The Right to Bear Arms gun-toting maniacs ahoy
#16
Posted 05 August 2005 - 09:30 PM
If there are less guns, it follows that less guns may be used, because there are less of the buggers. If there are more guns, more can be used, because... dah dah DAH!... there are more of them.
Where hundred of thousands of guns are sold as sporting and self defence weapons through licensed channels, and then are sold casually when disposed of and gradually trickle down to an extent that anyone can get their hands on them I think it's obvious there is a problem.
Though Michael Moore isn't the most unbiased source, he didn't fake the interview with the kid who used to sell guns at all hours of the day to all walks of life.
#17
Posted 06 August 2005 - 01:07 AM
I'll note that neither of you live in the US, and can't seem to understand that just like taking away video games because children play them and then kill people, taking away firearms because criminals and irresponsible people do is just as silly, and only hinders those who use them responsibly.
And yeah, Wells, I haven't read that Orwell book, but I like the thought of having a pistol in my closet in case of emergencies better than grabbing a kitchen knife when my country inevitably becomes a despotic police state.
#19
Posted 09 August 2005 - 12:01 AM
Yuor only hope if the country becomes a despotic police state will be that some of the Army and Navy turn against their government. Independent militias will never be able to challenge the US military.
If the "right to bear arms" includes a few nuclear subs and a field of Stealth bombers, then ok, you have a chance. But if it's a bunch of goons hiding in the hills with AK-47s, you'd be better off just praying to the Holy Emperor or whatever, paying your taxes, and ratting on yo0ur neighbours.
#21
Posted 09 August 2005 - 03:08 AM
Gun Laws don't protect monsters, they live outside of the law.
This post has been edited by Jordan: 09 August 2005 - 03:09 AM
#22
Posted 09 August 2005 - 10:31 AM
If the "right to bear arms" includes a few nuclear subs and a field of Stealth bombers, then ok, you have a chance. But if it's a bunch of goons hiding in the hills with AK-47s, you'd be better off just praying to the Holy Emperor or whatever, paying your taxes, and ratting on yo0ur neighbours.
Even the US military as a body is not big enough to enforce martial law across a country the size of the United States, with 300 million people. A despotic state would need to use paramilitaries or police forces to enforce an unpopular order, and they would be very vulnerable to an armed populace in a state of revolt.
Any government stays in power because of the consent of the populace, whether secured through elections, or through fear. If through being armed, the populace stays unafraid, even a despotic government will collapse.
Don, you should reflect that members of unpopular minority groups often have the most to lose from being disarmed. If you're really worried about your safety, you may want to look into the Pink Pistols or a related organization.
#23
Posted 10 August 2005 - 02:19 AM
not at all... what a weak comparison (although not a terrible idea...)
that would be like me saying that by YOUR logic, we should all have neutron bombs, atom bombs, and buttons under our desks that spray co-workers with powdered anthrax!!!
people. video games. guns.
don't compare me to people who down vgs for their own personal lack of l337 skills to play them...
from the short list above... guns are the one thing you can remove from that combination of things to prevent a shooting...
VGs have warnings... if some old bitch is going to buy her retard underage child a 17+ game THAT bitch should go to jail...
i believe it is YOUR country that feels differently about that (as the crappy news desk will back me up)
yes a pistol will help defend you against a nation of police...
i can't beleive you actually said that...
6-15 bullets against hundreds, ney millions of bullets.
i'm pretty sure when your country becomes a "despotic police state" that there will be little difference between owning a single pistol and owning a set of knives...
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#24
Posted 10 August 2005 - 02:25 AM
monsters, psychos, and pussy rednecks...
there is something fundemantally and emotionally wrong with anyone who wants to own a contraption that enables them the ability to end a life (or several) by squeezing a trigger...
and if anyone dissagrees, they can feel free to shoot me...
but it will just expose them for the coward they are...
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#25
Posted 10 August 2005 - 03:08 AM
- Tagline for Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter
You've read it, you can't un-read it. Stay tooned for more
TALES OF INTEREST.
I like to be part of the crowd so I want to say that Icey is the best guy ever
#26
Posted 10 August 2005 - 03:17 AM
and if anyone dissagrees, they can feel free to shoot me...
but it will just expose them for the coward they are...
C'mon, man, what are you, Ham Salad? Spare me the emotional outbursts and at least fling some statistics at me, or if you must, how using a gun reduces the emotional impact of taking the life of one human being to a split second finger movement.
As an aside, I'd love for the world to go back to medieval weaponry, but that's not going to happen without a good nuclear war or two.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go put my loaded rocket launcher out with the safety off where children can get at it.
#27
Posted 10 August 2005 - 07:00 AM
The NRA granting people the right to owning a rocket launcher is a joke right? Where could you shoot that thing?
This post has been edited by Jordan: 10 August 2005 - 07:01 AM
#28
Posted 10 August 2005 - 12:31 PM
They would be plenty able to keep back a disorganized revolt. Unless the rebels were assisted by suicide squads, the counterattacks would be easy to resolve. The only hope you have is that soldiers have had the flag shoved far enough up their ass that they won't shoot civilians, even civilians with guns. More likely though, the miltary and the propaganda engine has successfully convinced them that the resistance is evil. This new "there are terrorists out to get us" business, accompanied by the microwave emitter designed to cook crowds of civilians (tell me it can't be ste to "high", is getting by with little resistance. Also, you tell those 300 million people they can have a civil war or MTV and designer shoes, and your resistance is going to dry up overnight. The percentage of the population willing to defend its rights will be pretty small, no matter how much those rights are diminished.
You can have your guns all you want, but when the army starts shooting American protestors and rebels, the majority of them will just fall in line. People will prefer despotic peace to anarchist freedom; they always have. If the Empire falls, to forces other than its own government or its military, then it will be sacked from the outside, not from the inside. Guns are for hunting and for target practice and for occasionally murdering people. They won't ever be used to protect private citizens from the Police and the Army. (Remember Waco?)
PS: someone asked the question of how killing with a gun is easier than killing with some other weapon. Are you serious? Give one nine-year-old girl a gun and give another a hammer, and ask them both to kill me. I'll tell you; the one with the hammer won't be able to do it, even if she surprises me, probably even if I am asleep when she starts. And yes: ease of use makes a thing less prone to the trial of conscience, and yes, this has been shown in numerous mass-slayings-followed-by-suicide. By the time the conscience kicks in, loads of folks are dead. Sure there will be murders without guns, but shootings increase murders overall, whether you like it or not.
#29
Posted 10 August 2005 - 01:24 PM
You can have your guns all you want, but when the army starts shooting American protestors and rebels, the majority of them will just fall in line. People will prefer despotic peace to anarchist freedom; they always have.
Well, that's your opinion. It's true that if the population won't resist tyranny, the issue of whether they're armed is moot. But your argument is boiling down to "People don't take freedom seriously enough", which could just as well be used as an argument against the First or Fourth Amendments as the Second.
There's nothing wrong, per se, with suggesting that freedom is wasted on the masses, but you should note that the entire concept of representative democracy is based on the argument that the common people *can* be trusted with freedom. If they can, and are willing to fight to defend it, the issue of whether or not they are armed will become of paramount importance should tyranny arise.
#30
Posted 10 August 2005 - 01:56 PM
I think it was Aristotle, or some one else smart who said something along the lines of "a mob of untrained men is as much an army as a pile of building materials is a house".
This post has been edited by Jordan: 10 August 2005 - 01:58 PM