Gun "control" - to protect or disarm the citizens?

Post Reply New Topic

I think that's out of range, from here.



I'm a proud gun owner, too. I have "too many guns" of all types and Proud Of It! I totally agree with your view Bazza-man, although I use really ugly wording sometimes on this subject.

Too DAMN bad about your heirlooms, but that's the kind of crap that happens when bleeding heart people react with a knee jerk. You guys need an 'amendment' it sounds like. Problem is they've been chipping away at our Second Amendment for almost 50 years and it's getting weaker.

First, well done to Quartermass for standing his ground alone.
Second, well done to everyone for apologising after they got angry, I hope my post doesn't make people angry again.

Well the declaration of independence read:


Which suggests to me that it is not necessary to kill the president (not to mention all his “hirelings”) to change the system of government. Further, I would like to point out that in these times of patriotism and fear, if an american citizen were to suggest the abolition of the current system of government (as is his “right” under the declaration) that citizen would at best be ignored, and at worst mercilessly executed.


In a system where guns start legal, criminals will be able to get them more easily. In a system where guns are illegal (or more restricted) criminals may still get them, but they will get less and ammunition will be less available.


You have an excellent point about the cars. Cars (or the drivers) do kill and injure many people. And I think driving licenses should be harder to get, and you should only drive if you need to (though that’s partly to save the environment and fuel supply). However, cars are not really “weapons” as such. Yes, they can kill people, but you can’t carry one in your pocket, and shoot 3 people in 3 seconds. They are not designed as weapons and they are not as effective as weapons. And they also have a use, which is transport. You can argue that guns have a use besides killing, and that use is target shooting. However, a gun does not need to be able to kill, to make for fun target shooting. As I suggested to you in a another thread, use an air-rifle. You responded that air rifles were not as fun for you. I suggest that you have a desire for power, and that is why the air rifle is “no fun”. So the real issue is not that guns have a use, but that you are afraid of being helpless.



You may be a brilliant marksman, you may have brilliant marksmen for friends. And the US Military may well be a bit of a shambles. However I do not think that you could stand up to a force that is; numerically superior, better armed, better armoured, better trained, and has; alternate weapons (tear gas etc…), hi-tech communications & support, and air support.

As such an armed populace will not function as a fail-safe, not against external invasion, nor against internal oppression.




I will end by reminding you that you did ask for my opinion, so please don’t be too annoyed that I have given it. Sorry for the length of this post.

It is Because of the fact that a certain cross section of the populace has no clue about the true nature of the world that our Founding Fathers thought it necessary to re-state the ten most important rights which the constitution promises to protect.

They made these statements into Amendments for a specific reason ... to make it really difficult to over run our basic human rights. Arming oneself just happens to be number 2. It is a simple and basic human right and it should not be altered.

Thank you. I'll overlook the matter that you misspelt my nick (no "r"). At least your argument was more coherent than mine as of late.

I'll leave y'all with a single incoherent (or is it?) word that you may dismiss as the ravings of a loony.

THANATOS!

Think on it.

Don't worry about it - you're not the only one that raves on

Yeah some Dark Lord of the Sith is in the background hoping that is true. The number
of arms in civil hands is increasing ever year in the US. I can walk into my local Wal-mart
and walk out with a high-powered rifle with a scope and a basket full of ammo. The 2nd
amend is here and unlikley to change. New production of fully automatic weapons stopped in 1986 and there are other restriction on magazine size, silencers, barrel lenghts, etc
and some states have a waiting periods(many instant check) but you can pretty much
buy what you want if your not convicted of a serious crime.

Why is then (I am told) that every adult in Switzerland has a semi-auto and ammo in their house. Its not the banking system that kept Switzerland from being invaded in WW2, its their tradition of being mercenaries and the fact that the whole country is armed to its teeth. (requirement of compulsory military service)

I like the Swiss.

Last edited by BazzaMcKenzie on 11 Sep 2006, 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So much for being "neutral"...

Sorry about the mis-spell Quatermass.

I'm not going to have internet for a while now, and I don't have time to respond now. But stand by, I'll respond eventually.

Hm, honestly, they only took the Jews' firearms. "Decent Germans" could pretty easily get a gun legally: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/harcourt_nazigun.html

It's not enough with guns alone. The people must have the spirit to use them against the tyrants.

No, realistic thinking.

In Europe we never had referendums on this. One day we were free men with the right to defend ourselves, the next day we were subjects and defenseless cowards. And this was not in Nazi- Germany, it was in Sweden, Norway, UK, so called "democracies" - up my arse!

There should of course only be a Second Amendment and no local or state restriction laws whatsoever. In my country we never had a Second Amendment, the guns were allowed just because they weren't illegal. So one day 1934 you at sudden couldn't get a pistol without a license. No one complained, not much, though, since Swedes seldom do complain about unjustice.

You're probably right there, but the idea that the people had the right to keap and bear arms was something fantastic at that time (and still is). My country was a dictatorship (at least with the view of 2006) and so were most countries on earth at this time.


No system will ever start with guns being illegal. All human systems have always started with things being legal at first and then restricted or illegal. That's part of human nature. And to sharpen my point: those who get hold of the guns easiest and the most dangerous guns are the most dangerous and ruthless criminals. And even if you could outlaw every gun for citizens, would that make you safe? Would you rely on the governments forces (police and military) being armed or would you disarm them as well? If the government still had armed forces and every citizen was defenseless and the state became a dictatorship, what then? Would you like that to happen?



Yes. Aren't you? And I'm not afraid of death, since we all going to die one day. I just don't want my last thought to be that I was killed by a criminal because I was a law abiding, disarmed sheep. Not to speak of being molested. And I'm neither want to be a slave under some dictator because I didn't had a firearm. Would you?

But they can't control the whole US territory. They could kill most of the American people and destroy vast areas, but they would than have a desert to "rule" over. And the can't keep every square mile of the US occupied...



No offense whatsoever.

Being neutral is not the same as being unarmed. Being neutral is not taking side in a conflict...