*DAMN R6 Forum

Okay, here is one big point that I think the Americans and Europeans are on a totally different page on.  The public owning guns.  I would like to know what is wrong with me owning a gun?

Please enlighten me.

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE!  PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.  I can just as easily end your life with my bare hands as with my Glock 29.  I can just as easily turn my Mag-Lite Flashlight into a lethal weapon.  So what is the problem with me owning a gun?

And my favorite quote:

"Gun Control Means Hitting What You Are Aiming At."

Also:

"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers."

thats exactly why everybody shouldnt have a gun !!!

Ghostsniper, can you actually make a post where you don't go on bashing another state or country? Fucking racist, stop generalizing and fucking stop acting like America is paradise on earth.

Moore's movie can be total bullshit I don't care, I don't even want to see the crap. But the fact you have to turn it in another US vs Euro thing, man grow up.


The problem is, you only think about killing. Learn to LOVE!
And Earth would be a peacefull planet.

Sentinel...you need to go back up and look and see that I was replying to BFG's argument that the U.S. wouldn't allow the film to be shown because we don't believe in Freedom of Speech.  That is a European telling me that my country is violating Freedom of Speech.  So why don't you go gripe to BFG for saying that before you come gripe at me for replying to him.


I don't think about killing.  I havn't seriously thought about killing anyone since I was in the military.  But if you try to break in my house, or harm my family, I believe I have the right of self-defense.

BANG.

Your Dead.

And I promise you I will not miss.

oh boy that is soooo cliche !

So now you are saying that nobody in America gets their house broken into?  Hey, we might be one of the best places in the world to live, but we still have crime--just like the rest of the world.

didnt say that GS, but i'm pretty sure the odds of being "visited" and harmed in your house by a robber are way lower than dying in a car accident on the freeway.

GS, you have guns in your household? With a 4 year old daughter? (or 5 w/e)

Guns are perfectly safe to own, as long as you keep them locked up in a gun safe/gun cabinet, use trigger locks, store the ammo in a seperate location (also locked up), etc. There are a lot less gun accidents than the media makes you think. In fact, statistically, doctors are much more dangerous in terms of accidents, and there's only 700,000 doctors or so in America, as opposed to the millions of gun owners. Anyways, I can dig up the numbers if anyone wants.

1) Depends on where you live.
2) Depends on how good of a driver you are.

 ;)

Luckily for me, I don't think there has been an armed robbery in my neighborhood at least since I was born (17 years)... hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there never has been.

Yes I do.  If you teach your children how to behave around guns properly, there will not be a problem.  Also, I don't really agree with Mr. Mellow on his post.  What good is my Glock if someone tries to break in during the middle of the night if I have to go searching for my ammo or have to remember the combination to some stupid lock (and/or trying to find a key for it).

My Glock cannot be fired unless done a certain way.  It is in a holster that has to be pulled out a certain way or it will not come out (something my 5 year old will not be able to do).  These two methods will keep it from ever being accidentally discharged by anyone in the house.

It remains loaded and ready to kill bad guys at all times.   :)

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

True, GS. But, they have some very easy-access gun safes that are still childproof. Anyhoo, found those doctor statistics. Feel free to prove any of the information wrong, but I'm 99% the information is correct.

FACTS ABOUT DOCTORS

a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171 (US Dept. of Health &
Services).

Then think about this:
a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous that
gun owners.

you're taking accidental deaths, i'm not sur this is fair. For example, Columbine deaths are not accidental, so they wouldnt be counted for. Also the husband killing his wife coz she had an affair or just coz he was drunk is also not accidental and wouldnt be accounted for.

Do you have other numbers ?

Well, most guns used in crimes are acquired illegally, so that doesn't really count, in my opinion. We were talking about accidental deaths (someone mentioned GS having guns around his kids). Besides, in the case of the husband/wife killing their spouse, if there wasn't a gun, they would have just used a knife or a chainsaw or a nailgun or something. If someone wants to kill a person bad enough, there's thousands of ways of doing it. Now, I do agree that there should be better screening on people who own guns, like maybe a psychological exam or something ha. But that won't be happening, and if a person wants a gun, they'll just get one illegally anyways. I don't think it's such a good idea to take away guns from law-abiding citizens who want to defend themselves or do target practice for fun. I know it's a cliche statement, but if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them.

EXACTIFUCKINGMUNDO (I think that's a word).

I've been arguing this point for years.  If you make owning guns illegal, then the only people that will have guns are the criminals.  So basically that would just leave the rest of us law-abiding citizens without a means of defending ourselves.  Also, this country was founded on a right to bare arms.  So now many liberals are trying to take away a basic right that Americans have had for 2 Centuries.

Hahaha

Its cool. Ghostsniper is saying he would do exactly what the Palestinians are doing. He would defend his house and Family. So if you attack him and he fights back you can call him a terrorist seeing as thats what the paletinians who defend themselfs apprently are.


And GS perhaps you should back up and see that i wasn't arguing that the US wasn't going to allwo the film to show... At no point did i say they wouldn't, just commented on the fact that if they did it wouldn't surpirse me it would probably come under a terrorist threat or some bullshit.


Excuss me but when was there not a difference between acidental and intentional?



Why do they need to behave around guns? WHAT USE IS THERE FOR A GUN OTHER THAN TO KILL? You do not need a gun. Tell me that there would be no change in the number of people killed in the US if guns were banned - completely.

I agree its not just down to guns though. Look at somwhere like Austria where i believe it is the law for everyhousehold to have a gun (sort of civil defence)... but they just don't go around killing each other... I guess its just down to a difference in the society then... i know which one i would prefer to bring my kids up in.

It's a movie.

Airing it on a network is what you do AFTER a movie's been in the theaters. Basically, airing it on a network would be cutting a significant amount of cash out of your sale and it would undercut potential publicity for anciliary revenue (ie, ppl go see the movie, love it, then they're more inclined to buy the DVD, and watch it on TV [thus letting the movie profit multiple times]).

Plus, the way networks are these days none of them would touch it with a ten foot pole. They are all much to corporate and Moore's film is very partisan (in that it reveals the negative truthes sorounding the Iraq war and 911).


They are too documentries. They are simply partisan documentries.


The stats re doctors and guns are misleading. For one, yah, there are millions on gun owners (millions more guns) and only under a million doctors. However, those doctors see MANY MANY millions of ppl. There is no correlation betweeen gun deaths and doctor accidents. You know why? Nearly EVERYONE sees a doctor at least once a year. It's INCREDIBLY more common for someone to get sick than for someone to own a gun. Further, there are a wide range of illnesses, many of which are terribly complex and little understood. Cap that with the fact that doctors, esp ER doctors, are over worked and you begin to have a context for understanding why gun deaths v doctor accidents is just a plan silly comparison.

Frankly, it is never safe to own a gun. You can only minimalize the risk of owning a gun. Someone like Ghost would be far better at safely owning a gun because of years of experience. Average Joe is another thing, and fuck if I want Average Joe owning a firearm. We supposedly live in a civilized nation and yet we have thousands of gun deathes a year. The reality is that Americans do not respect the right to bear arms - they think they deserve it, rather than that they have to earn it. And like with anything you get for free (from easy sex to winning the lotto) you can never fully apprieciate the Gravitas of that Right.

Our founding fathers knew what it meant to own a weapon. They used it as a tool and looked at the owning of a weapon as part of what secured this nation's boarders. Today, we have no need for milita - as we have a professional army and local and state based police forces. The only valid argument remaining is that some people "need" to own a gun because it is a useful tool. But no one really owns a gun because it is a tool. People own guns today because it's cool, it's masculine, it's fun to brandish at passing black ppl ... The truth is more people are killed by their OWN GUN than by other people's weapons.

So, yah, for now own your guns. When I get in charge you'll lose them all, cause you are a danger to yourself by owning one. It's for your own good that we take them away. When you've all grown up and can be responsible maybe you can have single-shot, lever action, breach loading .22.

:P

Turning quadruple post into one post. -assassin

I'll Tell you one thing...... I love to go out shooting guns... Not everyone uses them for killing.. I like sport/Target acuracy shooting. As for teaching them to behave right around guns... Like GS has said.. Guns dont kill peeps.. peeps kill peeps.. Guns just dont point at some one and go off by them selves.. It take someone to do make the guns work.. If he teaches his child to respect a gun and not to play w/ them.. then the gun has no reason to go off killing one of her friends on accident!!


The diff is.. GS is talking about someone breaking into his house.. Not just shooting someone on the street b/c the guys 3rd cusin was shooting at GS's brother a month ago.

... NOt only that but Doctors (belive it or not) spend their lives trying to SAVE People... you only see a doctor if there is somthing wrong with you. I mean this is daft. of course people die - thats why the doctor/surgen is seeing you in the first place! - to help stop it from happening.

Guns have one purpose and one purpose only. To destroy - to kill. To end life. There is one purpose and ONE PURPOSE ONLY. Why are you obsessed with having somthing which represents nothin but death and destruction in your house? To bring kids up in a hosue with guns? Are you sane?

Here's a little thought experiment:

What is more likely to kill you or your family if kept in your house?

1) a gun.
2) a doctor.

You may pick one.

Guns are the most beautiful and graceful conceptions humankind has ever created. I think all children should be taught how to use guns at an early age(3-4 years). This would ensure that all the inept children would be killed off before breeding age and conservatism would die out.

I think the U.S. should continue to supply the world with weapons, because without weapons we would have to resort to less effective means of destroying each other, and this would significantly decrease leisure time. And what fun would killing be if you had to make an effort at it, ie. smashing someone's skull with a club.

In conclusion, until the U.S. reinstates slavery, rolls back the last 200 years of progressive causes, repeals women's suffrage, bans abortions, and establishes concentrations camps for all Muslims and Gays, we should lock our selves in our homes, clutching automatic weapons, chanting Bush/Cheney 04', so we can feel safe while watching American Idol. Also, all media outlets in the U.S. should replaced with the unbiased, objective reporting of Fox News.

Have you ever heard of hunting, BFG?  Do they just not do that sort of thing in England, or Europe?  I really hate to offend any animal-lovers out there.....but every now and then I like to go kill me I nice big Buck.  There's nothing in this world like really good deer meat.  Yummy.

lol Spetsnaz.

Oi. Opened up a big can of worms haha. Yes, doctors save people, but I was merely pointing out that gun accidents are far less common than people are led to believe. I wasn't talking about guns used in crimes. Crime has nothing to do with my argument. Doctors being great people and being overworked has nothing to do with it either. I love doctors! I was merely pointing out that accidents involving doctors happen much more often, and that as long as proper precautions are used, a gun is no more dangerous than any other tool in your house. Yes, tool. A gun is simply metal and wood, just like anything else. It just depends on how you use it. I wonder how many accidental deaths there are from chainsaws each year? It might surprise you. Honestly, I'd be more worried about GS's kids drinking bleach or drowning in a bucket of water than his kids getting into his guns and shooting themselves. Anyways, if you want to discuss gun safety and gun control, perhaps we should start a gun thread so we could all debate this, instead of tearing up this Michael Moore thread instead.  :)

Yep i hear there is some great game in downtown manhatten ;) no but seriously yeah i agree  -- to hunt, more specifically to shoot u need a gun. You don't need to own that gun however, you don't need to keep it in your house.

Ive spent a few days beating up north on grouse shoots - we get guys coming over from Saudi Arabia, belgian royalty and all sorts ono the Famous Stanhope moor. There is a lot of respect with handling these guns.  But i don't feel the need to own a gun - I don't want to right to own a gun. I respect the fact that there are people who's jobs require the use of a gun. But nobody else does.

There is enough violence in this world allready. The fewer 'tools' which aid this destruction the better.


And GS your absolutly right. Nothing like good deer meat :D Absoluutly nothing at all...Hmm haggis :D

BFG, I agree that there's enough violence in the world already. The fact is though, there's so many unregistered weapons floating around in the U.S. that it would be impossible to get them all. Even if we did, there'd still be weapons smuggled over the border. Unless we had policemen on every block or had martial law, crime would increase dramatically if we took away the right to bear arms. The only people who wouldn't be armed would be the law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't care if they break the law and acquire illegal weapons. Now I'm not saying everyone should own an AK-47 or something, and shoot anyone that comes into their home. However, guns are a good deterent, and if everyone had a gun in their home, it'd make criminals think twice before breaking into someone's home. Honestly though, if someone tried to steal my car, I'd let them take it instead of causing some big gun battle on the street lol. That gets very dangerous. There's nothing wrong with having a 12 gauge in your house though, just in case. Personally, I just plan on buying a few bolt action rifles to do some target practice with, and MAYBE a shotgun if I'm living in a bad area.

Apples and Oranges here BFG. Also, you're forgetting a few key facts.

First off, GS is talking about defense against criminals, not foreign nations (although I'm sure he'd be willing to kill them too).

Second, I seriously doubt GS would ever target the foreign nation's civilian population, particularly with suicide bombings against women and children, to defend his home. It's one thing to kill the enemy's military that invades your home, it's another entirely to murder their civilians back home.

Let me seperate that last bit to emphasize it. It's one thing to kill uniformed military personnel who invade your home. It's another to kill innocent civilians.

Like I've said before in other threads, I don't think either side is doing the right thing right now, but think about what you're saying for a moment.


Yes, of course there is. But in this case they were both talking about accidental deaths.



Firearms are tools. Nothing more. They happen to be designed to kill, but that does not change the fact that they are a tool. Any tool can be misused or abused.

On a similar note, cars are tools too. They are not designed to kill, but they cause more death in the US than guns do. I do not want to suggest that we restrict automobile use for the general population in the name of safety, just for those who are too inept to use an automobile safely and responsibly. I advocate similar controls on firearms.

Don't try to back your anti-gun stance with statistics and figures because it doesn't work, it just muddies the issue. There are many other things in this country which are far more dangerous, just cut to the chase and say what you mean: You think guns should be banned because they are designed to kill people. That is a moral argument, meaning you are never going to convince someone of a different moral mindset to see things your way.


As do I. That's a personal choice and it's not right to ridicule someone for choosing to live their life differently than yours. You preach tolerance but you viciously attack moral stances you don't agree with, that's hypocrisy and it only undermines any good points you might make.

Absolutly. To clarify i was refering to those who did not flee the bulldozers, those why tried to stay and protect their houses. By no means was i refering to suicide bombers.


Um i wasn't... i was questioning the "doctor / Gun " 'statistics', and pointing out the difference in the number of murders commited in countries such as austria as compaired to the US.


Cutting to the chase? saying what i think? Thats what i thought i was doing... hence why i was saying it...
I don't think it is justa moral argument. People argue that its their right etc, that you are taking away their rights if you do not allow them the right to be armed... What i am saying is i see no need for people to be armed. The whole thing about carrying arms is still being used a couple of hundred years after it was ment to be! a few expections aside, people do not need guns. You do not need a gun.
Ok on a moral note, yes i beleive it is extreamly irresponsible to mix guns and young children in a house however carfull a person is. The two in my opinion do not mix. end of story.


Yes. its a personal choice that i don't believe people should be allowed to have but it is there. i might disagree with it but it is there. I wouldn't call it a moral stance however.


********************************************************************************************************************************************

For those of you Old enough....

Someobody give me one good reason (just one) why you actually need a gun. Not why you think you should have one, but why you need one.... where you believe you need to own the gun - rather than hire it for hunting etc...

a reason why you feel you need to have a gun in your house.

Don't double post, thanks. -assassin heh cheers assasin

As you can tell, I have done some heavy moderating to split the threads. Please try to remain on topic in each of the two threads.

This is a true story, keep in mind.

Three guys in Iceland walk out of a bar, piss drunk, like you could not even believe.

One guy says  something to the effect of "Im going to show how manly i am by cutting on myself with a chainsaw!" So he revs up a chainsaw, takes off his foot.

The second guy, not to be outdone, states the same thing, then takes off his leg somewhere near the hip.

The third guy, says "oh yeah? watch this!!" grabs the chainsaw, and cuts off his head.

This is not a joke, well, it is, but it happened.  Allegedly.  I thought it was funny.

*Dings a bell* Ok people! Laughing time is over! Back to bitching at each other!!

~Lone

Thanks for taking the time to do that, Assassin. Much appreciated.  :)
"For those of you Old enough....
Someobody give me one good reason (just one) why you actually need a gun. Not why you think you should have one, but why you need one.... where you believe you need to own the gun - rather than hire it for hunting etc...a reason why you feel you need to have a gun in your house."

Self-defense, target shooting. I'd rather use my own gun than rent one that I'm unfamiliar with. Also, cleaning guns can be very relaxing.  ;D

And haha Lone. I know that kind of thing doesn't happen, but I know a few careful people that've done some damage to themselves with chainsaws.  :o

So america is in a internal arms race, strap or get.. . strapped??  :D

Would you not rather live in a place where noone has guns?

If such a place existed, sure. But it doesn't, and it never will.

No, wait. I just thought about this some more. I'd rather live in a place where I am the only one who has guns. ;D

It Is safer to use your own gun that you are familiar with and know when it was cleaned (and how well it was cleaned) last. Using a Gun that you are not familar with can cause prob (such as missfires and other probs) that can cause alot of harm to yourself if you are not familar with that particular gun that you are shooting.  Thats why I would rather own the gun that I'm shooting then rent one (although I do rent guns when i go to the shooting range that I am thinking of buying to see if I feel comforatble shooting it). If you go hunting with your own gun.. you know what the scope if set for.. you what it does when you pull the trigger (as in how hard it is to pull the trigger, how much recoil it has, if it shoot 100% straight or is is off alittle, etc). My dad had 3 rifles and 2 shotguns in the house when I was growing up.. He tought me how to shoot and how to handle guns properly. What is dangerous about having guns in a house with kids in the house are irresponsible parents not teaching there kids right and leaving the gun in easy access. Now I have been through some police training (back in the day when i was tring to get on the police force around here but had to have knee surgury so i could not finish it) and one of the things that I was tought was that you are more likly to be killed by someone with a knife then with a gun.,. due to the fact that someone w/ a knife can react faster then someone with a gun (due to the time it takes for you to get the gun out and aimed at the person.. they will already have a knife out and stuck into you).

Hmmm i think GS will agree with me....AMERICANS DONT GIVE A SHIT WHAT U EUROS THINK! ESPECIALLY THE FRENCH!

Today Baghdad, Tomarrow Paris

Hope yall are ready......

gee, that hurts !

And that is the reason why so much of the world regards America with about as much respect as the dogshit on your feet. Can't help but feel sorry for those intelligent american's who have to put up with this however.

.. Its quite amazing to think that some Americans are surprised that their soldiers, buildings, embassys, people are attacked.

As much aas I get in tiffs with the occational arogant and irresponsibly informed Euro, I find it flabergasting how often I come across the American Ditto-head, the American warmonger, the American wingnut.

How does gun control or Michael Moore's film fit into this?

In regards to Moore's film the argument is complex yet rings true: as Mussolini, the creator of fascism said, fascism should really be called corporatism. Moore's film isn't being repressed by the federal government, it's being repressed by a world bestriding corporation. Essentially, the corp is refusing to protect freedom of expression. Oh, and a corporation doesn't have to protect our basic freedoms, does it? That is the essence of why fascism is truly better called corporatism. The dittohead, the wingnut, the warmonger are all part and parcel to this because they are ignorant of the reality: democracy and corporate power doesn't mix. We look at Washington and bemoan all the special interests and the de-evolution our of political system. But I say the only special interests that matters are those of the individual citizen, not the conglomerate corporations. Why does it swing back around to Moore? Because he is the latest example of corporate power headbutting freedom of expression and the utility of the free market.

A related example: uber-big Book Stores like Brentanos, Barnes and Noble, even Amazon. These corps decide for us what we will read, what our "tastes" will be. They control our information. How? They own the floor space. They position which books where. And if they put book X by the front door and by the check out stand, and book Y in the back, then which will sell more? Regards of quality, book X. Ditto for TV, Film ... the only truly free market is the internet. In sum, there is an immense element of control over you and I which corporations possess.

As for gun control: I'm still fairly devided on this. As much as if I had my way I'd take every gun out of the hands of every citizen I'm not sure if it is the right, ie moral, thing to do. I was reading this website while looking for evidence to support my anti-gun views. And in general I found it very hard to find huge numbers of gun related deaths. Here's the site:

http://www.tincher.to/myths.htm (http://www.tincher.to/myths.htm)     for myths

http://12.4.65.102/search/search.idq?CiRestriction=total+deaths&IMAGE1.x=12&IMAGE1.y=13&CiScope=%2F&FastDir=%2Fsearch&HTMLQueryForm=search.htm (http://12.4.65.102/search/search.idq?CiRestriction=total+deaths&IMAGE1.x=12&IMAGE1.y=13&CiScope=%2F&FastDir=%2Fsearch&HTMLQueryForm=search.htm)               for car death data

Have I been taken in by the dark side? No. But when I can't find any compelling numbers - and certainly something along the lines of 30,000 gun related deaths a year is compeling, it just can't compare to the rate of vehicular deaths (40k+) and the accidents by doctors rate.

I've shot guns. My buddies own a few. And when handled with extreme care and skill there is little to be worried about - aside from the fact that you can never predict all the potential mishaps. But then again, my iBook could conceivably explode right now.

How does this swing back to the wingnuts, the warmongers, the dittoheads? They take this issue very seriously. It's their version of the abortion issue - it's a Right they think is important to have.

Now my issue with this is that it's bullshit that this Right - the right to bear arms - has any value today. It doesn't. In fact, being the big Liberal I am, I think gun ownership isn't a right it's a prevligde. Out laws reflect that. If you are a crimminal you are banned from buying guns. However i think that it is sensible to force citizens who wish to get a firearm to prove to the state that they can use that weapon responsibly. I'm all for stoping the bad guy from killing your family - blah blah blah. But when it comes you driving a car, or flying a plane, for example, the state and civil society has a vested interest in you being about to handle that vehicle. Thus too it has an interest in you being able to handle a gun. Frankly, I think EVERYONE can agree that if you can't pass a firearm safety test you shouldn't be allowed to own or purchase a gun. Just like how if you fail your drivers test you don't get to drive your car.

So to the ditto heads, I just want to make the federal government more powerful. :P

We're coming to get you.

What?  Who gives a fuck what you think?

Sit down and eat your Cheerios.

Nah, I can't really say that I agree with you, Rebel.  I mean, really, who the fuck wants to own Paris?  That is one city I don't ever care to visit again.

This is one liberal that is not trying to take your gun rights away. Infact, I think Bill Clinton went too far when he banned our right to have automatic weapons (If you join a militia there is a way to get around that). The point I want to try to make, is that the American forefathers gave the right to bear arms to protect their other freedoms. If a government becomes tyrannical it can be overthrown by popular resistance.

Here is one good quote I like: "Mass murderers agree, Gun control works!"

I dont think uzis can do much to tanks.  And a popular resistance doesn't need to use guns, ghandi proved that.

Um, not really. If there's anything we can interprete from Iraq it's that a well armed group of rabble is not going to be very successful against a modern army. The revolutionary war was the last war of revolution in the west in which the arming of the local populace contributed to the rebel victory. However, everyone forgets that the reason we won the revolutionary war was because France intervened and fought England all over the globe, as well as sending an expeditionary force to the Americas. All we managed to do was not be overrun completely. Everyone glosses over that part.

In the case of a truly "tryannical" government in modern America your small arms are not going to save you. Can anyone say M1A2 and 120mm cannon? Come on man. Be real.

It's utter bull that being armed protects you from the Feds. It simply doesn't and it won't ever again. If they want to get you they will. They way we stop them isn't by force of arms but force of will - the  true success of the revolutionary war was that Americans didn't quit when they were beaten time and again.

Frankly, even the notion of popular resistance in modern America is fairly silly. What, you think that they're will just suddenly be a resistance to a tryanical government? Consider the examples from modern history - Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany for two examples, and fascist Italy - and you can see that those governments were in large part supported by the people. And when the people turned against the government or the enemies conquered them, that was when they failed. Armed uprisings didn't do it.

Consider that the only two ways our Federal government could ever become tryannical would be to declare marshal law or suspend the constitution (say, in the event of a nuclear attack (FEMA) or in the event of a catestrophic attack (invasion, wide spread terrorist attacks)), tryanical governments are pretty unlikely.

You presume that any sort of tryannical government would be wholly opposed by the people. But considering how one would come about you can expect the people to be devided as to what to do. Having guns doesn't make it any clearer who the bad guys are. It just lets you feel safer and kill people.

To persist in believing that because you own a few guns you'll make some sort of difference is to be ignorant of reality. The reason why the US doesn't USE militia anymore (having replaced them with National Guard - ie trained and semi-trained troops) is because militia suck. Everyone who says being armed will protect you from Federal tryanny is harping back to the days of Washington and revolution. But they forget that by the end of the War of 1812 militia units were no longer used ... because they were ineffective. Why let the local politician lead a bunch of commoners into battle when you could draft them, arm with with marshall weapons rather than civilian weapons, and bring them into the coherent fold of the US Armed Forces?

In any event, you're not going to bring down the Feds by storming Washington, not while there's still an Army, Air Force, and Navy. What you can do is try to convince those that make up those services to put down their arms. You won't do that at the end of a AR-15. Not when they are professionals with professional weapons.

Yeah... I mean lets face it what does paris have to offer. Apart from the fact it is one of the greatest Cultural centers of the world, is a beautiful city, and has a awsome history.

.... erm yeah....

For christ's sake. Do you people really feel that threatened by gun owners? Let people have guns if they use them safely. Cars are just as dangerous, and cause more accidents, but you don't see people protesting Chevy. "Oh, but guns are designed to kill people!" Big deal. You can kill someone with anything. There's no real argument against guns, other than that they can be used in crimes. However, guns that are acquired legally are very rarely used in crimes in the first place. Now, I agree that some level of training should be required before someone purchases a gun, just like needing a driver's license to drive a car. With the proper precautions, a gun isn't any more dangerous than the knives you cut your steaks with...or cucumbers and asparagus, in the cases of some. Actually, with the proper precautions, a gun is far less dangerous than a steak knife. Hmm.

That is the reason the forefathers put the 2nd amendment into the constitution. I did not say a popular resistance group would neccesarily be victorious.
Just to play the other side of the conversation I will detail to you about popular resistance groups. First of all, the Chechen rabble seems to be doing well against the Russian Army in Groznyy (the chechens are about to loose, but they have inflicted a large amount of casualties on Russia). The Afghan mujahedeen did well against the Soviets in the 80s. True they did have help from the CIA but that also outlines another point. If there was a popular resistance in the US you say that many people would not support them. Taking that same logic there would probablly be factions within the military that would join the popular resistance groups, thus adding a level of proffesionalism to any sort of cause. There would also be other nations that may profit from a new regime in Washington, thus supplying said resistance with arms and advisors. Of coarse this is all speculation and there is no way to really proove or proove otherwise. Civil Wars usually divide everybody, even the leading military. To support the point that popular resistance does succeed I will leave you with a list of a few conflicts that started out as peasant revolts.

Russian Revolution (Unlike the other conflicts I will post, the reds were victorious without         foreign help or aid).
Chinese Revolution
Ethiopian Revolution
Iranian Revolution
Afghan War of the 80's and against the Brits in the 19th Century
Vietnam (against the French)

Sixhits, hold your tounge when concerning Iraq. It has only been a year since we invaded. The sequence of events could change drastically either way. These things usually take a while to unfold. After all, It took the Vietnamese 25 years after the fall of Dien Bien Phu to finally acheive peace. The Afghans are still trying to acheive a peace they have not known since Soviet tanks rolled through Kabul in the late seventies.



Now onto a totally different subject. Rebel I have been observing your posting latley. I have always wondered why you still have the name rebel. You dont seem very revolutionary. Maybe you should consider changing your name to patsie.

Lotsa good points.

The Chechen rabble aren't fighting mother Russia with glocks and hunting rifles. Plus, the Russian conscripts are not the world's finest troops. Additionally, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Russian will to win in Chechnia just doesn't exist.

Again, the Afghans, as you pointed out, beat back the Russians with significant foriegn support. I believe it was the stinger A-A missile which turned the tide.

If there was a popular uprising in the US, framed against a tryanical government, then I would expert some sort of foriegn aid. But, the point I was trying to draw out was that it is pointless to ground the Right to Bear Arms on the need for a militia because no modern militia could stand up to the might of the US armed forces. Hence, to insist on a right to bear arms because you need arms in order to secure your rights from a potential Federal government's tryanny (absurd in the extreme, considing it is the existance of the Federal government which secures our rights) then you are basing your right to bear arms on a flawed argument. (whew)

Yep, it's likely that if shit happened not all the soldiers would swing to the tryanny-side. Of course, still no validation of the concept that individual ownership of civilian weapons = secure rights.

Finally, if there are those that would support the freedom fighters there are those too who would support the tryanical goverment.



But I agree with you: it's all hogwallop to talk about this stuff. I was trying to illustrate the absurdity of the argument that one needs a right to bear arms in order to maintain thier rights, because presumably the Feds are going to up and end America. Or something like that. ;)

Yes the Chechens were fighting so well is because they have access to Kalishnikovs and the sort that the US government does not allow.

The Russian will to win exists. The populous as a whole wants Russia to become a superpower once again. This means that they want the Chechens subdued and many of the former soviet republics like the Ukraine and Kazakhstan back under Russian control (there have been polls ran in the Ukraine and Belerus which suggests that they want to be back under Moscow).

This brings me to another point. Many in America would rather die fighting than live kneeling. So even if it is hopless against the feds, atleast they can resist.

Going back to one of your other posts, I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of criminals and we should institute a three day background check.

You forget I've been there.  Some of the rudest people I ever met in my life I met in Paris.  And awesome History?  Which part?  The part where they surrender at the drop of a hat (ANY hat), or maybe the part where the Nazis marched right into town because they were a bunch of pussies that didn't even believe in their own defense (which is really bad considering how close they came to losing WWI).  I just hope that someday somebody else tries to invade France, and on that great and glorious day, I really hope the United States just sits back and laughs at them.

Do you know why the French plant trees along their blvds in Paris?

So the invading Armies can march in the shade.

Hey !
Wake up, you were dreaming...

Considering how you behave im surprised they didnt send you home in a fucking box.

Many of my relatives died in that war, fighting to defend britain and to help the french resistance, Many french men and women fought desperatly for their country, harder than you will ever imagine, I know of countless stories of increadably brave french civilians who sacrified themselves to help defend their country.  Don't be so fucking aragant about those who gave up their lives so you can sit their spewing your fucking bullshit.  What do you know about these people and who the fuck are you to say they were cowards who did not care about their country?

You don't know how right you are, Bobby.  Because the sad truth is, no matter how bad France, or any other nation in Europe, talks bad about the United States, we would always come to their aid if they needed us.  Europe ridicules us, thinks our form of government is a joke because we don't partake in socialism, they try to block our every move in the United Nations and elsewhere, yet we still call them our friends and we would still come help them out of any disaster, no matter if it is natural or human-inflicted.

The only problem I have with Europe is that they don't appreciate that fact.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

I say we ban cars right after we ban guns.  I mean, the speed limit in most areas is 55mph (US of course).  Those Satanic motor companies make the cars go up to 120mph in most cases.  They are asking us to become human death bullets on the highways.  They do this knowingly that you can never drive 120mph almost anywhere legally, and that most speeds over 65 are almost always fatal.

Not only that, but in most crimes, cars are the means of getting away.  I mean, imagine a world without cars where a guy shoots a few people.  We could catch him a few blocks away because that is how far his out of shape ass can run. Without his car he is no match for the law and crime will fall through the floor.  We can then set up criminal investigations for marathon runners because the only reason they are getting fit would be to run away from a crime. Crime would drop as criminals realize they can't get anywhere.

In fact, most crimes are done by repeating felons.  We shouldn't ban guns, we should just make them wear red or some other bright color.  This way when they walk around in public everyone will notice and be aware of a possible attack.  If they do something fishy, it would be morally acceptable to kick the tar out of these possible "shooters" or offenders.

I support these measures instead of banning guns. Let's adopt other stupid ideas that we think will lessen crime.  I mean, a criminal is going to commit a crime no matter what you do, so let us just ban all things that we think will help.  This does sound slippery slope, but in fact most laws (at least in california) are resulting do to thinking such as this.  Let people govern themselves, we should pass more laws to weed out the idiots and not to punish the whole population.

Many of my relatives also died in that war.  To defend the British and to liberate the French.  That's my point.  We came over there....where we were not being invaded, just to help Europe.  And you do not appreciate that.  That is my only point.  I'm not talking about how all of Europe should kiss our ass, or how every nation in Europe should side with the United States and all of our policies.  I'm just saying you should appreciate the fact that we saved your asses in two World Wars, bailed the French out of Vietnam, and are there any time you fuck things up and need our help (Bosnia and Kosovo being two recent examples).

Just a little appreciation.  For the most part, Great Britain does appreciate us.  But at the same time, France and much of the rest of Europe would just as soon spit on us as look at us.

Ghostsniper,
First of all, with all your education in history and your military service, you know that NATO requires the US to defend France if they are attacked...and vice-versa. Those are the terms of the treaty, so there is no "we would go help them cuz we are so nice, even if they do'nt appreciate it" shit.
Second, the US did'nt bail France out of the Vietnam war....they insisted that france stay and supplied them. without US military support, France would have been out of Indochina long before Dien Bien Phu. I'm not trying to make a point just stating the facts.
Third, the US did'nt join WW2 in Europe out of charity or to Britain and France, Hitler declared war on the US. It was'nt the sight of french people deprived of baguette and goat cheese that pushed us into WW2.
Appreciation? So 50 years later the world needs to appreciate the fact that the US joined WW2 only when it had absolutely no other choice. Do you show any appreciation to the Russian people, who are the reason that there werent 20 german armoured division waiting at Utah and Omaha beach on d-day? Also, by the same token, do you think the people of vietnam, panama or serbia should feel animosity towards the US?
Also the whole gun arguement is completely pointless. What the euro anti-gun people need to understand is that america isnt europe. People live in isolated, open spaces where a lot of them need to be armed to feel safe. Others simply state that "guns are cool". Whatever the reasons, you can never convince an american to give up his guns with rational reasons because the reasons they keep them in the first place tends to be irrational. And to the american people who are pro gun: The second amendment doesnt make any sense because the government has napalm and you have ak-47 thats been converted to fire only semi-auto. Who do you think is gonna win? So stop repeating that stupid BS about militias protecting you from the government. Just say "guns are cool and killing little animals makes me feel like a man" and were cool de la. Rationality will get you nowhere if trying to defend your right to arm bears.

laters

I think you're forgeting the part when the French gave us our Liberty from the English at the end of their guns and ships, and at the cost of their blood. France is and will always be an Ally of ours. We're just rivals as well.


They emulated our form of government. They are all democracys. We were the first, the greatest, and the icon. But they are just like us, only a little different. It may sound like they are yapping about what our government is but what they really are talking about is what our government does.

And you know what? If shit happened here I would bet you my life that the Euros would show up. Maybe a lil late ...  (tea and stumpets, anyone? Siestas?) but they'd come.

As much as I hate to admit it, even Bush managed to get several nations to help in Iraq. Nothing compared to what his father did, but they are there. They just happen to be smarter than us - they're getting out while the gettings good.


And what would be apt appreciation? Letting us do whatever we will? Following us around like puppy dogs? They appreciate us. They honestly do. But they are men and have Pride.

Appreciation, like respect, cuts both ways. And it is earned. And it can be lost. So to demand appreciation without giving it, to expect it without giving it, is to loose it. You know why they nip at our heels in the UN? Because we fucking designed it so that they could. Because better men than us understood what it meant to have Allies and how dear they are, even in the best of times, because you will need them in the worst. We complain that France or Germany can, say, veto our resolution to invade Iraq. But you know what? They have that right and they have every right to do so.

And like with all true friendships you cannot force your friends to do something - you can only ask them. I'd say we've been pretty untrue friends to Europe. A friend doens't loan money to a friend and then lord over them for the rest of the lives. A friend doesn't shout down everything their pal wants to do. A friend listens. A friend is considerate. A friend is someone you can rely on. Right now, the Euros have every reason to be worried. Cause we're not acting like we're buddies anymore. We're acting like we're Kings.

There's nothing wrong with the French. lol. The thing is, two rude cultures (Us Americans and the French) don't go together very well. Now, back to guns! I don't know why people who are against guns feel so morally superior to those who own them. Give it a rest. If you don't want to own a gun, that's fine, don't buy one. Nobody's forcing you to get one. However, when someone tries to force their views on someone else, it really pisses me off. I don't go around forcing my religion (or lack thereof) or my vegetarianism on you guys, so don't shove that anti-gun crap down my throat. Abe says there's no rational reason to own a gun, yet we've already given several. Personally, with the way this country's going down the drain, it seems like a smart time to have a gun.

Please prepare for my Survivalist crazy theories and hypothetical situations here.

Who knows what would happen if a terrorist managed to set off a nuke in a major city or two. It is a very real possibility. There'd be rioting, looting, all sorts of crazies running around doing whatever they wanted because the power was out and the local authorities were too busy doing something else. What's to stop some whack job from breaking into my home and robbing me? A gun! That's right. I would feel a lot safer having a gun in that situation than hiding in my closet waiting for the military or the police to come and calm things down. At least I would have some sense of security, and could keep myself somewhat safe.

End hypothetical Survivalist scenario.
I know that kind of killed my credibility and makes me sound like the biggest loon around, but oh well. Just think about it. All you Euros go on talking about how crazy Americans are and such. If you lived in America, wouldn't you want a gun to protect yourself from the other American psychos?  ;D

You make one lil slip up ...

First modern democracy.

Yes, yes we're not the fucking Greeks.

one little slip up ;)

Sixhits and abe, i wish i could keep calm enough and formulate my thoughts well enough to post as clear as you guys do. really good stuff :D

abe, i've never used the militia/anti-government line to defend the right to own firearms. I've used nothing but rational thought. But apparently you can't use rational arguements against irrational people...

So, in case you missed it, here's a reprise:

Alaric: good point on the bold stuff:

We are making a moral argument. We're also making an emotional argument. It's hard to convince those that disargee when you are making moral and emotional arguments. You can only hope something sticks in someone's heart.

For those of you on the West Coast...check out Law + Order tonight.  The episode relates to this thread dealing with the sticky cross-over issues of legal gun ownership + mis-usage, federal civil rights abuse, one normal mom and pop family trying to make ends meat, scandal and murder.  

A man has taken justice into his own hands or was it government cover-up.  Strong valid points on both sides, but the final argument lands and sticks.  (It's ghostsniper on trial)

Nobody saw the law and order show i bet?  

So a big coorperation wanted to buy out a mom + pop store.  Mom and Pop refuse, then they receive a ridiculous water bill from the city saying they owe $29,000.  Corruption or mistake? this part is not answered, but the family views it as corruption.  Hearing that they may go out of business they lose clients.  The family store begins making illegal shipments to make ends meat and salvage their business.  Without knowledge to the family the counter terrorism/Feds begin investigating the illegal shipments, breaking into their house, taking things, etc. Illegal or Legal warrents? Civil liberties are being broken.  Family feels they're being harassed with nowhere to go.  The son takes justice into his own hands and shoots two councilmen at city hall.  Their house is raided again by the Feds under secret warrants.  Meanwhile the son is being taken to trial for murder.  Prosecution argues son is guilty.  Defense is charging that the government conspired against the family with Illegal searches, breaking constitutional ammendments, etc. and that to convict the son then that opens the doors for government abuse.  Prosecution closes with - If you don't like the law then you take it up with your legislature and by voting, not shooting people.  Despite federal and coorperate abuses, the son is found guilty for murder.  The show ends on an awkward note.  You can't help but feel sorry for the family.    

   

Alaric,
I'm not necessarily in favor of nationwide gun control in the US, except to keep people who are criminals or psychos from getting them. I think mostly it should be up to state and local goverments to determine what the laws should be as the US is a vast country and in some places firearms are more appropriate than others. I'm talking about handguns, shotguns and rifles here, not assault rifles, landmines, rocket launchers, tactical nukes....
Responsible gun ownership is fine, but i don't think it will make you much safer, unless you live in a really shitty neighborhood. Most gunowner have guns because they are cool, which is a totally legitimate reason to have them, but far from rational. Thats what i meant in my other post.
Yes, guns are different from because they are specifically designed to kill people, but also because that makes them incredibly easy to use. Running somone over with your car or stabbing them with a knife are harder and take much greater physical and mental effort to do than shooting somone with a gun.
Firearms are much more accessible in the US than anywhere else. If guns were as easily to get a hold of in Europe i'm sure the homicide rate would be much higher there. Does that make sense the other way around as well? Practically speaking though, it doesnt make sense to take away peoples guns because then it would indeed only be the criminals who have them. So in conclusion, I think the whole debate about guns is pointless.

No it isn't...we aren't on 24/7 like some of you might believe.

I beg to differ... It is easier and quicker to stab someone w/ a knife... lets say you are 4 ft away from someone.. they pull out a knife........ you go to pull out your gun.... they will stabb and kill you b4 you are able to get a shot off..... thats a proven fact that is taught to law enforcment all over.

Yes, as a rule, a person can cover 20 feet in the time it takes an officer to pull and aim his weapon. This is why when things get confrontational, they don't want you close to them. And also why people get shot just for rushing a cop with ANY kind of weapon in their hand.

.. sorry didn't mean to go on. Just got seriously pissed by that comment. pretty disgusting.

Was it the original Law and Order?  Or was it SVU or some shit?  Cuz' I only watch the original Law and Order, seen every episode too.  :)