Gun ownership is MAD?

And yes balbus, people get mugged and raped, being prepared for a confrontation with a rapist or mugger doesn't mean you are constantly afraid of getting mugged and raped, and it doen't mean you are not addressing the socio-economic reasons why muggers and rapists mug and rape. It just means that you are aware that there are people who mug and that there are people who rape and that there are people who would rather not be a victim of either crime, so they take self-defense classes and carry pepperspray/taser/gun to defend themselves...

Or do you want to take away their pepperspray and tasers too?

 

Well shooting little girls after raping them isn't very manly either. You think those guys would have done what they did if they couldn't just pull a trigger and get it done?

 

Who said that it was?
Are you even reading the posts?

You seem more than a little obsessed with being "manly", "dicks" and "balls"....

did an uncle touch you or something?

You don't have an issue with guns lady, you have an issue with men, seek help.

 

Do you think those two would have walked into a school and done what they did if they hadn't been armed?

They felt empowered becaused they had firearms.

 

Women now own firearms only because men now own them. Does the one now justify the other?

 

You've said that women choose to own weapons to defend themselves, who are they defending themselves from, if not the men who feel that a weapon defines their manhood.

 

LOL, Pitt

You seem to have just stopped debating man, you definitely have stopped answering questions or even attempting to refute the criticisms levelled at you.

You just don’t seem to be giving much thought to the points being raised but seem rather mindlessly repeating the same gun defence mantra.

**

I’ve already said several times that it is great that you contribute to some social programmes.

But that isn’t the point being made.

OK once again -

The point I’m making is that you (and others) seem to have stopped asking yourself why things are the way they are and have fallen into the trap of believing that this is how things are.

That it seems to me that from our conversations over this thread that you don’t seem to give that much thought to why there are social problems or there causes.

Saying that you give money to this organisation or that doesn’t answer the question it side steps it.

**

Attacks in parking places and alleys, which over here is commonly known as ‘street crime’, are you saying that being mugged in a parking place is somehow different than being mugged elsewhere? This seems like you are purposely trying to confuse the issues?

**

So is moonshining a really big problem in the states? I mean over here only a few people do it and usually in remote places where the produce is for personal or close friend’s only. For most people it is too much hassle when you can just go and buy a bottle down at the local shop.

And as I’ve pointed out people will be allowed to grow their own cannabis.

Are you saying that moonshining is the kind of confrontational street crime you want a gun to protect yourself against?

**

I’ve said over and over and over again that crime will probably never be completely eliminated.

What point do you have (besides clouding the issue) in implying that I believe it can?

**

Who said the “lets solve crime…” quote? I’ve asked once.

How many times do I have to say that not all the things in the gun ideas I suggested and you seemed to support were already part of US law.

**

Personally I think its pure apathy, no one wants to get involved. No one want to open themselves up to a lawsuit, the proposterous lawsuits that have set presidence where the criminal is more protected than the victim,

What?

Please explain?

**

And the PC world in which we now live has created so much apathy that no one wants to get involved.

OH NO

Are you honestly going to bring up Political Correctness as a valid argument? The fucking right wing/conservative ‘cover all’ argument for when they don’t have anything rational to say.

Wow man you really have fallen in my estimation.

**

Which is why I think such laws such as castle doctorine may be a step in the right direction as it creates a ptotective barrier against such outlandish lawsuits.

I looked it up on wiki and this line jumped out at me “Opponents of Castle Doctrine laws have referred to these laws as "shoot first" laws, implying that these laws allow people to "shoot first" any time they are frightened”

It led me to a The Washington Post piece on the law here are a couple of quotes -

“A retired police officer in St. Petersburg, writing in the St. Petersburg Times, described the legislature's bill as the "citizens' right to shoot others on the street if they feel threatened" and asked, "Are they nuts?" “

“The bill, signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Jeb Bush (R), will allow people in Florida -- without fear of criminal prosecution or civil action -- to shoot, stab or pummel to death anyone who causes them to fear for their lives outside of their homes, on the street, or in their cars or businesses”

Again this sounds like the people that want this are very afraid.

This kind of pre-emptive ideology is the same that has been followed by the Bush Admin.

Once again I see a certain attitude amongst many the pro-gunners creeping into other areas.

**

As to the Brady Campaign post your reply once again tells me what isn’t being done not why it isn’t being done what it doesn’t do is refute the idea that the pro-gun lobby are the ones stiffling meaningful enforcement of the laws you say you wish were enforced.

**

“AS I have said its not the peoples attitude toward guns, its thier attitude toward crime”

But as I’ve pointed out again and again and again, the idea that guns and suppression are a solution to problems can not just be seen in many pro-gunners attitude toward crime but also to wider issues.

**

Why do you think some areas have certain crime and others don’t?

**

 

Proud

“set things right” – but as I’ve said to you before who’s right? Which ‘right’ are you talking about? What you might think is ‘right’ someone else might see as ‘wrong’ and vis versa.

**

Sorry but I don’t see you having the numbers, to me Americans are mainly right wing and/or conservative.

**

I think in reality many of the people with guns will be down helping the police shoot the ‘rioters’ who they will see as trying to destroy the ‘American dream’.

In Nazis Germany many ‘good’ and ‘decent’ Germans renounced Jews to the security police knowing that they would disappear.

**

Let's suppose that of the 85 million gun owners in America, ten percent will support the coming revolution. Hell, let's make it one percent. You still have 850,000 armed indivduals. Our military is having a tough time with a few tens of thousands of insurgents spread across a tiny little desert country. Now picture 850,000 (a very conservative estimate,) spread across a continent.

Insurgencies only work if they have the sympathy or support of the people, I don’t think you do.

The thing is that talking like that on an open forum means you probably already have a file on you, they know what you think and that you are armed.

**

What ‘freedom’ are you taking about?

Any freedom. All freedom. Freedom to live your own life and make your own choices. It's about being judged by what you do, instead if what you might do. Independence from the "protections" of the state, if that is your choice. Freedom of thought, freedom of action.

I know this one is slippery. One person's ideal freedom involves freedom from responsibility. And another's involves freedom of responsibility. Some people choose to be told where to go and what to say and how to act. I guess they're more comfortable like that. If that's truely their choice, then more power to them (or less, if that's what they value. Whatever.) Problems arise when they try to force that choice on others.

But do you have the freedom to do anything, is there anything that limits the choices open to you?

**

That's what freedom is like for me. It's kind of like feeling sad and small and alone and humbled when you stand next to the ocean. But also awed and empowered, for some reason. I suppose you could say that freedom is the closest thing to a god I've ever known. That's why I get a little uppity when folks try to screw with it. They see the beauty, but they try to perfect it by stripping out the "negative", and as a result, compromise the whole. You can't have rainbows without mud, and you have to suffer and die before you get to heaven. Sad, but true.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH man that was like soooooooooooooooo much waffle.

Get to the fucking point.

 

Shane

What I’m trying to point out is that, people can go along with certain policies for their own reasons and find themselves trapped in a dictatorship.

The cause can even start out as looking just. (Look at how the English Civil War became a dictatorship)

Resistance to what might happen could be right but be seen as wrong by those that don’t agree that things are going wrong.

Many left wingers, socialists and communists, tried to resist the rise of the fascists but were portrayed as the greater danger and ended up being rounded up and put in concentration camps.

You ask why the dissenters shouldn’t be armed, but my point has being that if they think being armed is going to work when they don’t have popular backing then it is unlikely to do them much good. That is because just like the Native Americans, the Japanese and the Jews the people will allow you to be taken and not lift a finger to help as they see you as the enemy or the criminal.

In fact it is better to run and fight another day. Exiles are more likely to survive and lead a successful resistance than a futile death in a hidden torture chamber.

But before that, the gun doesn’t seem to me to be the best weapon, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere people that once supported Bush and now don’t, haven’t stopped believing in things that could easily turn the US into a tyranny, they are just waiting for some new leader.

 

Worked for the cold war, I have a gun so you will respect my home, enter it uninvited and you will leave in a bag, simple.


Disrespect my family by trying to harm them and again you shall find yourself in a bag.

Do I think everyone should own a gun, hell NO, do I think somebody should tell others how to live NO, if you fear a gun then so be it, that leaves me one less person to be concerned with out there.

 

If you are already seen as the enemy or the criminal (as was the case in pre-nazi germany), it doesn't make much sense to remain unarmed simply because you are afraid of public opinion.

Left wingers, socialists and communists were going to be put in camps whether they mounted an armed resistance or not, because that was the goal of those in power. Eliminate those who are different and those who question, by any means...

When should a resistance movement start to arm? when should an individual start to arm? After the rise of a dictatorship? after the dictatorship formulates aggressive policies toward a minority group? once they are starting to be put in to camps? once they stop coming out of those camps...

If i find that all individuals with mixed parentage are being shot in the streets, do i picket?

The old saying of "those fight and run away live to fight another day", was born in a world before globalization, before gps, before national id cards, before biometric scanners, before facial recognition software, before amber alerts and americas most wanted, before infared vision, before night goggles, before heat sensors, you can't even escape to mexico and canada to get away from the draft anymore, traffic cameras, mics and cameras in t.v. sets and computer moniters....

the days of running are gone.

if/when a western power takes up the mantle of fascism again, they are not going to make the mistakes of past regimes.

by the time they start to round us up, they will have already neutered us (like i dunno, taking away personal means of defense....)

In a world with a growing disdain for verbal and political dissent (even prosecuting and persecuting journalists and non-violent protesters), it makes little sense to promote policies that would create even more imbalance between those in power and those who are not.

You have even advocated keeping persoanl means of defense under lock and key at a police station....
How does that keep the State in check, when we need their permission to obtain what would be needed to fight back an oppressive crackdown?

I seems to me that the policies you are advocating (eventual banishment of firearms from the general populace) would help in the success of a right or left wing admin gaining and retaining oppressive powers.

There is nothing fascists want more (even a populist fascism, which they have almost always started as) than a population volunteering the usurption of their basic rights, including the right to defend oneself.

As far as i can see the majority of the german (and later polish, austrian, ect ect ect) jews did not arm themselves and went along with the programs. From what i can tell (from historical records and the testimony of survivors), those being rounded up assumed that sanity would eventually return and the general populace would stop the slaughter and it did, after the massacre of 6 million+ jews, poles, homosexuals, and political dissenters.

And that's just the nazis, that doesnt even include the atrocities of the USSR, Pol Pot, and the multitude of other "popular" dictators.

So, did non-violence work in that situation?

If history tells us anything, it's that non-violent protesting only takes you so far, especially with regimes who with a genocidal goal.

And i'm not even advocating armed insurrection at this point in the conversation, only a means to defend oneself.

Should i keep myself vulnerable and at a disatvantage simply because those willing to simply "go along" are either too afraid, too stupid, too lazy, or just don't see the issue affecting themselves so why should they bother?

As long as there are those in power willing to use force to retain and expand that power doesn't it make since to, at the very least, be able to exert some power of your own? if only to survive?

and in regard to voluntary exile:

1.) not so easy in a globalized world

2.) not so easy if the choice is between dictatorship #1 and dictatorships #2,3,4, and 5...

 

Shane I’m not against armed confrontation if that seems the only way to fight for what I believe is right. What I’m trying to say is that I think many people are complacent and believe that since they have guns, bad things can’t happen so they don’t have to do anything else.

Also a lot of the people I’ve talked to here about guns over the years, want to preserve the present US political system and would use their guns to do that. I think one of the great problems is the present political system.

So to me one of the drawback to social and political change for the better in the US could be those people and their guns.

**

If i find that all individuals with mixed parentage are being shot in the streets, do i picket?

What did African Americans do when the KKK were lynching black people? What did most white Americans do?

**

As far as i can see the majority of the german (and later polish, austrian, ect ect ect) jews did not arm themselves and went along with the programs. From what i can tell (from historical records and the testimony of survivors), those being rounded up assumed that sanity would eventually return and the general populace would stop the slaughter and it did, after the massacre of 6 million+ jews, poles, homosexuals, and political dissenters.

So if they had shoot at the German police do you think things would have gone better

 

Right is where you have a choice

But what choice?

Are there things you can’t choice in life?

**

Right now, my freedom is limited by warm fuzzy feel-good bullshit laws that make people (sheeple) feel safer. In proud2deviate's Ideal World, freedom's only limit would be the freedom of others.

Like what?

**

Hey man, leggo my eggo! After putting up with all of your bullshit, (copying and pasting from the brady campaign website? Low, man. And cheap.) I deserve a little artistic waffleage.

If you think something is bullshit you have the right to express you opinion as to why you think it is BS. If you say nothing it stands.

Pitt said he was finding it difficult to find anything about why current US gun laws were not being enforced to help him out I Googled ‘gun laws not being enforced’ and picked the website that came up at the top, that happened to be the Brady Campaign website.

If it a NRA website article had something on the subject I would have cut from that.

It wasn’t “low” it was Google.

**

Okay. Point is; Freedom is good. Limitations on freedom are bad. Gun control limits freedom. Gun control is bad.

But you don’t define what ‘freedom’ is beyond the rather vague ‘choice’, but what do you mean by that?

 

Pitt

“Lets face it in your opinion "gun ownership is MAD".”

Pitt this is your BIG problem, you don’t seem to be paying any attention to what’s being said. This is why I have to spend so much of my time having to repeat myself or explain simple things over and over again.

Like the petulant adolescent at school I talked about before you don’t seem to want to pay attention to what people are trying to say because it just doesn’t fit in with what you want.

**

So lets look at the ‘opinion’ you say I have

First up I put in a question mark in the title of this thread.

"Gun ownership is MAD?” (? = question mark)

Do you actually understand what a question mark means?

Let me try and explain, a question mark makes a statement a question, get that?

Without the question mark it might be seen as an opinion and I admit I didn’t put in the full stops that mark an acronym but it is such a well-known term. But even then if you had read the posts in the actual thread you might still have understood the meaning of the thread’s title which brings us to the second point

Second, it wasn’t even me that likened gun ownership to having the power of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD, if you knew any recent US history it might have rung a bell)

It was actually Shane who said and I quote – “A personal policy of mutually assured destruction is as decent a deterrent as i can think of. You aim at me and i'll aim at you. Pretty simple."

Pitt this is real, real basic man, I mean really basic, don’t you think if you are getting things as simple as this so, so wrong, that maybe you haven’t understood a lot of things said to you in this thread?

**

You say you have no problem with law abiding citizens owning guns, the LAW says teh same thing, lets enforce this and be done with it.

And here is another case of Pitt not seeming to understand what’s being said to him –

Pitt asked me what gun control policies I’d want.

I tried to explain that wasn’t very worthwhile because I didn’t think the pro-gun lobby were interested in more gun control ideas and many of them were not interested in having any controls.

Pitt insisted and I complied and gave some ideas of the top of my head.

Pitt thought some very good and others good.

However as I had warned the other pro-gunnners on the thread rejected them out of hand.

It was then that Pitt seemed to back away from his support of my ideas saying that there were enough laws and if only they were enforced their would be no need for ‘new’ laws.

I pointed out that some ideas he thought would be good didn’t seem to be part of any current US legislation, but although I’ve pointed out this several times he seems to be ignoring it and banging on about enforcement.

So I asked why he thought the laws were not being enforced.

He said he didn’t know

He said it could be because there were too many laws, but wasn’t sure.

He said it was because American DA’s were lazy, but didn’t know.

He thought it might be because of apathy, but couldn’t be bothered to find out.

It was possible he thought that it could be fear of getting sued.

He blamed it on political correctness.

Frankly this doesn’t sound like someone that has done any thinking on the subject.

He does rejects totally the finding of the Brady Campaign that seem to suggest that pro-gunners might not want gun control even when the other pro-gunners here have said they don’t want gun control and don’t want to seem to help the agencies that might impose them.

**

Ok Balbus, AGAIN i give up because I do not know what one answer you want to hear. Why dont you tell us What is teh one root cause of all the worlds crime problems? Just identify this and maby someone will find a miricle cure for it.

And another case-

I’ve told Pitt many, many times that I do not think there is one root cause of crime, but every time he seems to ignore it.

I have tried to explain that crime is a complex question that will need a holistic approach to tackle, meaning that it would involve a wide rang of social and economic reforms and programmes.

I have presented a few of these ideas here some in more details than others but enough to give a general outline. But what I have found is that Pitt seems unwilling (or unable) to discuss these ideas. Worse he often seem to give replies that I can only say sound like a petulant and rather ill informed teen.

I’ve tried on more than one occasion to talk to him on his own idea of why crime takes place – greed – but even here he seem unwilling (or unable) to discuss the subject.


**

WHAT? you are the one that seems to differentiate crime by accepting the notion that some serious crime should just be let off with a "CAUTION".

And another case –

I have tried to explain to Pitt the UK policy of a ‘police caution’ a few times. But while I have explained what it is I don’t believe I have came down in favour of it or not, I even gave the different opinions to it in this country.

I also pointed out several times that ‘police cautions’ are not given in the case of ‘serious crimes’ in fact they are expressly forbidden to be given in cases of ‘serious crime’.

But it doesn’t seem to matter how many times I tell him, it doesn’t fit with what he wants so he just ignores it.

He sees what he wants to see not what is actually there.

**

Where the hell did I say the location of a crime made any difference as to the sevarity of said crime??? You have fallen off the deep end making crap up.

What Pitt? You brought up the difference between being mugged in the street and in an office building, I was just wondering why?

**

So is moonshining a really big problem in the states? I mean over here only a few people do it and usually in remote places where the produce is for personal or close friend’s only. For most people it is too much hassle when you can just go and buy a bottle down at the local shop.

And as I’ve pointed out people will be allowed to grow their own cannabis.

Are you saying that moonshining is the kind of confrontational street crime you want a gun to protect yourself against?

HAHA you take a comparison and now conviently leave one half of the comparison off to completely change the intention.

And another case –

Pitt asked and so I gave him some ideas about tackling crimes related to illegal drugs (as part of an integrated policy that included other crime reform and socio-economic programmes). I believe these would reduce most violent crime associated with the present ‘war on drugs’, through legalising and regulating the drugs trade (as alcohol and tobacco are regulated)

He admitted it would probably reduce crime, but said it wouldn’t get rid of all crime and gave as an example ‘moonshiners’.

I had pointed out several times that I didn’t think any policies could get rid of crime completely, but he seems to be ignoring that. I also point out that monnshiners don’t seem to be a big problem or be part of the confrontational type of crime (like muggings) that he seemed most afraid of.

**

I’ve said over and over and over again that crime will probably never be completely eliminated.

What point do you have (besides clouding the issue) in implying that I believe it can?

POINT is guns are a deterrent to crime. Guns are used daily to protect ordinary people from crime. Protection is a valid reason for a person to choose to own a gun.

And another case –

See the point about crime probably never being completely eradicated is brushed aside.

We have talked at length about the ‘protection argument’

At the beginning Pitt’s argument was that violent crime was everywhere and that someone could be injured or killed by a criminal anytime anyplace, so people needed guns to protect them and their family.

Over the space of this thread a certain amount of contradiction seems to have crept in to his position.

He know admits that the threat of crime is not as imminent as he once seemed to claim although strangely sometimes he still claims it is when it suits the argument.

Crime, while still being everywhere is not everywhere the same, so although someone might be attacked anytime anyplace, it is unlikely to happen anytime or anyplace, only at sometimes and in some places.

In fact Pitt seem to imply that he can tell in advance when he might, or might not be attacked and so know when to carry a gun and when not.

Also having a gun doesn’t seem to be as much use as protection he once claimed. For example if a person with a gun isn’t around when a crime takes place or the gun isn’t with the person when a crime takes place. For example so unless you are with the family member in trouble it is useless, if your house is robbed when you are out of the house it is useless, if you are attacked from behind it is useless and so on.

So while the chances of being attacked is small the chances of having the perfect conditions in which to actually use the gun successfully drop dramatically.

**

Who said the “lets solve crime…” quote? I’ve asked once.

So who did say the quote then, and why do you seem unable to give an answer?

**

How many times do I have to say that not all the things in the gun ideas I suggested and you seemed to support were already part of US law.

Again HOW MANY TIMES MUST I REPEAT, Lets enforce what we already have on the books and if that dont work there are some of your ideas i would not have a big problem with.

And another case –

As I’ve said earlier if Pitt doesn’t know what is wrong how does he think he is going to fix it?

As I have pointed out several times already if the problem is too many and too complex laws maybe the old laws should be repealed and new simpler and straight forward ones put in there place?

If it is something else that needs to be dealt with.

**

As to the Brady Campaign post your reply once again tells me what isn’t being done not why it isn’t being done what it doesn’t do is refute the idea that the pro-gun lobby are the ones stiffling meaningful enforcement of the laws you say you wish were enforced.

Show me where we ARE stiffling these laws, you are reaching and drowning on this. I have said all along lets ENFORCE these laws.

And another case-

You told me you didn’t know why the laws were not being enforced and said you had looked but there didn’t seem to be anything.

I Googled ‘gun laws not being enforced’ and got the Brady Campaign page that suggested a theory.

You haven’t refuted that theory.

**

“AS I have said its not the peoples attitude toward guns, its thier attitude toward crime”

But as I’ve pointed out again and again and again, the idea that guns and suppression are a solution to problems can not just be seen in many pro-gunners attitude toward crime but also to wider issues.

But you have been told MANY times by DIFFERENT people that it is NOT a solution to the problem but a PROTECTION from the symptoms. This dont fit into your own little idea so you refuse to hear what you are being told.

And another case –

Pitt just think about it -

The problem is you fear being attacked by a criminal, your solution to this problem is to get a gun to protect you should you be attacked.

What I’ve being trying to find out is do you think about why you think crime is so prevalent and so dangerous and do you think of other ways in which you could deal with the problem.

So far you seem to have given them little thought.

**

Why do you think some areas have certain crime and others don’t?

Another question that just doesn’t seem to get answered?

**

Personally I think its pure apathy, no one wants to get involved. No one want to open themselves up to a lawsuit, the proposterous lawsuits that have set presidence where the criminal is more protected than the victim,

What?

Please explain?

Example: Criminal is mugging an old lady on the street, you see this, you yell out, run over and push the mugger to get him away from the old lady, he trips and falls because ther eis a pothole in the street and breaks his leg. The police show up 25 minutes later and arrest him.
All is good and well right?
NO the criminal sues you for his medical bills because you pushed him, and he WINS.

Get it?

+

See example story above, what the people fear is getting involved because the criminal in the act of committing a crime is more protected than the individual trying to protect himself.

Are you saying this is the most common outcome in any mugging?

Remember the question was why did you think the laws were not being enforced.

So are you’re honestly presenting as an argument that the laws are not being enforced because, well because what, because criminals will sue that they were caught so the police don't arrest them?

To me that just sound rather lame.

As to your example are you saying that kind of thing happens often.

In the UK it would be laughed out of court, I mean the mugger would have to be rich enough to bring a civil action and would loose a lot of money and no ‘no win no fee’ lawyer would take such a case because they wouldn’t win.

This sounds like some right wing/conservative bogy story about the ‘liberal’ system to me.

**

You have ideas and have stated these ideas they have been refuted yet you refuse to admit this such as.

Where have you refuted these ideas?

(You do understand what refute means don’t you?)

**

You stated early in the conversation that if a criminal suspected a person whom would become his victim of being armed he would just go get a bigger gun, thus forming the basis of your proliferation theory. This is complete BS, you have been shown facts, figures, studies etc, explaining this, yet you refuse to admit this is indeed the case, you refuse to show facts backing your claim

See, still not paying attention. I was talking about the theoretical idea that MAD could work in a world were guns were unrestricted (Shane’s view).

But even then you really haven’t proved that criminals don’t want guns, in fact you mention many times that criminals do have guns why do you think they want or have guns?

**

You conviently leave the basis of the conversation when it suits you to try and delve into the psychology of the criminal mind.

You want to raise something I’ve missed please just go back to it, I’m very willing to debate it with you, in fact haven’t you noticed you have done this several times (you really must try and pay attention)


**

 

"I think many people", "lot of the people I’ve talked to here about guns over the years"....

Lets stick to this conversation then.

Do you suppose that there is a possibility of a fascist regime(s) gaining power in the western world sometime in the future?

Do you suppose that the eventual banishment of individual ownership of firearms works toward the fascist's advantage or the individuals?

Not enough in my opinion.
While i can understand and appreciate a non-violent civil disobedient type approach to a social problem, i will not rule out violent action and personal defense against violent oppression.
Too many compromises and appeals to authority have left us with what is commonly referred to as "activism inc."

Our freedoms are taken away with a smile and a reassuring pat on the back instead of national guard troops and blatent authoritarianism, but they are still taken away none the less.

Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other's land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, "OK, let's compromise. Give me half of what I asked." The weak one has little choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land.

You mean if they had shot back at the german police...
Things couldn't have gotten much worse, could they?

 

Shane

"I think many people", "lot of the people I’ve talked to here about guns over the years"....

Lets stick to this conversation then.

Can’t, that’s like saying forget history, forget the things I have learnt.

**

Do you suppose that there is a possibility of a fascist regime(s) gaining power in the western world sometime in the future?

Anything is possible, even your form of anarchism taking hold.

**

Do you suppose that the eventual banishment of individual ownership of firearms works toward the fascist's advantage or the individuals?

As I’ve pointed out I don’t think that in many cases it would make much diffrence.

**
What did African Americans do when the KKK were lynching black people? What did most white Americans do?

Not enough in my opinion.

That is an opinion but is it an answer to the question?

**

So if they had shot at the German police do you think things would have gone better


You mean if they had shot back at the german police...
Things couldn't have gotten much worse, could they?

Oh it so could, I think it would have caused the murdering to start sooner and go quicker.


**

 

Yeah, i edited and added more to it.

Or, it could have nipped it in the bud....
It's a little more difficult to massacre a group of people who refuse to let you.

i'm not sure what the total number of german police were, but i know it was less than 6 million.

 

I do not know why I bother but here it is:


A local gun store in town here was broke into and 3 AR15 rifles were stolen. The people who did it got caught and the guns did get retrieved but only after some serious interigation. All they recieved is "UNSUPERVISED PROBATION".

We have laws that make it illegal to sell a firearm to a Xcon but no laws for a xcon to try to buy one. Only after they actually purchase it are they commiting a crime.

This is just 2 examples from a town of less than 2000 people.

They are not enforcing laws that would lesson violent criminal activity period in this country and actually ram rodding cases against those who commit shallow normally non disruptive crimes.

I have my thoughts as to why this is done but no matter how hard I look I cant find a source willing to support it but it would require the goverment to admit certian activities and good luck with that one.

So there are many laws that are geared toward guns that need to be dropped and many that need to be made. I also think that strict enforcment is a must on some of those laws.

Violent crimes, theft of items that do no feed or supply medical supplies should be cracked down on. Theft of food and medical supplies (i.e. items for common cold ect) to assist ones survival should be looked at in a different light. Why hurt a man for trying to live but instead make his punishment be a job that likely he would rather have had if he could have found one.

If you kill somebody intentionally in cold blood you should be dead in less than 2 years after being caught and convicted. No more of this 10 year bull shit or more. I dont mean those cases that are questionable but the out right caught on tape type shit.

To me the best idea of gun control is proof that you are competent to handle a firearm, (i.e. firearm safety, being able to hit your target and no crime record that would point to a malice use of the firearms) The laws that are there should be enforced, no deals just hard time.

Well that is my half hearted investment in this thread.

 

How do seatbelts figure into a right to own gun argument? I don't want to weed through all the halfpage long NRA responses...sum it up for me.

 

California citizens fasten up because of legislation that was passed that said health care costs be minimized, and because after the first infraction the ticket goes up exponentially. Not because it's been proven that seat belts have reduced costs. I've never seen a study that showed that the Californias benefited, but I am sure the insurance companies did.

I might have a nose bleed at any time but that doesn't mean I worry about it every minute of the day. Or carry kleenex and cotton with me everywhere I go.

I have contributed to this thread, whether or not you feel my contributions met your high standards is something else.

Here in California every bicyclist has to wear a helmet, how many accidents on bikes involve head injuries? Ever tried to force a 10 year old to put on a helmet to ride a block to a friend's...who did that legislation benefit? Maybe we should mandate that everyone should own a gun, maybe that would decrease our insurance payments, because afterall we are protecting ourselves?