SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Zorin

WE, the poeple who are against fire arms being kept in the hands of civilians, have actually learned from history and embrace the non-violent means of modern democracy, which have been developed by mankind as a lesson learned from history.

ok,which is it Zorin?

1) you are a homo
2) you are a female
3) you are alien poeple visiting from another planet

cuz, that statement...like a "kick me" sign on your back.

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Firearms as toys, for sport, as a hobby, as a collectable or for hunting all seem reasonable and relatively sane.

The idea that when the tea baggers and Palin takeover the US government and as a result the US military, a popular uprising of patriotic Americans armed with assault rifles and hand guns will be able to oust them is just insanity.

Then what exactly do you believe our second amendment is about? It has nothing to do with any of the things you mentioned.
Its the guarantee that our other liberties will not be violated.
For instance the first major pushes for gun control here came in the south, by democrats to keep newly freed slaves from purchasing firearms to defend themselves and their liberty from organizations like the KKK which were heavily southern democrat in composition.

Im not fond of the Tea Party, but no need to be juvenile about them.

Originally Posted by Zorin

There is a HUGE difference between knowing how to handle a gun and having your personal arsenal at home to be abused at will.

So perhaps get off your high moral ground and take CWMV's outdated quotations from men who never knew modern societies with you.

WE, the poeple who are against fire arms being kept in the hands of civilians, have actually learned from history and embrace the non-violent means of modern democracy, which have been developed by mankind as a lesson learned from history.

For a group of guys that didn't know the modern world they sure did a bang up job at building the foundations of the worlds only remaining superpower eh? Its reasonable to believe that as they advocated the civilian ownership of military grade weaponry at the time they would do so even in the modern era.
The beautiful thing about their vision is that it is based in liberty, the definition of which has changed little since their era.
To be free is to accept the consequences of your actions and those around you. You punish people for breaking the law when it happens, trying to punish people by infringing on their intrinsic human rights so that they are incapable of committing crimes is a totalitarian measure.

Reasonable limits would be, for example, the right to flail your arms about at will until you hit someone in the nose at which point you are in violation of the law and dealt with accordingly. What you would have the government do is cut off everyone's arms so that they cant injure anyone at all.
That's not a trade I'm happy with.

The only other thing I question is this assertion that modern democracy is non violent. There are always going to be those that are violent and resort to violence to get their way. It is the single constant through human history. In fact these peaceful democracies are the source of a great deal of the worlds aggression. Iraq and Libya anyone?
The way you would have peace is by having the monopoly of arms held by the government. History has also shown us time and time again that this condition is not healthy for the freedom of the people.
People fear the government=totalitarian rule. Government fears the people=freedom. Simple equation.

[chantaje]

your joking madblaster right? , since when being a "homo" or a "female" is something bad or a type of insult?

the argument of weapons as a defence of the goverment abuses is bs in my opinion, anyone uses their weapons to figth against the massive robbery of the bailouts or the corrupt regulators that rape the dollar?

if anyone do that they would be "silenced" in a second, named as terrorist and would won a vacation to the paradisiac beaches of guantanamo. as they say earlier a rifle dont do sht against giant spying institutions , smart bombs and uavs.

just to make a shitty comparisson , in my country 40 years ago there was a military goverment, of course some tried to resist with rifles. today human rigths organizations are searching for theirs bones.. and my country military and intelligence agencies have no comparisson to the most militarized state of the world

[CWMV]

And the idea is that EVERYONE would rise against such a threat.

As I said, single armed persons are pointless. But when the populace of a nation as a whole are trained and armed very few governments could withstand their assault.
Your people were an example of this:
accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed
A few brave patriots cant do much, but when the population is galvanized change is not just possible but inevitable.


Now open question here, what fault can you find in this statement? Seems to be something all can agree on yes? Is this not a reasonable statement?
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by chantaje

the argument of weapons as a defence of the goverment abuses is bs in my opinion, anyone uses their weapons to figth against the massive robbery of the bailouts or the corrupt regulators that rape the dollar?

Come on man really? Has nothing at all to do with the argument at hand. I understand your angry about what happened, as are most, but trying to connect this and that are WAY, um...outside the box...

[MadBlaster]

yes, it was little joke. I try to take the cheap shot and offend people whenever I can. its my nature. born street fighter.

You have to remember, our country, USA, was founded on revolution and freedom. Guns, the willingness to fight or die for freedom, this is fundamental. No one supporting gun ownership is saying an armed citizenry will prevent corruption in business or government. It does not make a perfect world. What 2nd amendment is saying is that the people come first. The government is subordinate to the people. And the only way to enforce the people over the government in the final tally is to allow the people to have guns. It's a high stakes poker game for last 200+ years since the founding of the country. It also doesn't guarantee success. Democracy is messy. I fear the people may becomes so apathetic from all the government entitlements, free porn, video games and media circus that they forget why we have the 2nd amendment or why citizens should have guns. So they see this joker dude slaughter bunch of people tv and then have knee jerk reaction for gun control. This debate has been going on for decades and decades too.

[rhinomonkey]

USA gun laws are similar to Canada and other countries but the USA has a far higher gun murder rate. This would suggest that the problem lies with the people or the society in wich they live rather then the laws.

I find it amazing listening to the pro gun arguments. The attitude that gun restrictions are an afront to civil liberties to me sounds like utter madness. It's usually the same people that claim that universal healthcare is an attack on civil liberty! madness!

The only other countries that have high gun ownership and death rate are places in the developing world that suffer from high poverty and very corrupt or non existant government like somalia, afghanistan and south Africa. USA is interesting as it's a developed country and should have moved on by now but in some ways it hasn't. Personally i think that lack of robust health and welfare infastructure and the huge wealth gap may have something to do with it. For a rich country it's still very much dog eat dog.

Personally I would not want to live in a country where everyone felt the need to own firearms.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Firearms as toys, for sport, as a hobby, as a collectable or for hunting all seem reasonable and relatively sane.

The idea that when the tea baggers and Palin takeover the US government and as a result the US military, a popular uprising of patriotic Americans armed with assault rifles and hand guns will be able to oust them is just insanity.

..and you think that a revolution would happen in such a black or white scenario? Do you really think that the whole Army would obey the Government? Do you guys have televisions? Are you seeing what's happening in Syria?

Originally Posted by Zorin

There is a HUGE difference between knowing how to handle a gun and having your personal arsenal at home to be abused at will.

So perhaps get off your high moral ground and take CWMV's outdated quotations from men who never knew modern societies with you.

WE, the poeple who are against fire arms being kept in the hands of civilians, have actually learned from history and embrace the non-violent means of modern democracy, which have been developed by mankind as a lesson learned from history.

You see, you're yet again talking like someone who never really had anything to do with guns. I had to serve in the Army (I was the last generation that had to do it compulsory) and I learned to handle a gun(and a machinegun, a mortar, a field cannon, granades and many other amenities). The best thing I've learned from it though is respect and responsibility in the handling of a firearm, because those are the first things your drill sergeant teaches you.
Because of my interest in WW1/WW2 and shooting I have a modest collection of rifles and pistols: it's a fascinating and interesting hobby, but of course to the uneducated it's just "an arsenal". I normally take people like you to the range and let them live the "shooting range experience", where not only you get to shoot firearms of course, but you get to talk with a lot other people who're passionate like myself, just to understand that we're not all deranged lunatics on a spree, but there are many professional, serious and respectable members of society who share a hobby. The bullet coming out of the barrel and hitting the target is only a part of the hobby, there's a lot more into it.

What scares me is the people like you, who don't know about it but feel the urge to say we're doing wrong, and would rather get rid of firearms and not have a problem with it just because it's not their hobby. I could argue that using a simulator or any other game that allows you to deliberately shoot at stacks of people is wrong because it desensitises young people to violence...

And history says you're wrong btw, and there are more than a couple of examples, like the one below...

Originally Posted by chantaje

just to make a shitty comparisson , in my country 40 years ago there was a military goverment, of course some tried to resist with rifles. today human rigths organizations are searching for theirs bones.. and my country military and intelligence agencies have no comparisson to the most militarized state of the world

...so it's better to bow to a violent dictator than trying and fight him? Lybians and Syrians might have a lesson or two to teach us..

[CaptainDoggles]

In 2003, there were about 19.5 times more gun deaths in the US than in Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland) combined.

Is that because Americans are more homicidal by nature?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by rhinomonkey

USA gun laws are similar to Canada and other countries but the USA has a far higher gun murder rate. This would suggest that the problem lies with the people or the society in wich they live rather then the laws.

Well Canada is not like the US, and of course it's all about the people. Firearms per se are just a tool, they don't kill anyone if they're left untouched.

I find it amazing listening to the pro gun arguments. The attitude that gun restrictions are an afront to civil liberties to me sounds like utter madness. It's usually the same people that claim that universal healthcare is an attack on civil liberty! madness!

once again, open a history book, or look for history of gun control in regimes..

Personally I would not want to live in a country where everyone felt the need to own firearms.

it's not about need, it's about freedom to own a gun.