|
On October 14 2012 16:22 shizzz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 16:18 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 16:13 shizzz wrote:On October 14 2012 15:55 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 15:26 BreakfastBurrito wrote:On October 14 2012 14:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote:
So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit. Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it. The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS! AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT! How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today. How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better. The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year. Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun. Feel better now? Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages. Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me... Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal. Hope that helps. If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw).
Which is why I am trying to point you are missing.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation
Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced.
Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it.
Now entire governments are erasing their borders and their laws to follow the "successful" European model.
The EU was just awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
|
On October 14 2012 16:28 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 16:22 shizzz wrote:On October 14 2012 16:18 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 16:13 shizzz wrote:On October 14 2012 15:55 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 15:26 BreakfastBurrito wrote:On October 14 2012 14:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote:
So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit. Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it. The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS! AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT! How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today. How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better. The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year. Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun. Feel better now? Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages. Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me... Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal. Hope that helps. If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw). Which is why I am trying to point you are missing. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation
Power = Men with guns vs. Men withoutYou cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it. Now entire governments are erasing their borders and their laws to follow the "successful" European model. The EU was just awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
Your voice is plenty to resist your government. You don't need guns to vote and I don't see how having guns would've helped the Aboriginals. The notion of needing firearms in case you need to overthrow the government is, bar none, the dumbest gun lobby argument going around. The people kill people argument is also retarded, guns are tools but they make it a lot easier. Less guns = less deaths. Look at every other post-industrial country that doesnt have a nutjob gun lobby.
|
On October 14 2012 16:28 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 16:22 shizzz wrote:On October 14 2012 16:18 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 16:13 shizzz wrote:On October 14 2012 15:55 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 15:26 BreakfastBurrito wrote:On October 14 2012 14:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote:
So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit. Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it. The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS! AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT! How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today. How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better. The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year. Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun. Feel better now? Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages. Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me... Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal. Hope that helps. If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw). Which is why I am trying to point you are missing. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation
Power = Men with guns vs. Men withoutYou cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it. Now entire governments are erasing their borders and their laws to follow the "successful" European model. The EU was just awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
What have you been smoking? Of course guns kill people, they were designed for that sole purpose.
They're different from other tools that can be used to kill people (knives, cars, baseball bats etc) but are intended for another purpose.
|
I don't see how being a "retired cop" is a distinguishing factor in this story? Would the title contain his profession if the father was a retired sales manager?
|
On October 15 2012 00:04 Paperplane wrote:
What have you been smoking? Of course guns kill people, they were designed for that sole purpose.
They're different from other tools that can be used to kill people (knives, cars, baseball bats etc) but are intended for another purpose.
Funny you should say that, because you can buy confetti rounds. Google it.
|
Just look at Syria to see how well civilian gun ownership (primarily light rifles - AKs) can confront a government's military. Without heavy weapons (anti-aircraft guns, artillery, RPGs, etc.), the civilians get massacred.
More guns means more deaths caused by guns. Is the equalization of power to commit violence between citizens is worth the cost? Physically weak people can defend themselves from violent attacks with the aid of a firearm. Feeling scared is damaging to health and for some people, the fear of being harmed is remediated by keeping a gun. I'm curious about how these indirect benefits of lax gun control compare to the more easily measured harms/costs.
|
On October 14 2012 23:40 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 16:28 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 16:22 shizzz wrote:On October 14 2012 16:18 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 16:13 shizzz wrote:On October 14 2012 15:55 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 15:26 BreakfastBurrito wrote:On October 14 2012 14:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote:
So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit. Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it. The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS! AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT! How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today. How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better. The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year. Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun. Feel better now? Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages. Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me... Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal. Hope that helps. If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw). Which is why I am trying to point you are missing. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation
Power = Men with guns vs. Men withoutYou cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it. Now entire governments are erasing their borders and their laws to follow the "successful" European model. The EU was just awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Your voice is plenty to resist your government. You don't need guns to vote and I don't see how having guns would've helped the Aboriginals. The notion of needing firearms in case you need to overthrow the government is, bar none, the dumbest gun lobby argument going around. The people kill people argument is also retarded, guns are tools but they make it a lot easier. Less guns = less deaths. Look at every other post-industrial country that doesnt have a nutjob gun lobby.
It might shock you, but real life is very different from the movies.
Depending on the caliber, and where you shoot, the person shot can be alive for days and in even heal (with bullet inside).
|
On October 15 2012 00:11 Zealotdriver wrote:
Feeling scared is damaging to health and for some people, the fear of being harmed is remediated by keeping a gun. I'm curious about how these indirect benefits of lax gun control compare to the more easily measured harms/costs.
The states seems to have a monopoly on keeping its citizens scared shitless of everything. I've felt perfectly safe my whole life living in Australia and Korea, never owned a gun.
On October 15 2012 00:11 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 23:40 Scarecrow wrote:On October 14 2012 16:28 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 16:22 shizzz wrote:On October 14 2012 16:18 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 16:13 shizzz wrote:On October 14 2012 15:55 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 15:26 BreakfastBurrito wrote:On October 14 2012 14:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote:
So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm.
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot.
The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit. Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it. The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS! AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT! How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today. How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better. The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year. Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun. Feel better now? Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages. Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me... Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal. Hope that helps. If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw). Which is why I am trying to point you are missing. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation
Power = Men with guns vs. Men withoutYou cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced. Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it. Now entire governments are erasing their borders and their laws to follow the "successful" European model. The EU was just awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Your voice is plenty to resist your government. You don't need guns to vote and I don't see how having guns would've helped the Aboriginals. The notion of needing firearms in case you need to overthrow the government is, bar none, the dumbest gun lobby argument going around. The people kill people argument is also retarded, guns are tools but they make it a lot easier. Less guns = less deaths. Look at every other post-industrial country that doesnt have a nutjob gun lobby. It might shock you, but real life is very different from the movies.
You're the one concocting movie scenarios. Armed citizens in the modern age are neither necessary or effective in maintaining democracy.
|
On October 15 2012 00:15 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 00:11 Zealotdriver wrote:
Feeling scared is damaging to health and for some people, the fear of being harmed is remediated by keeping a gun. I'm curious about how these indirect benefits of lax gun control compare to the more easily measured harms/costs. The states seems to have a monopoly on keeping its citizens scared shitless of everything. I've felt perfectly safe my whole life living in Australia and Korea, never owned a gun.
This so many times. The fact that you need to a gun to feel safe speaks horribly of the government and the country itself. Bad things happen for sure, but I've felt safe all the time and don't even need to think about guns. It is a fabricated necessity, not a real one.
|
Alright, this thread, like any other thread, will turn into a verbal war...
Lets just stay on topic and peace guys..
|
On October 14 2012 23:40 Scarecrow wrote:
Your voice is plenty to resist your government. You don't need guns to vote and I don't see how having guns would've helped the Aboriginals. The notion of needing firearms in case you need to overthrow the government is, bar none, the dumbest gun lobby argument going around. The people kill people argument is also retarded, guns are tools but they make it a lot easier. Less guns = less deaths. Look at every other post-industrial country that doesnt have a nutjob gun lobby.
It might shock you, but real life is very different from the movies.
Depending on the caliber, and where you shoot, the person shot can be alive for days and in even heal (with bullet inside).
Want to see how guns could have helped the Aboriginals? See the example below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze
The Druze are a world minority totaling 1 million worldwide but yet they have representation in their government of Lebanon, Syria, and Israel.
Despite their practice of blending with dominant groups in order to avoid persecution and because the Druze religion doesn't endorse separatist sentiments, urging the Druze to blend with the communities they reside in, nevertheless the Druze have had a history of brave resistance to occupying powers, and they have at times enjoyed more freedom than most other groups living in the Levant.
So, yes, please continue the name calling as support arguments. Let me add mine.
You are deludedly naive that cops that can magically teleport appear to save the day from those dastardly villains at just the right time in their squad cars or patrols. You watch waaaay too much TV. hahaha.
You are so stupid and naive I don't even know how to describe you. As if possession of a book means the person has fully read, understood and is able to apply the contents of the said book. By that definition, everyone who has a high school certificate should be able to produce their own drugs (Chemistry), know and apply military strategy (History), start their own business (Math) and understand and build their own buildings/machines (Physics). And score three pointers at will.
Seriously, you are some fucking moron. You seriously believe in possession of a gun you'd want to take overthrow the country, kill people, and become master of the universe. Ahahahhahahhaahaha. Oh god. Then tell me this, why hasn't the USA with 147 million guns has had ZERO insurrection attempts since 1776 by anyone to take over the country by military force? How about Switzerland? Or the dozen or so gun users/owners in this forum?
Scarecrow, the world is vastly larger and more complicated than your little imagination.
User was warned for this post
|
If guns are necessary for overthrowing a corrupt, repressive government, how come communism in Eastern Europe crumpled, as soon as the threat of Russian tanks was withdrawn?
Despite a lack of armed civilians, every single communist government in the area fell in two short years.
Hint - that's because an armed population is not necessary to overthrow a government. A united population is.
All that an armed, divided population will lead to is civil war. (At which point, Western powers start playing kingmaker.)
|
|
|
On October 15 2012 01:11 Nightfall.589 wrote:
If guns are necessary for overthrowing a corrupt, repressive government, how come communism in Eastern Europe crumpled, as soon as the threat of Russian tanks was withdrawn?
Despite a lack of armed civilians, every single communist government in the area fell in two short years.
Hint - that's because an armed population is not necessary to overthrow a government. A united population is.
All that an armed, divided population will lead to is civil war. (At which point, Western powers start playing kingmaker.)
Then how do explain Bosnian/Serbian conflict, or Burma (British withdrew, turned into Junta rule)?
You are correct on the unity of the people. Their desire for a peaceful transition for equal representation via a democratic government after seeing the failed policies of socialism and communism.
|
On October 14 2012 16:28 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation
Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced.
Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it.
Come on, really. Is John Doe really going to take his fat ass out of his comfy sofa to fight the government with his tiny .45 just to defend his freedom of speech?
There are plenty of justifications for people to possess guns, but this one is silly. Turning off the TV is actually more empowering than owning an AK. Think about the perspectives people would have if Fox News disappeared!
|
On October 15 2012 01:28 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 16:28 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tools ≠ causation
Power = Men with guns vs. Men without
You cannot resist your government if you have only your voice. Because you are a Mute button away from being silenced.
Feel free to ask Turkish Armenians, US Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals how well it turned out for them when their governments turned against them, violating every established treaty, and they had no power to resist it. Come on, really. Is John Doe really going to take his fat ass out of his comfy sofa to fight the government with his tiny .45 just to defend his freedom of speech? There are plenty of justifications for people to possess guns, but this one is silly. Turning off the TV is actually more empowering than owning an AK. Think about the perspectives people would have if Fox News disappeared!
So lack of motivation by a John Doe is justification to remove his ability to self defense beyond his personal weapons?
That's like saying if a person isn't watching for his car he deserves to have his car stolen or if a woman isn't too careful with what she drinks she deserves to get date raped.
Dude, you are one fucked up person.
|
Huh? I didn't say anything else but that it's a silly justification to say that giving guns to people allows them to control their government, because it just doesn't correlate if you look at history.
I specifically said that there were other, more serious justifications for gun ownership.
|
On October 15 2012 01:39 Kukaracha wrote:
Huh? I didn't say anything else but that it's a silly justification to say that giving guns to people allows them to control their government, because it just doesn't correlate if you look at history.
I specifically said that there were other, more serious justifications for gun ownership.
Because your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
I merely changed the subject from guns to cars and from guns to sex.
Your argument is, because a person is unwilling to defend his rights to X, therefore doing Y is justified.
|
... what?
My argument is that the defense of his rights in front of the government is an invalid defense of gun rights. Self-defense is a valid one. And this because a) ownership of weapons does not correlate with the form of the state through history and b) the population is nowadays not controlled by force but by persuasion through various media.
I didn't even say if I was in favor or against gun control.
|
On October 15 2012 01:04 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Seriously, you are some fucking moron. You seriously believe in possession of a gun you'd want to take overthrow the country, kill people, and become master of the universe. Ahahahhahahhaahaha. Oh god. Then tell me this, why hasn't the USA with 147 million guns has had ZERO insurrection attempts since 1776 by anyone to take over the country by military force? How about Switzerland? Or the dozen or so gun users/owners in this forum?
Your entire post reads like a mental breakdown but this in particular makes me question your sanity. How in the world could you argue that guns kept military coups from happening? Not only do military coups not happen in countries that do not have as lax gunlaws as you do but in a lot of African countries the readily available imported firearms and competing armed groups is just what creates the military coups you so want to prevent.
No, guns don't create stability. Functioning institutions and a belief in government to follow the democratic regulation, and a belief in democratic principles, does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
