The Question Of Guns Is A Simple One:

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

And how many Americans have fully automatic AKs and know how or have access to the parts to make IEDs? And the will to use them? Remember the Afghanis have a culture of fighting foreign invasion.....
edit on 21-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by NavyDoc
ANd you miss the point. The rifles and shotguns would get things rolling. If every gun owner, 100 million of them, took to the streets, even our technologically advanced army will roll under. "Quantity has a quality all it's own." Absent that, if a minority took to the streets and put up a fight, it is very likely that they would be joined by their brothers and sisters in the Army. You have to realize that our military is populated by pro-gun, pro-constitution types.


In order to have enough public support, the issue would have to be a significant one. It would have to be a real and genuine reason to attempt a revolution. The American public didn't get off their ass for the Patriot Act, did they? That single-handedly destroyed the sense of liberty and personal freedom of millions of Americans, and no one uttered a word about it.

If there was ever cause for the American public to be out on the street in massive numbers protesting, that was it. But nothing happened.

If an issue is so large as to cause massive public anger, the military would already likely be on your side. If the cause is enough to create so much public outrage, the military "public" would feel the same.

So, whenever a genuine public outrage caused the potential for revolution, your military would already be on side. Again, it wouldn't matter if you have guns or not.


Again, your thinking is too binary: little in life is black and white, all or none. Many people did not find the Patriot Act that intrusive and not enough felt strongly about it. It was not a nidus for a revolution because it really did not affect the average person at all, at least not in a perceptible manner. It was not that big to warrent revolution.

Look at the history of revolutions. They never start with the entire populace deciding on the same day to spontaneously revolt all at once. They usually are movements that start simple and small and grow and gain momentum, so yes, our rifles are an invaluable part of that process and that is why TPTB hate and fear them. Think about it, the same government who brought us the patriot act also wants us to disarm and you trust them on the disarmament aspect but not the patriot act aspect?


So I go back to my previous point. If you think you stand a chance with little guns against tanks, drones, an intel agency, hundreds of thousands of military, fighter jets, and you want to be able to "fight back" and a strange "David and Goliath" way, why not at least make a compromise and keep your arms in the hands of organized and regulated militia at the state level?

If you REALLY think that your right to have guns is about defending yourself against a government, why do you need them all in your homes? Why can't they be securely stored in a regional bunker, able to be used at leisure in designated areas where controls keep the general public safe from their potential destruction and carnage?

You're saying on one hand that your imagined revolution would be supported by the masses, so why not implement and make use of designated areas controlled by those same masses and keep them out of your homes?



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

If gun bans made you safer, shouldn't your murder rate been much higher in the 1940's to 1950's when there were no such bans?


No, you're trying to prove a negative. That's not reasonable in the slightest.

Also, this about culture and environment. There are several countries where things are not criminalized, because there is no need to criminalize them.

You're suggesting that because there is no law to criminalize something it must be pandemic. That's a nonsense.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 

The Revolutionary War was almost lost before it began because the colonial militia kept their muskets, ball and powder in an armory in Concord, MA and the British troops went there to arrest the leaders and take their military stores but were met at a bridge in Lexington, MA and "the rest is history"......



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

If you REALLY think the latter is the more sensible option then I pity the state America is in right now, because that is just bizarre to me.


Touche'. Many of your opinions, instill much of the same reactions, from this side of the pond!
Explain why the whole of any potential remedies, must be reduced to those two options? Seems a bit short sighted to me. Unless one simply thrives on conflict, and types just to instigate, with no real concern for anything more than upsetting the order of another's feathers...

I reciprocate your pity, and request that you withhold yours!



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I would really like to see frazzle's response to this...




• Over the past two decades, an average of 19 people per year have been killed by offenders using firearms.
• The number of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms decreased from 14 percent in 2008–09 to 13 percent of total homicides in 2009–10.
• The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation)


Come on frazzle, you posted warped and selective statistics to prove your point, and I posted accurate and publicly available statistics in counter to your argument.

Are you going to concede that you were wrong, and that gun control works, or are you going to only accept the statistics that support your belief?

I would like to see if your opinion has changed after seeing the evidence that gun crime in Australia HAS declined since the ban was introduced, despite your selective evidence in an attempt to show otherwise.




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by detachedindividual
 

The Revolutionary War was almost lost before it began because the colonial militia kept their muskets, ball and powder in an armory in Concord, MA and the British troops went there to arrest the leaders and take their military stores but were met at a bridge in Lexington, MA and "the rest is history"......


Indeed, history.

I think you should take a look out the window and see how the population of America has boomed since then. You might also want to take a look at the military power compared to then too.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by detachedindividual

If you REALLY think the latter is the more sensible option then I pity the state America is in right now, because that is just bizarre to me.


I reciprocate your pity, and request that you withhold yours!


Request denied



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by detachedindividual
 

The Revolutionary War was almost lost before it began because the colonial militia kept their muskets, ball and powder in an armory in Concord, MA and the British troops went there to arrest the leaders and take their military stores but were met at a bridge in Lexington, MA and "the rest is history"......


Indeed, history.

I think you should take a look out the window and see how the population of America has boomed since then. You might also want to take a look at the military power compared to then too.


Smart criminals, go to the places where they warehouse large quantities of the things that they want to steal. They don't go door to door....I'll keep my guns with me, thank you!



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


If you REALLY think that your right to have guns is about defending yourself against a government, why do you need them all in your homes?
because defending against tyranny doesn't always involve a government.
it happens on homefronts, workplaces, parks, pools, parking lots and playgrounds.

i believe having a gun on the person is better because criminals are not preferential to 'locations' ... they prefer people. and, if it's on the person, the location is secondary.


Why can't they be securely stored in a regional bunker, able to be used at leisure in designated areas where controls keep the general public safe from their potential destruction and carnage?
see above answer and then please tell me how your suggestion would assist me, at home, when an invader appears ?
edit on 21-12-2012 by Honor93 because: typo



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

And how many Americans have fully automatic AKs and know how or have access to the parts to make IEDs? And the will to use them? Remember the Afghanis have a culture of fighting foreign invasion.....
edit on 21-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)


Don't need F/A. Semi auto with aiming is much more effective than F/A in the vast majority of situations when it comes to handheld weapons. Most F/A from an AK-47 is wasted. I can make an IED with what I have in my house right now.

Also remember, after a decade of war, we have thousands upon thousands of vets out there who know what they are doing.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by detachedindividual
 

The Revolutionary War was almost lost before it began because the colonial militia kept their muskets, ball and powder in an armory in Concord, MA and the British troops went there to arrest the leaders and take their military stores but were met at a bridge in Lexington, MA and "the rest is history"......


Indeed, history.

I think you should take a look out the window and see how the population of America has boomed since then. You might also want to take a look at the military power compared to then too.


Smart criminals, go to the places where they warehouse large quantities of the things that they want to steal. They don't go door to door....I'll keep my guns with me, thank you!


How is that any different to now?

What is to stop a criminal gang raiding a gun shop?

You all seem to paint bizarre potential possibilities as an excuse, ignoring the fact that those same possibilities are not less likely now.

Cops can still shoot you, guns can still be stolen from places with lots of them. None of this is increased through tighter gun controls.

I really think many of you are just scrambling for any excuse you can think of to defend your right to own these guns, and when something is reasonably countered with logic you go to the next.

None of the justifications I can see for gun control result in things being WORSE for America and your freedoms. In all instances the defence of owning powerful guns like those used in these mass shootings is easily crushed.

You cannot be any worse off with these guns being controlled, and none of these "but, but, but what if...!" will change that.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 

you are ignoring the simple fact that you and your fellow citizens agreed to gun control, Americans haven't and aren't likely to at this point.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


If you REALLY think that your right to have guns is about defending yourself against a government, why do you need them all in your homes?
because defending against [i[]tyranny doesn't always involve a government.
it happens on homefronts, workplaces, parks, pools, parking lots and playgrounds.

i believe having a gun on the person is better because criminals are not preferential to 'locations' ... they prefer people. and, if it's on the person, the location is secondary.


Why can't they be securely stored in a regional bunker, able to be used at leisure in designated areas where controls keep the general public safe from their potential destruction and carnage?
see above answer and then please tell me how your suggestion would assist me, at home, when an invader appears ?


Well put. Lets put up the Athens, TN revolt as an example:



The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny.



en.wikipedia.org...(1946)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof

 


So these people NEED guns because it's in the Constitution. It's law, right?

So if a law gets passed banning guns, they should fork them over as law abiding citizens. If they don't, they are now criminals in possession of deadly weapons.

So it's not really about the Constitution at all, it's about fear.



It is well documented that our "rights" as defined by our founders and written into the constitution were "god given" or 'naturally in existence" and therefore cannot be taken away by rule of law or man. It is this same belief that led them to believe the people should always have the ability to throw off tyranny by arms, in fact they said it is a duty of a free people.



edit on 21-12-2012 by Phoenix because: quote link



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by detachedindividual
 

The Revolutionary War was almost lost before it began because the colonial militia kept their muskets, ball and powder in an armory in Concord, MA and the British troops went there to arrest the leaders and take their military stores but were met at a bridge in Lexington, MA and "the rest is history"......


Indeed, history.

I think you should take a look out the window and see how the population of America has boomed since then. You might also want to take a look at the military power compared to then too.


Smart criminals, go to the places where they warehouse large quantities of the things that they want to steal. They don't go door to door....I'll keep my guns with me, thank you!


How is that any different to now?

What is to stop a criminal gang raiding a gun shop?

You all seem to paint bizarre potential possibilities as an excuse, ignoring the fact that those same possibilities are not less likely now.

Cops can still shoot you, guns can still be stolen from places with lots of them. None of this is increased through tighter gun controls.

I really think many of you are just scrambling for any excuse you can think of to defend your right to own these guns, and when something is reasonably countered with logic you go to the next.

None of the justifications I can see for gun control result in things being WORSE for America and your freedoms. In all instances the defence of owning powerful guns like those used in these mass shootings is easily crushed.

You cannot be any worse off with these guns being controlled, and none of these "but, but, but what if...!" will change that.


Point of order. You have not produced any logic whatsover. A lot of emotion, a lot of "what ifs," a lot of unfounded and illogical suppositions, but nothing of substance.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
see above answer and then please tell me how your suggestion would assist me, at home, when an invader appears ?


Right, because you need a weapon capable of shooting a hundred rounds in the blink of an eye against an invader.


Tell me, how many criminals enter homes with assault rifles? Are there any statistics to show the crimes committed with types of weapon used?

I'll bet that these more powerful weapons are proven NOT to be used in random crime, and are more commonly used in mass murder.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

And how many Americans have fully automatic AKs and know how or have access to the parts to make IEDs? And the will to use them? Remember the Afghanis have a culture of fighting foreign invasion.....
edit on 21-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)


I've never looked but I'm certain the details for making an IED are readily available on the internet. And single or burst shot weapons are much more accurate and deadly than fully automatic ones. As a former military person I can tell you that we were trained to fire in controlled bursts. With either the single shot or the 3 round burst of the M-16. So "fully automatic" would actually be a disadvantage. And an armed American public against the US military would vastly outnumber the odds they faced in Iraq against a few thousand insurgents. The military would be resoundingly crushed, it wouldn't even be a close fight.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by detachedindividual
 

you are ignoring the simple fact that you and your fellow citizens agreed to gun control, Americans haven't and aren't likely to at this point.


That's not the debate here.

The debate here is about the use of guns and the reasons to control them, versus the ideas and notions that Americans *need* their guns to be able to overthrow a vast military with tanks, jets, drones, intel agencies... not going to happen.

The social mindset is a completely different Animal.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 



Come on frazzle, you posted warped and selective statistics to prove your point, and I posted accurate and publicly available statistics in counter to your argument.

Are you going to concede that you were wrong, and that gun control works, or are you going to only accept the statistics that support your belief?

I would like to see if your opinion has changed after seeing the evidence that gun crime in Australia HAS declined since the ban was introduced, despite your selective evidence in an attempt to show otherwise.


Warped, yeah right. Great argument.

You are free to accept government statistics until hades freezes over. But according to you, I must concede that the official stats are right and all those other stats are wrong. Or else what? Authority complex much?

How's gun control working in Mexico? How about Chicago? How about New York? Stripping people of the ability to defend themselves just sets people up to be victimized.

How about Rwanda where up to 800,000 people were butchered with machetes in 1994? People who want to kill will do it, one way or another. Personally, I'd take a bullet sooner than a machete. Or at least not cower in a corner waiting for the axe to fall and not have something to defend myself and my family with.






top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join