Skeeve Posted September 3, 2006 Posted September 3, 2006 Furthermore, you conveniently sidestepped the issue of armed societies in Africa. Last time I looked the murder rate in Mogadishu was a tad higher than that in gun control obsessed London, Paris, Berlin or anywhere else in the western "control zone". I think you will also find the part of society that IS regulary armed, i.e. the illegal economy based on sex 'n drugs, suffers a fairly high attrition rate from the said firearms. Fortunately the gangs involved are more interested in shooting at each other than at the general public, so I suppose you could argue that guns actually reduce the number of criminals in circulation. .... I personally have enjoyed using shotguns for clay shooting, and have done some target shooting as well. However, I would never think of owning a gun for "personal protection" firstly because I doubt I could pull the trigger faced with another person, and there is always the possibility of accidents where children are concerned. .... You cannot really argue against the assertion that the one area where more guns really does equal more danger is when madmen are involved. In the US, murder by madmen with firearms is relatively common compared with countries where firearms are a lot more difficult to own. However, I accept you will have to live with what you have got over there and accept a certain level of deaths from this cause. .... Why is the gun lobby so extreme in the states? Surely any sane man or woman must support the Brady Centre's campaign against illegal gun sales, and the sale to the general public of military weapons with no sporting or self-defence purpose? Surely even you Ratchet must see that with freedom comes responsibility, and any responsible person would not want a military firearm. In order: 1: Mogadishu is a violent area undergoing civil war with a bunch of competing power factions. Gun control isn't going to solve anything, because there is no central govt. imposing it; that's what the fighting is all about: who's going to become that govt. imposing their will upon the poor shmucks w/o any means to fight back! 2: Good for you recognizing your personal limits. I would have very little personal quibbles with pulling the trigger on someone seeking to do me or mine harm. Sorry, but congenital stupidity simply must be considered a capital crime if society is to progress. We've systematically eliminated all the natural predators that thinned our herds; ever since, we've been devolving. I guess I'm just a social Darwinist... 3: Madmen are nuts: they're going to do people harm whether or not they have access to firearms. In fact, the argument can be made that a lot fewer people are killed by madmen than would otherwise come to harm by them for the simple reason that firearms aren't as easy to shoot as they seem to be in the movies, and madmen fortunately don't get to the range and practice that often! After all, on those occasions when someone goes nuts behind the wheel of a car or truck, the deaths & injuries are usually in the double digits, vs. the normal low singles for gun-wielding nutjobs... 4: The reason the gun-lobby is so extreme is because the anti-freedom nuts are not interested in stopping with banning one type of firearm, etc. It starts off with "ban military look-alikes" and ends with "ban air rifles!" - no, wait: it ends with "ban knives with points!" - no, wait: it ends with "ban cricket bats for minors!" - no, wait: it doesn't end. "Do it for the children..." Bite me! Selling the kids into slavery by not standing up to these b@stards is not an acceptable course of action! As a responsible firearm owner, I absolutely demand the right to own military type firearms: the entire point of this exercise is to have the ability to say "Not here, not today" when the govt. gets out of hand. Who the heck is going to stop the looters when L.A. riots and the police hide out in their headquarters? History tells us, it'll be the shop owners up on the roofs who'll protect their property, not the govt! "Protect & serve" is just a PR slogan, it has nothing at all to do w/ reality... Fortunately, we all can agree on owning motorcycles!
dlaing Posted September 3, 2006 Posted September 3, 2006 2: Good for you recognizing your personal limits. I would have very little personal quibbles with pulling the trigger on someone seeking to do me or mine harm. Sorry, but congenital stupidity simply must be considered a capital crime if society is to progress. We've systematically eliminated all the natural predators that thinned our herds; ever since, we've been devolving. I guess I'm just a social Darwinist... We can't eve agree if Ratchet is personally attacking us on the forum. What constitutes knowledge that someone is seeking to do harm? I am nervous everytime I knock on my mother's door. Since she had the cataract surgery I feel a little safer, but I am not sure what the RX Drugs do to her JUDGEMENT. But I still feel safer knockin on her door than Ratchet's. He probably has cyanide gas booby traps and buries Liberal canvassers, NY Times salesmen, and Jehovahies in the back yard
g.forrest Posted September 3, 2006 Posted September 3, 2006 FWIW in the situation that existed in new orleans after KATRINA. guns in that community led to a restoration of order situation rather than rescue of people in need.
Guest Nogbad Posted September 3, 2006 Posted September 3, 2006 FWIW in the situation that existed in new orleans after KATRINA. guns in that community led to a restoration of order situation rather than rescue of people in need. What bothers me in this thread is the conflation of mutually incompatible arguments. There is the argument that an armed citizenry can deter crime. I'm sure there must be some mileage in that one, though how much is unclear. The other argument on here is that an armed citizenry will deter the executive from oppressing the people. This argument is clear bunkum. If you get to the point where the citizenry take up arms against the government you are immediately in a failed state and liable to the level of gun deaths seen in the Horn of Africa as all the special interest groups try to impose their will on the rest of you. On to madmen again: One crazy with a rapid fire military weapon can wreak far more havoc than in almost any other way. Other ways would involve explosives I guess, but I still say things like Uzis should not be available to anyone outside of the military or the police.
g.forrest Posted September 3, 2006 Posted September 3, 2006 another way to look at this subject. if the indiginous populations had been armed with equivilent weapons as their invaders, would history be different. guns are power and used that way gun club member or criminal. its abought having the advantage increasing your odds. i prefer not to live in an environment where i need that advantage. if tyranny gets to the point that i need a gun in my society.and i am subjegated by the military or police. i believe in the numbers. we'll soon get their guns. power to the people when needed. until then....
dlaing Posted September 3, 2006 Posted September 3, 2006 Here are some possible scenarios of tyranny in the usa: A terrorist(Maybe GWB at the the end of his term) gains control of the whitehouse and THE launch codes or atleast a couple Nuclear bombs. Yep, I am going to go to wal-mart and buy a shot gun to protect myself from Dr. Evil or his bible forcing henchman. Another scenario, Civil War...the next election is as obvious a fraud as the last two, but this time the Liberals led by Hitlary rigged it instead of the oh so righteous GOP. This time the victims of the fraud are packing, but the only way they'll stand a chance is to divide the military into two sides of patriots. What good will my hand gun do me? not sure. Maybe I should buy a humvee and get it bullet proofed. Or maybe just go to track school and buy a supercharged Hayabusa that can out run helicopters. Third scenario, illegal immigrants, Muslims, or victims of a plague, that the government try to put into concentration camps, rise up against the government and start killing yuppies. OK, finally a scenario where I wish I was well armed...until they broke into my house, got my gun, polished it, and then plugged me when I got home. Still I am billy the kid and unless they shoot me in the back, I will be a survivor!
Guest Nogbad Posted September 3, 2006 Posted September 3, 2006 Still I am billy the kid and unless they shoot me in the back, I will be a survivor! I didn't think you were of the survivalist persuasion, I had Rackinghackcough down as the last man standing at the end of Armageddon.
Anthro Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 I didn't think you were of the survivalist persuasion, I had Rackinghackcough down as the last man standing at the end of Armageddon. I worked for too long as a forensic expert to be able to agree with you. I vote for poor humor sense rather anyone supporting people having or bearing a weapon (trained or not)(legally or not)(concealed or not). I have enough of that. Legal or not, that technology is just way too easy to activate... just pull the trigger. No matter who did it, it will make a hole on anything in front. Anyone that associates that technology with 'safety' or 'protection' should considere that the only thing you may get by having firearms around may be -a hole- where you did not have or want one. Anthro
dlaing Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 Someone posted this .mov at Griso.com Gorgeous Girl with Gun and Guzzi
mike wilson Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 As a responsible firearm owner, I absolutely demand the right to own military type firearms: the entire point of this exercise is to have the ability to say "Not here, not today" when the govt. gets out of hand. That's a hoot! Democracy until the majority disagrees with me, then break out the ballistics! It's a sad country when even the fascists don't trust the ballot box.
Guest ratchethack Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 As a responsible firearm owner, I absolutely demand the right to own military type firearms: the entire point of this exercise is to have the ability to say "Not here, not today" when the govt. gets out of hand. Far more important are policies that prevent governments from getting out of hand in the first place. One of the lessons of history that our Founding Fathers understood so well 250 years ago that has become lost to the "new and sophisticated" and "post modern" victims of propaganda and Popular Kulture Hollywood "gun culture" movies is that an armed citizenry is a powerful citizenry. An armed citizenry is powerful enough to prevent governments from taking the first incremental steps toward tyranny that history has proven to be the natural compulsion of all governments. Thus, the INCLINATION for governments to even begin to implement tyrannical behaviors is nipped in the bud via the deterrence of an armed citizenry, and even the prospect of using firearms against tyrants thereby becomes irrelevant as well as unnecessary. As so many posts in this thread have indicated, the ignorant of history and the ignorant of the facts fail to recognize that the deterrent effect of firearms on crime does not mean that people must be shot for defensive fireams to achieve their primary purpose. History clearly shows us that governments behave as logically in terms of self-preservation as criminals do, just as conclusively evidenced by the large perentage of law enforcement officers who use firearms for their primary purpose - deterrence - every working day for their entire careers without ever as much as aiming a weapon at a person, let alone firing at a person. But then, there always have been those who, having failed to learn the lessons of history, are condemned to repeat them.
Skeeve Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 That's a hoot! Democracy until the majority disagrees with me, then break out the ballistics! It's a sad country when even the fascists don't trust the ballot box. Newsflash(es): #1: The U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The founders understood that democracies inevitably fail when the have nots discover that they can vote themselves into riches from the collective purse of the haves. #2: Fascists are socialists (ie, politically left); please get your facts straight before slinging your ad hominem arguments around... #3: I never said I didn't trust the political process [altho' the leftists are striving to scuttle even that by mandating "electronic voting" so they can control the results even more completely than their current control of the media allows. Look up "Diebold" & "Venezuela elections" for a quick education if you're clueless as to what I'm nattering on about...] #4: For those who failed U.S. History 101: the founders recognized that the nature of govt. is to grow beyond reasonable limits, and hence, the only way to keep it in check was a populace capable of resistance, hence, the 2nd Amendement to our Constitution. Sorry if this bores the non-U.S. guzzisti to tears, but it helps to keep our biases in mind when engaging in an argument between citizens & subjects. Ride on!
Tom M Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Just so I'm perfectly clear on where RH and Skeeve are coming from, I have 2 simple questions for you guys: Do you think that private citizens should be able to own fully automatic weapons? If so, should there be any government regulation whatsoever? Yes or no answers should suffice.
dlaing Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Newsflash(es): #1: The U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The founders understood that democracies inevitably fail when the have nots discover that they can vote themselves into riches from the collective purse of the haves. #2: Fascists are socialists (ie, politically left); please get your facts straight before slinging your ad hominem arguments around... #3: I never said I didn't trust the political process [altho' the leftists are striving to scuttle even that by mandating "electronic voting" so they can control the results even more completely than their current control of the media allows. Look up "Diebold" & "Venezuela elections" for a quick education if you're clueless as to what I'm nattering on about...] #4: For those who failed U.S. History 101: the founders recognized that the nature of govt. is to grow beyond reasonable limits, and hence, the only way to keep it in check was a populace capable of resistance, hence, the 2nd Amendement to our Constitution. Sorry if this bores the non-U.S. guzzisti to tears, but it helps to keep our biases in mind when engaging in an argument between citizens & subjects. Ride on! Never trust NewsFlashes Here is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!! #1 The USA is a Republic AND a Democracy #2 Some fascists claim to be socialists. (they need something to make them appealing) Claiming to be socialist or Left wing does not make you socialist or Left wing. Most all socialists REJECT fascism. And most fascists REJECT most socialism, Communism, Liberal Democracy, etc.. Fascist have more in common with the Right then the Left. #3 Look up Diebold, Election Fraud and George Bush, and then think heavily about Ratchet's theory on arming to fight off tyranny...Then just be grateful we Lefties are only armed with hot cappucinos and iBooks. #4 That sure is a twist on history. The fear was not that the government would grow beyond reasonable limits, but that it would grow and become bad government, ie., tyranny. Perhaps tyrannical like Lincoln's government...How dare they even think of ending slavery Sorry, Slavery(at a horrible price) and free enterprise may have made this country rich, but Liberal Democratic Federalism made this country great! (And yes, sometimes the government treads too heavily on the rights of the people....just look at the patriot act....Come on Ratchet! Let us see the rebellion!!! oh just what I thought...only the left is tyrannical )
mike wilson Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Newsflash(es): #2: Fascists are socialists (ie, politically left); please get your facts straight before slinging your ad hominem arguments around... A fascist is anyone who uses force to get their own way. From Wikipedia: "Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism." It wasn't aimed at you but, if you feel the cap fits, far be it from me to tell you otherwise. This paragraph is downright scary: Former Colombia University Professor Robert O. Paxton, speaking about the essence of fascism - "1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one's group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination." Definitely reminds me of something.....
Recommended Posts