The riddle of the gun; looking at both sides of the gun debate

Beefbisquit said:
When someone in an authoritative position tells you to do something, most people don't question it, they just do it.
Click to expand...

Beefbisquit said:
There is no civilian force capable of overthrowing the most powerful, technologically advanced Military in the world. Sorry.

Aircraft carriers?
Battlehsips?
Drones?
Tanks?
Nukes?
Jet Fighters?
Cruise Missiles?

Seriously, what are you planning to overthrow because you lost your chance at about... ohh.....WWII?
Click to expand...

That is absolutely right. Why do these gun nuts keep thinking you can take on the Federal government? Don't they realize that it is futile to disagree with their betters? I'm afraid the only way to convince these self righteous know-it-alls is to annihilate them. Then maybe the world will be safe for democracy and we can all progress.
We defeated the Koreans, Viet Namese, Somalians, Iraqis and Afghans and will do the same to those fat, bearded, beer swilling rednecks who think that laws written a million years ago, still apply today. You know, the ones about individual rights?
There are no individuals, there are only parts of a group. You might belong to many groups but never an individual. You go as the group goes. If you dare to disagree with the group, you need to be culled out of the group and made an example of, so as to discourage this sort of behavior. Maybe a stint in federal prison will open your eyes to the truth. We cannot let our children think that they might have ideas or thoughts that are not in line with the mainstream, it's counter productive to the progress of the collective.
If only we could eliminate all the guns (except, of course the military and law enforcement), it would be a much safer place, not only for the peoples of the world but especially for those who guide those peoples with kindly benevolence.
 
skunky33 said:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-per-capita-firearm-death-rates-57514947.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html

These are some links. There is also a .gov site that has the information.
Click to expand...

About 80% of violent crime while using a gun happens in America's large cities. All of these cities have "gun control" laws, some of them worthy of Nazi Germany. All of these cities are all also led by Democrats.

Outside of these war-zone cities, America has lower gun-related murder rates than Europe.

Obviously, what we need is "common sense" gun control laws that create a national registry of firearm ownership, and back ground checks, and biannual mandatory training... for American gun owners outside of the war-zone cities. Yeah, that will solve "the problem".

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/america-doesnt-have-a-gun-problem-it-has-a-gang-problem/
 
Mr Neutron said:
That is absolutely right. Why do these gun nuts keep thinking you can take on the Federal government? Don't they realize that it is futile to disagree with their betters? I'm afraid the only way to convince these self righteous know-it-alls is to annihilate them. Then maybe the world will be safe for democracy and we can all progress.
We defeated the Koreans, Viet Namese, Somalians, Iraqis and Afghans and will do the same to those fat, bearded, beer swilling rednecks who think that laws written a million years ago, still apply today. You know, the ones about individual rights?
There are no individuals, there are only parts of a group. You might belong to many groups but never an individual. You go as the group goes. If you dare to disagree with the group, you need to be culled out of the group and made an example of, so as to discourage this sort of behavior. Maybe a stint in federal prison will open your eyes to the truth. We cannot let our children think that they might have ideas or thoughts that are not in line with the mainstream, it's counter productive to the progress of the collective.
If only we could eliminate all the guns (except, of course the military and law enforcement), it would be a much safer place, not only for the peoples of the world but especially for those who guide those peoples with kindly benevolence.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying being in the collective is good, I'm saying it happens. People in power positions have a tendency to act according to their power roles.

Look at the prisoner experiment...
 
Beefbisquit said:
Yes, everyone has the right to defend themselves. However, the right to defend yourself could mean any number of countless things to any number of countless people. There needs to be some form of responsibility assumed by people who wish to own guns.

So, somewhere in between completely unfettered access to any type of firearm, and complete restriction to all firearms, there's probably a solution that works better than the one in place now.

The thing is, no one is willing to change their perspective in the slightest.
Click to expand...


The thing is easy. Those who use guns to INITIATE aggression should be held responsible for their actions. If you shit your pants, why should the guy down the street have to wear diapers?
 
Obviously the liberal anti Constitution gun hating brain dead trolls on this forum should move to safe downtown areas with strong anti gun laws like Detroit
and Chicago to see how well it works . Until then just quit your pathetic whining.
 
Rob Roy said:
The thing is easy. Those who use guns to INITIATE aggression should be held responsible for their actions. If you shit your pants, why should the guy down the street have to wear diapers?
Click to expand...

Shit and guns, so similar. You pooping yourself can't hurt other people.

If you can't tell the difference between pooping, and shooting you're a lost cause.
 
Beefbisquit said:
Shit and guns, so similar. You pooping yourself can't hurt other people.

If you can't tell the difference between pooping, and shooting you're a lost cause.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point.


The individual that INITIATES aggression should be held responsible, not those that haven't harmed somebody else. The similarity that you missed is that the person who shits his pants or shoots somebody in a nondefensive way should be held accountable, not those who did neither.

Shit and guns may not be similar, individual responsibility and being held accountable for our actions is similar. ......sniff... sniff....btw...that's not you I smell is it?
 
canndo said:
But they wouldn't and needn't if they only have to marginalize them. A few dozen children caught up in some militia firefight - real or trumped up would be all it would take to turn those without guns - the silent majority - against those 50 million and have them group by group round up and contained.
Click to expand...


Would you use guns to do this...erm "rounding up" ?
 
[h=1]Philippines shootings illustrate worldwide gun violence problem[/h]
http://news.yahoo.com/philippines-shooting-spree-illustrates-global-gun-violence--190043649.html

While the United States has the highest per-person percentage of gun ownership in the world, according to Reuters, the Philippines has a much lower gun-ownership ratio. There are a mere 4.7 guns for every 100 Filipinos and there are 3.9 million privately licensed firearms in the Philippines. In the United States, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people and 270 million in the country, reports GunPolicy.org, a web site hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health at the University of Sydney.
Despite those numbers, the Philippines has a much higher gun-related homicide rate than the United States.
 
racerboy71 said:
that is if you could get the us military to turn it's own weapon's on their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters.. i like to think that they couldn't / wouldn't.. not our gvt per se, but the actual soldiers pulling the triggers rather..
Click to expand...

Which makes the "well regulated militia" argument for owning guns that much more ridiculous, imo.
 
st0wandgrow said:
Which makes the "well regulated militia" argument for owning guns that much more ridiculous, imo.
Click to expand...

That, I agree with.

If you're concerned with self-defense, owning a gun and training with it is by far the best defense that I know of. That, is a strong argument for gun ownership, and one I'm on board with.

The argument to 'overthrow a tyrannical government' is like an ant vs an elephant...
 
Beefbisquit said:
When someone in an authoritative position tells you to do something, most people don't question it, they just do it.
Click to expand...

Beefbisquit said:
That, I agree with.

If you're concerned with self-defense, owning a gun and training with it is by far the best defense that I know of. That, is a strong argument for gun ownership, and one I'm on board with.

The argument to 'overthrow a tyrannical government' is like an ant vs an elephant...
Click to expand...

Yup! You are so right. You know, I don't know what got into the heads of those rich, homo phobic, women hating, tax dodging, dog kicking white guys when they wanted to break away from England and start their country, they must have been crazier than shit house rats to think they could defeat the most powerful armed forces in the world.
Good thing they lost.
 
Mr Neutron said:
Yup! You are so right. You know, I don't know what got into the heads of those rich, homo phobic, women hating, tax dodging, dog kicking white guys when they wanted to break away from England and start their country, they must have been crazier than shit house rats to think they could defeat the most powerful armed forces in the world.
Good thing they lost.
Click to expand...

So in your eyes, there is no difference between the musket-toting armed forces of yesteryear's, and todays armies equipped with drones and aircraft carriers?
 
desert dude said:
We must bow before the emperor. All resistance is futile.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting you bow down to anyone. I'm suggesting you have a better chance of growing horns out of your head than you do of defeating the American military with your handguns and rifles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top