|
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 May 20 2013 09:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 09:38 kmillz wrote:On May 20 2013 09:35 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 20 2013 08:57 kmillz wrote:
An armed victim has more of a chance than an unarmed victim.
Not necessarily:
Criminologists have for decades studied the responses of victims to violent crime. Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed.
“From any perspective of rationality, the thing to do with a robber is to cooperate politely,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist at Berkeley Law School. But, he added, both robbers and recalcitrant victims have never been the most rational actors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/nyregion/robbed-at-gunpoint-some-bronx-victims-resist.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp Taking away the gun doesn't create a new opportunity to not do anything. You have that option either way. Here, I'll make it easier for you to understand: Having a gun may or may not lead to a better outcome in the event you are a victim in an armed robbery or similar situation. Then to reiterate, since you ignored it: "Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed."
Your quote doesn't say anything about if you resist a robber with a gun, just if you resist. Maybe there are too many people that think they're MMA fighters that are going to resist robbery and then they end up hurt or killed. I'd like to see statistics on if you resist with a firearm vs if you resist with out one.
|
On May 20 2013 09:36 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 08:54 farvacola wrote:On May 20 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:On May 20 2013 01:46 micronesia wrote:Um I'm going to try to steer the conversation away from whether or not doctors should be allowed to discuss gun ownership with patients, as that isn't really relevant to whether or not people should be allowed to own/carry guns. Something I'm noticing many cases of is innocent people being shot by police. I wonder how prevalent this type of incident actually is (compared to how it is potentially portrayed/distorted by media coverage). For example, a few days ago near me: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/19/hofstra-student-killed-by-police-during-break-in/2323831/Summary of events, although it is still under investigation: - Armed man breaks into off campus home with several college-age people inside at 2 or 3 in the morning
- Man lets one female escape, who promptly calls the police
- Man takes one female student hostage with his gun as police arrive
- Man points gun at police officer, officer opens fire towards man, killing man plus female hostage
This is just one event, but since it happened close to me (I have a degree from that school actually although I never lived near campus) it got me thinking more about what threats actually are reasonable vs unreasonable to expect. On the one hand, there are people who say you don't have to worry about some random armed guy forcing his way into your home and getting you killed despite you being unarmed. It just happened. If it's extremely rare than that's a good thing, but I don't have the statistics on it. Another thing I'm considering is how the police should react in these instances. The investigation is underway, but how should cops deal with this? If the cop didn't shoot he may have been shot himself right away. Maybe the cop didn't back away when ordered to and was partly responsible. I honestly don't know what proper procedure for this is. I think a priority should be placed on rescuing the victim over catching the criminal, though. What would the situation have been if each person in this home had a quick-release gun safe next to their bed? It could have prevented the death of the innocent student, or it could have increased the casualty list. If the students all kept guns for self protection, and only the intruder was killed, I'm sure there would be people saying the students had no right to be the judge jury and executioner for this intruder who may not have had any intent on hurting/killing them. Anyone who thinks this is a simple issue is deluding themselves. edit: by the way, it probably would helped if they had locked the front door <facepalm> edit2: Giving it more thought, it seems like it depends on what the girl said when she called the police. If she had clearly identified that it was a hostage situation, then the police probably shouldn't have entered the house like that. B-b-but the 20 feet rule says that once your attacker comes within 20 feet it's too late to shoot them. /sarcasm I agree, this is a great example of a terrible outcome that could have been prevented if the person had the means to defend their self with a firearm. Too bad your /sarcasm isn't at the end of your post, because now we have no choice but to assume that you fall under Micronesia's "deluded" camp. The presence of firearms hardly figures one way or another; we're talking college students, likely with little opportunity for training in firearm use and high stress response, against a man clearly experienced in the ways or armed robbery and the use of a gun to get what he wants. Why you think that there being a gun definitively figures in favor of the victims after the students were admittedly taken completely by surprise is beyond me; as Micro said, "Anyone who thinks this is a simple issue is deluding themselves.". I like how you call them "deluded" for assuming a firearm for self defense would have helped their situation but you're assuming that college students are incapable of using a firearm yet the criminal is "clearly experienced in the ways of armed robbery and the use of a gun to get what he wants." I can't help but feel that you're projecting your doubts to be able to protect yourself with a gun on to others. Maybe a firearm wouldn't have helped you in that situation but don't blanket all other victims as being incapable of self defense. I'm not saying in this situation that the victims would have been better off with a gun. But there are plenty of people who are capable of handling that situation and gun for self defense for them is a better option then no gun.
That's fine, and I don't disagree. The point is that there is no reasonable way to judge these victims competent in firearm use or not, which is why it is a poor example in either case. And while its nice of you to assume that I'm projecting, such a judgement is utterly meaningless. I've stopped a firearm suicide with my bare hands and have also stared down potential robbers late at night, but I'm not going to assume anything in regards to others based on my experience.
|
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality.
|
On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality.
Yeah, well, you know, thats just, like, your opinion, man.
|
On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality.
How can anything be a natural right?
|
On May 20 2013 21:50 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality. How can anything be a natural right?
In the United States of America, we have this thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. It is not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of Suggestions, nor the Bill of Europe; it is called the Bill of Rights. Although philosophers have tried for many thousands of years to figure out what rights we are born with, no one can question the destruction potential without the right to bear arms in self defense, and against the defense of foreign and domestic enemies; including the government. No sir, there are most definitely justified natural rights -- I'm sorry that you fail to bear witness to that fact.
|
On May 20 2013 22:34 Etrnity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 21:50 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality. How can anything be a natural right? In the United States of America, we have this thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. It is not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of Suggestions, nor the Bill of Europe; it is called the Bill of Rights. Although philosophers have tried for many thousands of years to figure out what rights we are born with, no one can question the destruction potential without the right to bear arms in self defense, and against the defense of foreign and domestic enemies; including the government. No sir, there are most definitely justified natural rights -- I'm sorry that you fail to bear witness to that fact.
First of all, what????
Second of all, it's the word "natural" that the guy you're replying to is questioning. How is it a NATURAL right to own and carry guns?
Third of all; WHAT? - Your rhetoric is ... disturbing, to say the least.
|
On May 20 2013 22:34 Etrnity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 21:50 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality. How can anything be a natural right? In the United States of America, we have this thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. It is not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of Suggestions, nor the Bill of Europe; it is called the Bill of Rights. Although philosophers have tried for many thousands of years to figure out what rights we are born with, no one can question the destruction potential without the right to bear arms in self defense, and against the defense of foreign and domestic enemies; including the government. No sir, there are most definitely justified natural rights -- I'm sorry that you fail to bear witness to that fact.
That is a very interesting response to my question.
I am indeed aware of the phrase 'bill of rights', it having originated in my country in the latter half of the C17th. What I don't understand is how an abstract legislative concept can be considered "natural," at least in the conventional use of the term.
|
On May 20 2013 23:28 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 22:34 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 21:50 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality. How can anything be a natural right? In the United States of America, we have this thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. It is not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of Suggestions, nor the Bill of Europe; it is called the Bill of Rights. Although philosophers have tried for many thousands of years to figure out what rights we are born with, no one can question the destruction potential without the right to bear arms in self defense, and against the defense of foreign and domestic enemies; including the government. No sir, there are most definitely justified natural rights -- I'm sorry that you fail to bear witness to that fact. That is a very interesting response to my question. I am indeed aware of the phrase 'bill of rights', it having originated in my country in the latter half of the C17th. What I don't understand is how an abstract legislative concept can be considered "natural," at least in the conventional use of the term.
Let me put it this way. When you read Plato's Republic, you see that he discussed the role of guardians of society, who watch over and maintain fluidity and consistency. You look later at England's deconstruction of monarch power and abuses, and then you arrive at the enlightenment period (many things left out in between, but this is a brief post), and you get a wide variety of ideas and beliefs. So many people have targeted at what our natural rights our; what is man in the state of nature? The basic idea was questioning what kinds of social contracts we make, how we form laws and restrictions, and what rights we are born with as human beings. I could discuss how some of the philosophers believed that we have God given rights; but this website hates the idea of a God -- so there's no point in going there. The fact is that with the uncertainty as to how man is in the state of nature, how nature came to be, and how we create societies without solidifying the constructs that create those societies, we are left to assume that our best bet is to always fight for the rights of those that will to fight for liberties and life. I believe that in the protection of our rights as humans, the only thing that is right to arm all those that fight for liberty. I see no point in leaving weapons in the hands of the power (i.e. governing class -- including, but not limited to, the governments). It's not that I claim to know what is a natural right, because I am by far not nearly as smart as those philosophers that have come before me.
|
On May 20 2013 22:41 Jamial wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 22:34 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 21:50 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality. How can anything be a natural right? In the United States of America, we have this thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. It is not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of Suggestions, nor the Bill of Europe; it is called the Bill of Rights. Although philosophers have tried for many thousands of years to figure out what rights we are born with, no one can question the destruction potential without the right to bear arms in self defense, and against the defense of foreign and domestic enemies; including the government. No sir, there are most definitely justified natural rights -- I'm sorry that you fail to bear witness to that fact. First of all, what???? Second of all, it's the word "natural" that the guy you're replying to is questioning. How is it a NATURAL right to own and carry guns? Third of all; WHAT? - Your rhetoric is ... disturbing, to say the least.
The word natural is to distinguish between natural rights and legal rights. A natural right is one that protects individual liberties necessary in a free society. Natural rights are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. A legal right is one that is given to a person by a particular legal system.
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
|
On May 20 2013 23:37 Etrnity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 23:28 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 22:34 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 21:50 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality. How can anything be a natural right? In the United States of America, we have this thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. It is not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of Suggestions, nor the Bill of Europe; it is called the Bill of Rights. Although philosophers have tried for many thousands of years to figure out what rights we are born with, no one can question the destruction potential without the right to bear arms in self defense, and against the defense of foreign and domestic enemies; including the government. No sir, there are most definitely justified natural rights -- I'm sorry that you fail to bear witness to that fact. That is a very interesting response to my question. I am indeed aware of the phrase 'bill of rights', it having originated in my country in the latter half of the C17th. What I don't understand is how an abstract legislative concept can be considered "natural," at least in the conventional use of the term. [...] but this website hates the idea of a God [...]
TL hates God- finally confirmed.
but seriously, the 2nd amendment is so vague in its wording, making it a rather weak argument for calling gun ownership a natural right.
|
On May 21 2013 05:02 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 23:37 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 23:28 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 22:34 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 21:50 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality. How can anything be a natural right? In the United States of America, we have this thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. It is not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of Suggestions, nor the Bill of Europe; it is called the Bill of Rights. Although philosophers have tried for many thousands of years to figure out what rights we are born with, no one can question the destruction potential without the right to bear arms in self defense, and against the defense of foreign and domestic enemies; including the government. No sir, there are most definitely justified natural rights -- I'm sorry that you fail to bear witness to that fact. That is a very interesting response to my question. I am indeed aware of the phrase 'bill of rights', it having originated in my country in the latter half of the C17th. What I don't understand is how an abstract legislative concept can be considered "natural," at least in the conventional use of the term. [...] but this website hates the idea of a God [...] TL hates God- finally confirmed. but seriously, the 2nd amendment is so vague in its wording, making it a rather weak argument for calling gun ownership a natural right.
It's only vague if you point out "regulated Militia" and concrete and transparent if your point out "infringe" just ask kmilz.
|
On May 21 2013 05:02 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2013 23:37 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 23:28 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 22:34 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 21:50 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality. How can anything be a natural right? In the United States of America, we have this thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. It is not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of Suggestions, nor the Bill of Europe; it is called the Bill of Rights. Although philosophers have tried for many thousands of years to figure out what rights we are born with, no one can question the destruction potential without the right to bear arms in self defense, and against the defense of foreign and domestic enemies; including the government. No sir, there are most definitely justified natural rights -- I'm sorry that you fail to bear witness to that fact. That is a very interesting response to my question. I am indeed aware of the phrase 'bill of rights', it having originated in my country in the latter half of the C17th. What I don't understand is how an abstract legislative concept can be considered "natural," at least in the conventional use of the term. [...] but this website hates the idea of a God [...] TL hates God- finally confirmed. but seriously, the 2nd amendment is so vague in its wording, making it a rather weak argument for calling gun ownership a natural right.
I would disagree the 2nd amendment is pretty specifically targeted to stop any military force in america from infringing on your right to bear arms. To be fair the translations of "bearing arms" is specifically about carrying them around where you are. "holding arms" referees to having guns at your house. So really what the 2nd amendment is doing is protecting your right to carry arms with you where ever you go and so long as you hold onto them the government can't do anything. once you put it off at your home they can take it or prevent you from getting guns in some way.
|
On May 21 2013 05:10 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 05:02 Paljas wrote:On May 20 2013 23:37 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 23:28 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 22:34 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 21:50 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality. How can anything be a natural right? In the United States of America, we have this thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. It is not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of Suggestions, nor the Bill of Europe; it is called the Bill of Rights. Although philosophers have tried for many thousands of years to figure out what rights we are born with, no one can question the destruction potential without the right to bear arms in self defense, and against the defense of foreign and domestic enemies; including the government. No sir, there are most definitely justified natural rights -- I'm sorry that you fail to bear witness to that fact. That is a very interesting response to my question. I am indeed aware of the phrase 'bill of rights', it having originated in my country in the latter half of the C17th. What I don't understand is how an abstract legislative concept can be considered "natural," at least in the conventional use of the term. [...] but this website hates the idea of a God [...] TL hates God- finally confirmed. but seriously, the 2nd amendment is so vague in its wording, making it a rather weak argument for calling gun ownership a natural right. I would disagree the 2nd amendment is pretty specifically targeted to stop any military force in america from infringing on your right to bear arms. To be fair the translations of "bearing arms" is specifically about carrying them around where you are. "holding arms" referees to having guns at your house. So really what the 2nd amendment is doing is protecting your right to carry arms with you where ever you go and so long as you hold onto them the government can't do anything. once you put it off at your home they can take it or prevent you from getting guns in some way.
hence the need to vague it up in order for it to make sense and be applicable--the vague-ing normally determined by the supreme court.
|
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave.
|
On May 21 2013 05:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 05:02 Paljas wrote:On May 20 2013 23:37 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 23:28 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 22:34 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 21:50 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality. How can anything be a natural right? In the United States of America, we have this thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. It is not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of Suggestions, nor the Bill of Europe; it is called the Bill of Rights. Although philosophers have tried for many thousands of years to figure out what rights we are born with, no one can question the destruction potential without the right to bear arms in self defense, and against the defense of foreign and domestic enemies; including the government. No sir, there are most definitely justified natural rights -- I'm sorry that you fail to bear witness to that fact. That is a very interesting response to my question. I am indeed aware of the phrase 'bill of rights', it having originated in my country in the latter half of the C17th. What I don't understand is how an abstract legislative concept can be considered "natural," at least in the conventional use of the term. [...] but this website hates the idea of a God [...] TL hates God- finally confirmed. but seriously, the 2nd amendment is so vague in its wording, making it a rather weak argument for calling gun ownership a natural right. It's only vague if you point out "regulated Militia" and concrete and transparent if your point out "infringe" just ask kmilz.
What is vague about infringe? What is concrete about regulated militia?
|
On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave.
I'm not sure whether i'm an ignoramus or a knave
|
On May 21 2013 06:56 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 05:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 05:02 Paljas wrote:On May 20 2013 23:37 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 23:28 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 22:34 Etrnity wrote:On May 20 2013 21:50 Deleuze wrote:On May 20 2013 17:42 darmousseh wrote:
I really wish the title said "Should the government be allowed to control gun ownership?", because owning a gun is a natural right; Government control is the abnormality. How can anything be a natural right? In the United States of America, we have this thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. The first ten Amendments to that Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. It is not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of Suggestions, nor the Bill of Europe; it is called the Bill of Rights. Although philosophers have tried for many thousands of years to figure out what rights we are born with, no one can question the destruction potential without the right to bear arms in self defense, and against the defense of foreign and domestic enemies; including the government. No sir, there are most definitely justified natural rights -- I'm sorry that you fail to bear witness to that fact. That is a very interesting response to my question. I am indeed aware of the phrase 'bill of rights', it having originated in my country in the latter half of the C17th. What I don't understand is how an abstract legislative concept can be considered "natural," at least in the conventional use of the term. [...] but this website hates the idea of a God [...] TL hates God- finally confirmed. but seriously, the 2nd amendment is so vague in its wording, making it a rather weak argument for calling gun ownership a natural right. It's only vague if you point out "regulated Militia" and concrete and transparent if your point out "infringe" just ask kmilz. What is vague about infringe? What is concrete about regulated militia?
Case and point 
|
On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave.
how about moving to canada?
like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa?
|
On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa?
I'm not going to be some pussy and jet on my country just because the government is being a major asshole.
Also I'm one of the 99%, I can't afford to move anywhere much less to Canada at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
