Should the US institute a ban on assault weapons.

october22

No

........


Later in life, I moved to Nicaragua. In the mountains of Esteli, I found thirty-year old bullet holes in the walls of shops and homes as I walked the streets. These are left untouched so that they may serve as a reminder of the Sandinista's defeat of the US/ Ronald Reagan-backed Contra. Average men and women (some very young) took up rifles and overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza whose army and contra fighters were funded by the US government. I don't highlight this to say that I support the FSLN. I despise socialism and communism, however, when people say it's impossible to fight the US military or its influence, I dare them to say that to a Nicaraguan. You can probably guess what happened immediately after the rebels defeated Somoza...The first thing the new government did was seize all guns and jail or murder all future defectors. While I was living there, FSLN Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega wrote and signed a new law declaring him dictator for life. The exhausted, war-weary Nicaraguans of the 1980's who naively gave up their guns for the promise of safety, security and prosperity had unknowingly relegated the current generation living in 2018 to a life in the poorest country in Central America, a government with total control, no freedom of speech, no free press, secret "undesirables" lists of people who vanish, a land of leaking tin roofs, a completely corrupt and defunct police force and, through almost total disarmament, absolutely no way to rebel against this current horrible dictator in the way their fathers once did.

How about Cuba? Thankfully for them, Castro's revolutionary group, The 26th of July Movement, had access to weapons so they, along with the help of other rebel groups, could over-throw Batista, a dictator who'd destroyed the Cuban constitution. The rebels of Castro's movement thought they were fighting for the return of their constitution and democracy. However, when Castro gained power, he instituted communism and began, slowly at first, the removal of potentially rivalrous groups' weapons until almost all guns on the Island were in the hands of the government, thus preventing rebellion against his control. In a speech in 1960, after a bomb went off nearby, Castro proclaimed, “For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen!” With Soviet assistance, the Cuban people organized themselves and formed citizens' militias to defend themselves against a foreign threat. In the following years, guns were removed from civilian possession and power was free to consolidate into what we have today. I think we've seen how that's gone for the Cuban people in the last 60 years. If you doubt it, speak to a Cuban in the US. I also lived in Miami and I can tell you, Cuban-Americans will be happy to explain it to you personally. Or you can wear your Che Guevara t-shirt in support of a true mass-murderer who lined up homosexuals and personally shot them and others not fit for the Marxist ideal.

Tell the Afghans of the 1980's that they can't defend themselves with firearms and prevail against the Soviets. Tell the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army that they can't give the US military a run for it's money. Believe me, I despise most of the groups I've mentioned, but I highlight them because people seem to think that the notion of defending ourselves from a sophisticated, national or dictatorial military would be impossible. However, I've highlighted only just a few instances (despite my opinion of their politics or ultimate aims) where virtually untrained fighters with rifles defended their families, homes, property and land from such forces only a few decades ago. This is not ancient history and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen on US soil someday. It's curious that the same people who claim "Trump is literally Hitler" are most often in support of partial or total gun control. Also, the Australian firearms confiscation (forced buyback) argument is a ruse. Gun deaths may have decreased, but homicides actually went up in the immediate years following it and then lowered at exactly the same rate as all other developed nations in the last two decades; including countries who had no such ban. The point is, it did nothing to stop murder. The same can be said about the ten-year "assault weapons" ban in the 90's under Bill Clinton. Part of this law dictated that after ten years, a study must be conducted of its efficacy. Sadly for gun-controllers, this independent study showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on gun violence. That's a secret most on the left don't want you to know. But if you don't believe me, have a look at this New York Times article:  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

I hope it's becoming clear that the gun is a tool. The wielder has control, not the weapon. Luckily, our revolution resulted in our constitution which eventually, after a civil war and much struggle, resulted in the greatest freedom the world's ever known (sorry Canada and Europe, but you don't have the same freedom of speech that we do, but that's an argument for another day). Support for gun control first gained steam in the US as a way to prevent newly-freed blacks from owning firearms. The list of oppression through the repression of firearms access is true everywhere you look throughout history. I haven't even gotten into the statistics that prove cities and states with stricter gun control have the most gun violence. Why don't the same people who bring up Australia, bring up Switzerland? Gun sales in Europe are surging, especially in Germany and Switzerland as a result of recent terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm? Why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves with a handgun or a rifle if we choose? The fact is, rifles are better at defending ourselves in all the situations I listed above.

I want better background checks, and I want increased security in our schools. I also want an armed citizenry because it's our only protection against tyranny. We all agree to gun control of some kind. We draw lines all the time in free societies. Nukes, grenades, machine guns...We all agree of course. I draw the line at semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to? Sadly, there will be the criminally insane who abuse this right and take innocent lives. It hurts me as much as it hurts you, but obviously not as much as it hurts the families of those involved. However, as horrible as it may be to read (and it's not an easy thing to type), I cannot allow the answer to these crimes be the stripping of the right of self-preservation for us and for future generations.





(I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than any administration since WW2.) 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security/obama-administration-arms-sales-offers-to-saudi-top-115-billion-report-idUSKCN11D2JQ 

(The man sold guns all over the world while his party does everything they can to chip away at our second amendment. He also sold assault rifles to Mexican gangs through the Fast and Furious operation under his Attorney General Eric Holder, but that's also something the left doesn't concern itself with (not to mention he deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, but again, for some reason, no one seems to be angered by it. Why?)
http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

Halifax2TheMax

october22 said:

........


Later in life, I moved to Nicaragua. In the mountains of Esteli, I found thirty-year old bullet holes in the walls of shops and homes as I walked the streets. These are left untouched so that they may serve as a reminder of the Sandinista's defeat of the US/ Ronald Reagan-backed Contra. Average men and women (some very young) took up rifles and overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza whose army and contra fighters were funded by the US government. I don't highlight this to say that I support the FSLN. I despise socialism and communism, however, when people say it's impossible to fight the US military or its influence, I dare them to say that to a Nicaraguan. You can probably guess what happened immediately after the rebels defeated Somoza...The first thing the new government did was seize all guns and jail or murder all future defectors. While I was living there, FSLN Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega wrote and signed a new law declaring him dictator for life. The exhausted, war-weary Nicaraguans of the 1980's who naively gave up their guns for the promise of safety, security and prosperity had unknowingly relegated the current generation living in 2018 to a life in the poorest country in Central America, a government with total control, no freedom of speech, no free press, secret "undesirables" lists of people who vanish, a land of leaking tin roofs, a completely corrupt and defunct police force and, through almost total disarmament, absolutely no way to rebel against this current horrible dictator in the way their fathers once did.

How about Cuba? Thankfully for them, Castro's revolutionary group, The 26th of July Movement, had access to weapons so they, along with the help of other rebel groups, could over-throw Batista, a dictator who'd destroyed the Cuban constitution. The rebels of Castro's movement thought they were fighting for the return of their constitution and democracy. However, when Castro gained power, he instituted communism and began, slowly at first, the removal of potentially rivalrous groups' weapons until almost all guns on the Island were in the hands of the government, thus preventing rebellion against his control. In a speech in 1960, after a bomb went off nearby, Castro proclaimed, “For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen!” With Soviet assistance, the Cuban people organized themselves and formed citizens' militias to defend themselves against a foreign threat. In the following years, guns were removed from civilian possession and power was free to consolidate into what we have today. I think we've seen how that's gone for the Cuban people in the last 60 years. If you doubt it, speak to a Cuban in the US. I also lived in Miami and I can tell you, Cuban-Americans will be happy to explain it to you personally. Or you can wear your Che Guevara t-shirt in support of a true mass-murderer who lined up homosexuals and personally shot them and others not fit for the Marxist ideal.

Tell the Afghans of the 1980's that they can't defend themselves with firearms and prevail against the Soviets. Tell the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army that they can't give the US military a run for it's money. Believe me, I despise most of the groups I've mentioned, but I highlight them because people seem to think that the notion of defending ourselves from a sophisticated, national or dictatorial military would be impossible. However, I've highlighted only just a few instances (despite my opinion of their politics or ultimate aims) where virtually untrained fighters with rifles defended their families, homes, property and land from such forces only a few decades ago. This is not ancient history and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen on US soil someday. It's curious that the same people who claim "Trump is literally Hitler" are most often in support of partial or total gun control. Also, the Australian firearms confiscation (forced buyback) argument is a ruse. Gun deaths may have decreased, but homicides actually went up in the immediate years following it and then lowered at exactly the same rate as all other developed nations in the last two decades; including countries who had no such ban. The point is, it did nothing to stop murder. The same can be said about the ten-year "assault weapons" ban in the 90's under Bill Clinton. Part of this law dictated that after ten years, a study must be conducted of its efficacy. Sadly for gun-controllers, this independent study showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on gun violence. That's a secret most on the left don't want you to know. But if you don't believe me, have a look at this New York Times article:  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

I hope it's becoming clear that the gun is a tool. The wielder has control, not the weapon. Luckily, our revolution resulted in our constitution which eventually, after a civil war and much struggle, resulted in the greatest freedom the world's ever known (sorry Canada and Europe, but you don't have the same freedom of speech that we do, but that's an argument for another day). Support for gun control first gained steam in the US as a way to prevent newly-freed blacks from owning firearms. The list of oppression through the repression of firearms access is true everywhere you look throughout history. I haven't even gotten into the statistics that prove cities and states with stricter gun control have the most gun violence. Why don't the same people who bring up Australia, bring up Switzerland? Gun sales in Europe are surging, especially in Germany and Switzerland as a result of recent terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm? Why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves with a handgun or a rifle if we choose? The fact is, rifles are better at defending ourselves in all the situations I listed above.

I want better background checks, and I want increased security in our schools. I also want an armed citizenry because it's our only protection against tyranny. We all agree to gun control of some kind. We draw lines all the time in free societies. Nukes, grenades, machine guns...We all agree of course. I draw the line at semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to? Sadly, there will be the criminally insane who abuse this right and take innocent lives. It hurts me as much as it hurts you, but obviously not as much as it hurts the families of those involved. However, as horrible as it may be to read (and it's not an easy thing to type), I cannot allow the answer to these crimes be the stripping of the right of self-preservation for us and for future generations.





(I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than any administration since WW2.) 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security/obama-administration-arms-sales-offers-to-saudi-top-115-billion-report-idUSKCN11D2JQ 

(The man sold guns all over the world while his party does everything they can to chip away at our second amendment. He also sold assault rifles to Mexican gangs through the Fast and Furious operation under his Attorney General Eric Holder, but that's also something the left doesn't concern itself with (not to mention he deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, but again, for some reason, no one seems to be angered by it. Why?)
http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

Care to cite your source?

october22

No

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

........


Later in life, I moved to Nicaragua. In the mountains of Esteli, I found thirty-year old bullet holes in the walls of shops and homes as I walked the streets. These are left untouched so that they may serve as a reminder of the Sandinista's defeat of the US/ Ronald Reagan-backed Contra. Average men and women (some very young) took up rifles and overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza whose army and contra fighters were funded by the US government. I don't highlight this to say that I support the FSLN. I despise socialism and communism, however, when people say it's impossible to fight the US military or its influence, I dare them to say that to a Nicaraguan. You can probably guess what happened immediately after the rebels defeated Somoza...The first thing the new government did was seize all guns and jail or murder all future defectors. While I was living there, FSLN Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega wrote and signed a new law declaring him dictator for life. The exhausted, war-weary Nicaraguans of the 1980's who naively gave up their guns for the promise of safety, security and prosperity had unknowingly relegated the current generation living in 2018 to a life in the poorest country in Central America, a government with total control, no freedom of speech, no free press, secret "undesirables" lists of people who vanish, a land of leaking tin roofs, a completely corrupt and defunct police force and, through almost total disarmament, absolutely no way to rebel against this current horrible dictator in the way their fathers once did.

How about Cuba? Thankfully for them, Castro's revolutionary group, The 26th of July Movement, had access to weapons so they, along with the help of other rebel groups, could over-throw Batista, a dictator who'd destroyed the Cuban constitution. The rebels of Castro's movement thought they were fighting for the return of their constitution and democracy. However, when Castro gained power, he instituted communism and began, slowly at first, the removal of potentially rivalrous groups' weapons until almost all guns on the Island were in the hands of the government, thus preventing rebellion against his control. In a speech in 1960, after a bomb went off nearby, Castro proclaimed, “For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen!” With Soviet assistance, the Cuban people organized themselves and formed citizens' militias to defend themselves against a foreign threat. In the following years, guns were removed from civilian possession and power was free to consolidate into what we have today. I think we've seen how that's gone for the Cuban people in the last 60 years. If you doubt it, speak to a Cuban in the US. I also lived in Miami and I can tell you, Cuban-Americans will be happy to explain it to you personally. Or you can wear your Che Guevara t-shirt in support of a true mass-murderer who lined up homosexuals and personally shot them and others not fit for the Marxist ideal.

Tell the Afghans of the 1980's that they can't defend themselves with firearms and prevail against the Soviets. Tell the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army that they can't give the US military a run for it's money. Believe me, I despise most of the groups I've mentioned, but I highlight them because people seem to think that the notion of defending ourselves from a sophisticated, national or dictatorial military would be impossible. However, I've highlighted only just a few instances (despite my opinion of their politics or ultimate aims) where virtually untrained fighters with rifles defended their families, homes, property and land from such forces only a few decades ago. This is not ancient history and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen on US soil someday. It's curious that the same people who claim "Trump is literally Hitler" are most often in support of partial or total gun control. Also, the Australian firearms confiscation (forced buyback) argument is a ruse. Gun deaths may have decreased, but homicides actually went up in the immediate years following it and then lowered at exactly the same rate as all other developed nations in the last two decades; including countries who had no such ban. The point is, it did nothing to stop murder. The same can be said about the ten-year "assault weapons" ban in the 90's under Bill Clinton. Part of this law dictated that after ten years, a study must be conducted of its efficacy. Sadly for gun-controllers, this independent study showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on gun violence. That's a secret most on the left don't want you to know. But if you don't believe me, have a look at this New York Times article:  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

I hope it's becoming clear that the gun is a tool. The wielder has control, not the weapon. Luckily, our revolution resulted in our constitution which eventually, after a civil war and much struggle, resulted in the greatest freedom the world's ever known (sorry Canada and Europe, but you don't have the same freedom of speech that we do, but that's an argument for another day). Support for gun control first gained steam in the US as a way to prevent newly-freed blacks from owning firearms. The list of oppression through the repression of firearms access is true everywhere you look throughout history. I haven't even gotten into the statistics that prove cities and states with stricter gun control have the most gun violence. Why don't the same people who bring up Australia, bring up Switzerland? Gun sales in Europe are surging, especially in Germany and Switzerland as a result of recent terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm? Why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves with a handgun or a rifle if we choose? The fact is, rifles are better at defending ourselves in all the situations I listed above.

I want better background checks, and I want increased security in our schools. I also want an armed citizenry because it's our only protection against tyranny. We all agree to gun control of some kind. We draw lines all the time in free societies. Nukes, grenades, machine guns...We all agree of course. I draw the line at semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to? Sadly, there will be the criminally insane who abuse this right and take innocent lives. It hurts me as much as it hurts you, but obviously not as much as it hurts the families of those involved. However, as horrible as it may be to read (and it's not an easy thing to type), I cannot allow the answer to these crimes be the stripping of the right of self-preservation for us and for future generations.





(I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than any administration since WW2.) 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security/obama-administration-arms-sales-offers-to-saudi-top-115-billion-report-idUSKCN11D2JQ 

(The man sold guns all over the world while his party does everything they can to chip away at our second amendment. He also sold assault rifles to Mexican gangs through the Fast and Furious operation under his Attorney General Eric Holder, but that's also something the left doesn't concern itself with (not to mention he deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, but again, for some reason, no one seems to be angered by it. Why?)
http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

Care to cite your source?

Haha I tried. Really just trying to give my opinion, but I thought there might be some articles people may find interesting so I referenced them

HughFreakingDillon

Yes

lastexitlondon said:

Ignorant. This is a discussion forum
 Farewell

to be fair, he has addressed it several times over the months and usually just gets slagged for anything he says, so I can see why he'd blow it off this time. I see him as being for wanting change, but also understanding the reality of the current situation in the US. but most others here just insult him for his views so I don't even know why he bothers, to be honest. 

there is a reason there's no meaningful change in the US, and it's not all the republicans' fault. 

october22

No

dignin said:

october22 said:

No, we should not. 

Care to elaborate? I'm interested in your perspective.

[I reposted this because the original was inside a quote box]

(Ok, I went a little nuts with the following, but it's late here and I've had a lot to say on this subject. Please forgive typos and some meandering as I've done no editing. Most of you probably disagree (as does Pearl Jam, apparently), but I respect you guys. Hopefully, you'll see that my opinion is born out of compassion and not some strange affinity for guns or violence.) Here goes...

I would be happy to, and I appreciate you not insinuating that I support mass murder or any of the other ridiculous and offensive comments I've seen on here with regard to gun owners and people who agree with my position on the second amendment. Neither side of this argument has a monopoly on compassion. On the contrary, my position is born out of compassion.

To be clear, the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. It's meant for killing. Specifically, it's meant for killing tyrants and the soldiers of a tyrannical government. There are also very specific cases in which it would be deemed appropriate to use a firearm to protect yourself, family, and fellow citizen from imminent deadly harm.

With that out of the way, I'll share some of my background with you because it's pertinent to how my opinion on gun rights was formed. I'm not a "hillbilly, hunter clinging to his bible and his guns." I'm an atheist from New Jersey who's never hunted in his life. I own no camouflage or american flag clothing, no pick up truck and no tactical gear. I've had my gun beliefs my entire life and have only recently purchased my first firearm. I don't fit the stereotype people have of gun owners and there are millions of people in America just like me. I'm a patriot, and I know people on the other side are as well. My heart breaks from gun violence the same as yours does. I will get to why I support gun rights, including access to AR-15 style rifles, but I ask you to bear with me. The following will largely discuss democide, defined as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder". Such death by government in just the 20th Century alone is estimated at over 262,000,000 world-wide and the best prevention is the rifle.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

I was lucky to live in Prague as a young man. The principal of my school was the vice president of the newly independent state of Czech Republic. He and my teachers lived through the Velvet Revolution. It was during this time that I began to study democide. I learned about the German occupation of Czechoslovakia and the Czechoslovakian response after the war. The CZ government, with the support of the British and American governments, expelled millions of ethnic Germans from the country. It is estimated that tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people guilty of simply speaking German, were killed during this process. Many were ripped out of their homes and shot and thousands were lined up in the street and run over with tanks and trucks. Video of this can be found on youtube. I mention this because it is one of the lesser known atrocities and genocides that took place during the 20th Century. Of course, the horrors of Hitler's crimes are almost indescribable, and I'm sure we're all familiar with most of them. I believe that the so-called "subjugated races" under Nazi rule should have had the right to defend themselves with firearms from those monsters, just as I believe every ethnic German man and woman in post-war Czechoslovakia should have had the right to shoot the bastards ripping them and their children from their homes to face certain death. There are many quotes concerning gun-control attributed to twentieth century dictators that may be dubious, but the following is confirmed true in the book, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." - Adolf Hitler, 1942  https://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp  

Continued.... 

october22

No

Continued....


Later in life, I moved to Nicaragua. In the mountains of Esteli, I found thirty-year old bullet holes in the walls of shops and homes as I walked the streets. These are left untouched so that they may serve as a reminder of the Sandinista's defeat of the US/ Ronald Reagan-backed Contra. Average men and women (some very young) took up rifles and overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza whose army and contra fighters were funded by the US government. I don't highlight this to say that I support the FSLN. I despise socialism and communism, however, when people say it's impossible to fight the US military or its influence, I dare them to say that to a Nicaraguan. You can probably guess what happened immediately after the rebels defeated Somoza...The first thing the new government did was seize all guns and jail or murder all future defectors. While I was living there, FSLN Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega wrote and signed a new law declaring him dictator for life. The exhausted, war-weary Nicaraguans of the 1980's who naively gave up their guns for the promise of safety, security and prosperity had unknowingly relegated the current generation living in 2018 to a life in the poorest country in Central America, a government with total control, no freedom of speech, no free press, secret "undesirables" lists of people who vanish, a land of leaking tin roofs, a completely corrupt and defunct police force and, through almost total disarmament, absolutely no way to rebel against this current horrible dictator in the way their fathers once did.

How about Cuba? Thankfully for them, Castro's revolutionary group, The 26th of July Movement, had access to weapons so they, along with the help of other rebel groups, could over-throw Batista, a dictator who'd destroyed the Cuban constitution. The rebels of Castro's movement thought they were fighting for the return of their constitution and democracy. However, when Castro gained power, he instituted communism and began, slowly at first, the removal of potentially rivalrous groups' weapons until almost all guns on the Island were in the hands of the government, thus preventing rebellion against his control. In a speech in 1960, after a bomb went off nearby, Castro proclaimed, “For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen!” With Soviet assistance, the Cuban people organized themselves and formed citizens' militias to defend themselves against a foreign threat. In the following years, guns were removed from civilian possession and power was free to consolidate into what we have today. I think we've seen how that's gone for the Cuban people in the last 60 years. If you doubt it, speak to a Cuban in the US. I also lived in Miami and I can tell you, Cuban-Americans will be happy to explain it to you personally. Or you can wear your Che Guevara t-shirt in support of a true mass-murderer who lined up homosexuals and personally shot them and others not fit for the Marxist ideal.

Tell the Afghans of the 1980's that they can't defend themselves with firearms and prevail against the Soviets. Tell the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army that they can't give the US military a run for it's money. Believe me, I despise most of the groups I've mentioned, but I highlight them because people seem to think that the notion of defending ourselves from a sophisticated, national or dictatorial military would be impossible. However, I've highlighted only just a few instances (despite my opinion of their politics or ultimate aims) where virtually untrained fighters with rifles defended their families, homes, property and land from such forces only a few decades ago. This is not ancient history and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen on US soil someday. It's curious that the same people who claim "Trump is literally Hitler" are most often in support of partial or total gun control. Also, the Australian firearms confiscation (forced buyback) argument is a ruse. Gun deaths may have decreased, but homicides actually went up in the immediate years following it and then lowered at exactly the same rate as all other developed nations in the last two decades; including countries who had no such ban. The point is, it did nothing to stop murder. The same can be said about the ten-year "assault weapons" ban in the 90's under Bill Clinton. Part of this law dictated that after ten years, a study must be conducted of its efficacy. Sadly for gun-controllers, this independent study showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on gun violence. That's a secret most on the left don't want you to know. But if you don't believe me, have a look at this New York Times article:  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

I hope it's becoming clear that the gun is a tool. The wielder has control, not the weapon. Luckily, our revolution resulted in our constitution which eventually, after a civil war and much struggle, resulted in the greatest freedom the world's ever known (sorry Canada and Europe, but you don't have the same freedom of speech that we do, but that's an argument for another day). Support for gun control first gained steam in the US as a way to prevent newly-freed blacks from owning firearms. The list of oppression through the repression of firearms access is true everywhere you look throughout history. I haven't even gotten into the statistics that prove cities and states with stricter gun control have the most gun violence. Why don't the same people who bring up Australia, bring up Switzerland? Gun sales in Europe are surging, especially in Germany and Switzerland as a result of recent terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm? Why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves with a handgun or a rifle if we choose? The fact is, rifles are better at defending ourselves in all the situations I listed above.

I want better background checks, and I want increased security in our schools. I also want an armed citizenry because it's our only protection against tyranny. We all agree to gun control of some kind. We draw lines all the time in free societies. Nukes, grenades, machine guns...We all agree of course. I draw the line at semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to? Sadly, there will be the criminally insane who abuse this right and take innocent lives. It hurts me as much as it hurts you, but obviously not as much as it hurts the families of those involved. However, as horrible as it may be to read (and it's not an easy thing to type), I cannot allow the answer to these crimes be the stripping of the right of self-preservation for us and for future generations.





(I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than any administration since WW2.) 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security/obama-administration-arms-sales-offers-to-saudi-top-115-billion-report-idUSKCN11D2JQ 

(The man sold guns all over the world while his party does everything they can to chip away at our second amendment. He also sold assault rifles to Mexican gangs through the Fast and Furious operation under his Attorney General Eric Holder, but that's also something the left doesn't concern itself with (not to mention he deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, but again, for some reason, no one seems to be angered by it. Why?)
http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

tbergs

HughFreakingDillon said:

lastexitlondon said:

Ignorant. This is a discussion forum
 Farewell

to be fair, he has addressed it several times over the months and usually just gets slagged for anything he says, so I can see why he'd blow it off this time. I see him as being for wanting change, but also understanding the reality of the current situation in the US. but most others here just insult him for his views so I don't even know why he bothers, to be honest. 

there is a reason there's no meaningful change in the US, and it's not all the republicans' fault. 

And also to be fair, there are several willing to compromise that aren't seeking an all out ban of all guns, but the power and wealth of the pro gun side stifles any progress. That's on the conservatives. I don't see republicans bringing anything forward besides a ban of bump stocks and discussions on arming teachers. Sorry if I, or others, don't see that as compromise and find it a pathetic response.

dignin

Yes

october22 said:

........


Later in life, I moved to Nicaragua. In the mountains of Esteli, I found thirty-year old bullet holes in the walls of shops and homes as I walked the streets. These are left untouched so that they may serve as a reminder of the Sandinista's defeat of the US/ Ronald Reagan-backed Contra. Average men and women (some very young) took up rifles and overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza whose army and contra fighters were funded by the US government. I don't highlight this to say that I support the FSLN. I despise socialism and communism, however, when people say it's impossible to fight the US military or its influence, I dare them to say that to a Nicaraguan. You can probably guess what happened immediately after the rebels defeated Somoza...The first thing the new government did was seize all guns and jail or murder all future defectors. While I was living there, FSLN Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega wrote and signed a new law declaring him dictator for life. The exhausted, war-weary Nicaraguans of the 1980's who naively gave up their guns for the promise of safety, security and prosperity had unknowingly relegated the current generation living in 2018 to a life in the poorest country in Central America, a government with total control, no freedom of speech, no free press, secret "undesirables" lists of people who vanish, a land of leaking tin roofs, a completely corrupt and defunct police force and, through almost total disarmament, absolutely no way to rebel against this current horrible dictator in the way their fathers once did.

How about Cuba? Thankfully for them, Castro's revolutionary group, The 26th of July Movement, had access to weapons so they, along with the help of other rebel groups, could over-throw Batista, a dictator who'd destroyed the Cuban constitution. The rebels of Castro's movement thought they were fighting for the return of their constitution and democracy. However, when Castro gained power, he instituted communism and began, slowly at first, the removal of potentially rivalrous groups' weapons until almost all guns on the Island were in the hands of the government, thus preventing rebellion against his control. In a speech in 1960, after a bomb went off nearby, Castro proclaimed, “For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen!” With Soviet assistance, the Cuban people organized themselves and formed citizens' militias to defend themselves against a foreign threat. In the following years, guns were removed from civilian possession and power was free to consolidate into what we have today. I think we've seen how that's gone for the Cuban people in the last 60 years. If you doubt it, speak to a Cuban in the US. I also lived in Miami and I can tell you, Cuban-Americans will be happy to explain it to you personally. Or you can wear your Che Guevara t-shirt in support of a true mass-murderer who lined up homosexuals and personally shot them and others not fit for the Marxist ideal.

Tell the Afghans of the 1980's that they can't defend themselves with firearms and prevail against the Soviets. Tell the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army that they can't give the US military a run for it's money. Believe me, I despise most of the groups I've mentioned, but I highlight them because people seem to think that the notion of defending ourselves from a sophisticated, national or dictatorial military would be impossible. However, I've highlighted only just a few instances (despite my opinion of their politics or ultimate aims) where virtually untrained fighters with rifles defended their families, homes, property and land from such forces only a few decades ago. This is not ancient history and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen on US soil someday. It's curious that the same people who claim "Trump is literally Hitler" are most often in support of partial or total gun control. Also, the Australian firearms confiscation (forced buyback) argument is a ruse. Gun deaths may have decreased, but homicides actually went up in the immediate years following it and then lowered at exactly the same rate as all other developed nations in the last two decades; including countries who had no such ban. The point is, it did nothing to stop murder. The same can be said about the ten-year "assault weapons" ban in the 90's under Bill Clinton. Part of this law dictated that after ten years, a study must be conducted of its efficacy. Sadly for gun-controllers, this independent study showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on gun violence. That's a secret most on the left don't want you to know. But if you don't believe me, have a look at this New York Times article:  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

I hope it's becoming clear that the gun is a tool. The wielder has control, not the weapon. Luckily, our revolution resulted in our constitution which eventually, after a civil war and much struggle, resulted in the greatest freedom the world's ever known (sorry Canada and Europe, but you don't have the same freedom of speech that we do, but that's an argument for another day). Support for gun control first gained steam in the US as a way to prevent newly-freed blacks from owning firearms. The list of oppression through the repression of firearms access is true everywhere you look throughout history. I haven't even gotten into the statistics that prove cities and states with stricter gun control have the most gun violence. Why don't the same people who bring up Australia, bring up Switzerland? Gun sales in Europe are surging, especially in Germany and Switzerland as a result of recent terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm? Why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves with a handgun or a rifle if we choose? The fact is, rifles are better at defending ourselves in all the situations I listed above.

I want better background checks, and I want increased security in our schools. I also want an armed citizenry because it's our only protection against tyranny. We all agree to gun control of some kind. We draw lines all the time in free societies. Nukes, grenades, machine guns...We all agree of course. I draw the line at semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to? Sadly, there will be the criminally insane who abuse this right and take innocent lives. It hurts me as much as it hurts you, but obviously not as much as it hurts the families of those involved. However, as horrible as it may be to read (and it's not an easy thing to type), I cannot allow the answer to these crimes be the stripping of the right of self-preservation for us and for future generations.





(I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than any administration since WW2.) 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security/obama-administration-arms-sales-offers-to-saudi-top-115-billion-report-idUSKCN11D2JQ 

(The man sold guns all over the world while his party does everything they can to chip away at our second amendment. He also sold assault rifles to Mexican gangs through the Fast and Furious operation under his Attorney General Eric Holder, but that's also something the left doesn't concern itself with (not to mention he deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, but again, for some reason, no one seems to be angered by it. Why?)
http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

Thanks for your response. I disagree with your position and conclusion but it's well thought out and articulate and I can respect that. Good stuff.

october22

No

dignin said:

october22 said:

........


Later in life, I moved to Nicaragua. In the mountains of Esteli, I found thirty-year old bullet holes in the walls of shops and homes as I walked the streets. These are left untouched so that they may serve as a reminder of the Sandinista's defeat of the US/ Ronald Reagan-backed Contra. Average men and women (some very young) took up rifles and overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza whose army and contra fighters were funded by the US government. I don't highlight this to say that I support the FSLN. I despise socialism and communism, however, when people say it's impossible to fight the US military or its influence, I dare them to say that to a Nicaraguan. You can probably guess what happened immediately after the rebels defeated Somoza...The first thing the new government did was seize all guns and jail or murder all future defectors. While I was living there, FSLN Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega wrote and signed a new law declaring him dictator for life. The exhausted, war-weary Nicaraguans of the 1980's who naively gave up their guns for the promise of safety, security and prosperity had unknowingly relegated the current generation living in 2018 to a life in the poorest country in Central America, a government with total control, no freedom of speech, no free press, secret "undesirables" lists of people who vanish, a land of leaking tin roofs, a completely corrupt and defunct police force and, through almost total disarmament, absolutely no way to rebel against this current horrible dictator in the way their fathers once did.

How about Cuba? Thankfully for them, Castro's revolutionary group, The 26th of July Movement, had access to weapons so they, along with the help of other rebel groups, could over-throw Batista, a dictator who'd destroyed the Cuban constitution. The rebels of Castro's movement thought they were fighting for the return of their constitution and democracy. However, when Castro gained power, he instituted communism and began, slowly at first, the removal of potentially rivalrous groups' weapons until almost all guns on the Island were in the hands of the government, thus preventing rebellion against his control. In a speech in 1960, after a bomb went off nearby, Castro proclaimed, “For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen!” With Soviet assistance, the Cuban people organized themselves and formed citizens' militias to defend themselves against a foreign threat. In the following years, guns were removed from civilian possession and power was free to consolidate into what we have today. I think we've seen how that's gone for the Cuban people in the last 60 years. If you doubt it, speak to a Cuban in the US. I also lived in Miami and I can tell you, Cuban-Americans will be happy to explain it to you personally. Or you can wear your Che Guevara t-shirt in support of a true mass-murderer who lined up homosexuals and personally shot them and others not fit for the Marxist ideal.

Tell the Afghans of the 1980's that they can't defend themselves with firearms and prevail against the Soviets. Tell the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army that they can't give the US military a run for it's money. Believe me, I despise most of the groups I've mentioned, but I highlight them because people seem to think that the notion of defending ourselves from a sophisticated, national or dictatorial military would be impossible. However, I've highlighted only just a few instances (despite my opinion of their politics or ultimate aims) where virtually untrained fighters with rifles defended their families, homes, property and land from such forces only a few decades ago. This is not ancient history and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen on US soil someday. It's curious that the same people who claim "Trump is literally Hitler" are most often in support of partial or total gun control. Also, the Australian firearms confiscation (forced buyback) argument is a ruse. Gun deaths may have decreased, but homicides actually went up in the immediate years following it and then lowered at exactly the same rate as all other developed nations in the last two decades; including countries who had no such ban. The point is, it did nothing to stop murder. The same can be said about the ten-year "assault weapons" ban in the 90's under Bill Clinton. Part of this law dictated that after ten years, a study must be conducted of its efficacy. Sadly for gun-controllers, this independent study showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on gun violence. That's a secret most on the left don't want you to know. But if you don't believe me, have a look at this New York Times article:  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

I hope it's becoming clear that the gun is a tool. The wielder has control, not the weapon. Luckily, our revolution resulted in our constitution which eventually, after a civil war and much struggle, resulted in the greatest freedom the world's ever known (sorry Canada and Europe, but you don't have the same freedom of speech that we do, but that's an argument for another day). Support for gun control first gained steam in the US as a way to prevent newly-freed blacks from owning firearms. The list of oppression through the repression of firearms access is true everywhere you look throughout history. I haven't even gotten into the statistics that prove cities and states with stricter gun control have the most gun violence. Why don't the same people who bring up Australia, bring up Switzerland? Gun sales in Europe are surging, especially in Germany and Switzerland as a result of recent terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm? Why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves with a handgun or a rifle if we choose? The fact is, rifles are better at defending ourselves in all the situations I listed above.

I want better background checks, and I want increased security in our schools. I also want an armed citizenry because it's our only protection against tyranny. We all agree to gun control of some kind. We draw lines all the time in free societies. Nukes, grenades, machine guns...We all agree of course. I draw the line at semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to? Sadly, there will be the criminally insane who abuse this right and take innocent lives. It hurts me as much as it hurts you, but obviously not as much as it hurts the families of those involved. However, as horrible as it may be to read (and it's not an easy thing to type), I cannot allow the answer to these crimes be the stripping of the right of self-preservation for us and for future generations.





(I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than any administration since WW2.) 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security/obama-administration-arms-sales-offers-to-saudi-top-115-billion-report-idUSKCN11D2JQ 

(The man sold guns all over the world while his party does everything they can to chip away at our second amendment. He also sold assault rifles to Mexican gangs through the Fast and Furious operation under his Attorney General Eric Holder, but that's also something the left doesn't concern itself with (not to mention he deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, but again, for some reason, no one seems to be angered by it. Why?)
http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

Thanks for your response. I disagree with your position and conclusion but it's well thought out and articulate and I can respect that. Good stuff.

Thank you. I really appreciate that you took the time to read it and respond. Although we still disagree, I respect where you're coming from as well. We'll see how this debate plays out around the country

Degeneratefk

Yes

I never said I was anti gun. Or a superior hunter. The point  is and always remains,  if you think you need an AR-15 to hunt, you don't need to be hunting. 

october22

No

Degeneratefk said:

I never said I was anti gun. Or a superior hunter. The point  is and always remains,  if you think you need an AR-15 to hunt, you don't need to be hunting. 

You can hunt with an AR, but I don't think that's the argument most give for owning them.

Degeneratefk

Yes

october22 said:

Degeneratefk said:

I never said I was anti gun. Or a superior hunter. The point  is and always remains,  if you think you need an AR-15 to hunt, you don't need to be hunting. 

You can hunt with an AR, but I don't think that's the argument most give for owning them.

I know you can. That's a problem. And if you lived in South carolina, you'd hear it a lot!

october22

No

Degeneratefk said:

october22 said:

Degeneratefk said:

I never said I was anti gun. Or a superior hunter. The point  is and always remains,  if you think you need an AR-15 to hunt, you don't need to be hunting. 

You can hunt with an AR, but I don't think that's the argument most give for owning them.

I know you can. That's a problem. And if you lived in South carolina, you'd hear it a lot!

Ah, gotcha

Halifax2TheMax

dignin said:

october22 said:

........


Later in life, I moved to Nicaragua. In the mountains of Esteli, I found thirty-year old bullet holes in the walls of shops and homes as I walked the streets. These are left untouched so that they may serve as a reminder of the Sandinista's defeat of the US/ Ronald Reagan-backed Contra. Average men and women (some very young) took up rifles and overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza whose army and contra fighters were funded by the US government. I don't highlight this to say that I support the FSLN. I despise socialism and communism, however, when people say it's impossible to fight the US military or its influence, I dare them to say that to a Nicaraguan. You can probably guess what happened immediately after the rebels defeated Somoza...The first thing the new government did was seize all guns and jail or murder all future defectors. While I was living there, FSLN Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega wrote and signed a new law declaring him dictator for life. The exhausted, war-weary Nicaraguans of the 1980's who naively gave up their guns for the promise of safety, security and prosperity had unknowingly relegated the current generation living in 2018 to a life in the poorest country in Central America, a government with total control, no freedom of speech, no free press, secret "undesirables" lists of people who vanish, a land of leaking tin roofs, a completely corrupt and defunct police force and, through almost total disarmament, absolutely no way to rebel against this current horrible dictator in the way their fathers once did.

How about Cuba? Thankfully for them, Castro's revolutionary group, The 26th of July Movement, had access to weapons so they, along with the help of other rebel groups, could over-throw Batista, a dictator who'd destroyed the Cuban constitution. The rebels of Castro's movement thought they were fighting for the return of their constitution and democracy. However, when Castro gained power, he instituted communism and began, slowly at first, the removal of potentially rivalrous groups' weapons until almost all guns on the Island were in the hands of the government, thus preventing rebellion against his control. In a speech in 1960, after a bomb went off nearby, Castro proclaimed, “For every little bomb the imperialists pay for, we arm at least 1,000 militiamen!” With Soviet assistance, the Cuban people organized themselves and formed citizens' militias to defend themselves against a foreign threat. In the following years, guns were removed from civilian possession and power was free to consolidate into what we have today. I think we've seen how that's gone for the Cuban people in the last 60 years. If you doubt it, speak to a Cuban in the US. I also lived in Miami and I can tell you, Cuban-Americans will be happy to explain it to you personally. Or you can wear your Che Guevara t-shirt in support of a true mass-murderer who lined up homosexuals and personally shot them and others not fit for the Marxist ideal.

Tell the Afghans of the 1980's that they can't defend themselves with firearms and prevail against the Soviets. Tell the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army that they can't give the US military a run for it's money. Believe me, I despise most of the groups I've mentioned, but I highlight them because people seem to think that the notion of defending ourselves from a sophisticated, national or dictatorial military would be impossible. However, I've highlighted only just a few instances (despite my opinion of their politics or ultimate aims) where virtually untrained fighters with rifles defended their families, homes, property and land from such forces only a few decades ago. This is not ancient history and there is no reason to believe it cannot happen on US soil someday. It's curious that the same people who claim "Trump is literally Hitler" are most often in support of partial or total gun control. Also, the Australian firearms confiscation (forced buyback) argument is a ruse. Gun deaths may have decreased, but homicides actually went up in the immediate years following it and then lowered at exactly the same rate as all other developed nations in the last two decades; including countries who had no such ban. The point is, it did nothing to stop murder. The same can be said about the ten-year "assault weapons" ban in the 90's under Bill Clinton. Part of this law dictated that after ten years, a study must be conducted of its efficacy. Sadly for gun-controllers, this independent study showed that the ban had absolutely no effect on gun violence. That's a secret most on the left don't want you to know. But if you don't believe me, have a look at this New York Times article:  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

I hope it's becoming clear that the gun is a tool. The wielder has control, not the weapon. Luckily, our revolution resulted in our constitution which eventually, after a civil war and much struggle, resulted in the greatest freedom the world's ever known (sorry Canada and Europe, but you don't have the same freedom of speech that we do, but that's an argument for another day). Support for gun control first gained steam in the US as a way to prevent newly-freed blacks from owning firearms. The list of oppression through the repression of firearms access is true everywhere you look throughout history. I haven't even gotten into the statistics that prove cities and states with stricter gun control have the most gun violence. Why don't the same people who bring up Australia, bring up Switzerland? Gun sales in Europe are surging, especially in Germany and Switzerland as a result of recent terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees. Why shouldn't they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm? Why shouldn't we have the right to defend ourselves with a handgun or a rifle if we choose? The fact is, rifles are better at defending ourselves in all the situations I listed above.

I want better background checks, and I want increased security in our schools. I also want an armed citizenry because it's our only protection against tyranny. We all agree to gun control of some kind. We draw lines all the time in free societies. Nukes, grenades, machine guns...We all agree of course. I draw the line at semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to? Sadly, there will be the criminally insane who abuse this right and take innocent lives. It hurts me as much as it hurts you, but obviously not as much as it hurts the families of those involved. However, as horrible as it may be to read (and it's not an easy thing to type), I cannot allow the answer to these crimes be the stripping of the right of self-preservation for us and for future generations.





(I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than any administration since WW2.) 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-security/obama-administration-arms-sales-offers-to-saudi-top-115-billion-report-idUSKCN11D2JQ 

(The man sold guns all over the world while his party does everything they can to chip away at our second amendment. He also sold assault rifles to Mexican gangs through the Fast and Furious operation under his Attorney General Eric Holder, but that's also something the left doesn't concern itself with (not to mention he deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, but again, for some reason, no one seems to be angered by it. Why?)
http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

Thanks for your response. I disagree with your position and conclusion but it's well thought out and articulate and I can respect that. Good stuff.

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bull pucky!

Halifax2TheMax

Had a response to the treatise but damn my altzheimers.

october22

No

Halifax2TheMax said:

Had a response to the treatise but damn my altzheimers.

Haha ok, well if it comes back to you, I'd be happy to read it.

HughFreakingDillon

Yes

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lastexitlondon said:

Ignorant. This is a discussion forum
 Farewell

to be fair, he has addressed it several times over the months and usually just gets slagged for anything he says, so I can see why he'd blow it off this time. I see him as being for wanting change, but also understanding the reality of the current situation in the US. but most others here just insult him for his views so I don't even know why he bothers, to be honest. 

there is a reason there's no meaningful change in the US, and it's not all the republicans' fault. 

And also to be fair, there are several willing to compromise that aren't seeking an all out ban of all guns, but the power and wealth of the pro gun side stifles any progress. That's on the conservatives. I don't see republicans bringing anything forward besides a ban of bump stocks and discussions on arming teachers. Sorry if I, or others, don't see that as compromise and find it a pathetic response.

I know. I agree. But it doesn't help when there's so many on the left that seem to have this "all or nothing" mentality when it comes to this issue. 

dignin

Yes

HughFreakingDillon said:

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

lastexitlondon said:

Ignorant. This is a discussion forum
 Farewell

to be fair, he has addressed it several times over the months and usually just gets slagged for anything he says, so I can see why he'd blow it off this time. I see him as being for wanting change, but also understanding the reality of the current situation in the US. but most others here just insult him for his views so I don't even know why he bothers, to be honest. 

there is a reason there's no meaningful change in the US, and it's not all the republicans' fault. 

And also to be fair, there are several willing to compromise that aren't seeking an all out ban of all guns, but the power and wealth of the pro gun side stifles any progress. That's on the conservatives. I don't see republicans bringing anything forward besides a ban of bump stocks and discussions on arming teachers. Sorry if I, or others, don't see that as compromise and find it a pathetic response.

I know. I agree. But it doesn't help when there's so many on the left that seem to have this "all or nothing" mentality when it comes to this issue. 

Who has an all or nothing mentality on the left?

Halifax2TheMax

october22 said:

dignin said:

october22 said:

No, we should not. 

Care to elaborate? I'm interested in your perspective.

(Ok, I went a little nuts with the following, but it's late here and I've had a lot to say on this subject. Please forgive typos and some meandering as I've done no editing. Most of you probably disagree (as does Pearl Jam, apparently), but I respect you guys. Hopefully, you'll see that my opinion is born out of compassion and not some strange affinity for guns or violence.) Here goes...

I would be happy to, and I appreciate you not insinuating that I support mass murder or any of the other ridiculous and offensive comments I've seen on here with regard to gun owners and people who agree with my position on the second amendment. Neither side of this argument has a monopoly on compassion. On the contrary, my position is born out of compassion.

To be clear, the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. It's meant for killing. 1. Specifically, it's meant for killing tyrants and the soldiers of a tyrannical government. There are also very specific cases in which it would be deemed appropriate to use a firearm to protect yourself, family, and fellow citizen from imminent deadly harm.

With that out of the way, I'll share some of my background with you because it's pertinent to how my opinion on gun rights was formed. I'm not a "hillbilly, hunter clinging to his bible and his guns." I'm an atheist from New Jersey who's never hunted in his life. I own no camouflage or american flag clothing, no pick up truck and no tactical gear. I've had my gun beliefs my entire life and have only recently purchased my first firearm. I don't fit the stereotype people have of gun owners and there are millions of people in America just like me. I'm a patriot, and I know people on the other side are as well. My heart breaks from gun violence the same as yours does. I will get to why I support gun rights, including access to AR-15 style rifles, but I ask you to bear with me. 2. The following will largely discuss democide, defined as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder". Such death by government in just the 20th Century alone is estimated at over 262,000,000 world-wide and the best prevention is the rifle.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

I was lucky to live in Prague as a young man. The principal of my school was the vice president of the newly independent state of Czech Republic. He and my teachers lived through the Velvet Revolution. It was during this time that I began to study democide. I learned about the German occupation of Czechoslovakia and the Czechoslovakian response after the war. The CZ government, with the support of the British and American governments, expelled millions of ethnic Germans from the country. It is estimated that tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people guilty of simply speaking German, were killed during this process. Many were ripped out of their homes and shot and thousands were lined up in the street and run over with tanks and trucks. Video of this can be found on youtube. I mention this because it is one of the lesser known atrocities and genocides that took place during the 20th Century. Of course, the horrors of Hitler's crimes are almost indescribable, and I'm sure we're all familiar with most of them. 3. I believe that the so-called "subjugated races" under Nazi rule should have had the right to defend themselves with firearms from those monsters, just as I believe every ethnic German man and woman in post-war Czechoslovakia should have had the right to shoot the bastards ripping them and their children from their homes to face certain death. There are many quotes concerning gun-control attributed to twentieth century dictators that may be dubious, but the following is confirmed true in the book, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police." - Adolf Hitler, 1942  https://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp  

Continued.... 

1. No, the 2A was formulated to create a “well regulated militia” and as such, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” At the time, the colonists didn’t have an army or militia to defend them against native aggressors (Native Americans, and who could blame them?), foreign advisories or an armed insurrection. Further, firearms during colonial times were an object of luxury, highly prized and valued because they were expensive. The average Joe couldn’t afford one. Therefore, the militia obligation fell to the monied classes. It wasn’t until mass produced, manufactured and interchangeable parts became available that the “common” man, in large numbers, could possess firearms. Remember, the vast majority of colonists at the formulation of the 2A were basically indentured servants, given passage in exchange for a period of servitude or as a cheap source of labor to settle the New World. They were poor, too poor to afford a luxury item like a firearm.

2. Your use of “Democide” works against you as it clearly states that democratic governments with strong democratic systems and institutions in place are not susceptible to “democide.” Perhaps that’s why we haven’t seen it in Great Britain or the majority of EU countries post WW2? Also, it is interesting to note that you reference the former Soviet Union, Cuba and Nicaragua but not the US involvement in the Philippines when providing examples of democide. Is it because US involvement in the Philippines was a “foreign” engagement and it didn’t happen on the US mainland or is it your attempt to paint the US in a better light? Cuba was overthrowing the shackles of a western colonial dictator and not some democratically elected and free populace that was squashed by their representative government or one that was democratically elected and then overthrown in a coup. Batiste in Cuba, in some ways, was as bad as or worse than Castro. They were both assholes but what’s the saying, “At least he’s our asshole.” The same holds true for Nicaragua and Samoza. Again, a popular uprising to overthrow a brutal, western backed dictator. Eventually turning into a proxy war in the last vestiges of the Cold War. And of course there’s payback with those sweeping into power trampling over the rights and mistreating those who previously held power. People suffered under a brutal dictatorship for 30 years and revenge is unfortunate. But to imply that if only the people had had guns, if everyone were armed, Ortega would not have been swept into power is an oversimplification of the geo-politics of the time. And its interesting to note, that upon the breakup of the Soviet Union and leftist Nicaragua’s loss of its patron, Daniel Ortega was elected president in democratically held elections.

Continued

 

Halifax2TheMax

3. I’ve heard this argument before, that if the “subjugated races”, Jews, had had firearms, they could have staved off the Holocaust. However, while the Jews were disarmed, the German people were not and in fact, gun restrictions were loosened for Germans. Further, Hitler had the support of ethnic Germans and the populace. Any uprising or resistance by the Jews would most likely have been crushed. Again, see above as it relates to Czechoslovakia. Hitler encouraged and at times forcibly relocated ethnic Germans from the Fatherland to settle and Germinize other areas of Europe, Poland and Czechoslovakia notably and he also considered these areas part of the Rhineland. No doubt, with German occupation, they were protected and resented. What happened after WW2 is not surprising and that doesn’t make it right. But I’ll ask, who here in the US is a “subjugated race” or is likely to be? This isn’t a thread about banning all firearms, just weapons made for the battlefield that are amazingly effective at killing people. Someone else has already stated that if the tyrannical Government, that you seem to fear so much, really wanted to take your guns, they have the airforce and armor to do it. I’ll state it again, the US in 2018 is not 1930’s Weimar Germany, 1940’s Soviet Union, 1950’s Cuba, 1960’s-1970’s Vietnam or Cambodia, or 1980’s Latin America.