based on access to essential weapons, which would otherwise be the most easily identifying aspect of a potential guerrilla fighter.
|
On December 26 2012 04:43 Marathi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:35 Donger wrote: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.
Look at the example you gave in your previous post. From what I could gather, your point was that we would turn the middle east to glass and be on our merry way. If a government were to do that same method to it's own country what I said is very accurate. So don't try and act dumbfounded by my response.
The examples you gave now involve a systematic removal of people. But there were civilians left over that were against the regime but were not vocal. Of each of the examples you gave how many do you think had an armed populace? I don't know myself but I'd imagine that it wasn't many.
|
I personally feel I need my own nukes to deter my government.
|
On December 26 2012 04:48 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:43 Marathi wrote:On December 26 2012 04:35 Donger wrote: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. What is this? 1945? The US government can't do anything stupid like making a tyranny, the world is too connected. Eyebrows would be raised and the world would oppose. There is nothing to gain, thus the argument of weak gun control to protect yourself against your own government is void.
Just beacuse the world has changed doesn't mean that you should change the principles that got you there. Just beacuse things have gotten better in the last 65 odd years doesn't mean that it won't change back.
|
On December 26 2012 04:52 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:43 Marathi wrote:On December 26 2012 04:35 Donger wrote: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. Look at the example you gave in your previous post. From what I could gather, your point was that we would turn the middle east to glass and be on our merry way. If a government were to do that same method to it's own country what I said is very accurate. So don't try and act dumbfounded by my response. The examples you gave now involve a systematic removal of people. But there were civilians left over that were against the regime but were not vocal. Of each of the examples you gave how many do you think had an armed populace? I don't know myself but I'd imagine that it wasn't many.
Nazi Germany disarmed the jewish peoples before they were moved to the ghettos, I remember that one because it's one of those talking points used by the NRA constantly because it it does happen to be true and helps them sell their point against removing peoples right to gun ownership. I think the Soviets began strict gun control legistaltion sometime around their civil war that brought about communism. I want to say it was a part of the communist ideals of strict control of the population which would lead future generations to a communist utopia, but since I'm not very well educated on foreign histories and I can't find any sources on that that aren't blatantly biased I'm not willing to state that without this disclaimer.
|
I have a compromise solution: ban guns but legalize long range tasers.
|
On December 26 2012 04:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:48 Excludos wrote:On December 26 2012 04:43 Marathi wrote:On December 26 2012 04:35 Donger wrote: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. What is this? 1945? The US government can't do anything stupid like making a tyranny, the world is too connected. Eyebrows would be raised and the world would oppose. There is nothing to gain, thus the argument of weak gun control to protect yourself against your own government is void. Just beacuse the world has changed doesn't mean that you should change the principles that got you there. Just beacuse things have gotten better in the last 65 odd years doesn't mean that it won't change back.
I don't live in fear of my own government overthrowing the population any time soon. Meanwhile I don't own a gun for that purpose, and we enjoy one of the lowest murder rates in the western world.. Try to see what's actually important here and now, and not what's important for your own delusional priority in a world we don't live in.
|
On December 26 2012 04:49 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:46 J_Slim wrote: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. And a lot of governments have been overthrown by armed rebels only to become more violent, controlling governments. While your point is true, how does it have any relevance to the main point that armed populaces deter tyrannical governments?
When someone makes the argument that they're protecting themselves from the government by having guns, it sounds to me like they are rebel insurgents, waiting for a chance to "take back the country," as I keep hearing them say.
I don't remember hearing anything anywhere near as bad back when we got the patriot act compared to when we got the healthcare changes.
One was actually a move towards a move invasive government, taking away rights, while the other was an attempt to help fix the healthcare situation in the country.
So it sounds to me like people are more concerned about having guns to 'take back the country' when they don't like who the country voted for. Which is essentially what rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever you want to call them are.
|
Missiles come in all shapes and sizes not just nuclear missiles. Why do you think those poor countries struggle with insurgents so poorly? Because they do not have the technology the western world has to dispose of them. Do you really think if you were to rebel the government would just send some armed soldiers round to your location for a good old fashioned shoot out? No, they would drop a small bomb on your location and that would be that.
No I do not believe that we would go into the middle east and wipe it clean. You seem to have no idea how modern warfare works. Drones and/or ground troops move into a location of enemy activity to pinpoint an area for a bombing/strafing run by aircraft. If they spot women or children they cannot send the aircraft in. The only time firefights occur is if the enemy territory is easy enough to overwhelm without the use of aircraft, or they ground patrol gets caught out by insurgents whilst on their scouting mission.
Whilst those dictators may not have used missiles against their own people they have overwhelmed them in their own way. Whether they were armed or not, owning a rifle will not protect you from anything that Saddam did with regards to biological and chemical weapons (and as far as im aware Saddam did face a considerable amount of armed resistance). So lets be honest your automatic rifles and hand guns will never be a match for an American government who planned to play dirty.
Like other people have stated the chances of a government as big and developed as Americas becoming tyrannical without opposition from many other countries is absolutely preposterous anyway. Which negates such a need for the ownership of fire arms.
|
Whilst those dictators may not have used missiles against their own people they have overwhelmed them in their own way. Whether they were armed or not, owning a rifle will not protect you from anything that Saddam did with regards to biological and chemical weapons (and as far as im aware Saddam did face a considerable amount of armed resistance). So lets be honest your automatic rifles and hand guns will never be a match for an American government who planned to play dirty.
excuse me, the solution is obviously to legalize chemical/biological weapons so patriotic Mel-Gibsonists can use them on the White House if homosexual-healthcare-reforming-communists get elected (screaming "FREEDOM" while at it).
|
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.
I don't live in fear either. I know its exceedingly unlikely, but I like to be prepared. Plenty of people have a living will, even though they know it probably will never be needed.
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?
Yep. Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.
On December 26 2012 05:21 Marathi wrote:
Missiles come in all shapes and sizes not just nuclear missiles. Why do you think those poor countries struggle with insurgents so poorly? Because they do not have the technology the western world has to dispose of them. Do you really think if you were to rebel the government would just send some armed soldiers round to your location for a good old fashioned shoot out? No, they would drop a small bomb on your location and that would be that.
No I do not believe that we would go into the middle east and wipe it clean. You seem to have no idea how modern warfare works. Drones and/or ground troops move into a location of enemy activity to pinpoint an area for a bombing/strafing run by aircraft. If they spot women or children they cannot send the aircraft in. The only time firefights occur is if the enemy territory is easy enough to overwhelm without the use of aircraft, or they ground patrol gets caught out by insurgents whilst on their scouting mission.
Whilst those dictators may not have used missiles against their own people they have overwhelmed them in their own way. Whether they were armed or not, owning a rifle will not protect you from anything that Saddam did with regards to biological and chemical weapons (and as far as im aware Saddam did face a considerable amount of armed resistance). So lets be honest your automatic rifles and hand guns will never be a match for an American government who planned to play dirty.
Like other people have stated the chances of a government as big and developed as Americas becoming tyrannical without opposition from many other countries is absolutely preposterous anyway. Which negates such a need for the ownership of fire arms.
The government can't bomb what it can't find. I agree owning a rifle won't protect me from bioweapons or drone attacks, but it does allow me to strike back. Hit-and-run attacks on convoys and such. If they have to play dirty to win, all the better. Maybe then the rebels will get some foreign aid.
|
On December 26 2012 05:21 Marathi wrote:
Missiles come in all shapes and sizes not just nuclear missiles. Why do you think those poor countries struggle with insurgents so poorly? Because they do not have the technology the western world has to dispose of them. Do you really think if you were to rebel the government would just send some armed soldiers round to your location for a good old fashioned shoot out? No, they would drop a small bomb on your location and that would be that.
No I do not believe that we would go into the middle east and wipe it clean. You seem to have no idea how modern warfare works. Drones and/or ground troops move into a location of enemy activity to pinpoint an area for a bombing/strafing run by aircraft. If they spot women or children they cannot send the aircraft in. The only time firefights occur is if the enemy territory is easy enough to overwhelm without the use of aircraft, or they ground patrol gets caught out by insurgents whilst on their scouting mission.
Whilst those dictators may not have used missiles against their own people they have overwhelmed them in their own way. Whether they were armed or not, owning a rifle will not protect you from anything that Saddam did with regards to biological and chemical weapons (and as far as im aware Saddam did face a considerable amount of armed resistance). So lets be honest your automatic rifles and hand guns will never be a match for an American government who planned to play dirty.
Like other people have stated the chances of a government as big and developed as Americas becoming tyrannical without opposition from many other countries is absolutely preposterous anyway. Which negates such a need for the ownership of fire arms.
My belief is that it is a step in a direction that leads to tyranny. However, I do not see America ever becoming tyrannical. What I do believe is that with each tragedy that this nation experiences we give up our freedoms in the name of safety. Another example of this is the Patriot Act. In order to stop terrorists we allow the government to legally ease drop on our lives in order to stop terrorism. I don't know how you feel about quotes but it is how I view the matter.
"He who sacrafice freedom for security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin
|
On December 26 2012 05:30 Millitron 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. I don't live in fear either. I know its exceedingly unlikely, but I like to be prepared. Plenty of people have a living will, even though they know it probably will never be needed. 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? Yep. Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.
If you don't live in fear, then there are other things to prioritize..like lowering murder rates. You can argue all you want whetever gun control is effective, but the point that you need it in case your government turns tyrannical is beyond insane.
|
On December 26 2012 05:33 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 05:30 Millitron 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. I don't live in fear either. I know its exceedingly unlikely, but I like to be prepared. Plenty of people have a living will, even though they know it probably will never be needed. 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? Yep. Better to die on my feet than live on my knees. If you don't live in fear, then there are other things to prioritize..like lowering murder rates. You can argue all you want whetever gun control is effective, but the point that you need it in case your government turns tyrannical is beyond insane.
Well, its exceedingly unlikely that I will be murdered with a gun too. The majority of gun-related homicides are gang members shooting each other. Since I'm not a gang member, I think I have pretty good odds.
|
"I'm not scared of getting all-in'ed by Kwanro."
*proceeds to mass bunkers in the natural... while the main dies to mutas.
|
On December 26 2012 05:32 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 05:21 Marathi wrote:
Missiles come in all shapes and sizes not just nuclear missiles. Why do you think those poor countries struggle with insurgents so poorly? Because they do not have the technology the western world has to dispose of them. Do you really think if you were to rebel the government would just send some armed soldiers round to your location for a good old fashioned shoot out? No, they would drop a small bomb on your location and that would be that.
No I do not believe that we would go into the middle east and wipe it clean. You seem to have no idea how modern warfare works. Drones and/or ground troops move into a location of enemy activity to pinpoint an area for a bombing/strafing run by aircraft. If they spot women or children they cannot send the aircraft in. The only time firefights occur is if the enemy territory is easy enough to overwhelm without the use of aircraft, or they ground patrol gets caught out by insurgents whilst on their scouting mission.
Whilst those dictators may not have used missiles against their own people they have overwhelmed them in their own way. Whether they were armed or not, owning a rifle will not protect you from anything that Saddam did with regards to biological and chemical weapons (and as far as im aware Saddam did face a considerable amount of armed resistance). So lets be honest your automatic rifles and hand guns will never be a match for an American government who planned to play dirty.
Like other people have stated the chances of a government as big and developed as Americas becoming tyrannical without opposition from many other countries is absolutely preposterous anyway. Which negates such a need for the ownership of fire arms. My belief is that it is a step in a direction that leads to tyranny. However, I do not see America ever becoming tyrannical. What I do believe is that with each tragedy that this nation experiences we give up our freedoms in the name of safety. Another example of this is the Patriot Act. In order to stop terrorists we allow the government to legally ease drop on our lives in order to stop terrorism. I don't know how you feel about quotes but it is how I view the matter. " He who sacrafice freedom for security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin
That's a stupid quote because if you follow it to it's ultimate conclusion you wouldn't have any laws.
|
On December 26 2012 05:12 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:55 Sermokala wrote:On December 26 2012 04:48 Excludos wrote:On December 26 2012 04:43 Marathi wrote:On December 26 2012 04:35 Donger wrote: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. What is this? 1945? The US government can't do anything stupid like making a tyranny, the world is too connected. Eyebrows would be raised and the world would oppose. There is nothing to gain, thus the argument of weak gun control to protect yourself against your own government is void. Just beacuse the world has changed doesn't mean that you should change the principles that got you there. Just beacuse things have gotten better in the last 65 odd years doesn't mean that it won't change back. I don't live in fear of my own government overthrowing the population any time soon. Meanwhile I don't own a gun for that purpose, and we enjoy one of the lowest murder rates in the western world.. Try to see what's actually important here and now, and not what's important for your own delusional priority in a world we don't live in.
Your or your parents generation had to fight off the nazies not that long ago. Beacuse your country had high gun control the nazies were able to go door to door and round up all the peoples guns. You shouldn't say its such a delusional priority when your very own country was taken over in a day beacuse of your gun laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
