gun question.

1…89111314…21

Comments

  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    sponger wrote:
    The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are clear examples of how lightly-equipped militia can cause big problems for a technologically advanced army.

    why is this even being discussed? nobody will invade america, and certainly not its own government...

    be afraid, be very afraid.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • sponger
    sponger Posts: 3,159
    dunkman wrote:
    why is this even being discussed? nobody will invade america, and certainly not its own government...

    be afraid, be very afraid.

    You're saying that the American people have nothing to fear from its own government?
    reigning champion

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    sponger wrote:
    You're saying that the American people have nothing to fear from its own government?

    judging by the amount of fear shown in gun threads alone i'm not surprised they fear their own government... in fact i wonder how Americans actually make it past fucking Halloween.


    but to answer the question... no i dont. i dont think of the world in terms of 'fear'.. if you seriously think an armed militia of 8000 fat people is the answer to your government attacking you then good luck with that... i'll be on a mountain in Scotland pointing and mocking.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    bizzat92 wrote:

    http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html
    nice little link with some great quotes from the men who built this country.


    some of those quotes are over 200 years old... are they still relevant? 200 years ago women couldnt vote, you could have a slave, your mode of transport was a fucking horse and beards were taxed...

    this is 2008... stop reminiscing about things some old men wrote 200+ years ago... it's backward
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    sponger wrote:
    The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are clear examples of how lightly-equipped militia can cause big problems for a technologically advanced army.
    Eh, its a different argument here. guerilla warfare is effective, don't fuck with the VC obviously, and yeah Afghanistan and Iraq are still resisting. But they were/are resisting occupation form a foreign army. That's something else.


    I was talking about internal disorder, social progress. And the most effective way is MLK style, not violence.
  • sponger
    sponger Posts: 3,159
    Commy wrote:
    Eh, its a different argument here. guerilla warfare is effective, don't fuck with the VC obviously, and yeah Afghanistan and Iraq are still resisting. But they were/are resisting occupation form a foreign army. That's something else.


    I was talking about internal disorder, social progress. And the most effective way is MLK style, not violence.

    In a state of martial law, MLK style resistance won't do any good.
    reigning champion

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
  • sponger
    sponger Posts: 3,159
    dunkman wrote:
    but to answer the question... no i dont. i dont think of the world in terms of 'fear'.. if you seriously think an armed militia of 8000 fat people is the answer to your government attacking you then good luck with that... i'll be on a mountain in Scotland pointing and mocking.

    Yes, use a steretype to support your argument. That always works.
    reigning champion

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    sponger wrote:
    Yes, use a steretype to support your argument. That always works.


    well thats because no pro-gun person ever responds to posts like this:-

    in 2001-2002 in the UK 23 people were killed by handguns...

    in the US that figure was 29,573 deaths from firearms

    now we have a 1/5th of the population of the US... so i'd expect our gun deaths to be a 1/5th of yours... so that 1/5th is 5914!!

    we should have had 5914 gun related deaths to be in line with the US... we had 23!!!

    you can clearly see you have a major problem with guns in your country... posting figures about other countries will always actually prove that your country is worse than others.

    you cant argue with that. to do so would be both ignorant and futile.


    it'd be nice if a pro-gun poster cam on and said 'you know what... we do have a problem, perhaps we should look at this gun problem of ours' instead of just doing an ostrich.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    Well someone earlier said you could always get new stuff after your house was broken into....

    I agree stuff is worth less than human lives but that doesn't trivialize burglary....

    I'm sure when one decides to take the risk of breaking into someone's home they realize they could get shot doing it so essentially they are the one's taking the risk by breaking into my home. If they get killed breaking into someone's home that has a gun it's their fault not the gun or the gunowner.

    it's that simple..

    yep yep

    You can get new stuff after your stuff was stolen. How does that mean burglary is ok? If you value human life more than stuff, why would you kill over stuff? We are talking about things now, not family members or yourself. So that's why people say you can buy new things, because if you truly value a man's life more than things... buying new stuff seems more reasonable than killing people.

    And I don't agree with you, I don't think it's that simple. If someone gets killed because he's breaking in the gun owner is responsible for that man's death. The burglar is of course taking a huge risk, he should know half of America is prepared to kill over a blender. You could say it's his fault. But then again, lots of people make mistakes that doesn't mean I think they should die.

    Maybe it's a circle of violence. Americans feel the need to have a gun so they can kill intruders, intruders realize this so they come prepared as well.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    sponger wrote:
    In a state of martial law, MLK style resistance won't do any good.
    Under any circumstance, in any situation, the people of any country, anywhere in the world, can shut any system down.


    Governments rule with the people's consent, be it a totalitarian dictatorship or a communist structure or capitalist, it doesn't matter. Governments operate under the principle of the consent of the governed, because ultimately the people have the power. And that really isn't an opinion. If a population were organized enough, they could all decide not to show up for work tomorrow. And there is nothing to govern if the country isn't running.

    It comes down to labor ultimately. And this is an opinion, but I think unarmed mass public protest and general strikes are really the only way to instigate any substantial form of social progress. Pass laws, vote in your representative, but inevitably politicians end up serving owners and managers. We have to make them hear us, and only through public protests and general strikes can we make them listen.

    Martial law? Fuck em. If no one is working they don't have anything to be in charge of. We are the majority. We are in charge. And it doesn't matter how many guns they have or how many jails, if we decide not to run the country thats it.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    Commy wrote:
    Under any circumstance, in any situation, the people of any country, anywhere in the world, can shut any system down.


    Governments rule with the people's consent, be it a totalitarian dictatorship or a communist structure or capitalist, it doesn't matter. Governments operate under the principle of the consent of the governed, because ultimately the people have the power. And that really isn't an opinion. If a population were organized enough, they could all decide not to show up for work tomorrow. And there is nothing to govern if the country isn't running.

    It comes down to labor ultimately. And this is an opinion, but I think unarmed mass public protest and general strikes are really the only way to instigate any substantial form of social progress. Pass laws, vote in your representative, but inevitably politicians end up serving owners and managers. We have to make them hear us, and only through public protests and general strikes can we make them listen.

    Martial law? Fuck em. If no one is working they don't have anything to be in charge of. We are the majority. We are in charge. And it doesn't matter how many guns they have or how many jails, if we decide not to run the country thats it.

    I agree with much of what you said.

    "Only a few of us were able to cry out loudly that the powers that be should not be all-powerful [...]
    The previous regime - armed with its arrogant and intolerant ideology - reduced man to a force of production, and nature to a tool of production. In this it attacked both their very substance and their mutual relationship. It reduced gifted and autonomous people, skillfully working in their own country, to the nuts and bolts of some monstrously huge, noisy and stinking machine, whose real meaning was not clear to anyone. It could not do more than slowly but inexorably wear out itself and all its nuts and bolts.

    When I talk about the contaminated moral atmosphere [..] I am talking about all of us. We had all become used to the totalitarian system and accepted it as an unchangeable fact and thus helped to perpetuate it. In other words, we are all - though naturally to differing extents - responsible for the operation of the totalitarian machinery. None of us is just its victim. We are all also its co-creators.

    [...]

    We cannot blame the previous rulers for everything, not only because it would be untrue, but also because it would blunt the duty that each of us faces today: namely, the obligation to act independently, freely, reasonably and quickly. Let us not be mistaken: the best government in the world, the best parliament and the best president, cannot achieve much on their own. And it would be wrong to expect a general remedy from them alone. Freedom and democracy include participation and therefore responsibility from us all."

    From Václav Havel's address to the nation, Prague, January 1, 1990
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    Collin wrote:
    We cannot blame the previous rulers for everything, not only because it would be untrue, but also because it would blunt the duty that each of us faces today: namely, the obligation to act independently, freely, reasonably and quickly. Let us not be mistaken: the best government in the world, the best parliament and the best president, cannot achieve much on their own. And it would be wrong to expect a general remedy from them alone. Freedom and democracy include participation and therefore responsibility from us all."[/i]

    From Václav Havel's address to the nation, Prague, January 1, 1990

    Vaclev is very charismatic when read, and he often speaks the truth. I agree with all of this.
  • bizzat92
    bizzat92 Posts: 15
    dunkman wrote:
    judging by the amount of fear shown in gun threads alone i'm not surprised they fear their own government... in fact i wonder how Americans actually make it past fucking Halloween.


    but to answer the question... no i dont. i dont think of the world in terms of 'fear'.. if you seriously think an armed militia of 8000 fat people is the answer to your government attacking you then good luck with that... i'll be on a mountain in Scotland pointing and mocking.


    i love the 8000 fat people comment out of this. you obviously have no understanding of what militia we have available to defend ourselves with in this country. 900,000 people alone in pennsylvania are out on first day of deer season in pennsylvania. you obviously have no understanding of the way that the rural areas in this country operate.

    and your comments about the quote link i put up? they werent all 200 years old. and the ones that were, they are the people that established the framework of this country and fought to make it what it is. their opinion on the matter 200 years later is still a hell of a lot important that a bunch of people now who sit back and let the government rule their lives with no say in the matter. they at least had enough balls to get up and make a real stand against a government that was oppressing them.

    and you should never fear your government, your government should always fear you.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    bizzat92 wrote:
    i love the 8000 fat people comment out of this. you obviously have no understanding of what militia we have available to defend ourselves with in this country. 900,000 people alone in pennsylvania are out on first day of deer season in pennsylvania. you obviously have no understanding of the way that the rural areas in this country operate.

    900,000 people who hunt are not a militia.

    Not every gun owner will, if it's necessary, fight against the government. For several reasons of course. In a country as divided as the US, it seems rather unlikely that every one would be on the same side.

    Look what happened under communist socialist regime, if you ratted on your neighbours, friends or even family you'd get special privilages. Your children were allowed to go to (a better) school, you could keep your job so you could feed your children... You didn't go to jail, they didn't take half your stuff etc.

    Stalin, Hitler... killed thousands who opposed them.

    I think it's not very realistic to assume all the people would fight the government. I think it's far more realistic that a huge number would sit quietly at home, especially if sitting quietly at home means avoiding harrassment, danger and death. A look at history tells me it's very likely many would support whatever government or dictator is in charge.

    Lastly, you'd have to deal with retaliation and counter attacks. Perhaps there are many brave souls in America who'd risk their own lives, but how many would risk the lives of their families or the lives of other innocent people? I think once people see scenarios like the retaliation of Reinhard Heydrich's death... many would think twice.

    The 'militia' would be significantly smaller. I just hope you'll never have to use your 'militia'. And if it happens I really hope you are not surrounded by people who support the government or dictator. People here say they'd kill over a toaster and a alarm clock, imagine what they'd do if they found out you were a terrorist.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    Collin wrote:
    You can get new stuff after your stuff was stolen. How does that mean burglary is ok? If you value human life more than stuff, why would you kill over stuff? We are talking about things now, not family members or yourself. So that's why people say you can buy new things, because if you truly value a man's life more than things... buying new stuff seems more reasonable than killing people.

    And I don't agree with you, I don't think it's that simple. If someone gets killed because he's breaking in the gun owner is responsible for that man's death. The burglar is of course taking a huge risk, he should know half of America is prepared to kill over a blender. You could say it's his fault. But then again, lots of people make mistakes that doesn't mean I think they should die.

    Maybe it's a circle of violence. Americans feel the need to have a gun so they can kill intruders, intruders realize this so they come prepared as well.
    If someone breaks into my house am I supposed to hand them a questionaire about their motive? How do I know he doesn't plan on doing harm? I guess I don't shoot him if he's smiling?
    Have you ever had to make a claim on a burglary? It's not as simple as making an insurance claim.

    First you have to make a police report and then you become the primary suspect because immediately the police will think you are trying to make an insurance claim.
    Then if you are cleared of being a suspect you have to have an itemized list of what's missing and it has to be on the police report (so you better be sure you take thorough inventory when you call the police because if it's not on the police report it won't be covered).
    And what about family heirlooms and items that have special meaning? Can you really replace your deceased grandfather's wedding ring with meager monetary insurance? I don't think so.

    Yeah maybe if someone breaks into my home I DON'T value that fuckers life for a dime!!!! It's easier to blow his friggin head off and go buy a sponge and mop to clean the brains off the walls
    the Minions
  • blondieblue227
    blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    Has anybody mentioned the boarded up house scene in The Happening?
    Whoa.
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    Have you ever had to make a claim on a burglary? It's not as simple as making an insurance claim.

    Yet I'm sure it's much more simple than defending yourself against murder charges.
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    scb wrote:
    Yet I'm sure it's much more simple than defending yourself against murder charges.

    sorry, but I don't see where the murder took place. Where's the murder on a B&E?

    If it's a straight up b&e with the intruder getting killed by homeowner those don't even go to court.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/murder
    the Minions
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    sorry, but I don't see where the murder took place. Where's the murder on a B&E?

    If it's a straight up b&e with the intruder getting killed by homeowner those don't even go to court.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/murder

    Wow - no court, no paperwork, no questions asked, huh? I find that hard to believe.

    All I'm saying is, your assertion that it's better to kill a burglar to avoid all the paperwork that comes with filing a burglary charge is silly.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    scb wrote:
    Wow - no court, no paperwork, no questions asked, huh? I find that hard to believe.

    All I'm saying is, your assertion that it's better to kill a burglar to avoid all the paperwork that comes with filing a burglary charge is silly.


    i was just thinking that... i also just thought about how easy it would be to murder someone who perhaps fucked you off in some or other in life.

    basically... tie them up, put a balaclava on them and drag them into your house and then shoot them... claim they were stealing your playstation.

    brilliant :)
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.

Categories