A surprising thought related to gun control and

dunkman

surely 40000 obese americans can be no match for the worlds richest military nation...

Scubascott

Jeanie wrote:

The fact is that Australia has been bombed during war and we have suffered fatalities on Australian soil at the hands of invaders. And that was when we were armed. To know that we could be forced to fight off any future attacks with sticks and stones and the odd saucepan is not a particularly comforting thought.

Well, presumably at least one of the reasons we are off protecting oil interests in far flung corners of the globe is so when the time comes we can say 'Hey George! (or whoever the next guy is) Remember that time we sent thousands of our soldiers to die in your stupid war in Vietnam? And remember how we tagged along to your stupid war in Iraq? And you know how you have military bases on our soil? How 'bout some fuckin' help mate?'

Of course if we were invaded by the US itself we'd be well and truly fucked. Heaven help us if we ever have a leader who forgets to lube up that back passage for the seppos. If we don't give it to them they'll just pull an Iraq on us and come and take it right quick.

DeetroitBaasketball

justam wrote:

the right to bear arms.

I started doing a little research on statistics about homicide rates and gun ownership, etc. While I was doing this, I was thinking what I've thought for years...no one needs a gun...it's dangerous for everyone...the whole country should dis-arm...guns encourage violence...crime...hate...

[size=+4]BUT[/size] :eek: :eek:

as I was reading I realized there is one very important reason we shouldn't give up the right for citizens to own firearms (and I still won't own one myself!!!)

A leader like George Bush would lose all fear of the population if no one had any weapons but his own guys. Can you imagine? We'd be like ducks on a hunting range.

Good God, I can't believe I thought of a good reason to keep the right to own guns...but I thought of one! :eek:

What do you think?

When did George W. Bush start fearing us? I don't think he does and I don't think he's worried about a revolution against him, otherwise he probably wouldn't have done half the stuff he has.

But the other arguments about countries invading us and we having to defend ourselves make perfect sense in this day and age. I can't wait for Canada to come knocking, I'm gonna shoot the hell out of them...

know1

justam wrote:

the right to bear arms.

I started doing a little research on statistics about homicide rates and gun ownership, etc. While I was doing this, I was thinking what I've thought for years...no one needs a gun...it's dangerous for everyone...the whole country should dis-arm...guns encourage violence...crime...hate...

[size=+4]BUT[/size] :eek: :eek:

as I was reading I realized there is one very important reason we shouldn't give up the right for citizens to own firearms (and I still won't own one myself!!!)

A leader like George Bush would lose all fear of the population if no one had any weapons but his own guys. Can you imagine? We'd be like ducks on a hunting range.

Good God, I can't believe I thought of a good reason to keep the right to own guns...but I thought of one! :eek:

What do you think?

If every single citizen (not in the military) had a rifle, do you think we could protect ourselves against the US military?

rearviewmiror

This premise is moot b/c it's Bush's supporters who own all the damn guns in the 1st place.

Jeanie

Scubascott wrote:

Well, presumably at least one of the reasons we are off protecting oil interests in far flung corners of the globe is so when the time comes we can say 'Hey George! (or whoever the next guy is) Remember that time we sent thousands of our soldiers to die in your stupid war in Vietnam? And remember how we tagged along to your stupid war in Iraq? And you know how you have military bases on our soil? How 'bout some fuckin' help mate?'

Of course if we were invaded by the US itself we'd be well and truly fucked. Heaven help us if we ever have a leader who forgets to lube up that back passage for the seppos. If we don't give it to them they'll just pull an Iraq on us and come and take it right quick.

As far as I can see that would be the only "pay off" for all that we've done scott. And of course it remains to be seen whether or not the price will actually be worth it. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't worry so much about the US "invading" us. They don't have to do it aggressively. I've yet to see a Prime Minister that doesn't bend over and spread their cheeks!! :eek:

Collin

It won't work, imo. I don't think the US will suddenly be overthrown by a totaliarian regime. I think it would be more of a gradual process and it would be too late, by that time there would of course be some militias, freedom fighters called terrorists, but I think it would be too late to stop the regime. That's just my opinion. I mean if it would be a gradual process when exactly would these militias start fighting back. Will they start fighting as soon as one state imposes restrictions on the right to bear arms? Or only if the government completely bans guns?

Specifics

Scubascott wrote:

Well, presumably at least one of the reasons we are off protecting oil interests in far flung corners of the globe is so when the time comes we can say 'Hey George! (or whoever the next guy is) Remember that time we sent thousands of our soldiers to die in your stupid war in Vietnam? And remember how we tagged along to your stupid war in Iraq? And you know how you have military bases on our soil? How 'bout some fuckin' help mate?'

Of course if we were invaded by the US itself we'd be well and truly fucked. Heaven help us if we ever have a leader who forgets to lube up that back passage for the seppos. If we don't give it to them they'll just pull an Iraq on us and come and take it right quick.

No worries there mate, the Yanks will remember those favours, and they'll be rushing to let you buy as many arms as you like for top dollar. They may even lend you some pilots to strafe your own tanks, maybe this could work from a training perspective you know.

Americas not the mafia...they dont do favours for favours....in fact they dont do favours full-stop.

Specifics

Collin wrote:

I mean if it would be a gradual process when exactly would these militias start fighting back.

When the the service at the drive-thru is affected..

justam

DeetroitBaasketball wrote:

When did George W. Bush start fearing us? I don't think he does and I don't think he's worried about a revolution against him, otherwise he probably wouldn't have done half the stuff he has.

But the other arguments about countries invading us and we having to defend ourselves make perfect sense in this day and age. I can't wait for Canada to come knocking, I'm gonna shoot the hell out of them...

Well, if you consider that the media doesn't show the large crowds of people who peacefully protest in Washington, I think there's already some fear of large groups. Can you imagine if 100,000 people showed up with weapons?

I think you're right though, I don't think the citizens are being taken into consideration much these days because as far as our rights are concerned, they are crossing line after line.

Porchsitter

he still stands wrote:

Not very good reasons, being that

a) our country has never been invaded by a foreign enemy

Actually, this statement isn't entirely accurate. You can make an argument that the Brits "invaded" the U.S. during the War of 1812.

decides2dream

if someone wants to overthrow their governemnt, have a revolution..it hardly seems necessary for the governemtn they plan to overthrow to have wirtten into law the right to bear arms. obviously, if people are unhappy with their government to the point of fighting back, 'respecting the law' really isn't the point now is it?

also, one has to consider just how many are unhappy, support such revolution....and thus whether 'the right to bear arms' is written in the constitution or not won't matter in reality if people disagree with the cause.

bottomline, if there is a will there is a way....and that one clause, imho anyone, serves no true purpose for our own safety from our government...and yea, i'd far prefer not to have guns around full stop.

VrJxS

Forget about protecting yourself from the government/military.

A more realistic scenario would be something like Hurricane Katrina, where there is mass chaos and you may be required to defend your home and protect your family.

You could have a firearm to protect yourself or you could wait 3 days for the national guard to get there.

dunkman

Porchsitter wrote:

Actually, this statement isn't entirely accurate. You can make an argument that the Brits "invaded" the U.S. during the War of 1812.

thats not true... the Americans declared war on Britain on June 18, 1812...

DeetroitBaasketball

justam wrote:

Well, if you consider that the media doesn't show the large crowds of people who peacefully protest in Washington, I think there's already some fear of large groups. Can you imagine if 100,000 people showed up with weapons?

I think you're right though, I don't think the citizens are being taken into consideration much these days because as far as our rights are concerned, they are crossing line after line.

I can imagine that if 100,000 people showed up with weapons there would be a massacre and it would probably be the darkest day in American history. Maybe a point would be made, but it probably would be lost in all the bloodshed. The power of voice will always be stronger, the focus needs to be on changing the media, not threatening with violence and guns. People with guns will only be written off as lunatics.

justam

DeetroitBaasketball wrote:

I can imagine that if 100,000 people showed up with weapons there would be a massacre and it would probably be the darkest day in American history. Maybe a point would be made, but it probably would be lost in all the bloodshed. The power of voice will always be stronger, the focus needs to be on changing the media, not threatening with violence and guns. People with guns will only be written off as lunatics.

I'm not suggesting that this would be a good idea, I was just thinking it'd be hard to ignore.