people, as americans our guns are (optimistically for a single purpose only) for the rise up and revolution against our government should the need arise. when the founding fathers were writing their new government, they realized that any institution is succeptable to tyranny and therefor must be overthrown. jefferson himself said this same thing. they realized that without the freedom to bear arms, they would have never been able to overthrow their oppressors, and realized in the future we may need that again.
so guns are out there, for better or worse. part of being in a free society is willingness to give up a little bit of safety. yes, we could be "safer" if guns were illegal, but we wouldn't be free. so our freedom costs us absolute safety. but even that safety is an illusion. hand held automatics (uzi's and whatnot) are illegal to own, but criminals still obtain and use them.
yes, occasionally things like this happen, but fucking deal with it, because the alternative is too orwellian for any of to support.
People can make the "Gun Debate" in America all about self-defense, which is important, too, but when you go to the core, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is less about self-defense against criminals, and more about self-defense against a tyrannical government.
irishda said:
This is no longer 1776, where the average man had the same type of hardware that the army did (with the exception of cannons).
This is 2012. No matter what you have, no matter what illegal types of arms you've gathered, I promise the military has bigger, badder, and more explosive. Attack helicopters, cruise missiles, missile drones, jets, tanks, artillery, planes capable of bombardment from the upper atmosphere; these are all things the military is more than happy to use to wreck a revolution's shit.
In the modern world, there's no revolution without at least some of the military on your side, so the argument that people need firearms to keep their government accountable with the threat of uprising is talking out of their ass.
This is probably one of the stupidest arguments against the second amendment I've ever seen. It's basically, "We shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves because we wouldn't win anyway." So what if you would fail a revolution against a tyrant? It's better than letting tyranny walk all over you, not being able to do ANYTHING about it.
Killing is difficult if done in visual range. Watching people get hit and fall has a big psychological impact that takes a bit of struggle to overcome.
You really need to force yourself to take concious aim again after it, and I imagine this latest exponent of the 'godgiven right to bear arms' will have been affected by it as well.
And thats why ill never go on a shooting rampage. Just because I have no problem shhoting a gun, doesnt mean ill be able to take a life of someone, sans the person in question wanting to take my life.
I just want to know how these people manage to actually go through with it. They have to be mentally ill, no normal person can one day just up and start taking lives.
"since when does ownership of a gun make someone violent" round about the same time they aim at a human/animal and pull the trigger ... it seems violent to me.
Here is a quote from a pro gun person "If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head." ... yeah, peace man ....
"It isn't people with guns that kills" no rational level headed people talk it out or think "yeah you are a criminal but you are also human, therefore your life is still worth more than the goods I can easily get back".
"it's violent, psychotic people with guns that kills" Is that what we are calling the armed forces these days?
"And those very people would also be willing to use explosives and knives. Most mad bombings I've ever heard of were done with homemade explosives." which also have uses for other things, knives cut food for example but guns are only meant to kill.
"Also, take the scenario of one student bringing a gun to school. That gun was brought on campus despite the law to begin with. The IRA has guns despite Britain's gun laws. But if, say, the teacher was armed or something, the whole situation could be minimalized. If things got to that point, the armed potential victim could save a lot of lives by eliminating the mad gunman who like I said would have a gun whether it was legal or not."
You can't say that making guns illegal means they are harder to get hold off, that is just common sense ... like the prohibition but like with the prohibition people can still get guns.
I bet the IRA are connected to a country where owning guns is legal or at least widespread, such as America, so they smuggle them in and use them. I don't get your point here.
I bet school shootings have happened in the UK but while I have heard of 3 American school shootings, I have never heard of a UK school shooting. Making guns harder to get reduces risk, that is obvious.
Sure if somebody wants to kill they will but by making it illegal to own a gun, reduces the chances that people will be killed 'cos they are harder to get. Selling them in the supermarket is basically putting the guns in peoples minds.
I have no idea how to articulate myself at the moment, I want to say something but can't find the words haha
All guns do is make things worse, I know America will never give up the safety blanket but making guns so easily obtained by anybody is stupid.
Of course the only things I "know" about obtaining a gun is from the media, like you have to wait 3-5 days but it seems like any knuckle dragging, high school drop out, with a weed habit with enough cash could buy a killing tool.
I think if civvies should be allowed to use guns they should be forced to have quarterly mental checks should be done on people who own a gun, to make sure they are not depressed, overly angry, responsible etc. I think they should tested on aim as well, what if they miss there target and kill some innocent person in the background.
Hahaha, sorry but in a country that allows guns to be sold so freely "the idea is if they have something less then a gun you can defend your self" .... just wow.
You still never answered my situation though. You say you have a sword, to go medieval on there ass, so using the layout of your home, what would you in my situation with both a gun and knife/bat.
So the guy charges you, there is no "warning shot" it is just shoot to kill? Correct. Seriously, I don't want to be accused of making accusations or anything.
In the UK, from what I heard the robbers just rob, they only attack once confronted. If they left me alone and just robbed me, then I would leave them to it. If they walk over and try to start kicking and punching then I would fight back 'cos I have no idea where they would stop.
I wouldn't let them get a free shot but if they came towards me, with there arm raised then I would.
Vryyk said:
By the way, why do you seem to think that the only way to use a gun is to kill someone? If someone came into my house through the kitchen and tried to shake down my roommate for valuables it wouldn't be hard for me in my bedroom to grab my carbine and simply hold it on the criminal while I waited for the cops to show up.
Hell, I could even scare him off with a threat or warning shot (not that warning shots are terribly safe, I'd shoot at the ceiling from another room to spook him off if anything). I'm well trained and an excellent shot, but blindly shooting him is obviously risky and I'd rather defuse it bloodlessly, this idea that gun owners are just looking for a excuse to murder someone is silly.
I was using hyperbole a lot. Seriously though, gun owners seemingly always say stuff like
It's the idea that you need to gun to do that and you value personal stuff way more than human life. It's like you all think "OMG law breaker, must aim gun at them 'cos I naturally assume they want to hurt me".
Also this quote "If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head." made by a pro gun user.
No, it's just logic. They are stealing 'cos they need money, not to hurt people. If somebody wants to beat you up or rape you they do that, not rob you and rape you.
It's like "I need money, better rob something" rather than "I need money, lets rob and beat people up with occasional rape".
What kind of hell do you occupy where you naturally assume the worst and jump to the worst conclusion?
Even though I never actually said this is a 100% thing, just taking your words out of my mouth ...
Anthony Wells said:
you know that rearely guns are used by the people who own them when they commit crimes..? and bannign guns wont stop them...the blackmarket will still get you stuff in a snap.. hoenstly the argument over wether to ban guns or not is a stupid one... fine ban them and watch crimes like these not stop. at all. and crime rate not go down at all.
All ready covered this, banning guns would be like the prohibition but at least stuff should be brought in to stop fucking morons owning guns.
Like I said above in one of the other 10 quotes I have had to deal with so far, need very stringent checks on gun owners. We have so many professions that need psych analysis but owning a tool designed for nothing but killing is a free market? Dafuq?
Chunga the Great said:
So if someone robs me, I'm expected to just sit back and let them take whatever the hell they want and trash my house? What happens if the police don't find your stuff? What happens if you don't have insurance? If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head. Maybe where you live, criminals are polite and will only take what they need without harming you or breaking stuff. Here, they will beat the shit out of you, break you windows, break into your car, trash your house, then make off with the most valuable stuff they can find. How about you come live where I live, then tell me guns should be banned.
First let me thank you, you just gave me what I needed!
You don't have insurance? Well aren't you just the smartest person ever?
Of course they will trash your house and break stuff but American's have the lowest value on life I have ever seen. Of course your computer is worth more than human life .... he says sarcastically.
I lived in a rough neighbourhood, did I need a gun? fuckin' noooo! I moved, like any rational person would!
No, it's normal to assume a robber is there to rob ... that is why they are called robbers. If they where murderers, they wouldn't rob 'cos then they would be robbers ....
Since you are all so very fond of slippery slopes, why not be hostile to everybody? "look at that ************ holding the door for me! Better shoot that sunofa!".
No, if they get caught they want the smallest prison sentence, only people who love prison want more prison time. Why opt for more prison time if all you want is cash?
This just sounds bloodthirsty, which you seem to forget is an opinion. I think it is and you think the opposite, get over it! Everything all you pro gun people say just sounds like rednecks after killing a buck. Just look at how nonchalantly you say this "If he does anything remotely threatening, however, I'll have to make an appointment with Stanley Steamer Carpet Cleaners. Clear enough?".
Hey this is your crazy country who shoots law breakers 'cos we all know that if you break the law you might want to kill a family. Look you said it yourself "Perhaps. Maybe they're willing to risk it. They're willing to risk prison time just by being in my house, that's up to them not me." just change in my house to high.
Tomato tomato
AAAAAAAND lastly, the 10th and final person on this epic post o' mine!
No, I just have a heart and not think that a person who is so desperate to steal from other people deserves to be killed. I don't care what you own, 99% of human life is worth more.
I would defend myself, not inanimate stuff I don't need to live. Do I need an ipod? A tv? A ps3? A phone? A computer? No, they are all luxuries.
JACK
You buy furniture. You tell
yourself: this is the last sofa I'll
ever need. No matter what else
happens, I've got the sofa issue
handled. Then, the right set of
dishes. The right dinette.
TYLER
This is how we fill up our lives.
Tyler lights a cigarette.
JACK
I guess so.
TYLER
And, now it's gone.
JACK
All gone.
Tyler offers cigarettes. Jack declines.
TYLER
Could be worse. A woman could cut
off your penis while you're asleep
and toss it out the window of a
moving car.
JACK
There's always that.
TYLER
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe
it's a terrible tragedy.
JACK
...no ...no ...
TYLER
I mean, you did lose a lot of nice,
neat little shit. The trendy paper
lamps, the Euro-trash shelving unit,
am I right?
Jack laughs, nods. He shakes his head, drinks.
TYLER
But maybe, just maybe, you've been
delivered.
JACK
(toasts)
Delivered from Swedish furniture.
TYLER
Delivered from armchairs in obscure
green stripe patterns.
JACK
Delivered from Martha Stewart.
TYLER
Delivered from bullshit colors like
"Cobalt," "Ebony," and "Fuchsia."
They laugh together. Then, silence. They drink.
JACK
Insurance'll cover it.
TYLER
Oh, yeah, you gotta start making the
list.
JACK
What list?
TYLER
The "now I get to go out and buy the
exact same stuff all over again"
list. That list.
JACK
I don't... think so.
TYLER
This time maybe get a widescreen TV.
You'll be occupied for weeks.
JACK
Well, I have to file a claim...
TYLER
The things you own, they end up
owning you.
I am not a shrink but isn't this what a brainwashed person sounds like? "One of the main purposes of government is to protect it's citizens and their property. However, if they are in a situation where the government is failing in this duty citizens are within every ethical and moral right to protect their own well being and property. And seeing as we all can't have our own policeman following us around 24/7 there are guaranteed to be times when it's up to the individual to protect themselves or their property.".
Or to put it into a more concise sentence "just give me a reason to kill you!". Again, you just sound bloodthirsty.
This law you have recited so accurately, that I bet you got a gold star on your homework for is so out of date, isn't it a joke!?
Unless I am very misguided, wasn't all that crap written around the time when there civil wars, wars with the English and it was all a bit lawless? Some people where trying to form the US and others wanted it separated or something? Not big on history though.
Anyway, they wanted the civvies to be armed to stand a better chance in case somebody tried to take there land? Now America is the bully of the world, who the fuck do you think will invade?
You'll find that I actually agree with you. I don't really understand why people get so up in arms (no pun intended) when the Government tries to enforce stricter gun control
Of course the only things I "know" about obtaining a gun is from the media, like you have to wait 3-5 days but it seems like any knuckle dragging, high school drop out, with a weed habit with enough cash could buy a killing tool.
What does a weed habit have to do with anything? You aren't one of those people who seem to think that weed somehow makes you violent, are you? Because I'm about to throw down some links like there is no tomorrow.
But throughout all of this, you seemed to have missed the point. People will buy guns. You never hear about the times guns actually save people, but you will hear about the times guns end up being part of some major catastrophe. I have a great uncle who lives right on a ranch right on the border between here and Mexico, and there are multiple occasions where illegal immigrants cross the border.
Every now and again, they'll end up killing a few of his cattle. He caught one once with a machete, and he walked out with a pistol and told them to fuck off.
Of course he's old as dirt and has pretty bad arthritis, so he couldn't even cock the hammer, but the point is he needs that gun. Because a few of those immigrants crossing the borders won't think twice about causing you harm.
First let me thank you, you just gave me what I needed!
You don't have insurance? Well aren't you just the smartest person ever?
Of course they will trash your house and break stuff but American's have the lowest value on life I have ever seen. Of course your computer is worth more than human life .... he says sarcastically.
I lived in a rough neighbourhood, did I need a gun? fuckin' noooo! I moved, like any rational person would!
Sorry to quote you twice, what the hell was this? He's somehow an idiot for not getting insurance? Do you realize how shitty this economy is, and not everybody is made of money?
I agree 100% with him. He doesn't have insurance on something of his, and you expect him to just allow the crook to rob him blind? A good deal of people 18-20s, simply can't take that chance. He loses that computer, or loses that car of his, he simply isn't getting it back any time soon. So yeah, that Criminal who chose to break in has now condemned his own life. If some dickweed's illegal actions are going to make my life difficult, than he fuck him.
I'm honestly surprised that you don't grasp the harshness of the world. Moving out of the neighborhood? That's rarely ever a cost effective option. The rash decision is not to do something that's gonna put you up to your neck in debt for the rest of your life, just so Robby McRoberton can steal my shit knowing that no one's going to fight back.
This law you have recited so accurately, that I bet you got a gold star on your homework for is so out of date, isn't it a joke!?
Unless I am very misguided, wasn't all that crap written around the time when there civil wars, wars with the English and it was all a bit lawless? Some people where trying to form the US and others wanted it separated or something? Not big on history though.
If so, this applies. If not, feel free to ignore it. Your post was rather vague, so I'm assuming that you're talking about that.
First off, the Second Amendment isn't a law. It's part of the Bill of Rights. Same with free speech, religion, press, ect
Secondly, it was written with the rest of the bill of rights, way back in 1789. It came into affect back in 1791.
\The right of an individual to keep and bear arms for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as defense within their home, was upheld in the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling
Held:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2?53.
(a) The Amendment?s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause?s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2?22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court?s interpretation of the operative clause. The ?militia? comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens? militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens? militia would be preserved. Pp. 22?28.
(c) The Court?s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28?30.
(d) The Second Amendment?s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30?32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court?s conclusion. Pp. 32?47.
(f) None of the Court?s precedents forecloses the Court?s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47?54.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court?s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller?s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ?in common use at the time? finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54?56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District?s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ?arms? that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition?in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute?would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56?64.
Tl;DR version? It's an individual right to own guns in America. And it's also a right to use it for self-defense. What constitutes self-defense varies by state. My state (Missouri) is a castle doctrine state. Many are. This is because we don't think you should second guess people who are defending their home from illegal intruders. That, and Americans as a whole don't have much sympathy for criminals.
This right was further upheld in McDonald v. Chicago, which ruled that the right was "incorporated" through the 14th Amendment.
Of course the only things I "know" about obtaining a gun is from the media, like you have to wait 3-5 days but it seems like any knuckle dragging, high school drop out, with a weed habit with enough cash could buy a killing tool.
I think if civvies should be allowed to use guns they should be forced to have quarterly mental checks should be done on people who own a gun, to make sure they are not depressed, overly angry, responsible etc.
Any "nuckle dragging, high school drop out, with a weed habit" who is over 18 can also vote, sans any felony convictions. Why? Both are civil rights.
Also, I think you may have trouble with the whole "quarterly mental checks". People are suing against the law that makes you get drug tested if you're on wellfare in Florida. Why? Fourth Amendment violation. I think you may run into that here. Also, 80,000,000 gun owners. That's quite a few, don't you think? And it does nothing to people who get illegal guns. It puts the punishment on me, a person who's never been charged with anything. Very unpopular, and unlikely to go anywhere.
My opinions are ridiculous in your opinion? Your opinions are ridiculous ... in my opinion.
I said the weed reference 'cos why the fuck not but think about it, weed COULD lead to harder drugs, which COULD lead to stealing, which means ... UH OH!
As for the rest of it, been there done that ... the other guys story included drug dealers shooting at the house ... for lulz I guess.
Dude, I'm sorry. I know you put some work and thought into it and I appreciate it.
But I just don't care anymore, I just worked through 10 quotes, most of which where just beating a dead horse.
Nothing I will say will yank the blanky from the yanks and nothing they say will convince me that civvies owning guns will be a good idea.
Might aswell try to teach a bird square numbers, it's a fruitless endeavour for you and me.
Although, I consider "First off, the Second Amendment isn't a law. It's part of the Bill of Rights. Same with free speech, religion, press, ect" a law.
If I am wrong I care not a jot ...
Captcha: "that's right", too fuckin' right it is! As I am done with this thread, all future quotes will be ignored. Last time I said this I still got 10+ quotes ....
it was committed by a psycho who would have killed anyway or gotten a gun off the streets, and it went down in an area that guns are not allowed, you know...a school.
these are freak fucking accidents and people who try and make this about guns (no matter what side) are just as stupid as people who blame video games.
how about blaming the guy who SHOT SEVEN PEOPLE!!!!
When I say most, I mean the real scum ... not the guy who stole your $10 wallet with $20 inside, your phone and your ipod. I mean the guy who shot up the island in Norway (I think), the people who sell sex slaves or Fritzl.
When a person breaks into your house what do you think they are interested in? Your life or what you have? The only reason I can think of that a robber would take a life is if you confront him/her.
Which is why they say if you are mugged in the street don't hand your wallet over, throw it left and run right or vice versa.
Killing for possessions makes you just as bad as them.
The point is that people truly don't know what will happen when somebody breaks into their home.
I know when I use to watch a lot of state and local news when I was a kid and up into college, I saw countless reports about people that had their houses broken into and they were murdered in their own homes, and by strangers no less.
So I would much rather people to be able to have a gun in their home to protect themselves just in case it is one of those times that it could be a murderer.
omega 616 said:
Oh yeah, I forgot about that thought process of "break the law you are nothing but scum in a pond".
Well yes, I do think that. People have no business breaking into other people's houses, there is no excuse and anybody that does it is scum. There is no defense for people doing such a thing.
My opinions are ridiculous in your opinion? Your opinions are ridiculous ... in my opinion.
I said the weed reference 'cos why the fuck not but think about it, weed COULD lead to harder drugs, which COULD lead to stealing, which means ... UH OH!
As for the rest of it, been there done that ... the other guys story included drug dealers shooting at the house ... for lulz I guess.
Dude, I'm sorry. I know you put some work and thought into it and I appreciate it.
But I just don't care anymore, I just worked through 10 quotes, most of which where just beating a dead horse.
Nothing I will say will yank the blanky from the yanks and nothing they say will convince me that civvies owning guns will be a good idea.
Might aswell try to teach a bird square numbers, it's a fruitless endeavour for you and me.
Although, I consider "First off, the Second Amendment isn't a law. It's part of the Bill of Rights. Same with free speech, religion, press, ect" a law.
If I am wrong I care not a jot ...
Captcha: "that's right", too fuckin' right it is! As I am done with this thread, all future quotes will be ignored. Last time I said this I still got 10+ quotes ....
You're not "wrong" per se, but the constitution holds more weight than the law. Case in point: I can pass a thousand laws that restrict the freedom of religion beyond what the first amendment allows. And the first amendment trumps all of them. Ie, it's far more powerful and more weighty than a "regular" law.
So if someone robs me, I'm expected to just sit back and let them take whatever the hell they want and trash my house? What happens if the police don't find your stuff? What happens if you don't have insurance? If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head. Maybe where you live, criminals are polite and will only take what they need without harming you or breaking stuff. Here, they will beat the shit out of you, break you windows, break into your car, trash your house, then make off with the most valuable stuff they can find. How about you come live where I live, then tell me guns should be banned.
First let me thank you, you just gave me what I needed!
You don't have insurance? Well aren't you just the smartest person ever?
Of course they will trash your house and break stuff but American's have the lowest value on life I have ever seen. Of course your computer is worth more than human life .... he says sarcastically.
I lived in a rough neighbourhood, did I need a gun? fuckin' noooo! I moved, like any rational person would!
How about you try and look at the situation without that blatantly obvious anti-American bias? I said it once and I'll say it again: Where you live =/= where I live. Things are different here than they are over there. Here, everyone I know owns or knows how to use a gun. Why? Because it's necessary. Trust me, banning civilian firearms would only hurt the citizens, and it would do almost nothing to stop the criminals. You might not be able to understand that, since YOU'VE NEVER BEEN HERE BEFORE. I don't get why you feel it's necessary to start criticizing the people of a country on a thread about a school shooting. Are you on a holy crusade to enlighten us lesser beings with your obviously superior knowledge of what we are doing wrong and how we should fix it?
This is no longer 1776, where the average man had the same type of hardware that the army did (with the exception of cannons).
This is 2012. No matter what you have, no matter what illegal types of arms you've gathered, I promise the military has bigger, badder, and more explosive. Attack helicopters, cruise missiles, missile drones, jets, tanks, artillery, planes capable of bombardment from the upper atmosphere; these are all things the military is more than happy to use to wreck a revolution's shit.
In the modern world, there's no revolution without at least some of the military on your side, so the argument that people need firearms to keep their government accountable with the threat of uprising is talking out of their ass.
This is probably one of the stupidest arguments against the second amendment I've ever seen. It's basically, "We shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves because we wouldn't win anyway." So what if you would fail a revolution against a tyrant? It's better than letting tyranny walk all over you, not being able to do ANYTHING about it.
You're absolutely right. After all, guns are the ONLY way we can defend ourselves. Guys like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and movements like the Arab Spring were all ground into the dust by their respective nations, remember? Man, I still remember hearing about all that stuff and thinking, "Why don't they use guns to win freedom? Surely that would've saved all those people, yeah?" Remember kids, guns are the ONLY way to defend yourself and your freedoms.
the reason criminals have guns is because citizens have guns, its that simple. not only does having guns so readily available for legal purchase make illegal guns incredibly easy to get it also forces criminals to use guns because their victims might be armed. why is it in the UK or australia robbery at gunpoint is so rare compared to america, after all they use illegal guns in america to rob a place so why not other places. it is because they do not need to, the hassle of getting a gun when it is not needed is to great. again this is a common point by pro gun people. farson and CM have used it many times in previous threads and it has been countered many times. australia is a perfect example of how taking guns from citizens (we had a massive gun buyback scheme, influenced by the port arthur shooting) does not make it so only criminals have guns. our gun crime is very low and mass shooting are non-existent
And we've pointed this out to you: In light of several factors (SCOTUS ruling, popular demand for them, public opinion, local laws, ect), guns are going to be a fact of life around here. Simply put, we couldn't do what ya'll did in Australia, even if we wanted to (And people don't, overwhelmingly). So rather than talk about a hypothetical America without guns, Farson135 and I deal with the real. Guns are here. They're here to stay. That's not changing anytime soon.
Now, if anytime what you did in Australia (gun buyback, Handgun bans, ect) becomes possible to do here, such as getting rid of the Second Amendment, that might change. However, gun rights are expanding in the USA, and gun control is being seen as a lost cause by many Democrats. VPC has little money, and Josh is selling guns (seriously) to keep them in the black. CSGV is frothing at the mouth and spamming people on twitter. Oh, and trying to decieve people about a CCW hoodie that the NRA is selling (which they have been selling since at least 2005). The NGVAC.... they lost a ton of money from the Joyce Foundation. And the Brady Campaign? 28,000 members. The NRA? 4.4 Million. For every one of them, there's one hundred and fifty of us NRA members who respectfully disagree with their nonsense.
TL;DR version: Your side lost. Move on. I'm not going to tell the Australians how to live. But there's no interest in gun control in the states, so it's best to just go elsewhere and find a country that will listen.
EDIT: Also, you didn't address the point that the non-lethal weapons you suggested suck.
This is no longer 1776, where the average man had the same type of hardware that the army did (with the exception of cannons).
This is 2012. No matter what you have, no matter what illegal types of arms you've gathered, I promise the military has bigger, badder, and more explosive. Attack helicopters, cruise missiles, missile drones, jets, tanks, artillery, planes capable of bombardment from the upper atmosphere; these are all things the military is more than happy to use to wreck a revolution's shit.
In the modern world, there's no revolution without at least some of the military on your side, so the argument that people need firearms to keep their government accountable with the threat of uprising is talking out of their ass.
This is probably one of the stupidest arguments against the second amendment I've ever seen. It's basically, "We shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves because we wouldn't win anyway." So what if you would fail a revolution against a tyrant? It's better than letting tyranny walk all over you, not being able to do ANYTHING about it.
You're absolutely right. After all, guns are the ONLY way we can defend ourselves. Guys like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and movements like the Arab Spring were all ground into the dust by their respective nations, remember? Man, I still remember hearing about all that stuff and thinking, "Why don't they use guns to win freedom? Surely that would've saved all those people, yeah?" Remember kids, guns are the ONLY way to defend yourself and your freedoms.
Yeah. That was my mistake for using such hyperbolic language. Also, that is an excellent point; violence won't help for every situation of tyranny. However, I do think there is a time for violent revolution, and there is a time for peaceful revolution, and the citizens of a country should be prepared for both.
it was committed by a psycho who would have killed anyway or gotten a gun off the streets, and it went down in an area that guns are not allowed, you know...a school.
these are freak fucking accidents and people who try and make this about guns (no matter what side) are just as stupid as people who blame video games.
how about blaming the guy who SHOT SEVEN PEOPLE!!!!
This is no longer 1776, where the average man had the same type of hardware that the army did (with the exception of cannons).
This is 2012. No matter what you have, no matter what illegal types of arms you've gathered, I promise the military has bigger, badder, and more explosive. Attack helicopters, cruise missiles, missile drones, jets, tanks, artillery, planes capable of bombardment from the upper atmosphere; these are all things the military is more than happy to use to wreck a revolution's shit.
In the modern world, there's no revolution without at least some of the military on your side, so the argument that people need firearms to keep their government accountable with the threat of uprising is talking out of their ass.
This is probably one of the stupidest arguments against the second amendment I've ever seen. It's basically, "We shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves because we wouldn't win anyway." So what if you would fail a revolution against a tyrant? It's better than letting tyranny walk all over you, not being able to do ANYTHING about it.
You're absolutely right. After all, guns are the ONLY way we can defend ourselves. Guys like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and movements like the Arab Spring were all ground into the dust by their respective nations, remember? Man, I still remember hearing about all that stuff and thinking, "Why don't they use guns to win freedom? Surely that would've saved all those people, yeah?" Remember kids, guns are the ONLY way to defend yourself and your freedoms.
Yeah. That was my mistake for using such hyperbolic language. Also, that is an excellent point; violence won't help for every situation of tyranny. However, I do think there is a time for violent revolution, and there is a time for peaceful revolution, and the citizens of a country should be prepared for both.
Ghandi actually supported an armed society...i shit you not. He thought violent revolution was good as a last resort, though he himself was not fond of violence.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
