|
|
|
|
#1
08-02-2012, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I almost feel sorry for the amount of trust you put into people whos only true interest is money and power. That's exactly why big business and banks run the world. That's exactly why decisions in government are hardly ever based on their moral implications but instead on their financial ones. That's why 9 out of every 10 people in a power position got there because of their ties to big business, big oil, or family/political power ties. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you are hoping to achieve. And if you think those that have been bread to be a congressman from birth, grew up having the maid clean their room, paid other people to do their homework/studies while attending any ivy league school, etc., know anything about the common man, you have really got to be kidding yourself. There is no such thing as democracy anywhere in the world. You can vote all you want, but you're voting for the person or people that were put in that position to be voted for in the 1st place. I think a typical presidential campaign is on the verge of 200 million dollars now. In other words, it's big brother and the boys club running the show. It's always been this way and continues to get worse. I'm not saying that people need to round up an arsenal or any of that jazz, but if your government won't let you own a gun there's a very big problem. The other thing is the US was founded upon that principle. When the colonists sent the brits packing, much of the fighting was done by the average man and his own weapons. That has been pounded into our heads since we could walk. That's kinda what America is all about, the roots of it if you will. We fled to get out of the that in Europe. We will not be oppressed by any form of government especially our own without being able to have the right to own weapons that your government has. |
|
#2
08-02-2012, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#3
08-02-2012, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
These are their moms and dads that they'd be asked to perform such deeds upon. A foreign Army would be considered an invasion which is in entirely different matter. But to round up their own... Last edited by ATAG_Doc; 08-02-2012 at 10:55 PM. |
|
#4
08-02-2012, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Right, I would really like the anti-gun folks to answer this simple question:
You accept the fact that the majority of law abiding gun owners are not criminals nor do any harm to anybody with their guns, yet there is a small percentage of them who in most case don't turn out to be suitable for gun ownership due to medical/psychological conditions and kill others, so to you the best solution is to ban guns or regulate them even more strictly in order to avoid bad things would happen again, is that right? According to your theory then what shall we do about Muslims? Yes, the majority are cool, but a small percentage of them, even in our own countries, have turned out to be terrorists or linked to them. Shall we follow the same logic just because a small minority is criminal? Shall we ban Islam and Muslims from our countries? I don't wanna get in a religious debate here, all Im trying to say is that your gun banning theory is one step further towards a regime, maybe one with no guns,but surely not a safer nor a more free one. Don't you really think that your diversity and/or lack of interest/knowledge on the matter,fuelled by the government fear mongers, is just not enough of a valid reason to instate a ban that in reality won't solve problems? It's like saying "hey, we don't like gingers because **paste here any ridiculous reason made up specifically** let's get rid of 'em!", still sounds like that place in Europe in the early 30s.. Last edited by Sternjaeger II; 08-02-2012 at 10:56 PM. |
|
#5
08-03-2012, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
And you display arrogance, assuming that people who do not like guns do not know what they are talking about. You could as easily say that those that do not like guns are more enlightened, educated and better able to make rational decisions. Suggesting that having gun law will lead to regime change is quite a leap of faith and one I don't share. As with all gun discussion it comes down to cultural differences. If certain countries want relatively easy access to guns then fine, have them. My personal (informed) opinion is that guns are cool and nasty at the same time but the arguments for having them are circular and feed off each other, or they have no grip on reality. But what do I know, I'm a sheep with no intention of bettering myself living in a weak-willed country that is slowly going to hell because we as individual sheep aren't allowed guns - this is a relatively poor attempt at cynical humour. gunpolicy.org and nationmaster.com gave me 5 minutes of interesting reading, comparing the stats for the countries that the main protagonists on these boards live in. Hood |
|
#6
08-03-2012, 09:22 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And I don't think that owning guns will lead to any regime change, there's no hope for that in our society, it's a matter of leaving me the right and the choice to defend my property and my loved ones in case it's necessary. Depriving a man of these fundamental, instinctive, rights is not fair nor human. The problem is that a lot of people here do not like to take on responsibilities (because owning a gun is first of all a responsibility), they're so weak and selfish that they would never think about giving their families adequate protections, and delegate this responsibility to the institutions.. They live with their head buried in the sand and hope they're not gonna be the ones in the news, but if violence strikes you then what are you gonna say to yourself, that you did all the best you could to defend your rights? There's a lot of male individuals, but less and less Men... Quote:
Quote:
If the police forces in the Cumbria shooting were armed, that crazy man wouldn't have carried on killing all that people, because what they told on the news once and once only is the police was following him during his shooting rampage but couldn't intervene cos they weren't armed. Now go and explain that to the families of the victims, I'm sure they'll be very impressed with that.. |
|
#7
08-03-2012, 09:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
shouldn't-- but.. can't .. resist .. gah...
"Sweden took silver in double trap" AAAH I said it. 
|
|
#8
08-03-2012, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 @ Stern Semantics are important otherwise a question becomes loaded. Your example of Muslims was a bad one. You cannot equate guns with religious beliefs as they are very different things. And my answer stands - a few bad apples do not spoil the whole crop. At a stretch you could equate them with drugs/alcohol. You are entitled to defend yourself, family and belongings, just not with a gun (in the UK anyway). If you do use a gun then provided you're licensed etc you may well be acquitted unless you shoot whoever it is in the back. You equate a distaste for guns with being weak, selfish and showing a lack of responsibility? I equate it to being rational, intelligent and culturally advanced. Owning a gun doesn't make you more of a man - what a ridiculous belief. I think they are used to cover inadequacies down below. Cool and nasty are subjective opinions. Cool is attractiveness because of form and function. For me guns satisfy both criteria. They're nasty because of what they were designed to do - kill things. This is regardless of target shooting etc, they still kill humans and animals. There is no contradiction here, it's like big furry spiders - they're cool but I really don't like them. Re Cumbria, imagine you live in a country that has lax gun ownership and arms their police. If you really want to kill people, does the fact that the police are armed stop you? Do some research in the USA. Hood ps For the record I think the USA is an amazing place with amazing people. It is a country that takes every facet of humanity and takes it to the nth degree. I'll still argue that the right to bear arms is outdated and no longer of relevance, but the USA is stuck with it forever because of how the country has developed. C'est la vie. |
|
#9
08-02-2012, 11:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Very basic military strategy is based on the opposition's armed forces. The population level hardly comes into play (unless it's the US) - only the strength of the weapons and the numbers/amounts of people in the military of that particular country. That is why you could get 20,000 of the Jewish to board a train with only 100 Nazi's overseeing the entire operation. That's why the military doesn't base it's amount of troops for a conflict on the size of the population only the size of it's military. Because of this strategy, unarmed, helpless civilians can be herded like cattle with relative ease - as was clearly demonstrated with Nazi Germany during WWII. To break it down even further. Just for numbers sake (I'm not going to be bothered to give exact numbers) but lets say Nazi Germany had a military of 500,000 strong. Easily 350,000 of those troops would be near the front lines far spread out. The rest is left to logistical, medical, sustainment etc., of anything from command, to resupply, to maintaining Auschwitz etc, etc., etc.,.. That's pretty standard military operation during any sort of conflict. Now take the number of population of countries over ran with such a seemingly small amount of troops staggered throughout Europe and then take into consideration the amount of people in the millions that couldn't do anything. Now take that 100 person swat team you talked about earlier. Now go ahead and try to round up 20,000 of the Jewish when all 20,000 of them have guns. You soon realize, as a military strategist, that this isn't gonna work to well. You soon realize you're going to need many more people to get the same job done. By doing that you also soon realize that this pulls resources from other areas of conflict where you may need them the most. Then you soon realize the sheer amount of resources required to maintain let alone achieve your mission has gone through the roof. Now you need 10x the ammunition, 10x the fuel, 10x the bombs, 10x the tanks, and 10x the manpower to put up with the once unable to do anything population that is helpless and isn't even included in your military strategy as a real threat compared to the now millions of people taking on your military of 500,000. That's what happens when citizens are armed. That's why any sort of military strategy to invade the US would be suicide, and that's why it's one of the few countries if at all, that has never in it's life had any sort of attempt at an invasion. Our military is big enough. But you invade us, you'd have majority of the country doing it's part as well. You may think "what a crock" or I'm full of BS. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out just how powerful numbers are. Especially those that are armed. People didn't just walk into the gas chambers on their own free will. That armed weapon pointed at their head does a hell of a lot of convincing. Edit: @ EZ - I don't really consider the war of 1812 an invasion. Most of the fighting occurred on the water or in water ways close to the coastal areas. There was obviously fighting on land but they didn't exactly make it very far I would consider Iraq an invasion as we setup military bases where ever we needed them throughout the entire country. I guess I should have worded my response differently.
Last edited by ATAG_Bliss; 08-03-2012 at 01:15 AM. |
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
