pyro
Full Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by pyro on Sept 15, 2004 16:41:50 GMT -5
Sorry, I was looking to start an argument.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Sept 15, 2004 18:37:59 GMT -5
I just think that's bullshit kender. You're a lot more likely to get gunned down by the next incarnation of the DC sniper with an assault rifle than you are likely to be involved in the violent overthrow of the US gov't. Well, as I said in my post, I doubt that I'll live to see a time when a violent overthrow of the U.S. government will be required. I believe, however, that part of the reason for that is because our citizens have the right to bear arms, and thus have the capacity to fight back against a tyrant. There will always be criminals. Some may even go trigger happy and cause a lot of sorrow. We should not measure our rights by their actions though. Keeping firearms out of the hands of honest citizens because some people are violent criminals makes as much sense as mandatory castration as a response to the fact that some people are rapists. |
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Sept 15, 2004 19:08:05 GMT -5
Well, as I said in my post, I doubt that I'll live to see a time when a violent overthrow of the U.S. government will be required. I believe, however, that part of the reason for that is because our citizens have the right to bear arms, and thus have the capacity to fight back against a tyrant. There will always be criminals. Some may even go trigger happy and cause a lot of sorrow. We should not measure our rights by their actions though. Keeping firearms out of the hands of honest citizens because some people are violent criminals makes as much sense as mandatory castration as a response to the fact that some people are rapists. I like what you've said about this  I want to add that our laws shouldn't be structured to an ideal of an individual that isn't capapble of responsibly owning a firearm. It says that ordinary human capability isn't safe in the hands of ordinary people. That's the basic idea; that ordinary people, even if they are poor and uneducated, still can be and should be assumed to have the same human capabilities as their "betters". There are no "betters"; we are all humans AND we are all equal. There is no class of people that is more safe and more responsible than any other. |
|
pyro
Full Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by pyro on Sept 15, 2004 20:36:51 GMT -5
I agree, it's like trying to control drunk driving by making it harder for responcible drivers to get a car, ignoring the problem that the drunk people are killing other people, not the cars.
I never do think that there will be any sort overthrow of the US government. There will never be a militia that has the power to overthrow this government, they will be labeled as terrorists and crushed long before they have any chance of rebellion.
All anyone would here about is that some group of radicals was crushed on the evining news, some general will win a medal, and the current president will brag about how secure this police state is, and why he should be re-elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Sept 15, 2004 21:22:07 GMT -5
I agree, it's like trying to control drunk driving by making it harder for responcible drivers to get a car, ignoring the problem that the drunk people are killing other people, not the cars. I never do think that there will be any sort overthrow of the US government. There will never be a militia that has the power to overthrow this government, they will be labeled as terrorists and crushed long before they have any chance of rebellion. All anyone would here about is that some group of radicals was crushed on the evining news, some general will win a medal, and the current president will brag about how secure this police state is, and why he should be re-elected. Excellent points. Excellent post. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by zombiekiller on Sept 15, 2004 22:43:44 GMT -5
I have a confession. I like guns. I know that may come as a shock to some of you, but guns are fun. Hand, eye, machine and target create a perfect moment where you tell the bullet where to go and it follows your orders.
Guns are tools. They can protect you. They can help you kill things to eat. They can mow down an army of the shambling undead as you execute a backflip dismount from an airborn Harley. They're great things.
As said before, many people who own guns are law abiding citizens who use them for sport and home protection. I'm against restricting their access to firearms because some people are psychotic or irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Sept 15, 2004 23:03:17 GMT -5
I agree, it's like trying to control drunk driving by making it harder for responcible drivers to get a car, ignoring the problem that the drunk people are killing other people, not the cars. I never do think that there will be any sort overthrow of the US government. There will never be a militia that has the power to overthrow this government, they will be labeled as terrorists and crushed long before they have any chance of rebellion. All anyone would here about is that some group of radicals was crushed on the evining news, some general will win a medal, and the current president will brag about how secure this police state is, and why he should be re-elected. Nobody expects the...ahem... In today's environment, you're probably right. We've got militias, and some of them are white supremecist wack jobs, and these groups do not have the support of the people, because...they are smart enough to see that these groups are nutty. IF there were to come a time when the government really was facist, and some yahoo tried to do such things as suspend the Constitution, declare himself President for life etc...I like to think that the American people would collectively say "WTF?" and start a resistance to the tyrrany. Resistance in such an environment is obviously not an easy thing to do, but it is not an impossibility either. Look at our French friends. As much as we love to tease them, they did not give up when the Nazis took over their land. They knew that they could not win if they played by the "rules", so they changed the rules. Instead of army vs. army, it was a fight of shadows vs. army. Sometimes bullets flew. Sometimes things blew up. Sometimes sugar found itself in Nazi gas tanks. Sometimes it was just a matter of hiding in the shadows, gathering information to pass on to the Allies... Americans are not fans of tyranny. Americans like their freedom. If a tyrant were to emerge, Americans would resist. Already having the gear (ie: weapons) needed to resist such tyrranny makes it much easier to resist it, and governments know this. It is why so many governments try to disarm their people. Sheesh. I feel like I need to issue a disclaimer: I'm not a gun owner, I belong to no militias, and I do not believe that the government should be overthrown. I am quite happy that ours is a country that has transferred power from one leader to the next peacefully since the inception of our nation. If only more countries could figure out how to do that. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by zombiekiller on Sept 15, 2004 23:10:49 GMT -5
Hey Kender,
Are you still bringing that AK-47 to our militia meeting this Sunday at the White Supremacy headquaters? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Sept 15, 2004 23:15:09 GMT -5
Only the ones that are sabotaged, so that when they fire, they fire flags that say "I love the NAACP".
I'm taking the non-sabotaged weaponry, complete with dragonbreath rounds to the Zombie Killer HQ. That way, when the zombies attack, they'll burn...and if they're traveling in packs like in the movies...
|
|
|
|
Post by zombiekiller on Sept 15, 2004 23:19:16 GMT -5
Only the ones that are sabotaged, so that when they fire, they fire flags that say "I love the NAACP". I'm taking the non-sabotaged weaponry, complete with dragonbreath rounds to the Zombie Killer HQ. That way, when the zombies attack, they'll burn...and if they're traveling in packs like in the movies... Heheheheheh Dragonbreath rounds....  |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Sept 16, 2004 1:21:49 GMT -5
Nobody expects the...ahem... In today's environment, you're probably right. We've got militias, and some of them are white supremecist wack jobs, and these groups do not have the support of the people, because...they are smart enough to see that these groups are nutty. IF there were to come a time when the government really was facist, and some yahoo tried to do such things as suspend the Constitution, declare himself President for life etc...I like to think that the American people would collectively say "WTF?" and start a resistance to the tyrrany. Resistance in such an environment is obviously not an easy thing to do, but it is not an impossibility either. Look at our French friends. As much as we love to tease them, they did not give up when the Nazis took over their land. They knew that they could not win if they played by the "rules", so they changed the rules. Instead of army vs. army, it was a fight of shadows vs. army. Sometimes bullets flew. Sometimes things blew up. Sometimes sugar found itself in Nazi gas tanks. Sometimes it was just a matter of hiding in the shadows, gathering information to pass on to the Allies... Americans are not fans of tyranny. Americans like their freedom. If a tyrant were to emerge, Americans would resist. Already having the gear (ie: weapons) needed to resist such tyrranny makes it much easier to resist it, and governments know this. It is why so many governments try to disarm their people. Sheesh. I feel like I need to issue a disclaimer: I'm not a gun owner, I belong to no militias, and I do not believe that the government should be overthrown. I am quite happy that ours is a country that has transferred power from one leader to the next peacefully since the inception of our nation. If only more countries could figure out how to do that. ;D Good response. The whackjobs are whackjobs because they are ready for revolution while no one else is. If there were real reason for revolt, it wouldn't be as easy to squash revolutionaries because they'd have popular support. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Sept 16, 2004 3:01:05 GMT -5
I like guns. I just believe that they should have some controls placed on them. You have to have a license to prove you are capable of driving safely. You have to pass a vision test to show that you can see well enough to drive. I have to take skills tests every yr to prove that i am a competent nurse even though i have a license issued by the state of MO. I don't understand why so many people take issue with the idea of making sure that someone is reasonably safe to carry a gun. No criminal record, No history of violence. i agree that guns have many uses...self defense, hunting,target practice....but automatic assault weopons aren't used for anything but killing large numbers of people in the least amt of time. They are completely unnecesary except to cause mass suffering and death. For the life of me I can't understand why any of you (with the possible exception of zombiekiller who may need to destroy large groups of zombies)
actually think you need one. I see gunshot victims every damn week end. Young kids with bullets lodged in their spinal cords who will never walk again. This isn't some abstract ideal. It's real live pain and suffering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kender on Sept 16, 2004 9:48:02 GMT -5
I like guns. I just believe that they should have some controls placed on them. You have to have a license to prove you are capable of driving safely. You have to pass a vision test to show that you can see well enough to drive. I have to take skills tests every yr to prove that i am a competent nurse even though i have a license issued by the state of MO. I don't understand why so many people take issue with the idea of making sure that someone is reasonably safe to carry a gun. No criminal record, No history of violence. I'm not arguing agains all regulations. If someone is mentally unstable or a convicted felon, then you're right - they shouldn't have a firearm. They might get one anyway (not all firearms are purchased legally), but... I don't need an assault rifle. Heck, I don't need a handgun. I have neither. I believe that I have (and should have) the right to have either one, though. Aye, but why does that matter? I never understood that. Let's be honest. Firerarms are weapons. All of them. They are all designed to do one thing and one thing only: make things dead, and unless it's a deer rifle, that thing is probably a human being. The way I see it, the answer to that is not to outlaw the weapon. The bastards that fired those bullets doesn't care about the law, and will have his firearm regardless of the law. He'll just have to break the law to have it. For him, though, that's probably not a big deal. Laws, like locks, are for honest people. The answer to that is to enforce the laws against using the weapon in such a way and throwing those bastards in jail. |
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Sept 16, 2004 10:51:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Sept 16, 2004 11:04:38 GMT -5
Good response. The whackjobs are whackjobs because they are ready for revolution while no one else is. If there were real reason for revolt, it wouldn't be as easy to squash revolutionaries because they'd have popular support. - Rick And too, sometime the wacko nuts wanting a revolution try to take over the government, seeking power politics rather than force. And they would love the populace to be defenseless, sorta like China. |
|
