How about the violence perpetuated by the civil rights movement? Can we count that? Or the violence perpetuated by the Vietnam war and the change in policy because of it. Can we count that?sergeriver wrote:
In these times? I don't think so. Maybe 200 years ago that worked, but now there's no need for that.lowing wrote:
You speak as if armed citizens has never brought on change before.sergeriver wrote:
And you will stop them to take your right to vote away with your Uzi?
The IRA's struggle with British rule and the guns they used against them to win their freedom? Can that count?
Could Ireland simply vote English rule out? Or did the citizens have to fight an oppressive govt.?
Could Ireland simply vote English rule out? Or did the citizens have to fight an oppressive govt.?
Last edited by lowing (2007-12-19 06:23:36)
I am not disturbed, you choose your life and I'm not going even to criticize it. But what can be done with a freak carrying weapon and killing his schoolmates?lowing wrote:
Yup, it is important for our freedom. Imagine a country without armed citizens. Imagine a country whose citizens are more afraid of its govt. than their govt is of them. I love living in a country where my govt. is more afraid of me than I am of them. We are not at the mercy of our govt, we have a voice and we are not to be tread upon by anyone, least of all, our own govt.PZmohax01 wrote:
May I ask a question to American guys here? It is just curiosity and I don't want to offend you:)
As I studied your history a bit I am sure 2nd Amendment was required at the time it was written (I'm not talking about the interpretation). But do you need so easy-to-buy weapons now? What for?
For example, self-defence weapons (shockers, light civil pistols with trauma bullets) can be bought after passing some psychological tests and they are registered, and the most dangerous must be kept in locked safe when are not used.
And hunting weapons (they are much more dangerous) - after passing special exams you have rights to bear some smooth-bore 12cal rifle. And after 5 years (or 6, I don't remember) you will be allowed to by even "Saiga" (MEC shotgun lol), or heavy carbine with a scope but you are not allowed to walk with it loaded if you are not hunting or practicing.
If you are a sportsman (e.g. biathlon) you'll be allowed to have small caliber rifle (5.56mm I suppose). It can blow your brains all over the floor from 30-40 meters though:)
And though I like guns I am not pissed of because I can't walk into a gun store and by a AK-47.
So why it is so important for you and do you think it is that important for your freedom? Again, I'm not intended to offend you.
Do you think an invasion of the USA could be successfully implemented with such well armed citizens? Do you think a rogue US govt. could gain power and keep it with such well armed citizens? ( and no, the Bush administration is not a rogue govt.) What are the citizens of the UK prepared to do if their govt. turns on them, other than capitulate?
Why are you so disturbed by the notion that we as private citizens can actually fight back when threatened?
I remember a quote " Blaming guns for violent crime is like blaming a fork for Rosie Donnell's weight problem"
P.s. invasion of the USA is not going to happen and if the war starts we all will need a good vault and a respirator at first, IMHO.
P.p.s. are you sure that your govt would treat you tough if you hadn't a gun? and no, we are not discussing your present govt, are we?
Thx for the reply
the point was any invader of the US would have to consider the armed citizens within and not to underestimate it.PZmohax01 wrote:
I am not disturbed, you choose your life and I'm not going even to criticize it. But what can be done with a freak carrying weapon and killing his schoolmates?lowing wrote:
Yup, it is important for our freedom. Imagine a country without armed citizens. Imagine a country whose citizens are more afraid of its govt. than their govt is of them. I love living in a country where my govt. is more afraid of me than I am of them. We are not at the mercy of our govt, we have a voice and we are not to be tread upon by anyone, least of all, our own govt.PZmohax01 wrote:
May I ask a question to American guys here? It is just curiosity and I don't want to offend you:)
As I studied your history a bit I am sure 2nd Amendment was required at the time it was written (I'm not talking about the interpretation). But do you need so easy-to-buy weapons now? What for?
For example, self-defence weapons (shockers, light civil pistols with trauma bullets) can be bought after passing some psychological tests and they are registered, and the most dangerous must be kept in locked safe when are not used.
And hunting weapons (they are much more dangerous) - after passing special exams you have rights to bear some smooth-bore 12cal rifle. And after 5 years (or 6, I don't remember) you will be allowed to by even "Saiga" (MEC shotgun lol), or heavy carbine with a scope but you are not allowed to walk with it loaded if you are not hunting or practicing.
If you are a sportsman (e.g. biathlon) you'll be allowed to have small caliber rifle (5.56mm I suppose). It can blow your brains all over the floor from 30-40 meters though:)
And though I like guns I am not pissed of because I can't walk into a gun store and by a AK-47.
So why it is so important for you and do you think it is that important for your freedom? Again, I'm not intended to offend you.
Do you think an invasion of the USA could be successfully implemented with such well armed citizens? Do you think a rogue US govt. could gain power and keep it with such well armed citizens? ( and no, the Bush administration is not a rogue govt.) What are the citizens of the UK prepared to do if their govt. turns on them, other than capitulate?
Why are you so disturbed by the notion that we as private citizens can actually fight back when threatened?
I remember a quote " Blaming guns for violent crime is like blaming a fork for Rosie Donnell's weight problem"
P.s. invasion of the USA is not going to happen and if the war starts we all will need a good vault and a respirator at first, IMHO.
P.p.s. are you sure that your govt would treat you tough if you hadn't a gun? and no, we are not discussing your present govt, are we?
Thx for the reply
Govt. is corrupt. without checks and balances I feel any govt. would oppress its citizens. I feel armed citizens is a cog in that checks and balances system
The IRA's an organization, not the people. In fact, North Ireland is still a part of UK. Now they have an agreement and things are much better than before. Violence doesn't solve problems. I thought you agreed with that when you criticized the Palestinian radicals.lowing wrote:
The IRA's struggle with British rule and the guns they used against them to win their freedom? Can that count?
Could Ireland simply vote English rule out? Or did the citizens have to fight an oppressive govt.?
OK I see your point and agree, it can be reasonable for your country. But what about the level of guns availability? Don't you think it is too high?lowing wrote:
the point was any invader of the US would have to consider the armed citizens within and not to underestimate it.PZmohax01 wrote:
I am not disturbed, you choose your life and I'm not going even to criticize it. But what can be done with a freak carrying weapon and killing his schoolmates?lowing wrote:
Yup, it is important for our freedom. Imagine a country without armed citizens. Imagine a country whose citizens are more afraid of its govt. than their govt is of them. I love living in a country where my govt. is more afraid of me than I am of them. We are not at the mercy of our govt, we have a voice and we are not to be tread upon by anyone, least of all, our own govt.
Do you think an invasion of the USA could be successfully implemented with such well armed citizens? Do you think a rogue US govt. could gain power and keep it with such well armed citizens? ( and no, the Bush administration is not a rogue govt.) What are the citizens of the UK prepared to do if their govt. turns on them, other than capitulate?
Why are you so disturbed by the notion that we as private citizens can actually fight back when threatened?
I remember a quote " Blaming guns for violent crime is like blaming a fork for Rosie Donnell's weight problem"
P.s. invasion of the USA is not going to happen and if the war starts we all will need a good vault and a respirator at first, IMHO.
P.p.s. are you sure that your govt would treat you tough if you hadn't a gun? and no, we are not discussing your present govt, are we?
Thx for the reply
Govt. is corrupt. without checks and balances I feel any govt. would oppress its citizens. I feel armed citizens is a cog in that checks and balances system
That organization is not a govt. and if it s not a govt. then it is an organization of citizens bound together for a common cause. The point is no, not one person with one gun is going to bring change. An ORGANIZED armed group of citizens( like the IRA) however, can and probably will.sergeriver wrote:
The IRA's an organization, not the people. In fact, North Ireland is still a part of UK. Now they have an agreement and things are much better than before. Violence doesn't solve problems. I thought you agreed with that when you criticized the Palestinian radicals.lowing wrote:
The IRA's struggle with British rule and the guns they used against them to win their freedom? Can that count?
Could Ireland simply vote English rule out? Or did the citizens have to fight an oppressive govt.?
So you support Hamas and Hezbollah. Those are organizations that fight for a common cause. I don't see the difference.lowing wrote:
That organization is not a govt. and if it s not a govt. then it is an organization of citizens bound together for a common cause. The point is no, not one person with one gun is going to bring change. An ORGANIZED armed group of citizens( like the IRA) however, can and probably will.sergeriver wrote:
The IRA's an organization, not the people. In fact, North Ireland is still a part of UK. Now they have an agreement and things are much better than before. Violence doesn't solve problems. I thought you agreed with that when you criticized the Palestinian radicals.lowing wrote:
The IRA's struggle with British rule and the guns they used against them to win their freedom? Can that count?
Could Ireland simply vote English rule out? Or did the citizens have to fight an oppressive govt.?
No I don't, with freedom comes responsibility, those who are not responsible get removed, ( or should). If violent crime rose using baseball bats, are you gunna really curtail the playing of baseball?PZmohax01 wrote:
OK I see your point and agree, it can be reasonable for your country. But what about the level of guns availability? Don't you think it is too high?lowing wrote:
the point was any invader of the US would have to consider the armed citizens within and not to underestimate it.PZmohax01 wrote:
I am not disturbed, you choose your life and I'm not going even to criticize it. But what can be done with a freak carrying weapon and killing his schoolmates?
P.s. invasion of the USA is not going to happen and if the war starts we all will need a good vault and a respirator at first, IMHO.
P.p.s. are you sure that your govt would treat you tough if you hadn't a gun? and no, we are not discussing your present govt, are we?
Thx for the reply
Govt. is corrupt. without checks and balances I feel any govt. would oppress its citizens. I feel armed citizens is a cog in that checks and balances system
A main reason I am anti-liberal, they want they responsibility removed from individuals and placed with big govt.
Punish the criminals
Last edited by lowing (2007-12-19 06:48:59)
IF they regulated their attacks to govt targets, and did not used innocent women and children as shields or targets I may or may not support them but I could better respect their fight.sergeriver wrote:
So you support Hamas and Hezbollah. Those are organizations that fight for a common cause. I don't see the difference.lowing wrote:
That organization is not a govt. and if it s not a govt. then it is an organization of citizens bound together for a common cause. The point is no, not one person with one gun is going to bring change. An ORGANIZED armed group of citizens( like the IRA) however, can and probably will.sergeriver wrote:
The IRA's an organization, not the people. In fact, North Ireland is still a part of UK. Now they have an agreement and things are much better than before. Violence doesn't solve problems. I thought you agreed with that when you criticized the Palestinian radicals.
Hamas is a govt. by the way.
Last edited by lowing (2007-12-19 06:43:46)
Hamas is a part of the government now. But it existed before that.lowing wrote:
IF they regulated their attacks to govt targets, and did not used innocent women and children as shields or targets I may or may not support them but I could better respect their fight.sergeriver wrote:
So you support Hamas and Hezbollah. Those are organizations that fight for a common cause. I don't see the difference.lowing wrote:
That organization is not a govt. and if it s not a govt. then it is an organization of citizens bound together for a common cause. The point is no, not one person with one gun is going to bring change. An ORGANIZED armed group of citizens( like the IRA) however, can and probably will.
Hamas is a govt. by the way.
Yet another example of how guns and armed citizens bring change in the modern world. They even got themselves elected.sergeriver wrote:
Hamas is a part of the government now. But it existed before that.lowing wrote:
IF they regulated their attacks to govt targets, and did not used innocent women and children as shields or targets I may or may not support them but I could better respect their fight.sergeriver wrote:
So you support Hamas and Hezbollah. Those are organizations that fight for a common cause. I don't see the difference.
Hamas is a govt. by the way.
FTW?? yes, no???
Last edited by lowing (2007-12-19 06:53:38)
I don't like Hamas, I think they are doing more damage to Palestine, even if their cause is just, their means are not.lowing wrote:
Yet another example of how guns and armed citizens bring change in the modern world. They even got themselves elected.sergeriver wrote:
Hamas is a part of the government now. But it existed before that.lowing wrote:
IF they regulated their attacks to govt targets, and did not used innocent women and children as shields or targets I may or may not support them but I could better respect their fight.
Hamas is a govt. by the way.
FTW?? yes, no???
So lowing... expecting an invasion/need to participate in a revolution any time soon? Just wondering. Because it seems to be the basis of your argument.
I agree, but maybe preventing crimes is better then counting dead bodies and then punish? And with baseball, I think the comparison is not appropriate.lowing wrote:
Punish the criminals
Simply: we have guns sales limited but bats and knives are available. And our children don't stab each other. Is it guns or you just have much more psychos in your society?
That made me think of the mentality, I'll try to explain.. Concerning our history we have...more group mentality. And you (Americans and maybe Europeans) have more independent, separate one. I can even prove it linguistically:a Russian will rather say ...erm... something like "this thing has failed to be done by me" or "it was impossible to do it"(no lolz here, I dunno how to translate), and an American will rather (well, as far as I observed it) say "I failed to do it". As a result when your more independent personality faces some problems, he or she suffers much more and maybe it leads to such a behaviour. I know it is a simplification but maybe it is the main reason.
What do you think?
Nope, not at all, I am saying we do not NEED such action because our govt. is afraid that our citizens could and would carry out such an event. And also the fact of an armed citizenship could and would force a perspective invader to rethink such an act.SharkyMcshark wrote:
So lowing... expecting an invasion/need to participate in a revolution any time soon? Just wondering. Because it seems to be the basis of your argument.
I know but you said armed citizens can not bring change. I think we have shown it most certainly can.sergeriver wrote:
I don't like Hamas, I think they are doing more damage to Palestine, even if their cause is just, their means are not.lowing wrote:
Yet another example of how guns and armed citizens bring change in the modern world. They even got themselves elected.sergeriver wrote:
Hamas is a part of the government now. But it existed before that.
FTW?? yes, no???
So you'd say you're living in a constant state of readiness to jump to arms, with the only decision being whether youre shooting your owns guys or them foreigners?lowing wrote:
Nope, not at all, I am saying we do not NEED such action because our govt. is afraid that our citizens could and would carry out such an event. And also the fact of an armed citizenship could and would force a perspective invader to rethink such an act.SharkyMcshark wrote:
So lowing... expecting an invasion/need to participate in a revolution any time soon? Just wondering. Because it seems to be the basis of your argument.
Don't tell me that in this day and age you all keep guns to depose the government if you don't like them. That's bs. And don't tell me that its to repel foreign invaders. Any army that can get past the US Army, the National Guard, the Reserves, and the local police forces isn't going to have that hard a time putting down what I envisage to be a bunch of guys in flannelette shirts with shotguns.
You keep guns because its an interesting hobby. The rest of the world gets (and scorns due to the high rate of death involved) this. But don't try and pass it off as people exercising their need to be ready to shaft the government or shoot the invaders.
Individuality is the essence of what makes America, "America". We are free to succeed or fail as we see fit. In regards to gun ownership,and preventing crimes the big weapon in crime prevention is actually make it not worth carrying out the crime in the first place. Make life hell for criminals, or even death when appropriate. Coddling prisoners, a trait we are famous for) will not solve our crime problems, neither will dis-arming law abiding citizens so only criminals have guns.PZmohax01 wrote:
I agree, but maybe preventing crimes is better then counting dead bodies and then punish? And with baseball, I think the comparison is not appropriate.lowing wrote:
Punish the criminals
Simply: we have guns sales limited but bats and knives are available. And our children don't stab each other. Is it guns or you just have much more psychos in your society?
That made me think of the mentality, I'll try to explain.. Concerning our history we have...more group mentality. And you (Americans and maybe Europeans) have more independent, separate one. I can even prove it linguistically:a Russian will rather say ...erm... something like "this thing has failed to be done by me" or "it was impossible to do it"(no lolz here, I dunno how to translate), and an American will rather (well, as far as I observed it) say "I failed to do it". As a result when your more independent personality faces some problems, he or she suffers much more and maybe it leads to such a behaviour. I know it is a simplification but maybe it is the main reason.
What do you think?
But, you can't condemn Hamas, Hezbollah or the IRA, and praise Armed civilians. Let's suppose the US president becomes a dictator, and the people start a civil war using their firearms and lots of innocent people die. That would make you no better no worse than those organizations you criticize.lowing wrote:
I know but you said armed citizens can not bring change. I think we have shown it most certainly can.sergeriver wrote:
I don't like Hamas, I think they are doing more damage to Palestine, even if their cause is just, their means are not.lowing wrote:
Yet another example of how guns and armed citizens bring change in the modern world. They even got themselves elected.
FTW?? yes, no???
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-19 07:48:24)
Last time I checked, none of these organizations were actually a government.sergeriver wrote:
But, you can't condemn Hamas, Hezbollah or the IRA, and praise Armed civilians. Let's suppose the US president becomes a dictator, and the people start a civil war using their firearms and lots of innocent people die. That would make you no better no worse than those organizations you criticize.
Here's the issue you are missing:
-you have the freedom to own a gun
-you DO NOT have the freedom to infringe on other's rights because you have a gun
Just like you have certain freedoms as long as you don't infringe on others' freedoms.
Why does this have to be harder than that?
Because the idea of revolution, which is what you all seem to be justifying keeping your guns for, sort of hinges on infringing on the rights/breathing privileges of those currently in charge for the greater good.Pug wrote:
Why does this have to be harder than that?
EDIT: None of the organisations serge mentioned are governments because they are the people bodies that have taken up fights against governments (except HAMAS which has become government over time)
Last edited by SharkyMcshark (2007-12-19 08:00:39)
Great, so what about this part:SharkyMcshark wrote:
Because the idea of revolution, which is what you all seem to be justifying keeping your guns for, sort of hinges on infringing on the rights/breathing privileges of those currently in charge for the greater good.Pug wrote:
Why does this have to be harder than that?
EDIT: None of the organisations serge mentioned are governments because they are the people bodies that have taken up fights against governments (except HAMAS which has become government over time)
You have your freedoms as long as you don't infringe on other's freedoms.
OK I'll word this simply. The questions being asked are a. how do you justify the keeping of guns for a government deposing revolution in the USA (which would inevitably involve infringing on freedoms, as most revolutions do), and b. if you exercised the intended use for the second amendment and threw off the government oppressors (which you've all cited as a factor in you owning guns), how does this separate you from HAMAS, the IRA etc etc etc *insert group you all love the hate on here*.Pug wrote:
You have your freedoms as long as you don't infringe on other's freedoms.
Last edited by SharkyMcshark (2007-12-19 08:08:47)
My responses to serges argument was not to defend or condemn gun ownership. He said that armed citizens in todays world could not bring change I simply gave examples that it can and has. I am not arguing the right or wrong of it. Just that armed citizens influences govts.