The right to bear arms

onelongsong

Collin wrote:

I always thought it was the U.S. Armed Forces that fought these wars, not regular citizens with their own guns.

:rolleyes:

edit: I might have read this the wrong way.

Anyway, I think America and indeed any country no matter how heavy its citizens are armed can be taken by a dictator. True, the American freedom fighters will have an advantage, they'll already have the weaponry to fight back, the other countries will have to wait longer before they can obtain them. But either way, I honestly doubt that this will make a difference in the long run.

instead of my usual long rant; let's just say a small handfull of insurgents are holding the us and british armed forces at bay in iraq. i think 150 million gun owners could fend off a dictator.

inmytree

onelongsong wrote:

have you got a bloody fax? if not i'll write them out after a nap.

um...would you happen to have any links or websites that would back up your assertion that in 23 states voters chose to allow concealed weapons...?

if not, that's ok, save your energy...

69charger

inmytree wrote:

um...would you happen to have any links or websites that would back up your assertion that in 23 states voters chose to allow concealed weapons...?

if not, that's ok, save your energy...

It's called a representative government. State Legislatures made up of ELECTED representatives voted those laws into existence.

What's your point?

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

instead of my usual long rant; let's just say a small handfull of insurgents are holding the us and british armed forces at bay in iraq. i think 150 million gun owners could fend off a dictator.

True, but things are never that black and white. A dictator can earn the sympathy of millions. Look at Hitler, he was extremely popular. What makes you think these 150 million won't be fooled as well? The ones that aren't fooled will be named terrorists and haters of freedom.

onelongsong

Collin wrote:

See my edited post.

A president or whatever can become a dictator before you know it, the economy might be low, all he needs is the people's trust and then he can do whatever he wants (including as you said taking guns because the people will feel safe), if he can make people feel safe and create a booming economy... a president (a closet dictator?) can start doing his thing and the people won't notice because they're too occupied with buying new cars and houses and fancy holidays...

no worries. and i agree with you; mostly. hitler did it. the kaiser did it too. but americans will never give up their guns. a large amount of the population live in cities and there's really no place for a gun in the city. except maybe at a gun range. but the amount of open space in america is amazing. i think it was earlier in this thread where i said my nevada ranch is 30 minutes from any human contact. i'm sure your first thought is that it would be ok to shoot in an area like that. but that's not the problem. you see; those of us in remote areas are perfect targets. there's no neighbours to hear gunshots; if i were tied up and left; it would be a month before anyone knew because i only leave the ranch about once a month. except when i travel. there is no phone service so everything is done via satellite. sending an email to someone to call the sheriff could take a day to be answered. so i'm not trying to be an arse about it. all i'm saying is that in many areas of the us; guns are still needed.

69charger

Collin wrote:

True, but things are never that black and white. A dictator can earn the sympathy of millions. Look at Hitler, he was extremely popular. What makes you think these 150 million won't be fooled as well? The ones that aren't fooled will be named terrorists and haters of freedom.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

inmytree

69charger wrote:

It's called a representative government. State Legislatures made up of ELECTED representatives voted those laws into existence.

What's your point?

the point is this, if people are going to make claims, they should be able to back them up...perhaps if you read the thread, you could keep up...

funny how you were bitching earlier about your "representative government" up thar in cheeze heaven, how aboot it, aye....?

onelongsong

Collin wrote:

Bullshit. Stats haven't proven this at all. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

i'm not going to repeat something i posted earlier. do some research about phoenix. seniors were targets of crime until the ccw law went into effect. crime against seniors dropped dramatically. do the research yourself if you don't believe anyone.

onelongsong

dunkman wrote:

i'm more than happy americans like shooting each other and allowing geeks who get bullied by sport jocks the opportunity to waste 30+ lives in one day... its the sensible approach as it reduces the surplus population... and i believe it was Jesus..or maybe it was Walt Disney.... who said "shoot each other to death fat americans and heaven awaits... free tacos to the best mess of a kids face"...

keep on shooting each other.... funeral parlours need the income

as i recall; the shooter wasn't an american. is it that you don't know what you're talking about or do you just like to type?

69charger

inmytree wrote:

the point is this, if people are going to make claims, they should be able to back them up...perhaps if you read the thread, you could keep up...

funny how you were bitching earlier about your "representative government" up thar in cheeze heaven, how aboot it, aye....?

Yeah I was bitching. Our Governer happens to suck.

BTW, they say 'aboot' in Canada not Wisconsin.

Don't you have a banjo you should be pickin' or a sister or a pig you should be screwing?

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

no worries. and i agree with you; mostly. hitler did it. the kaiser did it too. but americans will never give up their guns. a large amount of the population live in cities and there's really no place for a gun in the city. except maybe at a gun range. but the amount of open space in america is amazing. i think it was earlier in this thread where i said my nevada ranch is 30 minutes from any human contact. i'm sure your first thought is that it would be ok to shoot in an area like that. but that's not the problem. you see; those of us in remote areas are perfect targets. there's no neighbours to hear gunshots; if i were tied up and left; it would be a month before anyone knew because i only leave the ranch about once a month. except when i travel. there is no phone service so everything is done via satellite. sending an email to someone to call the sheriff could take a day to be answered. so i'm not trying to be an arse about it. all i'm saying is that in many areas of the us; guns are still needed.

I'm not for a gun ban. Don't get me wrong. But I don't believe in people who seem to think more guns will solve the problems.

I found my uncle's rifle two days ago and I've been shooting at empty cans since I found it. It's fun. But I won't take it with me when I move out, nor will I buy a gun or a fire arm myself.

But you've described your place before and in places like that a gun can come in very handy and if I ever lived somewhere where wild animals still lived I'd probaby buy a fire arm myself.

I don't think I'll ever buy a gun to protect myself from other people, no matter where I live and I don't think it's a good way to protect yourself.

Guns aren't toys and shouldn't be in the hands of immature or irresponsible people. That's why I think it's wrong that a person (like the Virgina Tech shooter) can just walk in, pass a few simple requirements and buy a gun.

inmytree

69charger wrote:

Yeah I was bitching. Our Governer happens to suck.

BTW, they say 'aboot' in Canada not Wisconsin.

Don't you have a banjo you should be playing or a sister you should be doing or something?

oh, I beg to differ my friend...the accent in cheezville is pretty much the same as the great white north, trust me, I've been there...don't ya know...

you've got the wrong sister....your sister happens to love my big banjo...;)

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

i'm not going to repeat something i posted earlier. do some research about phoenix. seniors were targets of crime until the ccw law went into effect. crime against seniors dropped dramatically. do the research yourself if you don't believe anyone.

I have more important things to do. If you have proof that the fact that the seniors started arming themselves caused a direct decrease in crime against seniors, show it.

Otherwise, there can always be third factors, it can be part of a bigger picture (generally less crime, a higher number of police officers on the streets, ...)

So to me it's correlation and not proof. I can post stats that "prove" that since guns were banned less crime was commited. You'll be able to check everything I post and see it's right, but that doesn't mean there's causation.

That's the tricky thing with stats and graphs, you can "prove" anything. My brother did it for a living. Selling things with stats and graphs, they were correct but people misinterprete them or think it's direct causation.

CorporateWhore

Collin wrote:

Anyway, I think America and indeed any country no matter how heavy its citizens are armed can be taken by a dictator.

Of course you do. You're a pacifist lib who couldn't fight his way out of a Starbucks paper bag.

Gun registration was mandatory before Hitler came to power in Germany. When he finally obtained power, he went around taking people's guns because he knew who had them based on the registration lists. This is yet another way he was able to dominate the people.

CorporateWhore

Collin wrote:

I have more important things to do. If you have proof that the fact that the seniors started arming themselves caused a direct decrease in crime against seniors, show it.

Otherwise, there can always be third factors, it can be part of a bigger picture (generally less crime, a higher number of police officers on the streets, ...)

So to me it's correlation and not proof. I can post stats that "prove" that since guns were banned less crime was commited. You'll be able to check everything I post and see it's right, but that doesn't mean there's causation.

That's the tricky thing with stats and graphs, you can "prove" anything. My brother did it for a living. Selling things with stats and graphs, they were correct but people misinterprete them or think it's direct causation.

You prove causation through consistent statistical analysis over time.

Consistent statistical analysis is not le fort of the gun-control movement.

onelongsong

Collin wrote:

I have more important things to do. If you have proof that the fact that the seniors started arming themselves caused a direct decrease in crime against seniors, show it.

Otherwise, there can always be third factors, it can be part of a bigger picture (generally less crime, a higher number of police officers on the streets, ...)

So to me it's correlation and not proof. I can post stats that "prove" that since guns were banned less crime was commited. You'll be able to check everything I post and see it's right, but that doesn't mean there's causation.

That's the tricky thing with stats and graphs, you can "prove" anything. My brother did it for a living. Selling things with stats and graphs, they were correct but people misinterprete them or think it's direct causation.

i normally do post links when asked but i haven't slept in 2 days and i need to check for price list requests and orders and process those before i can take a nap. if you're about later i'll be more than happy to post the links. i do know that at the time; phoenix didn't have the money to hire more police and as policemen retired they weren't replaced. at that point in time; phoenix was mostly retired people who didn't work; therefore did not contribute taxes. i'll try to find that too.

JordyWordy

1970RR wrote:

I believe that overdoses are directly related to the illegality of the drug. Prohibition creates an environment where the potency of a drug is unknown to the user, which leads to overdoses.

stupid comment. maybe the drug is illegal BECAUSE of the amount of overdoses. every met anyone who takes drugs to the extent that it can kill you? do you honestly think they'd tell you that they started it or do it because its illegal?

actually ignore that comment - i read on further! im just getting worked up by this thread! good read

callen

JordyWordy wrote:

stupid comment. maybe the drug is illegal BECAUSE of the amount of overdoses. every met anyone who takes drugs to the extent that it can kill you? do you honestly think they'd tell you that they started it or do it because its illegal?

actually ignore that comment - i read on further! im just getting worked up by this thread! good read

or maybe not.....I got that once a drug is illegal its not regulated and hence no standards and hence users don't have information as to dosage..and what will kill you..along with not really knowing what your getting.

JordyWordy

also i think its fairly irrelevant in the overall scheme of the issue...but have any of the major wars or invasions over the last century been met with any actual solid resistance from civilians taking to the streets to attack

i would classify "insurgents political / radical groups with guns" as being people who illegally own guns..im irish..it definitely rings a chord with me.

i cannot think of one single time in history where civilians legally carrying guns caused a military upset (except in civil wars)

im not saying anything about that argument as regards gun ownership but im just curious if anyone knows if it ever happened...

JordyWordy

callen wrote:

or maybe not.....I got that once a drug is illegal its not regulated and hence no standards and hence users don't have information as to dosage..and what will kill you..along with not really knowing what your getting.

thats true to an extent - for drugs that are legalized. like marjuana. but people dont die from marjuana, they die from coke and heroin etc. no government ive ever heard of succesfully regulated heroin use, and anyway heroin affects you so seriously you wouldnt be able to properly administer it yourself even if you were told how.

i just thought it was a brainless comparison because the compelling reasons for possessing and owning drugs are in no way similar to those for guns, just because they kill people doesnt mean its a appropriate example. thats all