|
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 05:39 Deadeight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 05:32 Donger wrote: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.
Its a good thing then that they made a document to show all the freedoms they were refering to and a system to clearly define and protect said freedoms.
|
On December 26 2012 05:10 Kalingingsong wrote:
I have a compromise solution: ban guns but legalize long range tasers.
"CNN Live reporting Long-Range Tasering at local school, more on this after commercial break".
|
On December 26 2012 06:19 Enzymatic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 05:10 Kalingingsong wrote:
I have a compromise solution: ban guns but legalize long range tasers. "CNN Live reporting Long-Range Tasering at local school, more on this after commercial break".
yep... and they'd have an interview with the victim... because the victim would be alive.
|
On December 26 2012 06:22 J_Slim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 06:19 Enzymatic wrote:On December 26 2012 05:10 Kalingingsong wrote:
I have a compromise solution: ban guns but legalize long range tasers. "CNN Live reporting Long-Range Tasering at local school, more on this after commercial break". yep... and they'd have an interview with the victim... because the victim would be alive.
95% of gunshot victims survive too.
|
On December 26 2012 06:22 J_Slim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 06:19 Enzymatic wrote:On December 26 2012 05:10 Kalingingsong wrote:
I have a compromise solution: ban guns but legalize long range tasers. "CNN Live reporting Long-Range Tasering at local school, more on this after commercial break". yep... and they'd have an interview with the victim... because the victim would be alive.
Except the little girls heart would have stopped from being shocked by a tazer designed for Adults
|
On December 26 2012 05:13 J_Slim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:49 sunprince wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
While I can't say I have read every post in this thread I have been reading the majority of them, and I think this is the first time anyone has mentioned the phrase "take back the country." So having quotations on that is intentionally misleading, uninformed, and incredibly biased to the point of prejudice.
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.
In Vietnam we used so many bombs (small and large) that the actual count is so vague as to be almost pure speculation, we sprayed Agent Orange and other deadly chemicals over so much of the country that they are still dealing with the stuff, and yet still they kept fighting. We used everything short of nuclear weapons and with only small arms and homemade explosives they managed to hold off the might of the US military until we could no longer come up with any reasonable justification for being there.
|
On December 26 2012 06:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 05:12 Excludos wrote: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.
Yes, and the year is again 2012 and not 1940. The "Germans" aren't going to suddenly invade our country. The economics of the whole world is tightly knit together, and therefore an a regular invasion between civilized countries in the west is near impossible, and extremely unlike as there is nothing to gain. If North Korea decided to invade, they wouldn't be able to cross the borders to china before pushed back. The world is globalized, and the southern part of USA needs to wake up and realize this. There is NO reason to own a gun to protect yourself against your government or an invasion. It just. wont. happen!
Argue all you want against gun control for various reasons, but this specific one isn't just bad, its completely invalid.
edit: Terrorism on the other hand, is a type of warfare that is very likely. The whole problem with terrorism is that they work covert. This is why gun control is a good thing and actively works against this type of warfare as oppose to help it. If its easy to grab an ak or any kind of semi automatic weapon with 30 clip magazine off the shelves and start shooting, stuff like that is going to happen, and often. I'm not saying it still cant happen (Breivik), but you have no idea how many acts of terrorism that have been stopped due to there not being a semi automatic rifle available around each and every corner.
edit2: and the part in the first edit isn't even close to the real reason why gun control is important. It was just to illustrate that giving up your gun is good in terms of today's real world warfare.
|
For people using the argument of a hypothetical tyrannical government :
- Do you really think that your co-citizens are going to riot / become guerrillas when your government switches the power-grid off ?
|
On December 26 2012 06:45 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 06:16 Sermokala wrote:On December 26 2012 05:12 Excludos wrote: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. Yes, and the year is again 2012 and not 1940. The "Germans" aren't going to suddenly invade our country. The economics of the whole world is tightly knit together, and therefore an a regular invasion between civilized countries in the west is near impossible, and extremely unlike as there is nothing to gain. If North Korea decided to invade, they wouldn't be able to cross the borders to china before pushed back. The world is globalized, and the southern part of USA needs to wake up and realize this. There is NO reason to own a gun to protect yourself against your government or an invasion. It just. wont. happen! Argue all you want against gun control for various reasons, but this specific one isn't just bad, its completely invalid. edit: Terrorism on the other hand, is a type of warfare that is very likely. The whole problem with terrorism is that they work covert. This is why gun control is a good thing and actively works against this type of warfare as oppose to help it. If its easy to grab an ak or any kind of semi automatic weapon with 30 clip magazine off the shelves and start shooting, stuff like that is going to happen, and often. I'm not saying it still cant happen (Breivik), but you have no idea how many acts of terrorism that have been stopped due to there not being a semi automatic rifle available around each and every corner.
Imaginary statistics should not be used in any reasonable argument. I have no idea how many deaths from exposure are prevented by a warm climate, or how many cases of drowning never occur in a desert locale.
|
On December 26 2012 06:54 iplayBANJO wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 06:45 Excludos wrote:On December 26 2012 06:16 Sermokala wrote:On December 26 2012 05:12 Excludos wrote: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. Yes, and the year is again 2012 and not 1940. The "Germans" aren't going to suddenly invade our country. The economics of the whole world is tightly knit together, and therefore an a regular invasion between civilized countries in the west is near impossible, and extremely unlike as there is nothing to gain. If North Korea decided to invade, they wouldn't be able to cross the borders to china before pushed back. The world is globalized, and the southern part of USA needs to wake up and realize this. There is NO reason to own a gun to protect yourself against your government or an invasion. It just. wont. happen! Argue all you want against gun control for various reasons, but this specific one isn't just bad, its completely invalid. edit: Terrorism on the other hand, is a type of warfare that is very likely. The whole problem with terrorism is that they work covert. This is why gun control is a good thing and actively works against this type of warfare as oppose to help it. If its easy to grab an ak or any kind of semi automatic weapon with 30 clip magazine off the shelves and start shooting, stuff like that is going to happen, and often. I'm not saying it still cant happen (Breivik), but you have no idea how many acts of terrorism that have been stopped due to there not being a semi automatic rifle available around each and every corner. Imaginary statistics should not be used in any reasonable argument. I have no idea how many deaths from exposure are prevented by a warm climate, or how many cases of drowning never occur in a desert locale.
But I do happen to know how many acts of mass murders there have been in Norway the past couple of years. I don't need to cite sources on my own life.
And like I said in the second edit, whats in the first edit of that post isn't really important in terms of what we're discussing. You do not need a gun to overthrow your own government or an invasion in USA in your lifetime unless the whole world radically changes. In which case we can have this discussion again. Meanwhile there are schools that needs less shootings.
|
On December 26 2012 06:52 LunaSea wrote:
For people using the argument of a hypothetical tyrannical government :
- Do you really think that your co-citizens are going to riot / become guerrillas when your government switches the power-grid off ?
I would hope so. Regardless, not having help does not change what is right, it just changes how you have to work towards what is right. The more help you have, the more open you can be with your resistance. If the populace hangs you out to dry, you just have to be smarter about what you do.
|
On December 26 2012 06:52 LunaSea wrote:
For people using the argument of a hypothetical tyrannical government :
- Do you really think that your co-citizens are going to riot / become guerrillas when your government switches the power-grid off ?
Power companies in southern California shut off sections of the power grid fairly often for a few years, and might have to again because of an old nuclear power plant that might be beyond economically feasible repairs. We only riot when the Lakers win the playoffs. I'm pointing out that your example is quaint.
|
On December 26 2012 06:58 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 06:52 LunaSea wrote:
For people using the argument of a hypothetical tyrannical government :
- Do you really think that your co-citizens are going to riot / become guerrillas when your government switches the power-grid off ? I would hope so. Regardless, not having help does not change what is right, it just changes how you have to work towards what is right. The more help you have, the more open you can be with your resistance. If the populace hangs you out to dry, you just have to be smarter about what you do.
Shit like this is what scares me. what is "right" is a relative term. If the entire populace disagrees with you and your group of rebels, how can you know you're fighting for 'right.' You will have become exactly what America has been fighting the last 10+ years... just another terrorist.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On December 26 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 23:13 zatic wrote:Sure, if you have a "friend" that will illegally sell you a gun that is registered to him (who in their right mind would do that?), then it would be easy to get a gun illegally. It's just not a scenario that will happen. It's probably much easier to simply get your license and get a gun legally in most of Europe. It will take a while though. So yeah, it is very hard to get a gun quickly in Europe, legal or illegal. See here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 (Thanks for the link.. I learned a bit) Let's say it's not his gun.. I'm a tourist from America, who happens to be the guys friend.. I offer him twice the store price if he were to steal his neighbors pistol (we'll say it's some old guy who won't notice it gone for maybe a week) What counter-measures are around Europe that would stop me from taking this pistol to any other country?
Sure, IF you know an old guy who doesn't miss his gun, and IF you know where he keeps the gun, and IF the old guy breaks the law and doesn't keep his gun in a gun safe, and IF you have an insane friend who risks a jail sentence for stealing a gun for a random American tourist, then no, Europe does not have any measure to stop you from taking this gun to another country.
I don't really understand the point of the question though. Europe doesn't have any measure of stopping you from carrying a gun you found in the dumpster either. It's just not something that will happen.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On December 26 2012 05:03 iplayBANJO wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 04:52 Donger 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. 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.
Nazi Germany also relaxed or flat out abolished most existing gun control legislation for the general population, a point conveniently ignored by the NRA. Fact is that it was never easier to own a gun for a German than it was in Nazi Germany. An armed and belligerent populace was a Nazi ideal.
|
On December 26 2012 07:18 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 25 2012 23:13 zatic wrote:Sure, if you have a "friend" that will illegally sell you a gun that is registered to him (who in their right mind would do that?), then it would be easy to get a gun illegally. It's just not a scenario that will happen. It's probably much easier to simply get your license and get a gun legally in most of Europe. It will take a while though. So yeah, it is very hard to get a gun quickly in Europe, legal or illegal. See here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 (Thanks for the link.. I learned a bit) Let's say it's not his gun.. I'm a tourist from America, who happens to be the guys friend.. I offer him twice the store price if he were to steal his neighbors pistol (we'll say it's some old guy who won't notice it gone for maybe a week) What counter-measures are around Europe that would stop me from taking this pistol to any other country? Sure, IF you know an old guy who doesn't miss his gun, and IF you know where he keeps the gun, and IF the old guy breaks the law and doesn't keep his gun in a gun safe, and IF you have an insane friend who risks a jail sentence for stealing a gun for a random American tourist, then no, Europe does not have any measure to stop you from taking this gun to another country. I don't really understand the point of the question though. Europe doesn't have any measure of stopping you from carrying a gun you found in the dumpster either. It's just not something that will happen.
Well, you wont be getting it on any airplanes at least. Maybe if you took a cargo boat you wouldn't get checked as you enter, but then you have to add yet another part of your masterplan that could fail (I imagine you'd have a hard time finding any cargoboats that would be willing to take you unless you knew them).
edit: Oops, sorry, missunderstood. Thought you meant from america to europe.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On December 26 2012 07:23 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 07:18 zatic wrote:On December 26 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 25 2012 23:13 zatic wrote:Sure, if you have a "friend" that will illegally sell you a gun that is registered to him (who in their right mind would do that?), then it would be easy to get a gun illegally. It's just not a scenario that will happen. It's probably much easier to simply get your license and get a gun legally in most of Europe. It will take a while though. So yeah, it is very hard to get a gun quickly in Europe, legal or illegal. See here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 (Thanks for the link.. I learned a bit) Let's say it's not his gun.. I'm a tourist from America, who happens to be the guys friend.. I offer him twice the store price if he were to steal his neighbors pistol (we'll say it's some old guy who won't notice it gone for maybe a week) What counter-measures are around Europe that would stop me from taking this pistol to any other country? Sure, IF you know an old guy who doesn't miss his gun, and IF you know where he keeps the gun, and IF the old guy breaks the law and doesn't keep his gun in a gun safe, and IF you have an insane friend who risks a jail sentence for stealing a gun for a random American tourist, then no, Europe does not have any measure to stop you from taking this gun to another country. I don't really understand the point of the question though. Europe doesn't have any measure of stopping you from carrying a gun you found in the dumpster either. It's just not something that will happen. Well, you wont be getting it on any airplanes at least. Maybe if you took a cargo boat you wouldn't get checked as you enter, but then you have to add yet another part of your masterplan that could fail (I imagine you'd have a hard time finding any cargoboats that would be willing to take you unless you knew them).
You could just cross the border and execute you fantasy masterplan of getting an illegal weapon in your target country. Point is you can't get a gun in the first place, so asking how you could cross the border (why is this even important) is pointless.
|
On December 26 2012 07:26 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 07:23 Excludos wrote:On December 26 2012 07:18 zatic wrote:On December 26 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 25 2012 23:13 zatic wrote:Sure, if you have a "friend" that will illegally sell you a gun that is registered to him (who in their right mind would do that?), then it would be easy to get a gun illegally. It's just not a scenario that will happen. It's probably much easier to simply get your license and get a gun legally in most of Europe. It will take a while though. So yeah, it is very hard to get a gun quickly in Europe, legal or illegal. See here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 (Thanks for the link.. I learned a bit) Let's say it's not his gun.. I'm a tourist from America, who happens to be the guys friend.. I offer him twice the store price if he were to steal his neighbors pistol (we'll say it's some old guy who won't notice it gone for maybe a week) What counter-measures are around Europe that would stop me from taking this pistol to any other country? Sure, IF you know an old guy who doesn't miss his gun, and IF you know where he keeps the gun, and IF the old guy breaks the law and doesn't keep his gun in a gun safe, and IF you have an insane friend who risks a jail sentence for stealing a gun for a random American tourist, then no, Europe does not have any measure to stop you from taking this gun to another country. I don't really understand the point of the question though. Europe doesn't have any measure of stopping you from carrying a gun you found in the dumpster either. It's just not something that will happen. Well, you wont be getting it on any airplanes at least. Maybe if you took a cargo boat you wouldn't get checked as you enter, but then you have to add yet another part of your masterplan that could fail (I imagine you'd have a hard time finding any cargoboats that would be willing to take you unless you knew them). You could just cross the border and execute you fantasy masterplan of getting an illegal weapon in your target country. Point is you can't get a gun in the first place, so asking how you could cross the border (why is this even important) is pointless.
Yeah, I missunderstood. You're right. You'd still risk getting pulled over at border control thought. But like you said, thats not even important.
|
On December 26 2012 07:08 J_Slim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 06:58 Millitron wrote:On December 26 2012 06:52 LunaSea wrote:
For people using the argument of a hypothetical tyrannical government :
- Do you really think that your co-citizens are going to riot / become guerrillas when your government switches the power-grid off ? I would hope so. Regardless, not having help does not change what is right, it just changes how you have to work towards what is right. The more help you have, the more open you can be with your resistance. If the populace hangs you out to dry, you just have to be smarter about what you do. Shit like this is what scares me. what is "right" is a relative term. If the entire populace disagrees with you and your group of rebels, how can you know you're fighting for 'right.' You will have become exactly what America has been fighting the last 10+ years... just another terrorist.
Here's how you know. Were you the one to escalate to violence? Yes? Congrats, you're the bad guy.
Violence is an absolute last resort, both because it's immoral to skip straight to it, and because it's counter-productive.
Would you say the founding fathers were right, or were they terrorists? I would say they were right. They tried to peacefully achieve their goals, they pleaded time and time again with the British to at least discuss things, but they refused. They refused, and marched troops to seize the guns at Lexington and Concord, and I'm sure you know the rest. They initiated violence, so the colonies were well within their rights to fight back.
|
On December 26 2012 07:22 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 05:03 iplayBANJO wrote:On December 26 2012 04:52 Donger 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. 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. Nazi Germany also relaxed or flat out abolished most existing gun control legislation for the general population, a point conveniently ignored by the NRA. Fact is that it was never easier to own a gun for a German than it was in Nazi Germany. An armed and belligerent populace was a Nazi ideal.
It was my understanding that the relaxation of gun control was only applicable to members of the Nazi party, which seems to coincide with the information on the linked Wikipedia page, as it was a fear based legislative act based on the conception that all peoples outside of the Nazi party were to be treated as hostile. It also maintained mandatory gun registrations by the seller or manufacturer. So while it certainly did increase the availability of weapons in Germany during the time, it only really did so for the "right kinds" or Germans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
