Advertisement
by Seveth » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:28 am
by Narland » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:31 am
by Blasveck » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:32 am
Seveth wrote:When I get on threads like these, I like to sit back, relax, and watch the drama unfold.
I mine as well share my opinion while I'm on here, though. Both sides have decent arguments for or against the ownership of guns. Allowing ordinary, law-abiding, everyday citizens access to guns would certainly reduce the crime rate simply because, unless one doesn't value his own life, he wouldn't go on a shooting spree knowing that everyone he will be targeting has a weapon similar to his own. However, eliminating guns from everyone's hands would also definitely reduce the amount of murder and mass killings across the country due to guns being less obtainable than now.
Both sides also have arguments that make absolutely no sense. Some people argue that if we were to outlaw gun ownership, the criminals would still get guns illegally, anyway. While this is true, that's like saying that if we outlaw drugs, people will still use them or if we outlaw alcohol, people will still find a way to get their hands on it. This is why they are criminals. On the other side, those people who claim that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution regards only the creation of a militia have clearly not read the exact wording of it. It says quite clearly that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Thus, I believe compromise between the two sides, whatever that may be, is the only way forward.
by Personal Defense Force » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:34 am
Seveth wrote:Both sides also have arguments that make absolutely no sense. Some people argue that if we were to outlaw gun ownership, the criminals would still get guns illegally, anyway. While this is true, that's like saying that if we outlaw drugs, people will still use them or if we outlaw alcohol, people will still find a way to get their hands on it. This is why they are criminals. On the other side, those people who claim that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution regards only the creation of a militia have clearly not read the exact wording of it. It says quite clearly that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
However, eliminating guns from everyone's hands would also definitely reduce the amount of murder and mass killings across the country due to guns being less obtainable than now.
by Kernen » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:35 am
Narland wrote:Kernen wrote:
But it is a sport. Perhaps not a competitive sport, but the term "sport" and hunting have been closely tied for hundreds of years.
A sport was originally defined as a diversion (from exercising the care of ones daily affairs). In the case of hunting it is a diversion of sorts (sorts = you have a chance.) A sporting chance refers to one's success being based on ones prowess in hunting.
by Kernen » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:36 am
Personal Defense Force wrote:Seveth wrote:Both sides also have arguments that make absolutely no sense. Some people argue that if we were to outlaw gun ownership, the criminals would still get guns illegally, anyway. While this is true, that's like saying that if we outlaw drugs, people will still use them or if we outlaw alcohol, people will still find a way to get their hands on it. This is why they are criminals. On the other side, those people who claim that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution regards only the creation of a militia have clearly not read the exact wording of it. It says quite clearly that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller
Supreme court supports that as well, Says the constitution is for the individual person and not the state, and has no precedence for the creation of militias other then in times of unrest.
Anywho, For those that read my post I support onsite mental health checks and background checks, all of which can be done quickly and efficiently over the internet in minutes from any place with any amount of access to basic services. Almost all of the other stuff there trying to do is just circling the point that mental health is the issue and not the availability of guns themselves.However, eliminating guns from everyone's hands would also definitely reduce the amount of murder and mass killings across the country due to guns being less obtainable than now.
I've always been curious, how would they go about doing this?
by Seveth » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:39 am
Personal Defense Force wrote:However, eliminating guns from everyone's hands would also definitely reduce the amount of murder and mass killings across the country due to guns being less obtainable than now.
I've always been curious, how would they go about doing this?
by Personal Defense Force » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:43 am
by Gauthier » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:46 am
Volnotova wrote:Inb4 "From my cold dead hands"
by Imperializt Russia » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:57 am
Leningrad Union wrote:It's not a sport when a deer hundreds of feet away is shot by a precision rifle. This is even more ridiculous than calling cheerleading a sport.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Blakk Metal » Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:21 am
Free Soviets wrote:Personal Defense Force wrote:The problem we have here is all the bloody lefties in the big cities are preventing a majority of the state which are righties from exerting any power in the state government because lower population centers have almost no say whatsoever in the government here.
2012 CA assembly general election results:
democratic party
6,835,701 votes - 58.46%
republican party
4,765,952 votes - 40.76%
damn those leftists, oppressing the majority by getting literally two million more votes. how dare they!
Saiwania wrote:Personal Defense Force wrote:Actually living in california over here, and I'm assuming you do as well by your post. The problem we have here is all the bloody lefties in the big cities are preventing a majority of the state which are righties from exerting any power in the state government because lower population centers have almost no say whatsoever in the government here.
California is a lost cause, it is high time to leave the state like I did. It is being flooded with illegal immigrants and their children and it is only going to become more leftist going forward. If you are dissatisfied with the state's politics, high cost of living, and the fact that businesses are leaving, the question isn't whether you should leave- but when.
by Seveth » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:26 pm
Personal Defense Force wrote:Seveth wrote:
What do you mean?I certainly wouldn't give up my firearms, I doubt alot of others will do either, and I wouldn't let those below me on the chain o' command enforce such a thing either being that it goes against the things I'm sworn to protect.
The big problem with banning weapons in the US is you have nearly 3 million members of the United States Armed Forces sworn to protect the constitution of the US over the government of the US, under the orders that if the government infringes on the citizens constitutional rights to the point of oppression that they are to overthrow it and reastablish a new republic that follows the constitution.
It'd be the biggest case of irony when the very thing that they ban comes back to bite them in the ass.
Sorry, I just realized how poor this sounds on me. Theres just no effective way of removing firearms from a country that has had them for hundreds of years, where there are more firearms then people, and only 1/10 of all firearms are reported.
by DnalweN acilbupeR » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:49 pm
The Emerald Dawn wrote:I award you no points, and have sent people to make sure your parents refrain from further breeding.
Lyttenburgh wrote:all this is a damning enough evidence to proove you of being an edgy butthurt 'murican teenager with the sole agenda of prooving to the uncaring bitch Web, that "You Have A Point!"
Lyttenburgh wrote:Either that, or, you were gang-raped by commi-nazi russian Spetznaz kill team, who then painted all walls in your house in hammer and sickles, and then viped their asses with the stars and stripes banner in your yard. That's the only logical explanation.
by Geilinor » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:01 pm
Nazeroth wrote:Mkuki wrote:That's liberalism? I'd better go change my ideological beliefs then.
*sigh* Liberalism has a definition, y'know.
weird, the definition and the reality don't' seem to match up
by Personal Defense Force » Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:50 pm
Seveth wrote:Personal Defense Force wrote:I certainly wouldn't give up my firearms, I doubt alot of others will do either, and I wouldn't let those below me on the chain o' command enforce such a thing either being that it goes against the things I'm sworn to protect.
The big problem with banning weapons in the US is you have nearly 3 million members of the United States Armed Forces sworn to protect the constitution of the US over the government of the US, under the orders that if the government infringes on the citizens constitutional rights to the point of oppression that they are to overthrow it and reastablish a new republic that follows the constitution.
It'd be the biggest case of irony when the very thing that they ban comes back to bite them in the ass.
Sorry, I just realized how poor this sounds on me. Theres just no effective way of removing firearms from a country that has had them for hundreds of years, where there are more firearms then people, and only 1/10 of all firearms are reported.
I didn't say that removing all firearms was a viable option. All I said was that it would certainly reduce violence if we somehow managed to remove them all, which will never and should never happen.
by Free Soviets » Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:20 pm
New Aerios wrote:
What you have just posted simply confirms that Hitler disarmed the people he wished to oppress (namely the Jews). The only difference is he didn't bother disarming everyone else.
So there we have it: Want to take away people's freedoms? Want to oppress them? Want to label them as subhuman scum and send them off to concentration camps? Disarm them!
by Free Soviets » Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:27 pm
2012 CA assembly general election results:
democratic party
6,835,701 votes - 58.46%
republican party
4,765,952 votes - 40.76%
damn those leftists, oppressing the majority by getting literally two million more votes. how dare they!
Ah yes, because all democrats are lefties, I forgot about that.
by Sevvania » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Free Soviets wrote:here's the thing. arms are good for killing your enemies...whoever they happen to be. objectively, private guns haven't been useful for defending against tyranny. they have, however, been somewhat useful for imposing it. but mostly they just are good for increasing the homicide and suicide rates.
what you really want to defend against tyranny is a) a strong democratic tradition and b) a military that respects it and is able to kick the crap out of anyone who tries to fuck with it.
by Nazeroth » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:29 pm
by Dictatorship Of Serdaristan » Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:08 pm
Sevvania wrote:Free Soviets wrote:here's the thing. arms are good for killing your enemies...whoever they happen to be. objectively, private guns haven't been useful for defending against tyranny. they have, however, been somewhat useful for imposing it. but mostly they just are good for increasing the homicide and suicide rates.
what you really want to defend against tyranny is a) a strong democratic tradition and b) a military that respects it and is able to kick the crap out of anyone who tries to fuck with it.
There's the First Chechen War, in which Chechens held off Russian military forces despite their overwhelming numbers, weapons, and air support.
Now, I'm not very knowledgeable of the events of the First Chechen War, so I'm not 100% certain as to whether the Chechens involved would be considered a real military. I do know, however, that this is what some Chechen fighters look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... helmet.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5s62 ... o1_500.jpg
And that they are known to arm themselves with homemade weaponry. So, if they are indeed primarily civilian fighters that have organized themselves to be military-esque, it seems to me that this is at least one instance that could be interpreted as a case of private guns being fairly useful in defending against tyranny.
by Kouralia » Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:16 pm
Dictatorship Of Serdaristan wrote:Sevvania wrote:There's the First Chechen War, in which Chechens held off Russian military forces despite their overwhelming numbers, weapons, and air support.
Now, I'm not very knowledgeable of the events of the First Chechen War, so I'm not 100% certain as to whether the Chechens involved would be considered a real military. I do know, however, that this is what some Chechen fighters look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... helmet.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5s62 ... o1_500.jpg
And that they are known to arm themselves with homemade weaponry. So, if they are indeed primarily civilian fighters that have organized themselves to be military-esque, it seems to me that this is at least one instance that could be interpreted as a case of private guns being fairly useful in defending against tyranny.
See: every conflict since the Korean war.
The fact is, conventional armies are terrible against guerrillas and freedom fighters. Which is why I never understand the leftist claims of revolution against the US govt. being impossible.
by Free Soviets » Sun Sep 22, 2013 11:38 pm
Dictatorship Of Serdaristan wrote:Sevvania wrote:There's the First Chechen War, in which Chechens held off Russian military forces despite their overwhelming numbers, weapons, and air support.
Now, I'm not very knowledgeable of the events of the First Chechen War, so I'm not 100% certain as to whether the Chechens involved would be considered a real military. I do know, however, that this is what some Chechen fighters look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... helmet.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5s62 ... o1_500.jpg
And that they are known to arm themselves with homemade weaponry. So, if they are indeed primarily civilian fighters that have organized themselves to be military-esque, it seems to me that this is at least one instance that could be interpreted as a case of private guns being fairly useful in defending against tyranny.
See: every conflict since the Korean war.
The fact is, conventional armies are terrible against guerrillas and freedom fighters. Which is why I never understand the leftist claims of revolution against the US govt. being impossible.
by Norjagen » Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:14 am
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:The shoe is the pie of the Middle East. The poor bastards. :(
by Imperializt Russia » Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:56 am
Sevvania wrote:Free Soviets wrote:here's the thing. arms are good for killing your enemies...whoever they happen to be. objectively, private guns haven't been useful for defending against tyranny. they have, however, been somewhat useful for imposing it. but mostly they just are good for increasing the homicide and suicide rates.
what you really want to defend against tyranny is a) a strong democratic tradition and b) a military that respects it and is able to kick the crap out of anyone who tries to fuck with it.
There's the First Chechen War, in which Chechens held off Russian military forces despite their overwhelming numbers, weapons, and air support.
Now, I'm not very knowledgeable of the events of the First Chechen War, so I'm not 100% certain as to whether the Chechens involved would be considered a real military. I do know, however, that this is what some Chechen fighters look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... helmet.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5s62 ... o1_500.jpg
And that they are known to arm themselves with homemade weaponry. So, if they are indeed primarily civilian fighters that have organized themselves to be military-esque, it seems to me that this is at least one instance that could be interpreted as a case of private guns being fairly useful in defending against tyranny.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Sevvania » Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:41 am
Free Soviets wrote:Dictatorship Of Serdaristan wrote:See: every conflict since the Korean war.
The fact is, conventional armies are terrible against guerrillas and freedom fighters. Which is why I never understand the leftist claims of revolution against the US govt. being impossible.
every successful guerrilla campaign i know of has been either run by a regular military's command structure (state-backed or breakaway) or been supplied by one. mainly because if you don't have tanks and machine guns and rpgs, you lose. they may pick up a few civilian-type weapons and improvise bombs occasionally, but that won't get the job done.
also, i'm not sure we can reasonably call the chechen government (which was in command of the guerrilla campaign) of the '90s particularly free. hell, it's not clear that there were any 'good guys' in that fight at all.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Jetan, Singaporen Empire, Tiami
Advertisement