Everyone DOES understand why there can't be an Armed Population?

Originally posted by Magnum007
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

I posted the video not for the links between the NRA and the KKK... I posted it to show that a scared population owning guns is down right DANGEROUS.... I don't care about the politics and the right vs left crap...

The issue is that people twist their own constitution to suit their needs the same way they do with the greatest fiction book ever written... This is the root problem in the US which causes the rest of the world's problems... Look at how the US twists information to go to war, to cause economic turmoil, and world insecurity...

This is the exact same problem that plagues the US right now with gun entitlement... Thanks to this twisted ideology, people believe that they can own any weapons they want, do whatever they want, and replace the police by doing things themselves... this is what is going to cause anarchy in the country some day and most people will not survive because of the reasons I said above...

Keep your dangerous attitude
in CAN. we don't think that way
in the good old USA, most of us
do just fine, and need guns because
the criminals have them will always have
them and will always use them..
Guns being used to hunt is also
an incredible thing to be able to
do, people depended on guns at
one time for food, how the new found
land was developed. That thinking is
ass backwards, guns for cops and military
only? No never going to happen.
Lets see them take them.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


The people of the WELL REGULATED MILITIA are the ones who are given the right to bear arms... the comas are there to specify why the militia is needed...

in Canada we know how to read, OUR schools still teach that...

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by Magnum007
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

I posted the video not for the links between the NRA and the KKK... I posted it to show that a scared population owning guns is down right DANGEROUS.... I don't care about the politics and the right vs left crap...

The issue is that people twist their own constitution to suit their needs the same way they do with the greatest fiction book ever written... This is the root problem in the US which causes the rest of the world's problems... Look at how the US twists information to go to war, to cause economic turmoil, and world insecurity...

This is the exact same problem that plagues the US right now with gun entitlement... Thanks to this twisted ideology, people believe that they can own any weapons they want, do whatever they want, and replace the police by doing things themselves... this is what is going to cause anarchy in the country some day and most people will not survive because of the reasons I said above...

Keep your dangerous attitude
in CAN. we don't think that way
in the good old USA, most of us
do just fine, and need guns because
the criminals have them will always have
them and will always use them..
Guns being used to hunt is also
an incredible thing to be able to
do, people depended on guns at
one time for food, how the new found
land was developed. That thinking is
ass backwards, guns for cops and military
only? No never going to happen.
Lets see them take them.

Well then, you can keep living in fear for your life everyday and think about having to "protect" yourself from some invisible enemy...

Must be such a sad existence... No wonder life expectancy/quality is so low in the US

To me it is absolutely pathetic how little the bulk of the population knows nothing about their country nor it's foundations and how from a position of total ignorance and selfish cowardice simply flap their lips about some weird fantasy island existence.

We have been living in the age of the "mangina" for quite some time now.

Far be it for some people to think beyond the edge of their own selfishness and control issues while they attempt to deny over and over again fundamental human rights as encoded in our constitution and all of the background information about why we were formed the way we were.

The stupid ones keep crying about our constitution being for a different time and age. This is because they lack the basic comprehension skills to view anything from a rational point of view, and instead consistently have their thoughts guided by emotion as if they were mindless emotional slaves.

The people who formed our government and system of rights were well acquainted with many forms of tyranny. Tyranny has this quality of being the same thing with the same outcomes every time it rears it's head. You can call or name it anything you want, but tyranny is always tyranny. The ignorant are clueless about what that is.

If you want advice about tyranny, you should consult people well versed in such issues and not some dummy that is the victim of his own meritless abstractions.

The purpose of gun ownership is embedded in the Federalist and the Anti Federalist Papers. Your valid and sound answers are there. It makes no difference if you "like" it or not. Our system was created by men of the Enlightenment who had in mind our collective security and longevity with the natural rights of man firmly in mind.
They were more astute and educated than it appears that anyone in America is today.

But the ignorant ignore all that is rational and important in the world of existence for mankind in general. Based on anecdotal evidence, they pee their pants, then try to manipulate the world from the position of their irrational fear.

When I look at gun ownership in America, I see that 99.999% of those gun owners are responsible people. The cowardly morons (check your dictionary) simply denigrate evrything good in the world with the mass of logical fallacies at their disposal, from a position that is worse than mere ingorance. That position is blatant stupidity.

Simply because these buffoons have something nasty to say about gun owners and ownership is no justification for any actions they suggest.

By their own logic, they should be forced to shut the h up, because this is what they suggest: The denial of basic human rights.

There is no mandate that one must possess a gun. I see no difficulty here. I DO object to registration of firearms, but I would NOT object to licensing owners. To have a training session and to be able to demonstrate competency with said weapons in the view of competent trainers would be extremely helpful. You may not know that the founders envisioned that evryone would receieve proper traing, but because of the expense involved, they left that up to the states, and the states dropped the ball on that.

But far be it from me to try to educate the dimwits who are all so much smarter than the really intelligent people of the world.

During such training session, nut cases could be spotted and denied, legally. While this would not be a perfect system, it would certainly be helpful. Gunsellers are not mind readers. I wish they could be! The computer check system could be improved somewhat.

But the real fact that some slip through the cracks, is no justification for a total ban except for in the minds of the manginas. What makes you think that I or any other real american is going to follow the lead of a coward and a non reflective hairless monkey with speech?

If one person, or even 100 persons out of several million commit these crimes, there is no justification in denying responsible people anything. If we follow these suggestions, and the logic/thinking involved, then we should ban alcohol, since there are many more deaths every year attributed to drunk driving. This where the logic leads you by default. I realize that you do not know this. When death is involved as the catalyst for action, what is the difference between a 90 grain chunk of lead, and a 1 ton plus vehicle. At that level, I would suggest that there is no difference. So if you ban one you must ban the other based on the same foundation.

But no... WE in cowardly fashion pick on what we think is the easier target don't we?

This is what we get by using emotion to guide the thinking than rationality.

You anti firearm people better pray in earnest that chaos and lawlessness NEVER comes to roost here. It is foul on both sides of the coin. YOU and others like you will be dying and I and others like me will be killing.

It is simply the fact of the matter.

reply to post by Magnum007


So because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be #ed with actually reads: because a militia is necessary the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Makes sens to me.

Regardless, that argument has been made moot repeatedly over the last century by the courts.

Not to mention that the BOR is essentially just a goddamn piece of paper anyway so focusing your attention on cute wordplay is pointless.

Originally posted by Magnum007
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

The people of the WELL REGULATED MILITIA are the ones who are given the right to bear arms... the comas are there to specify why the militia is needed...

in Canada we know how to read, OUR schools still teach that...

edit on 12/4/5 by Magnum007 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/4/5 by Magnum007 because: (no reason given)

This was only under British law.

Here all able bodied people are meant to be the general militia. The distinction is made that the well regulated part is the standing army (which no one really wanted) which was envisioned to be less than 3% of the total population, as they knew that in Europe many armies were 10% or better and they ruled the roost. This was not to be for us. As well as augmenting the army in cases of invasion or "unpopular" insurrection, our militia is meant to "defeat or fight to a stand still" the army.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

So because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be #ed with actually reads: because a militia is necessary the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

That's exactly what it says... English grammar 101...

Regardless, that argument has been made moot repeatedly over the last century by the courts.

And these courts you speak of are the same ones who you disagree with about strip searches following an arrest... right?

So when are they right? Only when you say so?

Not to mention that the BOR is essentially just a goddamn piece of paper anyway so focusing your attention on cute wordplay is pointless.

This is the same piece of paper that people use to justify their rights to this and their rights to that... but now that it doesn't work in your favor it's "just a goddamn piece of paper anyway"... come on! We've discussed and disagreed about many things before, this is not how you usually finish your point...

I'm seriously and genuinely disappointed...

Originally posted by akalepos

Originally posted by Magnum007
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

The people of the WELL REGULATED MILITIA are the ones who are given the right to bear arms... the comas are there to specify why the militia is needed...

in Canada we know how to read, OUR schools still teach that...

edit on 12/4/5 by Magnum007 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/4/5 by Magnum007 because: (no reason given)

This was only under British law.

Here all able bodied people are meant to be the general militia. The distinction is made that the well regulated part is the standing army (which no one really wanted) which was envisioned to be less than 3% of the total population, as they knew that in Europe many armies were 10% or better and they ruled the roost. This was not to be for us. As well as augmenting the army in cases of invasion or "unpopular" insurrection, our militia is meant to "defeat or fight to a stand still" the army.

edit on 5-4-2012 by akalepos because: words

Although your point is very logical, it is not specified anywhere that this was the purpose of that part of the bill... Looking at the way it is formulated, it only talks of a well regulated militia and its right to be armed by the people in that militia...

reply to post by Magnum007


How does the word people magically transform into militia?

Nice try with the fair weather friendship.

It doesnt matter to me what the courts say about the guns or the strip searches or any of the other so-called rights.

I know what's an affront to my personal liberty. I dont need anyone to decide for me what should piss me off and what I should tolerate.

In a complete totalitarian dictatorship supported by all the courts, all the politicians and 99.9% of the public supporting the absolute and complete revocation of any liberty whatsoever I'll still be able to know when I'm being screwed and I'll still be pissed off by it.

reply to post by Magnum007


I understand where you are coming from, the couple of lines in the rights is a condensation of the actual arguments that are in the federalist papers. That is where you will find the actual thoughts on the subject.

reply to post by Homedawg


If police have guns we should too, what makes a cop better than us to carry a gun, "to serve and protect" sorry you cant protect me, it'll take them a couple minutes to get over to the scene right after they grab a coffee and some liquorish

Originally posted by babybunnies
It's amazing to me that every single time there is one of these school, university, workplace or just pure random mass shootings, there is very limited public outcry about Guns in America.

In most other countries when something like this happens, there is mass public outcry for the Government to take action about gun possession laws, almost everywhere else except America.

Have Americans become so ingrained in their "right to bear arms" that even outrageous mass slaughters of civilians by gun toting nut cases won't sway them towards outrage?

Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Florida (just to name a few) have addressed this concern by pushing for gun-rights on campus. A move in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

reply to post by b3l13v3


Not entirely true; guns grossly simplify killing. While it's true that a person is often behind the gun, it is much more difficult (both physically and emotionally) to beat someone to death with one's own fists.

The only valid argument against gun control is that taking guns away from civilians enables the black market for guns to flourish. Furthermore, the guns purchased from the black market will most likely belong to criminals, not civilians.

There are plenty of counter examples to this line of thinking, however; look at countries where guns are outlawed; the crime rate tends to drop substantially when the average person doesn't have access to weapons.

Then again, the economic divide in said countries isn't anywhere near what it is in America.

Those countries may be subject to tyrannical reign, but we're already suffering from tyrannical reign and we have guns.

The problem lies within the cultural and economic divides in America; too much diversity creates a fractured society with no common ground. We're "Americans," but what does this really mean? There is no central American culture, unless we count Bibles, Guns, McWhoppers, and an unhealthy sense of entitlement and self-righteousness.

If there is no unifying force American society will remain fractured, and thus powerless against a central force such as the Federal Government. People are just too divided and self-centered to see the greatness of this country crumble around them.

I seriously think that many countries in the EU (save Greece and Italy) would be better places to live than modern America. Not just in terms of personal safety, but because the people aren't so clueless, powerless, and manipulable.

I mean look at how revolution in this country is treated; it becomes something to poke fun at and make a profit out of. Once revolution becomes commercialized, you know that nothing is going to spare you of the coming onslaught and destruction. People who want change need to throw out their TVs and computers, head to the streets, and let their distress be known. Keyboard Jockey-ism accomplishes nothing; allowed one's opinions to be swayed by the BS they spew in the MSM accomplishes nothing. Be wary of displaced anger and pointing fingers; the government is simply the whore, the real problems are the people who pay her. We can protest very effectively through boycott. For example, if you have a problem with major banks, withdraw your money from them. If you have a problem with a certain franchise, don't shop there. Lead by example and the sheep will follow. Doing nothing will yield nothing.

Then again, we're a bit beyond the boiling point; there is very, very, little which can be done now to prevent tyranny and economic devastation in America. Lean back in and enjoy the ride.

reply to post by ReadAwhile


It's because the American people are afraid of their neighbors and fellow country men. Perhaps for a good reason. Irrational fear leads to irrational decision making.

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff...m always left stumped by Americans arguments for gun ownership, to me it just seems like idiots want guns to protect themselves from other idiots with guns. Do you seriously not see how all your justifications for gun ownership are self defeating

In every country criminals have access to guns easy enough yet no where else in the world do gun deaths come anywhere near the total that they do in the US.

Hate to pop your bubble but the countries in Europe with the highest per-capita murder rates (c. 2002-2004] had the lowest gun ownership. In particular, Luxemborg where guns are outright banned had a per-capita murder rate 9 times higher than Germany's.

Table 1: European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates
(rates given are per 100,000 people and in descending order)
Nation | Murder Rate | Rate of Gun Ownership
Russia | 20.54 [2002] | 4,000
Luxembourg | 9.01 [2002] | c. 0
Hungary | 2.22 | [2003] | 2,000
Finland | 1.98 [2004] | 39,000
Sweden | 1.87 [2001] | 24,000
Poland | 1.79 [2003] | 1,500
France | 1.65 [2003] | 30,000
Denmark | 1.21 [2003] | 19,000
Greece | 1.12 [2003] | 11,000
Switzerland | 0.99 [2003] | 16,000
Germany | 0.93 [2003] | 30,000
Norway | 0.81 [2001] | 36,000
Austria | 0.80 [2002] | 17,000
Notes: This table covers all the Continental European nations for which the two data sets given are both available. In every case, we have given the homicide data for 2003 or the closest year thereto because that is the
year of the publication from which the gun ownership data are taken. Gun ownership data comes from GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, SMALL ARMS SURVEY 64 tbl.2.2, 65 tbl.2.3 (2003).
The homicide rate data comes from an annually published report, CANADIAN CENTRE FOR JUSTICE STATISTICS, HOMICIDE IN CANADA, JURISTAT, for the years 2001–2004. Each year’s report gives homicide statistics for a dozen or so foreign nations in a section labeled “Homicide Rates for Selected Countries.” This section of the reports gives no explana‐8. GARY KLECK, TARGETING GUNS: FIREARMS AND THEIR CONTROL 20 (1997) (discussing patterns revealed by studies in the United States). 9. Our assertions as to the legality of handguns are based on COMM’N ON CRIME PREVENTION & CRIM. JUSTICE, U.N. ECON. & SOC. COUNCIL, UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL STUDY ON FIREARMS REGULATION 26, tbl. 2‐1 (1997 draft).

Source (PDF document) from Harvard Law.

Same source:

... “data on firearms
ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data
from the United States, show “a negative correlation,” that is,
“where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest,
and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

It's a long read but blows "strict gun control = less crime" out of the water.

Not sure what Harvard teaches it's students but I immediately noticed that those numbers are way off so I did some checking. Without wasting my time on debunking obvious US university propaganda anyone with a bit of sense can draw their conclusions on some numbers alone....but to actually know the culture, background and overall history of a country is another. These factors come into play when you want to make comparison between crimes etc.

Anyways the real numbers speak for itself, go find them there are hundreds of sources but keep in mind cultural factors to eliminate outliers.
en.wikipedia.org... (I know lousy source but it has links)

Luxembourg was actually the first country I was in where I seen guns in public, pop... was that the sound of a bubble bursting ?
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Luxembourg is 70,0001 (nice touch that 1 in the end)
www.gunpolicy.org...

Lastly I am not against banning guns, in a perfect world yes we don't need them but unfortunately the world isn't perfect. In Europe and a lot of urban areas in the US,Canada, AUS, NZ guns should be forbidden in my opinion and the police should safeguard the population. If you live in a rural area however there are good reasons to own a weapon aside from human intruders/attackers but the latter is definitely a valid reason to own one.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by ReadAwhile

 

It's because the American people are afraid of their neighbors and fellow country men. Perhaps for a good reason. Irrational fear leads to irrational decision making.

A perspective from someone on the outside who may never come to understand an american fundamental, nor choose to try.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Yeah, well let's all say, for argument's sake, you're a criminal with a firearm. Are you going to be more likely, or less likely, to rob someone if you KNEW they had a firearm too? My money is you're going to be less likely.

Solution:

Arm EVERYONE. Sure you may see a spike in crime for the first month or so, but I'd almost put money on the fact that after the novelty wares off, the amount of crime will have plummeted.

"An armed society is a polite society"
- Robert A. Heinlein

People with guns are more fearful, there is no denying that.

Although, I also understand the fact that criminal will get guns no matter what.

In a perfect world, I would say no to all guns.
In this stupid world, I would say give everyone guns...too bad a stupid world comes with stupid people that can't even use guns properly. It's not like we can educate common sense to everyone towards gun use, we can't even educate common sense to everyone for much simpler things.

I understand both sides clearly and I can't really put my finger on the perfect solution.

The evidence to show that the Right to bear arms was meant to be an individual right, not having to be a part of a militia, to own firearms:

www.guncite.com...

But I predict the gun grabbers won't even read this article because they hate the website and call it biased because it is in favor of individual right to bear arms, thus proving the gun grabbers a bunch of liars.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
I always think of Family guy whenever this topic comes up

Im always left stumped by Americans arguments for gun ownership, to me it just seems like idiots want guns to protect themselves from other idiots with guns. Do you seriously not see how all your justifications for gun ownership are self defeating

In every country criminals have access to guns easy enough yet no where else in the world do gun deaths come anywhere near the total that they do in the US.

The whole culture of guns being acceptable needs to change, its no longer the wild west, you no longer need to protect yourself from Indians and cattle rustlers.

Step into the 21st century guys

I actually use guns as part of my business. I use them to put food and money on my table. I use them to rustle cattle from the high country and fight off predators. I also use them in my personal life to fight off predators.

One situation as an example is when I was walking down the road and was approached by a man who was panicked and ran to me for help. About 30 seconds later I was approached by 7 men who were chasing the man who ran to me for help. In a matter of milliseconds I was surrounded by these men who now wanted to attack the man looking for help and me since I was helping him. I then drew my glock .45 and kept the 7 men at bay while I allowed the other man to escape. Now I don't know what they wanted with him but I didn't care. My life was now also being threaten by these men and I had the means to defend myself as well as this stranger. Once the man was clear out of sight with about a 5 min head start I told the 7 to take a hike and they did. I don't know what happened to the man but I know I was able to go home and be with my family because of my firearm.

You and no one else will be able to tell me different, My gun has saved my life and provided for my family for years now. I will never change that. By the way I am a professional guide and hunter. I travel all around the US hunting and guiding fellow hunters.