“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

a reply to: masqua

Yes, people tend to forget when rolling with the paranoid fantasies that the US is on the brink of martial law and the police state is nigh.

From the many threads on sunjects like this, it seems the only reason why American's need to be armed to the teeth is becuaes they fear their neighbours, who are similarly armed. You are not afraid of the military, you're afraid of your your fellow citizen and he's afraid of you.

If guns have done anything to the US society, it has been to instil fear in the public.

hey ho.

Regards

originally posted by: swanne

You believe that US Military is incapable of harming citizens,

I never stated that.

originally posted by: swanne

yet you claim that all citizens must defend against the military invasion. Isn't this a wee bit contradictory?

That is the reason behind US having that right.

It is very sad to see that you don't have that right, and while I understand if either jealousy of that right, or ignorant fear of people having firearms drives you towards this, it still is sad.

a reply to: swanne

Ahh I see. So since there are idiots out there we should just ban them all together...

Right cause this makes sense. Shall we start a list of things we should take away from the people because stupid people do stupid things w them?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

About as smart and fruitful as banning idiocy.

How about this, Swanne, instead of sticking your nose in issues of other countries, why don't you first push to have the laws you want enacted and working first in Canada.

a reply to: swanneWhen the law infringes on American constitutional rights, it should no longer be a law. There are plenty of laws that are unconstitutional, people just like to exchange safety for liberty.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

About as smart and fruitful as banning idiocy.

How about this, Swanne, instead of sticking your nose in issues of other countries, why don't you first push to have the laws you want enacted and working first.

I do understand your sentiment. I do however value his imput. Even if I don't agree with it. I think we should always keep an open mind to knew ideas even if they aren't from our own country.

IMHO the minute we shut our minds off to ideas from other countries we leave ourselves too close minded to improving out own way of life here.

Again I don't agree with the premise of this thread but I find it valuable to exchange.

Not poopooing you at all my friend.

a reply to: paraphi

That may be your fear, but it's not mine. Firearms are at their most defined and arguably most restricted state since the founding of the US. How is it that now, somehow, magically firearms are an issue? Funny enough, my neighbors are both firearms owners. I actually trust them more because of it. To me it says they are rational adults who understand the duty of living in a representative republic who also posses a mature sense of personal risk management.

The only time fear has a strong correlation to firearms ownership is when there is a lot of ignorance or agenda behind it.

Instead of thinking of it as fear, think of it as mature precaution against something that you know might happen despite your best efforts. I don't fear driving because of the risk of a car accident or that many people on the road drive without insurance to the point of wanting to ban cars. I merely buckle up and do my best as any adult would. It's ludicrous to suggest one ought to be punished for driving sensibly by wearing a seat belt much like it's ludicrous to suggest one ought to be punished for treating their gift of life sensibly by owning a weapon.

originally posted by: riffraff
Starhart, an AK-47 shoots 7.62 NATO ammo. Arguably not a strong enough round for deer hunting. A hunting rifle like a 30 ought 6 would be more powerful inside 200 yards. Also, just like these hunting rifles you keep referencing they both fire one bullet per trigger pull. Also known as semi-automatic. For you to want me to shoot a burglar with a hunting rifle instead of an ak is like you saying stabbing an intruder with a ten inch blade is too much; I should use foot-long blades because they're safer

Okay. Let's say that you are right, and that a Remington hunting rifle with only 3 shots is more dangerous than a 600 rounds per minute AK-47.

That's not the main point in the OP. The main point is that people use the Second Amendment as a justification to have tanks, bazookas, and apc. The point still stands that people wants to own tanks and bazookas, and mainly everything the military owns, which would include machine guns, missiles, aircrafts. Then these same person wants automatic and assault rifles to be allowed in households as "self-defense". It doesn't really inspire confidence in these persons's sanity and true motives behind owning those weapons.

This is my last message in this thread for today.

I realize that we pacifists have no freedom of speech in a world dominated by you hawks. Just like the governments you criticize. So, these are my last words to you today, last words which I know you will thoroughly ignore.

You live under the illusion that having guns portray you as bold, heroic figures. You even called me coward because I refuse to give in to the easy way which is violence. But I'm afraid it is not us pacifists who are the true cowards in the end. You lack the courage to work for a better world, so you cower behind your guns.

Violence is the weapon of the coward. The true measure of a hero is not in the amount of people he killed, but in the amount of people he didn't. To mine eyes you hawks are simply the next Military, and you even think like the military. You think more violence will magically solve violence. So in a way, you already lost the battle, since you and the Military you criticize are already the same. You and the Military already share the same mentality, the same worship of Killing. So what difference does it make in the end? It is like losing but continue believing in the illusion that you've won.

Turn enemies into allies, work for harmony, stop misunderstandings and promote tolerance and freedom is the job you ignore, leaving it to us pacifists. Instead, you hawks resort to the most easiest thing a man or even an animal can do: violence. Then you wonder why violence never stops. Yet you nevertheless continue making the same actions over and over again, and each time expecting a different result.

So in the end, which are the truly cowardly ones?

a reply to: starheart

Then here's a question. If they are qualified to have an own these armaments why shouldn't they? If they can pass what is required to have them?

The people railing on this idea are the same ones who constantly talk about how our military men are just mentally unstable or idiots who couldn't find a real job.

So if they can have them and y'all seem to have no problem w that. Why can't someone else who meets the criteria and isn't in the military?

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

About as smart and fruitful as banning idiocy.

How about this, Swanne, instead of sticking your nose in issues of other countries, why don't you first push to have the laws you want enacted and working first.

I do understand your sentiment. I do however value his imput. Even if I don't agree with it. I think we should always keep an open mind to knew ideas even if they aren't from our own country.

IMHO the minute we shut our minds off to ideas from other countries we leave ourselves too close minded to improving out own way of life here.

Again I don't agree with the premise of this thread but I find it valuable to exchange.

Not poopooing you at all my friend.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, I see your point, but........the idea that we need to revisit our 2nd Amendment to reflect what other countries have is insane. There is no other country that has our firearms rights, and there is a reason for that.

a reply to: starheart

Wanna know something really cool? The people who do own destructive devices (grenade launchers, missile launchers, automatic shotguns) and other NFA title II weapons, are statistically speaking, are actually the least likely to commit crime. This demographic tends to exercise their right to unlimited franchise (vote) at every election, municipal, county, state, and federal. This demographic tends to have no criminal records and squeaky clean credit scores. You can nary find a better demographic within the US than the mere criteria of NFA title II weapon owner, regardless of race, ethnicity, income bracket, or location. If you use title II weapon owner as the qualifier, you'll find that these people are model f'ing citizens.

I hate to disappoint you, you can check it out if you like.

a reply to: starheart

" Let's say that you are right, and that a Remington hunting rifle with only 3 shots is more dangerous than a 600 rounds per minute AK-47. "

there is far higher danger in a person who can accurately fire a semiautomatic or single shot rifle than a person is shooting fully automatic.

"The main point is that people use the Second Amendment as a justification to have tanks, bazookas, and apc. The point still stands that people wants to own tanks and bazookas, and mainly everything the military owns, which would include machine guns, missiles, aircrafts."

This is ridiculous and anyone who actually thinks this should be examined.

"Then these same person wants automatic and assault rifles to be allowed in households as "self-defense"."

That isn't such a wild desire and i fail to see the issue here.

a reply to: swanne

Don't victimize yourself, it doesn't suit you, and draws the feeling of pity from others, which is an incredibly negative emotion in my book. Violence is not a weapon of the coward, just a weapon of necessity, courageously or cowardly.

You have no freedom of speech? Who's stopping you from writing what you wrote? If you mean powerless? Welcome to the world, I'd like to open a few history books for you so you can see how right you are.

What you want is very utopian. And while I admire that, and I would rather be able to trust anyone without a second thought, that's not the world we live, never has been.

Don't ever call someone a coward unless you are ready to put your life on the line for someone elses. All of your posts in this thread have now been invalidated by your own ad hominem.

a reply to: swanne

Again you live in a utopian world.

Being a pacifist is fine. But in a world where there are people out there who Would kill your family w out a second thought, it's these "cowards" that are willing to do what's necessary to protect that family.

Your illusion of pacifism I'm sure would go right out the window if someone was hellbent on killing your wife. Daughter son or mother.

This is the real world where ugly things happen. And there must be good men capable of doing bad things to ensure those bad things do not happen to other good people.

Remember that if you're ever in a position where one of those wolves comes knocking at your door

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: swanne

This is the real world where ugly things happen. And there must be good men capable of doing bad things to ensure those bad things do not happen to other good people.

How right you are. It takes a mature person indeed to know that they have to become a monster, at least and hopefully temporarily, to adequately defeat a monster.

a reply to: swanne
"When the Second Amendment was drafted almost three centuries ago, guns were at the stage of revolvers and muskets." Really? they had revolvers? lol. nice try. should we really listen to anything you say when you can't even do your homework?

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
a reply to: starheart
This is ridiculous and anyone who actually thinks this should be examined.

Well, here's one member right here who wants such a thing:

originally posted by: Mon1k3r
If there were no second amendment, there wouldn't be anything telling anyone what they could and couldn't have. Personally, I don't think I need someone else's contract to tell me what objects I can own. If tanks exist, and I want to have one, what natural law is there that says I can't have it?

I suggest you look up all the pro-revolution threads in ATS. The number of people that wish such a thing isn't meaningless.

The world isn't all rainbows, glitter, and unicorn farts.
for those of us in reality, its a hostile place full of bad people.

a reply to: fixitwcw

Haha, yeah. I always find it hilarious when people bring that up. Also, at that time, muzzle and breach loading flint lock rifles were the most modern personal weapons around. From the creation of this country until 1986, the US's citizenry has had access to more advanced small arms than the military. Only recently has it been the other way around, but now for some inexplicable reason there's a problem.