The Question Of Guns Is A Simple One:

Originally posted by ObservingYou
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard

 

I wouldn't take this guy (DaTroof) to seriously, he's abeen on a few threads denouncing guns - he has an agenda.

edit on 21-12-2012 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)

It's not an agenda, it's an opinion. And guess what? It's a damn popular one too.

reply to post by ObservingYou


Im strongly against totalitarianism so i guess you can say Im influenced by paranoia, I don't let it rule my life or anything but it is a logic point for me in critical thinking of society and politics and the world history as written. If any shtf scenario or just going for a walk down through the park and someone wants to mug me i rather have the outcome go more favorably for me then the other person. As for an unarmed america i assume the crime and shooting may spike for a while but the way this country is going and the amount of "not so careful' handling of this nations politics it could get bad i mean martial law bad and in that event i want a gun. Now i have faith in our military forces to extent and even marvel at the armed militias that are poping up over our country I just feel a safer if Im on an even playing field.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


But what's the alternative? Lay down and allow this infiltration to take over? They must avoid flat out conflict at all costs. They know this. They FEAR US.

Their only weapon is subversion - make us beg for their "protection" - as happened in LA as DaTroof so kindly points out..

What was it Kissinger said?

“"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

- Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.

I'll throw in this one just for fun too:

“Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy.”

I didn'tb realise he had a sense of humour lol.

Our military consists of American citizens who took an oath to protect the Constitution. I doubt very much that there would be an armed attempt to overthrow our government, but the fact is our military would likely be split on the issue of disarming the citizens. I am sure the government is aware of this and as long as the Second Ammendment remains in tact it is in a literal sense a detterent to tyranny by our government. It matters not that the military is far superior in weaponry. Those same weapons could turn either way. So the argument that Americans can not stand up to it's government is more complex than one would initially think.

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Lord i couldn't have put it better but that is like trying to not let insects on growing crops in the fields never gonna happen and i mean never

reply to post by DaTroof

The question to make gun confiscation legal and not merely under the "color of law" would be what would gun owners do if the Second Amendment was repealed via a Constitutional Convention (or radically altered to eliminate military styled weapons, etc)? I personally do not expect it to be repealed; however, under a crisis scenario where martial law might be declared and the Constitution suspended then the citizens would find themselves counter to the "martial law" (which would be counter to the constitution but it would no longer be applied) and having weapons could have you labelled as an enemy combatant or terrorist. The decision then would be hide them and not have them available, use them (take on the government and all its power) or turn them in.

I hate to break it to you all, but no one is going to give up their guns in this country. Okay granted there might be a few. But 99% will never do it.

So let's see the US Government come and try to disarm tens of millions of legal gun owners. That will be the day!

And yeah.. let's make guns illegal. Because it worked out so well for heroin and coc aine.

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Funny, how your unfounded and ill-advised opinions, come across as so, matter-of-fact...Let me help you...

An unarmed America is a safer America.

...should be re-phrased to state, "An unarmed criminal element in America is a safer America."

But one doesn't become a criminal until one commits a crime... So, what's your point?

That is my point!

It is those who have proven intent, that we should be apprehensive of. Safety, is relative in respect to what you subject yourself to.
You are safer, in a warehouse full of guns, than in the midst of several unarmed criminals. Guns don't have intent to harm, although they have the ability. Criminals have shown intent, and use weapons to enhance their ability.

Unarmed criminals, will create a safer America! Not armed criminals and unarmed civilians; as to which laws banning weapons would ensure!

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

I think that many Americans are more afraid of foreign troops in this country confiscating weapons under some UN directive than they are of their own troops (even tho there have been gun confiscation drills by our military and the lesson of Katrina is that they will not allow you to have guns in a martial law condition).

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Funny, how your unfounded and ill-advised opinions, come across as so, matter-of-fact...Let me help you...

An unarmed America is a safer America.

...should be re-phrased to state, "An unarmed criminal element in America is a safer America."

But one doesn't become a criminal until one commits a crime... So, what's your point?

That is my point!

It is those who have proven intent, that we should be apprehensive of. Safety, is relative in respect to what you subject yourself to.
You are safer, in a warehouse full of guns, than in the midst of several unarmed criminals. Guns don't have intent to harm, although they have the ability. Criminals have shown intent, and use weapons to enhance their ability.

Unarmed criminals, will create a safer America! Not armed criminals and unarmed civilians; as to which laws banning weapons would ensure!

How do you know someone is a criminal? Anyone that's ever been arrested? Sounds like you're pre-grouping complete strangers.

Originally posted by ObservingYou
(A post of mine that deserves a thread)

I've said it once I'll say it a thousand times.

In an ideal world, guns wouldn't and shouldn't exist - they are a force of destruction after all.

HOWEVER, having said that, answer me this Americans -

"Do you trust your government to have arms whilst you do not have any?"

Especially with acts like the Patriot act popping up..

Thoughts?

I've seen this suggested as one of the excuses, and I really don't see the logic.

I was actually pro-gun for a long time for this very reason, until I saw real revolution playing out in Egypt, Libya, Syria. That's when logic hit me and I realised some facts I had been missing out on.

Do you really believe that your guns are a match for a massive intelligence agency, mass media PR, an army hundreds of thousands strong, tanks, fighter jets, drones...?

A revolution succeeds through defection of an army or through outside assistance. There is no chance in hell the American people are going to overthrow their own government with their guns, no chance.

If another revolution does happen in the US, your ownership of guns will not mean anything. You would not succeed without more fire-power, and that would come through military defection or supply from outside. In which case, your current guns are pointless.

I know people will refuse this, but it's true. Look at all the other revolutions around the world and you'll see the same thing. They succeed because of military defection or outside supply, not because the population have guns up against tanks, jets, explosives, drones or anything else a government has at its disposal.

Originally posted by DaTroof
Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang are no match for the US military. There's no "stopping the government" with armed citizenry.

Spend some time in Afghanistan and Iraq and you will see what a few determined individuals with rifles can do to stymie the world's last remainnig superpower.

reply to post by DaTroof


happens all the time pfft really? why do you think most places don't want to hire convicts or why they cant own a gun or why they have no rights basically basic human rights. they cant even vote.

Originally posted by DerekJR321
And yeah.. let's make guns illegal. Because it worked out so well for heroin and coc aine.

Of course, the reality is that Heroine and Cocaine cannot be taken into a school and used to murder hundreds of people

This is an irrational argument I have seen several times from pro-gun people, and it makes absolutely no sense. Drug use, alcohol abuse and any other form of self harm is just that, SELF harm.

None of those criminal acts are capable of murdering 20 children in a class room. And that is why your comparison is so ridiculously stupid it should be pointed out at every single opportunity.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by DaTroof
Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang are no match for the US military. There's no "stopping the government" with armed citizenry.

Spend some time in Afghanistan and Iraq and you will see what a few determined individuals with rifles can do to stymie the world's last remainnig superpower.

Right, because the Taliban are doing an awesome job of it aren't they?

Imagine, without the Taliban leading a noble fight with their IED's and Russian made Rifles Iraq and Afghanistan might have a government, might have some form of democracy they haven't really had before, might have more infrastructure and might have a seat at the international table... oh wait, THEY DO!

reply to post by detachedindividual


I believe in the principle of upholding the Constitution - And I'm not even American.

Here is the government's take: "OK you can keep your "second amendment" but we want your assault rifles....(then) you still have the second amendment but we want your high powered hunting rifles with scopes as those could be used by snipers....(then) you still have a right to hunt small game and birds but we want your handguns because they are so easily concealed and the most popular weapon for crime....(then) you still have a right to self defense but you cant own firearms because someone might steal them from you and they will end up on the streets....but we will allow you to have a black powder rifle as the muskets were the firearms available at the time of the writing of the second amendment.....(then) bombs can be made with black powder and those rifles are still deadly so you no longer have a right to keep and bear arms."

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Here is the government's take: "OK you can keep your 'second amendment' but we want your assault rifles....(then) you still have the second amendment but we want your high powered hunting rifles with scopes as those could be used by snipers....(then) you still have a right to hunt small game and birds but we want your handguns because they are so easily concealed and the most popular weapon for crime....(then) you still have a right to self defense but you cant own 'semi-auto' firearms because someone might steal them from you and they will end up on the streets....but we will allow you to have a black powder rifle as the muskets were the firearms available at the time of the writing of the second amendment.....(then) bombs can be made with black powder and those rifles are still deadly so you no longer have a right to keep and bear arms."

Originally posted by ObservingYou
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

I believe in the principle of upholding the Constitution - And I'm not even American.

The Iranian regime believe in upholding the traditions of religion and its culture too, stoning women and hanging gay people in the town square.

Do outdated beliefs and tradition always trump common sense and reality?

The second amendment was written in a different time, when the most powerful gun was manually loaded, fired a few hundred feet at most, and was used in sparsely populated areas.

If those who guaranteed your right to bear arms could see that it has led to the slaughter of 20 children in a classroom, with a young man able to fire hundreds of bullets per minute into a crowd, they would be the first people to call for gun control.

If you don't think that, then there is no help for you. Those people back then would be disgusted with the way your country allows such weapons, and we all know it.

reply to post by detachedindividual

Guns in the military are kept locked up in peace time (armory). Citizens who are allowed to own guns should also have their weapons secured. The Sandy Hook tragedy could not have taken place using the shooter's mother's legally obtained weapons if they were locked up.