| Forum Index > General Forum |
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On April 03 2009 15:26 tttt wrote: How many times has your poorly phrased scenario been played out in American Universities? If you want to live in a society without gun rights, feel free to fuck off to Europe. .. I've become a lot more pro-guns than I once was, but.. guns at a school? Really?? | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1904 Posts
 | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
Racial tensions, gangs of youths, and black market operations are the primary reasons for violence, and gun-laws have done nothing to curtails those. .. I've become a lot more pro-guns than I once was, but.. guns at a school? Really?? For safe schools, this is not a necessity, but if you ever been in an inner city school where 10% of the students don't want to be there and are part of violent gangs, a large number of students carry a gun for self-protection. Violence - gun violence - is a symptom of social rot rather than the other way around. Gun-grabbers have to get that into their heads or else. | ||
|
tttt
United States386 Posts
On April 03 2009 22:04 Hans-Titan wrote: Let's hope that does not pass, for the sake of all humanity.. Let's hope that you and your retard-ex-PM Rasmussen stay as far away from countries whose GDP actually matters. Did you actually read that stupid sack of shit's editorial in the Journal? It read like something a drug-addled college student would crap out after a two week OC binge. Honestly, if your sad little country mattered a little bit more, I might be somewhat incensed about your ignorant point of view. Only a sad, economically delusional cunt would seriously argue that the Kenysian multiplier is a serious economic principle. In conclusion, I make more money than you do because I work 80 hours a week and don't have a government mandated month-long vacation. You're a disgrace. | ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
But have you ever had someone swing a knife at you? It's just as scary! (Unless you're Chuck Norris or something though...) | ||
|
Lucktar
United States526 Posts
On April 04 2009 13:11 tttt wrote: Let's hope that you and your retard-ex-PM Rasmussen stay as far away from countries whose GDP actually matters. Did you actually read that stupid sack of shit's editorial in the Journal? It read like something a drug-addled college student would crap out after a two week OC binge. Honestly, if your sad little country mattered a little bit more, I might be somewhat incensed about your ignorant point of view. Only a sad, economically delusional cunt would seriously argue that the Kenysian multiplier is a serious economic principle. In conclusion, I make more money than you do because I work 80 hours a week and don't have a government mandated month-long vacation. You're a disgrace. Calm down there, tiger. It's just a friendly discussion. Also, off-topic much? Personally, the idea of other people on campus having guns scares me, and I can't imagine that carrying a gun myself would make things any better. If students carried guns, then you'd just have several people firing once an emergency started, making it a complete nightmare for emergency responders. Not to mention the possibility of people being killed by stray bullets. When the problem is people bringing guns to school, adding more guns to the situation seems like a rather poor solution. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On April 04 2009 08:16 SnK-Arcbound wrote: There was something similar when we were under british rule. We couldn't defend ourselves, they could house their military in our houses, they could confiscate our food, tax us whatever they wanted, etc. etc. We are allowed the use of firearms because our creation was based on the distrust of government, and having firearms to over throw a government through force is required. Look at China, where protests end up with you dead and no way to defend yourself. ya cuz if the military decides to fuck us all in the ass a bunch of hicks with handguns and hunting rifles are gonna do a whole lot to stop them. | ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
How plausible or necessary is any of that likely to be? Not very. But it's a damn good excuse to have a bunch of AR-15s. | ||
|
Wotans_Fire
United Kingdom294 Posts
On April 04 2009 19:07 IdrA wrote: ya cuz if the military decides to fuck us all in the ass a bunch of hicks with handguns and hunting rifles are gonna do a whole lot to stop them. In the case that the government decides to become abusive a lot of the military workforce would stop working for them and an armed citizenry could simply stop paying and the government would run out of money. Anyway I don't think that is one of the strongest points for the 2nd amendment. The criminals the gangs are always going to have guns, however if every household was armed wouldn't you feel less inclined to burgle or mug or rape? If a nutjob started firing in a shopping centre would he be able to take out 15 people if everyone was armed? | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On April 04 2009 20:13 Wotans_Fire wrote: In the case that the government decides to become abusive a lot of the military workforce would stop working for them and an armed citizenry could simply stop paying and the government would run out of money. an unarmed citizenry could simply stop paying them too. either theyre willing to take the money by force and do so, and a gun just means they have to send in a couple of cops/soldiers with the tax collectors, or they arent, in which case it doesnt matter. Anyway I don't think that is one of the strongest points for the 2nd amendment. The criminals the gangs are always going to have guns, however if every household was armed wouldn't you feel less inclined to burgle or mug or rape? If a nutjob started firing in a shopping centre would he be able to take out 15 people if everyone was armed? the deterring crime argument is the only valid one imo. the nutjobs who go on killing sprees like that dont care about dying 99% of the time, they usually kill themselves at the end. as for crime prevention that rests on the assumption that its enough of a deterrent that it would stop more crimes than making guns impossible to obtain legally would, and i dunno how valid that assumption is. i mean, american gun laws arent all that tight, theres already a fair chance you could be walking into a house with a gun, or attacking a person with a gun. people still rob and rape and murder. | ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
In the case that the government decides to become abusive a lot of the military workforce would stop working for them and an armed citizenry could simply stop paying and the government would run out of money. Yea, I agree. The public has the power to stop an oppressive government without the use of arms. So why is still the possibility of governmental supression of the people being used as a justification of the second amendment rights still? It seems like a relic from an age where the global politics was governed by superpowers constantly pressuring their isolated colonies for taxes to fund their wars for supremacy. Anyway I don't think that is one of the strongest points for the 2nd amendment. The criminals the gangs are always going to have guns, however if every household was armed wouldn't you feel less inclined to burgle or mug or rape? If a nutjob started firing in a shopping centre would he be able to take out 15 people if everyone was armed? If I was a robber, I'd feel more nervous robbing someone if I knew they'd had guns, and as you probably know, the last thing you want is for someone who has the means to kill you to feel pressured to perform. I'd be more triggerhappy, more likely to shoot first rather than try to force whoever notice me to submit through nonlethal means. Yes, spreading guns to the general population might help prevent some small-time gain-related crimes due to a higher risk versus reward-scenario for the criminals. But for organized crime, for desperate people, for drug and gang situations, it'd only make it more violent due to people feeling more nervous with the increase in general gun usage. | ||
|
antiq
Slovakia191 Posts
On April 03 2009 15:26 tttt wrote: How many times has your poorly phrased scenario been played out in American Universities? If you want to live in a society without gun rights, feel free to fuck off to Europe. Wow, you make a compelling argument, would you care to elaborate some more? edit:: sorry to hear about things like this, I'm always afraid of the day when something alike will occur in my smallish country. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 04 2009 21:31 onnings wrote: Yea, I agree. The public has the power to stop an oppressive government without the use of arms. So why is still the possibility of governmental supression of the people being used as a justification of the second amendment rights still? It seems like a relic from an age where the global politics was governed by superpowers constantly pressuring their isolated colonies for taxes to fund their wars for supremacy. You only need the guns to stop the revenueers and low level police action associated with collecting taxes. If the government needs to deploy its army against its own population, it has already lost its ability to govern effectively. | ||
|
iloveoil
Norway171 Posts
On April 04 2009 13:11 tttt wrote: Let's hope that you and your retard-ex-PM Rasmussen stay as far away from countries whose GDP actually matters. Did you actually read that stupid sack of shit's editorial in the Journal? It read like something a drug-addled college student would crap out after a two week OC binge. Honestly, if your sad little country mattered a little bit more, I might be somewhat incensed about your ignorant point of view. Only a sad, economically delusional cunt would seriously argue that the Kenysian multiplier is a serious economic principle. In conclusion, I make more money than you do because I work 80 hours a week and don't have a government mandated month-long vacation. You're a disgrace. wtf | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On April 04 2009 12:10 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: Every single time there is a gun-law discussion on tl.net I just have to wonder how uncivilized the US is. Torture, death penalty and fucking guns in schools wtf is wrong with you cowboys? What amazes me is how the biggest fascists of yesterday are always the loudest when it comes to telling USA how to be "civilized". Take a hike, plz. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On April 04 2009 22:56 HnR)hT wrote: What amazes me is how the biggest fascists of yesterday are always the loudest when it comes to telling USA how to be "civilized". Take a hike, plz. what does his parents' government have to do with his opinion of the us today? | ||
|
Hans-Titan
Denmark1711 Posts
On April 04 2009 13:11 tttt wrote: Let's hope that you and your retard-ex-PM Rasmussen stay as far away from countries whose GDP actually matters. Did you actually read that stupid sack of shit's editorial in the Journal? It read like something a drug-addled college student would crap out after a two week OC binge. Honestly, if your sad little country mattered a little bit more, I might be somewhat incensed about your ignorant point of view. Only a sad, economically delusional cunt would seriously argue that the Kenysian multiplier is a serious economic principle. In conclusion, I make more money than you do because I work 80 hours a week and don't have a government mandated month-long vacation. You're a disgrace. I honestly don't know what to say. This post is so flawed, so off-topic and so red-neck that I'm awestruck. You don't even argue my points, you just attack me based on nationality and my country's PM, whom I do not support. He's still PM by the way, not been appointed secretary general of NATO yet. I haven't read his editorial either, and unless you provide me with a link I doubt I will. Googling 'Anders Fogh Rasmussen Editorial Journal' turns up diddly, and frankly I got better things to do than pursue statements made by idiots. How the fuck does your personal income and keynesian economics relate at all to gun control? And grats on working 80 hours a week and being a US citizen, I feel inferior already. If I'm a disgrace I cannot begin to fathom what that makes you... | ||
|
KwarK
United States44379 Posts
On April 04 2009 08:16 SnK-Arcbound wrote: There was something similar when we were under british rule. We couldn't defend ourselves, they could house their military in our houses, they could confiscate our food, tax us whatever they wanted, etc. etc. We are allowed the use of firearms because our creation was based on the distrust of government, and having firearms to over throw a government through force is required. Look at China, where protests end up with you dead and no way to defend yourself. Crazy people will always have weapons, do you want one one you're face to face with him? It's the same idea with nuclear mutual destruction. Oh ffs. That's not even remotely true. Guns weren't outlawed in Britain until twenty years ago. Guns were in no way illegal in the 13 colonies. Just so you know too, you paid proportionately the lowest tax of any English citizens. The demographics of it showed about a quarter in favour of independence, a third against but passive and the rest not caring either way. The English army themselves refused to fight against their countrymen forcing the king to use German mercenaries in the war. When the rebels eventually won there was a huge exodus of loyalists north into Canada which was in itself the turning point of Canada from French control to English. When hundreds of thousands of the people you're fighting for uproot their lives and walk north to escape back into the old regime you're probably not representing the people. On a related note, Washington wrote to London and asked for a degree of autonomy in local affairs which we short sightedly refused. About fifty years after the revolution we freely gave Australia, Canada and New Zealand the same freedoms you asked for. Oh, and the Boston Tea Party? England had just reordered taxes on imports on tea from India stopping the protectionism which subsidised the 13 colonies and making them even across the Empire. The tea was worthless. It was rich traders bitching because they had lost their perks and were forced to pay the same taxes as everyone else. The American Revolution was a victory for a minority of armed and motivated local aristocracy who wanted more control over their own lives. It ignored the will of the people. It succeeded against an army which refused to fight it and achieved it's aims of taking what would be freely given. Oh, and the bit in that crappy Mel Gibson film you probably view as historical where he offers the black man his freedom in exchange for fighting, yeah, that happened, but only on the English side. You were the slaveowners who felt threatened by the campaign going on in London to ban slavery and didn't want people imposing on your right to treat men like animals. The United States was the last civilised nation to ban slavery, behind even the Russian Empire which was still fifty years off it's first parliament at the time. Feel proud. | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1904 Posts
On April 04 2009 22:56 HnR)hT wrote: What amazes me is how the biggest fascists of yesterday are always the loudest when it comes to telling USA how to be "civilized". Take a hike, plz. Why does it amaze you? If anything it should make you listen more to my opinion because we had the chance to learn from the past... | ||
|
KwarK
United States44379 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
BSL Open Qualifier
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
