Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
Thyunda said:
Ryotknife said:
Thyunda said:
Ryotknife said:
Thyunda said:
Ryotknife said:
Thyunda said:
Ryotknife said:
Thyunda said:
Ryotknife said:
Thyunda said:
Vegosiux said:
Thyunda said:
Now those are two words that shouldn't ever be said together. Democratic paranoia. The irrational fear that the government you voted into power might be in charge.
I am so going to note that one down, and, with your permission, use it in conversation now and then.
All yours buddy. Use it well.

Ryotknife said:
If they government DID do that, then that proves to everyone that the country is a place that cares nothing about freedom or its citizens. I would honestly move out of the country. I dont want to live in a country where criminals have all of the rights and protection and law abiding citizens have none. I dont want to live in a country where im in a constant fear of people trying to kill me while not being allowed to defend myself in anyway whatsoever or have any help from the government in protecting me.
Don't move to the United Kingdom then. The only people with guns out here are farmers and gangsters. I'm genuinely too scared to leave my house in the daytime. I have to go out at night and stay out of the streetlights. I break into the local stores and steal tins of food to stock my basement so I never go hungry. The other day somebody knocked at my door. I made sure the boards over the windows were still on tight and locked myself in the wardrobe till they left.

Can't take chances in this mob-ruled country.
I know you are making a joke, but I live in one of the strictest gun control states in the US. We are constantly told to make sure all windows and doors are locked and to not go out at night because it is too dangerous. And i live in one of the "safest" neighborhoods. There are constant stories of people invading someone's home at night, killing the owners (mostly with knives), take whatever they can grab, and leave before the police show up. My parents have been robbed 3 times in a 15 year period, and they live in a "safe" neighborhood. They are just lucky they were never around when the house got robbed, otherwise they would be dead too.

Shall I tell you the story of a mother and her children who hid in the attic waiting for police to arrive? The intruder, armed with a crowbar, managed to break through multiple locked doors with his tool, barge his way into the attic, get shot 5 times in the chest, stumble back downstairs to his car, AND LEAVE before the police arrived.

Dont talk about what you dont understand.
Uh. What? How would guns even make any of that better?
You are right, that wife and her children being brutally murder by an intruder with a crowbar is so much better than her defending herself with a gun.

guns are an unfortunate neccessity. Yes, banning guns works in UK, im happy for you. Im not going to try to tell you that UK should stop. It wont work in the US. For one, it will cause extreme economic harm. Two, the police can not protect anyone, nor are they required to. Three, it will not stop criminals in the slightest. Four, people will die in droves from wildlife related incidents. More people die from deer in this country per year than mass shootings. Five, every single piece of evidence INSIDE the US shows that banning guns or restricting guns either makes crime WORSE or does nothing at all. It doesnt matter how gun control affects people in other countries, all that matters is how it affects ours. I live in a state with the stricest gun control laws in the country (about to get stricter, although i do agree with about half of the measures they are implementing), and it is one of the most dangerous states in the country.

If you remove the NEED for guns, then I would be much more persuaded. But so long as that need exists, banning guns is immoral, illogical, and irational
Once again...you've cited one anecdotal incident. A story. You've painted a picture of a nightmarish existence where everyone lives in fear because they don't have guns. I have a whole nation with no guns and where we don't live in fear. My example vastly trumps yours. Yeah, so, more people get stabbed. But we can work on that. Knives are tools for other purposes that just get blatantly misused.

Guns have no other purpose than to kill. You want guns to kill people. Keep citing self defence, my friend, but all I'm hearing is "People are bad and I deserve the ability to kill them."
you cited an example for your country, i cited one from mine.

which one carries more weight on how gun control affects my nation.

ill give you a hint, not yours.

does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?

if the answer to this question is no, then you have proven that you dont know anything about the gun issue IN AMERICA.

...let me tell you about a little group called the 'IRA'...
I will take the IRA, give them effing tanks and all the explosives they want, and STILL prefer them over the Cartels. The Cartels are nasty pieces of works. About the only good thing I can say about them is that they are businessmen, but if you get in their way they will kill you and your entire family just to make a point. Cartels are actually more dangerous than the terrorists who want to murder us, our only saving grace is that it doesnt make much sense to kill off your best customer (ie the US). But considering they have hundreds of officials bribed, blackmailed, or intimidated across both borders, their influence is immense.

Your IRA is closer to our Al Queda, and I still prefer the IRA to them. Bombings and mass murder is merely a tool for the IRA (at least that is how it seems to me, but im not in the UK so i may very well be wrong), it is not their endgoal. Mass murder and the destruction of the west is Al Qeuda's endgoal.
Al Qaeda are thousands of miles away from the United States and their acts were relatively few and far between. Don't forget the United Kingdom was also subject to a couple of Al Qaeda attacks. The IRA in their prime were easily more of a threat than Al Qaeda or the Cartels are to the United States. The Cartels thrive in Mexico - and while their influence DOES spread across the border, when's the last time you heard of a major, high profile Los Zetas attack? They don't happen. They're drug-runners and murderers but they're NOT an invading army.

Now you tell people over the age of forty that you would rather live with the threat of the IRA than in the situation you're in now. Why don't you ask people present at the Manchester bombings? Or even better, you could ask the police in Westminster why they have submachine guns. You live in an era of security where all the scary things are over the border. My country is no stranger to terrorism and violence, and yet as a culture we totally lack paranoia. Your government might take your guns away and you're in uproar. One of our party leaders tried to turn the country into a mirror image of Nazi Germany, and were the British angry? Not in the slightest. He was laughed at. Everything he tried to do was just mocked.

Your weapons and your media create a terrifying image of an America besieged on all sides by Arab terrorists and Mexican drug lords. As for being told to keep doors and windows locked? That's par for the course wherever you live. There are police bulletins all over the place in this country telling you to do it. It's nothing special.

Where I live, there's violence. There's a lot of violence. People get stabbed, mugged and beaten half to death every five minutes. I've had a few close encounters.

But I'm bloody glad there were no guns. Shoot and kill a mugger and I guarantee that won't be the last you hear of it. People with more guns and more bodies than you will want revenge, because that's how things get twisted. He just wanted your wallet but you took his life. You were in the wrong. Guns escalate violence.

Hah! Imagine Ireland with legal guns! Sorry. Read up on the Troubles. THEN imagine Ireland with guns. You'll see EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42232161/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/more-will-die-mexico-drug-wars-claim-us-lives/

the cartels are directly responsibly for hundreds, if not thousands, of americans deaths per year. Indirectly, the are responsibly for many more as many drug related violence or deaths can be traced back to them.
"You have a lot of folks who are dual citizens, with some born in the U.S. but (who) live on the Mexico side," Scott Stewart, a vice president with the global intelligence firm STRATFOR, said of the difficulty in documenting American deaths connected to cartel violence. "A lot of them are working back and forth and some are working as gunmen too. And when someone like that dies, it is hard to know. Some simply disappear while others are lying in a vat of lye or dumped into a mass grave."

Are you a dual citizen? No? Are you connected with drug cartels? Also no? Stop crying then.
(jaw drops)
Are you saying that dual citizens shouldnt matter to our government?

Also, i love how you ignored the rest of the article because it doesnt fit with your political agenda. This is a pretty pathetic excuse for spin control if i do say so myself.
 

Stainlesssteele4

New member
Jul 5, 2011
125
0
0
The results of this poll scare me, not only for the future of my country, but the future of the world as a whole.
We haven't had to fight for out freedom is so long, we've become placated in our safe existences, and have begun to take it for granted...
 

hiei82

Dire DM (+2 HD and a rend attack
Aug 10, 2011
2,463
0
0
T0ad 0f Truth said:
TopazFusion said:
Were this to happen, I'm guessing it would cause another civil war, as pathetic as that sounds.
Its not really THAT pathetic. That would be a massive breach of the constitution

<..>

Even if its only the poorly written controversial part. Suffice to say if the gubment's willing to breach the constitution and their first act is to take guns away... Well let me adjust my tinfoil cap, but it doesn't look good.

OT: I don't own any guns, so realistically nothing would change, but I would be pissed on principle.
Actually, it wouldn't be that unprecedented to breech the constitution - the second amendment is a change to the original constitution in the first place. Even revoking an amendment isn't unheard of (see prohibition of alcohol). They've even changed the operating procedure of congress before (see the cap on representatives for the House).

I'd argue there are parts of the constitution that need updating more then the second amendment (the electoral college system for example) first however. that's not to say the second amendment is immune to change, just that there are bigger problems with the constitution then gun ownership.

Side note: Does anyone know how the constitution came to be viewed as some kind of sacred, unchanging will of the god the founding fathers? The question sounds a bit rhetorical I know, but I mean it seriously - when and how?
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
Ryotknife said:
Thyunda said:
Ryotknife said:
Thyunda said:
Ryotknife said:
Thyunda said:
Ryotknife said:
Thyunda said:
Ryotknife said:
Thyunda said:
Ryotknife said:
Thyunda said:
Vegosiux said:
Thyunda said:
Now those are two words that shouldn't ever be said together. Democratic paranoia. The irrational fear that the government you voted into power might be in charge.
I am so going to note that one down, and, with your permission, use it in conversation now and then.
All yours buddy. Use it well.

Ryotknife said:
If they government DID do that, then that proves to everyone that the country is a place that cares nothing about freedom or its citizens. I would honestly move out of the country. I dont want to live in a country where criminals have all of the rights and protection and law abiding citizens have none. I dont want to live in a country where im in a constant fear of people trying to kill me while not being allowed to defend myself in anyway whatsoever or have any help from the government in protecting me.
Don't move to the United Kingdom then. The only people with guns out here are farmers and gangsters. I'm genuinely too scared to leave my house in the daytime. I have to go out at night and stay out of the streetlights. I break into the local stores and steal tins of food to stock my basement so I never go hungry. The other day somebody knocked at my door. I made sure the boards over the windows were still on tight and locked myself in the wardrobe till they left.

Can't take chances in this mob-ruled country.
I know you are making a joke, but I live in one of the strictest gun control states in the US. We are constantly told to make sure all windows and doors are locked and to not go out at night because it is too dangerous. And i live in one of the "safest" neighborhoods. There are constant stories of people invading someone's home at night, killing the owners (mostly with knives), take whatever they can grab, and leave before the police show up. My parents have been robbed 3 times in a 15 year period, and they live in a "safe" neighborhood. They are just lucky they were never around when the house got robbed, otherwise they would be dead too.

Shall I tell you the story of a mother and her children who hid in the attic waiting for police to arrive? The intruder, armed with a crowbar, managed to break through multiple locked doors with his tool, barge his way into the attic, get shot 5 times in the chest, stumble back downstairs to his car, AND LEAVE before the police arrived.

Dont talk about what you dont understand.
Uh. What? How would guns even make any of that better?
You are right, that wife and her children being brutally murder by an intruder with a crowbar is so much better than her defending herself with a gun.

guns are an unfortunate neccessity. Yes, banning guns works in UK, im happy for you. Im not going to try to tell you that UK should stop. It wont work in the US. For one, it will cause extreme economic harm. Two, the police can not protect anyone, nor are they required to. Three, it will not stop criminals in the slightest. Four, people will die in droves from wildlife related incidents. More people die from deer in this country per year than mass shootings. Five, every single piece of evidence INSIDE the US shows that banning guns or restricting guns either makes crime WORSE or does nothing at all. It doesnt matter how gun control affects people in other countries, all that matters is how it affects ours. I live in a state with the stricest gun control laws in the country (about to get stricter, although i do agree with about half of the measures they are implementing), and it is one of the most dangerous states in the country.

If you remove the NEED for guns, then I would be much more persuaded. But so long as that need exists, banning guns is immoral, illogical, and irational
Once again...you've cited one anecdotal incident. A story. You've painted a picture of a nightmarish existence where everyone lives in fear because they don't have guns. I have a whole nation with no guns and where we don't live in fear. My example vastly trumps yours. Yeah, so, more people get stabbed. But we can work on that. Knives are tools for other purposes that just get blatantly misused.

Guns have no other purpose than to kill. You want guns to kill people. Keep citing self defence, my friend, but all I'm hearing is "People are bad and I deserve the ability to kill them."
you cited an example for your country, i cited one from mine.

which one carries more weight on how gun control affects my nation.

ill give you a hint, not yours.

does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?

if the answer to this question is no, then you have proven that you dont know anything about the gun issue IN AMERICA.

...let me tell you about a little group called the 'IRA'...
I will take the IRA, give them effing tanks and all the explosives they want, and STILL prefer them over the Cartels. The Cartels are nasty pieces of works. About the only good thing I can say about them is that they are businessmen, but if you get in their way they will kill you and your entire family just to make a point. Cartels are actually more dangerous than the terrorists who want to murder us, our only saving grace is that it doesnt make much sense to kill off your best customer (ie the US). But considering they have hundreds of officials bribed, blackmailed, or intimidated across both borders, their influence is immense.

Your IRA is closer to our Al Queda, and I still prefer the IRA to them. Bombings and mass murder is merely a tool for the IRA (at least that is how it seems to me, but im not in the UK so i may very well be wrong), it is not their endgoal. Mass murder and the destruction of the west is Al Qeuda's endgoal.
Al Qaeda are thousands of miles away from the United States and their acts were relatively few and far between. Don't forget the United Kingdom was also subject to a couple of Al Qaeda attacks. The IRA in their prime were easily more of a threat than Al Qaeda or the Cartels are to the United States. The Cartels thrive in Mexico - and while their influence DOES spread across the border, when's the last time you heard of a major, high profile Los Zetas attack? They don't happen. They're drug-runners and murderers but they're NOT an invading army.

Now you tell people over the age of forty that you would rather live with the threat of the IRA than in the situation you're in now. Why don't you ask people present at the Manchester bombings? Or even better, you could ask the police in Westminster why they have submachine guns. You live in an era of security where all the scary things are over the border. My country is no stranger to terrorism and violence, and yet as a culture we totally lack paranoia. Your government might take your guns away and you're in uproar. One of our party leaders tried to turn the country into a mirror image of Nazi Germany, and were the British angry? Not in the slightest. He was laughed at. Everything he tried to do was just mocked.

Your weapons and your media create a terrifying image of an America besieged on all sides by Arab terrorists and Mexican drug lords. As for being told to keep doors and windows locked? That's par for the course wherever you live. There are police bulletins all over the place in this country telling you to do it. It's nothing special.

Where I live, there's violence. There's a lot of violence. People get stabbed, mugged and beaten half to death every five minutes. I've had a few close encounters.

But I'm bloody glad there were no guns. Shoot and kill a mugger and I guarantee that won't be the last you hear of it. People with more guns and more bodies than you will want revenge, because that's how things get twisted. He just wanted your wallet but you took his life. You were in the wrong. Guns escalate violence.

Hah! Imagine Ireland with legal guns! Sorry. Read up on the Troubles. THEN imagine Ireland with guns. You'll see EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42232161/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/more-will-die-mexico-drug-wars-claim-us-lives/

the cartels are directly responsibly for hundreds, if not thousands, of americans deaths per year. Indirectly, the are responsibly for many more as many drug related violence or deaths can be traced back to them.
"You have a lot of folks who are dual citizens, with some born in the U.S. but (who) live on the Mexico side," Scott Stewart, a vice president with the global intelligence firm STRATFOR, said of the difficulty in documenting American deaths connected to cartel violence. "A lot of them are working back and forth and some are working as gunmen too. And when someone like that dies, it is hard to know. Some simply disappear while others are lying in a vat of lye or dumped into a mass grave."

Are you a dual citizen? No? Are you connected with drug cartels? Also no? Stop crying then.
(jaw drops)
Are you saying that dual citizens shouldnt matter to our government?

Also, i love how you ignored the rest of the article because it doesnt fit with your political agenda. This is a pretty pathetic excuse for spin control if i do say so myself.
The article liberally used the term "apparently" in relation to victims of drug violence. Your own source isn't even sure whether the victims are even dead.
 

Whateveralot

New member
Oct 25, 2010
953
0
0
Well YAY, I live in Europe so you ain't takin' my guns, for I don't have one!

However: I still voted for "Kill the person who tries to take it from you", just to make the 'Mericans seem more fanatical than they actually are.

Makes me all want to giggle and stuff.
 

Ryotknife

New member
Oct 15, 2011
1,687
0
0
Thyunda said:
The article liberally used the term "apparently" in relation to victims of drug violence. Your own source isn't even sure whether the victims are even dead.
You spin me right round, baby
right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round

"While U.S. officials have long been concerned about the mindless violence bred by Mexico?s bloody and brutal drug wars, they have a new reason to worry: Americans are increasingly getting caught in the deadly crossfire.

Some who have died were themselves working for the drug cartels. But more and more often, experts say, the casualties are U.S. law enforcement officers and innocent victims who died simply because they ended up at the wrong place at the wrong time.

"These cartels will stop at nothing," said Tiffany Hartley, who became an anti-cartel crusader after her husband, David, apparently was gunned down on Sept. 30 by Mexican drug gang members on Falcon Lake, a dammed section of the Rio Grande straddling the Texas-Mexico border. "The violence is not going to stop and more will die at the unforgiving hands of cartels."

No one can say for certain how many Americans have been killed in the escalating Mexican drug violence in the past several years, but the closest thing to an official list ? the U.S. State Department?s database of deaths of U.S. citizens abroad by non-natural causes ? indicates that the number has been steadily increasing.

At least 106 U.S. residents were victims of "executions" or "homicides" directly related to drug battles in Mexico in 2010, compared to 79 in 2009 and 35 in 2007, according to the State Department figures.

Many deaths, disappearances aren't tallied
And experts ? and the State Department itself ? say the number is certainly much higher. For example, the State Department doesn?t list several recent high-profile deaths that have been publicly linked to the drug cartels or cases in which Americans have vanished or been killed in the U.S. by Mexican drug gangs.

"You have a lot of folks who are dual citizens, with some born in the U.S. but (who) live on the Mexico side," Scott Stewart, a vice president with the global intelligence firm STRATFOR, said of the difficulty in documenting American deaths connected to cartel violence. "A lot of them are working back and forth and some are working as gunmen too. And when someone like that dies, it is hard to know. Some simply disappear while others are lying in a vat of lye or dumped into a mass grave."

STRATFOR also says the presence of cartels has been documented in more than 230 U.S. cities.

The number of American deaths pales in comparison to the Mexican death toll from the violence: 15,273 in 2010 alone, according to the Mexican government.

But some U.S. law enforcement officials closest to the border say that new aggressiveness by the cartels ? including threats to target U.S. law enforcement officers ? and increasing drug gang violence on the U.S. side of the border mean that more Americans will die if the U.S. and Mexico can?t soon turn the tide.
"

That is just the first half (nothing cut), I could post the second half but im afraid of making the post too long, and anyone is more than freel to read the second half. But please, continue to cherry pick and twist the truth.

also, the word "apparently" appears once as far as i can tell. Here, ill underline it for you
 

Raytan941

New member
Sep 28, 2011
28
0
0
Jedi-Hunter4 said:
I don't know the ins and outs of us law but by the definition of "amendment". I think its safe to assume that this right to bear arms was brought in? so I would be safe to assume there are routes, difficult ones but legal routes to repeal the 2nd amendment?

So if your publicly elected government, representatives of the people, choose to legally repeal that right, they are doing it because the people voted them in. how in any concept of the word does that make them corrupt in this situation?

And then you have stated if no one will listen to you, you will resist violently. You are the criminal there. In that situation you disagree with the law, that does not give you a right to possibly deprive a family of their loved one. If a law is brought in by a legally elected government and they do it through all the legal routes and you don't like it, renounce your citizenship and leave.

This is the exact kind of paranoia and power complex that scares the shit out of normal people the world over, that people like yourself have access to firearms which by your own admission your prepared to use in a lethal manner if you disagree with a legally brought in law, and people refuse to listen to your veiws.

What is it 90% of school shooters say "nobody listened to me"
The requirements to repeal an amendment to the constitution are extraordinary so much so that to the best of my knowledge (and if I am wrong someone feel free to correct me) it has only happened one time in US history and that was to repeal the 18th amendment otherwise known and prohibition. But lets just say for arguments sake that it happened and the US government tried to force-ably confiscate everyone's firearms. The framers of the Declaration of Independence said it best when they pinned that document so here's a little excerpt,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The founders of this country believed that all people had certain god given rights and that among those right's was the right to defend ones-self, land, property, loved ones and freedom. You say that it would be criminal to defend myself if armed people came to my house demanding that I turn over my property because they passed a law that suddenly turned me from a law abiding citizen into a criminal. I say it would be criminal to capitulate to any law that would render me essentially defenseless and that is is my duty to altar or abolish my government if it seeks to deprive me of the right to defend myself. That is what the founders envisioned.

Since we are throwing around hypothetical situations here's one for you. The government has just passed a new law for public health reason's all modern electronic equipment is now illegal to own, transfer, import, export, and manufacture. All TV's, cell phone's and computers must be turned over at once to public officials for disposal. Officials will be going door to door to ensure that the new laws are being complied with, those found harboring electronic equipment will be sentenced to no less then 25 years in prison. So do you meekly hand over your belongings for disposal? Do you flee to another country? Do you attempt to hide your belongings and hope for things to blow over? Do you resist such an illegal and tyrannical action even though you will be labeled a criminal by your government?
 

Kill100577

New member
Nov 25, 2009
80
0
0
Zhukov said:
I would continue living my gun-free life.

This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.

Gun crime went way down and we haven't had another massacre since.

Funny, that.
Seems legit :D
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
Considering that its impossible in the US due to being an amendment to the constitution (which can only be undone by another amendment and there isn't enough collaboration in Congress to pass that), I don't fell the need to respond.

However, if it did happen, I imagine that people would hide their guns and protest unceasingly until the amendment was itself repealed.
 

gravian

New member
Sep 8, 2011
55
0
0
Twilight_guy said:
Considering that its impossible in the US due to being an amendment to the constitution (which can only be undone by another amendment and there isn't enough collaboration in Congress to pass that), I don't fell the need to respond.

However, if it did happen, I imagine that people would hide their guns and protest unceasingly until the amendment was itself repealed.
Pretty much this, if the US Congress can actually get enough support to repeal gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment then most US citizens would be either apathetic about or not want guns. Sure, there will always be a minority who would try to get around this by hiding them or something but most gun-owners would probably surrender them.

I do like the fact that most of your post is an explanation of why you don't need to respond in the first place though! Kinda like that guy, Ibsen or something, who wrote a one sentence letter stating how he would like to keep it shorter but didn't have the time...
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
1. Most of the folks claiming they'd willingly give up their guns also admit to not being gun owners. This means their responses can be taken with a grain of salt. It's like someone who doesn't own a goat saying they don't see the big deal with taxing goat feed.

2. It is fair to say that Americans are friendlier toward guns because we have a culture and government that promotes that way of thinking. It is equally fair to say that some other countries are very anti-gun because their governments have created a culture that thinks poorly of private gun ownership. What bothers me, personally, is the hypocrisy -- those governments still employ firearms when it suits their enforcement interests.

3. Stemming from #2, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution isn't about the belief that someone the "common man" is going to be able to withstand the full might of the US Military, or that they should have access to all the same hardware. It is, however, about the belief that the common man should not be defenseless against a government. All governments have the potential to become oppressive, and even tyrannical, without exception. In America, we stay mindful of that fact, while other countries allow the government to gradually overstep its bounds -- while simultaneously creating a culture that views that boundary pushing as a good thing (It isn't always.).

4. When laws like this pass, one has to look at the reasons behind them. Why would the government be asking me to turn over my guns, without also agreeing to turn over theirs? Why do we demand nations like Iran cease pursuing nukes, while we all refuse to give up our supply? It's because we don't trust Iran, and we think they'll do evil things, and we want to have power over them in case that happens. A government that wants to take something from you thinks the same about you. If you deserve it, cool. If not...
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Dastardly said:
All governments have the potential to become oppressive, and even tyrannical, without exception. In America, we stay mindful of that fact, while other countries allow the government to gradually overstep its bounds -- while simultaneously creating a culture that views that boundary pushing as a good thing (It isn't always.).
Oh please. Haven't you been paying any attention to the news lately? We've got an entire uprising at our hands here in Slovenia, and the government is about to fall within weeks (or so I hope). While you basically said

1) You need gun ownership to make sure your government doesn't turn tyrannical
2) Not having gun ownership (or not being American, I'm not sure which one it was) will result in you laying down allowing your government to become tyrannical.

What's going on right out of my door invalidates both of those. Loud calls of "We didn't vote for you, get out" coupled with incessantly arrogant and insulting response from the main government party's side is causing the coalition partners to leave the coalition, and the government no longer has a majority nor the support of most of its own parties.

Here's the one million dollar question: If you want to topple the government because it turned tyrannical, it'd be sensible to assume there's someone you think would do a better job than them. So why, in blue blazes, are you not endorsing and voting for those people today? Because it's too much effort?

Imagine how much effort it's going to be to rebuild if you oust the government through an armed rebellion and blow your infrastructure to bits in the process.
 

Raytan941

New member
Sep 28, 2011
28
0
0
Vegosiux said:
Oh please. Haven't you been paying any attention to the news lately? We've got an entire uprising at our hands here in Slovenia, and the government is about to fall within weeks (or so I hope). While you basically said

1) You need gun ownership to make sure your government doesn't turn tyrannical
2) Not having gun ownership (or not being American, I'm not sure which one it was) will result in you laying down allowing your government to become tyrannical.

What's going on right out of my door invalidates both of those. Loud calls of "We didn't vote for you, get out" coupled with incessantly arrogant and insulting response from the main government party's side is causing the coalition partners to leave the coalition, and the government no longer has a majority nor the support of most of its own parties.

Here's the one million dollar question: If you want to topple the government because it turned tyrannical, it'd be sensible to assume there's someone you think would do a better job than them. So why, in blue blazes, are you not endorsing and voting for those people today? Because it's too much effort?

Imagine how much effort it's going to be to rebuild if you oust the government through an armed rebellion and blow your infrastructure to bits in the process.
Why don't you ask the people of Egypt or Syria how effective their efforts to overthrow their oppressive and tyrannical governments were without the threat of armed revolt.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Raytan941 said:
Why don't you ask the people of Egypt or Syria how effective their efforts to overthrow their oppressive and tyrannical governments were without the threat of armed revolt.
I've already shown that an armed revolt is not necessary in all cases in order to overthrow a government. I never claimed it's never necessary, but if you're in a country with a democratic tradition, you have other tools at your disposal. And we're talking about USA here, a country that allegedly is one with a democratic tradition.

So, I'm afraid I must ask, what's your point?
 

Raytan941

New member
Sep 28, 2011
28
0
0
Vegosiux said:
I've already shown that an armed revolt is not necessary in order to overthrow a government. I never claimed it's never necessary, but if you're in a country with a democratic tradition, you have other tools at your disposal.

So, I'm afraid I must ask, what's your point?
My point is that sometimes armed revolt IS necessary to effect a change in government the last few years have proven that beyond a doubt, do I think the US is at that point, no, not even close. And I truly hope to hell I don't live to see the day that it is but I am not foolish enough to believe that such a thing cannot happen even in a democratic country. I think a gun ban and mandatory gun confiscations would be a sign that something like that might be necessary, it was just such an event that one of the triggering factors of the first American Revolution.
 

Jedi-Hunter4

New member
Mar 20, 2012
195
0
0
Raytan941 said:
Those same founding fathers also thought it was acceptable to keep slaves, had laws such as a woman could not legally be raped by her husband, created a mindset that ultimately lead to the near extinction of native peoples, as well as near extinction of native animal species.

The same founding fathers that would of been disgusted women and people of ethnicity can vote.

In their time they did not feel the need to institute social security, or public health care programs. Nor did they institute laws so that you could have a lawyer if arrested. Basically if you could not afford housing or food, lawyers etc your on your own.

The idea of the founding fathers Equal rights and freedom for all is an idealized myth. If you were rich it was true no doubt the common man, no.

Which is why it's totally nonsensical to base modern laws off ideas from literally a bygone age. You can't skirt round the fact they believed in slavery, so the fact they believed in the right to bear arms is just as unjustified.

The difference in the hypothetical situations is, the economy would shut down, electronic equipment does not directly increase violent crime. An I would personally be unable to do my job to a modern standard as I'm an engineer.

However lets ignore that and say it happens. Would I run the risk of 25 years for electronic equipment no. Would I violently resist and end some poor bastards life over my electronics, no. Would I peacefully protest? yes. Would I form a lobbying group? yes. would I petition my MP for months on end? yes. Would I look to research to contradict the justification of the law? yes. If funding allowed would I pursue it through the courts? yes. An if none of that worked, being as its my lively hood out the window would I move abroad, probably. At no point would I consider it justified to kill people for a possession while we still live in a civilized world. Also if they have legally passed the law, we voted for our MP's its legal not illegal, an all that would happen is everyone would vote at the next election to oust the government, that's how democracy's work. Not but killing police officers doing their job enforcing a democratically enforced law. Also we have things called referendums here where the public all get to vote on whether something happens, so the opposition would probably demand one and get it repealed. Democracy, not perfect but it works! allot better than killing people you don't agree with.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Raytan941 said:
Why don't you ask the people of Egypt or Syria how effective their efforts to overthrow their oppressive and tyrannical governments were without the threat of armed revolt.
It was actually quite effective in Egypt:

1) People: We'll protest until you quit! (...without guns)
2) Mubarak: I'll send the army to subdue your protests
3) Army says: Screw you we ain't shooting our own people
4) ???
5) Profit.

Meanwhile the armed revolt in Syria... Well not going according to plan now is it?

And food for thought:
What if your armed citizens pull a "Mussolini"? You know, use their guns to help a dictator grab power? Because that's how Fascism rose in Italy, Mussolini's armed civilian militia pretty much got him his position as "Duce".