Since the gun debate thread ran wayyyyyyyy off topic.....

posted on April 15th, 2011, 3:58 am

Haven't you ever played Fallout 3 we annex Canada 

No, I haven't actually.

[Tok`ra]

posted on April 15th, 2011, 4:12 am

Last edited by Tok`ra on April 15th, 2011, 4:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

No, I haven't actually.

[youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geLiEiAiQJA[/youtube]

Protip: Guy on his knees is canadian

posted on April 15th, 2011, 4:16 am

well, just thinking here, when somebody does something illegal and we want to stop people doing this thing again how can we (the state really) punish them. maybe we could lock them up in a prison?

srs: thats what we do in the uk, people get caught with guns, they (usually) go to jail. uk has far less gun crime.

true but you have terroist  blow up airports and trains and busses  with  bombs.Here In Texas  we put  terroists  in a pine box or at least a wheel chair and jail.

posted on April 15th, 2011, 4:17 am

Aye, death penalty is great for taking the scum out of circulation for good.

posted on April 15th, 2011, 4:33 am

Of the two regeimes  in the  from  1900- 2000 century that had severely restricted  its citizens rights to posses firearms with in a few years  they terroized its citizens. The leaders...  Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin.  Of the one in the 19 century that restricted its citizens  to posses  and abbrogated thoze citizens rights wound up losing  a vast  portions of its holdings aka what is now know as  Texas , California, New Mexico and Arizona.  The same thing goes for the  former British colony  of America ,when it citizens are treated as Chattle .  A club, pitchfork is no match for a  cannon or musket. that is why some seek to restrict its peoples ownership of said  defense.

posted on April 15th, 2011, 4:45 am

It's certainly why the british are treated thusly, their goverment never lost it's taste for power even tho it lost it's empire, so it's people are it's new chattel.

Same for most of Europe really.

I mean in many parts of Europe if you say something deemed offensive you can be sent to jail, IIRC a dutch member of parliament is facing a trial over just that.

Then there is the german families that have been within the past few years granted political assylum in the US because they wanted to homeschool their children, as they were not allowed to opt their children out of aspects of the standardized educational plan there (IE: Sex ed which they had religiolus objections to).

The real irony ? That was a law the Nazi's put in place.

And there are multiple european countries doign the exact same thing, if I remember right the dutch in one case took a kid off of a plane at an airport, the family planed to move to some other country were the mother  was from and home school him.

Another case, also dutch if Im remembering right, a family tried to take it to court, and was not allowed to use their lawyer, because that lawyer 'argued too much' (IE: won too much) and they were only allowed to use a court appointed autorney.

posted on April 15th, 2011, 5:06 am

I personally believe that America will never be invaded because there are not any major powers on our continent and the logistics of a full invasion across either ocean is enormous, that and these things called thermonuclear weapons that would turn any invasion into barbecue, nukes these days are very tactical after all   

Clearly you never played MW2

posted on April 15th, 2011, 5:07 am

or homefront

posted on April 15th, 2011, 5:56 am

Then there is the german families that have been within the past few years granted political assylum in the US because they wanted to homeschool their children, as they were not allowed to opt their children out of aspects of the standardized educational plan there

And why is it bad if everyone is forced to have a basic education in everything?
I mean homeschools lead by uneducated or even fanatic parents...how is this any good for society and the individual?

I cant believe that you construct more and more absurd arguments just to keep your weapons...this just prooves what I said in the other thread. Why do you bring those topics at all if you dont want to argue on a fair basis? I bet no argument, not even the best, can change your mind about the greatness of running around with a gun, shooting in the air, and jerking of at the same time. Btw. do you know the Simpsons spisode where Homer buys a gun?

posted on April 15th, 2011, 5:59 am

that was a great episode 

posted on April 15th, 2011, 6:04 am

And why is it bad if everyone is forced to have a basic education in everything?
I mean homeschools lead by uneducated or even fanatic parents...how is this any good for society and the individual?

I was homeschooled and my parents are neither.

posted on April 15th, 2011, 7:13 am

It's never likely to happen because there are less than a million cops.

Aside from the fact that a vast majority of them would refuse to enforce such a law, those attempting to do so would be short for life.


As for me, I'll let Jefferson and a few others, far more eloquent,  speak for me.......

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Why don't you Americans use your weapons then to defend yourself against the tyranny of your government?

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

This is exactly the explanation Mao Zedong gave for his culture revolution. There has to be a revolution every now and then, otherwise the party gets corrupt.

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
-- Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942

Oh yeah, America is very polite, especially concerning, Blacks, Hispanics, communists, unemployed people...

You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.
-- Rush Limbaugh, in a moment of unaccustomed profundity 17 Aug 1993

As for Jolly old England......... (with commentary from me noted with a * and a few profound quotes)

When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state".
Love your country, but never trust its government.
-- Robert A. Heinlein.

The media assures that most people trust their government, how much crap the US American government has to do until the people rises? I've heard about that strike in Wisconsin some weeks ago, that made me a bit optimistic  though.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

This is really an interesting one.

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

Marx and Engels also demanded "Volksbewaffnung" (giving arms to the people) at about that time(8years later). I think it's an outdated thought of the uprisings in the 19th century.

He, not wanting a swarm of cops at his place, goes and turns it into the local chief of police.

He nearly got 5 years in jail for that, simply because he touched it. (hey brits, if that happens to you, turn the bullets over first... may as well EARN that jail time ).

In Germany it was allowed to handle unregistered guns over to the police without being touched by the law for some years. Afterwards, you'd have been punished for the possession. I think it's a useful way to get rid of them. It worked, thousands of weapons were brought to the police stations(only in Germany, were the gun laws are already quite strict).
By the way, the USA are already the country with the most imprisoned people in the world(percentagewise). Don't tell me you care about some more.

[Anonymous]

posted on April 15th, 2011, 11:02 am

Last edited by Anonymous on April 15th, 2011, 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's certainly why the british are treated thusly, their goverment never lost it's taste for power even tho it lost it's empire, so it's people are it's new chattel.

Same for most of Europe really.

I mean in many parts of Europe if you say something deemed offensive you can be sent to jail, IIRC a dutch member of parliament is facing a trial over just that.

wow you're ignorant.

yeah european goverments are tyrannical and enslave their people cos we dont all have guns 

having guns doesnt make your government more accountable, it increases your gun crime. london has about ten times the population of baltimore but far less gun crime...

when was the last time the american people rose up and used their guns challenged a tyrannical government?

thats probably the silliest thing i've ever heard you say (which is saying something)

your quotes are meaningless, made by a lot of dead people. and did you actually quote rush limbaugh  nothing that comes out of such an idiot's mouth can be called profound, it can barely be called speech.

oh and dont misquote ghandi, he made that quote about the british colonialism in india, about how the british wouldnt enlist indian troops into the WWI war effort. not about private ownership of guns, he was actually against violence.

---

EDIT: typo dead.

[Andre27]

posted on April 15th, 2011, 12:19 pm

Last edited by Andre27 on April 15th, 2011, 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

If you are going to quote me, then include the link i posted as well. In the Netherlands we recently had a shootout in a shopping mall,

You ask if we need to be brought to, and i quote, "such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence". I argue that it is neither humiliating nor a debasing degradation, but common sense to restrict firearms to law enforcement and the military.

If the shootout in the Netherlands (and i know there have been similar incidents in the US and Germany) shows us anything is the inherent danger of firearms.

When possession of firearms is allowed then controlling their usage will become ever more difficult.
Usage of firearms for "self defense" is a contradiction in terms. Allow firearms for "self defense" and firearms will be used as an offensive tool as well.

As I've stated, I've been in the military and I've used firearms so I am quite familiar with their appeal and inherent danger. It's the inherent danger that i believe is most important.

If you live in the outback i can understand possession of firearms for self defense, but anywhere near urban areas/civilization i believe it is better to be safe than sorry and restrict the ownership of firearms through a zero tolerance system.

You only need a single person with firearms to create a bloodbath so it is better to err on the side of caution and restrict those firearms to law enforcement and the military.

It is their job to protect so trust them to do that instead of going all paranoid and wanting to own firearms for self defense.

Edit: annoying typo

 

posted on April 15th, 2011, 1:20 pm

If the shootout in the Netherlands (and i know there have been similar incidents in the US and Germany) shows us anything is the inherent danger of firearms.

That's undeniably true.

In addition to that; Most people just cannot get to a responsible behaviour while carrying a gun. Most strapped guys just can't wait to get an opportunity to show "I've got the power to kill you in just one hand." and point their weapon on somebody. Militaries and cops at least went through more or less intensive training units ("more or less" because there are folks among them who also cannot handle weapons in a responsible manner, civilians carrying guns are worse in most cases though).