2nd: The founders meant what they wrote about arms

2

Comments

  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Ok...but I was pointing out how you said guns were working for the Iraqi insurgents, which I took to mean that you thought they could succeed in winning a war with our military by using firearms, etc. Then you said you thought we could win in Iraq, which I took to mean that you think we can succeed there no matter how many guns the insurgents acquire. I'm just a little confused as to how you say guns are working for them but then you admit they really wouldn't be relevent against our military power. Can or can not guns works against a military arsenal?

    If the Iraqis had no guns there would be no insurgency. We'd have marched in there, locked up any troublemakers, installed a government, trained their people, and marched back home.

    Shock & Awe worked to topple the Hussein government and army. But because the people have access to firearms, we have been unable to turn the country over to the Iraqis and leave. The insurgents continue to battle, order has not been established. Guns are working against a military arsenal as long as the military continues to prosecute this war the way it has been and the way it was fought in Vietnam. If the military were allowed to do their thing without input from the politicians, or without considerations about balance of power and diplomacy issues, they could certainly mow everyone down, turn Iraq into a ghost town and leave. But that wouldn't accomplish any objective that I've heard.

    Same with the US. If the military wanted to wipe out all of the citizens armed or not, it could. But that isn't usually the point of a coup or an overthrow. An armed populous creates a much more difficult task for the military. I really don't understand how it could be any other way.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    jeffbr wrote:
    If the Iraqis had no guns there would be no insurgency. We'd have marched in there, locked up any troublemakers, installed a government, trained their people, and marched back home.

    Shock & Awe worked to topple the Hussein government and army. But because the people have access to firearms, we have been unable to turn the country over to the Iraqis and leave. The insurgents continue to battle, order has not been established. Guns are working against a military arsenal as long as the military continues to prosecute this war the way it has been and the way it was fought in Vietnam. If the military were allowed to do their thing without input from the politicians, or without considerations about balance of power and diplomacy issues, they could certainly mow everyone down, turn Iraq into a ghost town and leave. But that wouldn't accomplish any objective that I've heard.

    Same with the US. If the military wanted to wipe out all of the citizens armed or not, it could. But that isn't usually the point of a coup or an overthrow. An armed populous creates a much more difficult task for the military. I really don't understand how it could be any other way.

    More difficult or not, in the end guns would make no difference.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • mpg82
    mpg82 Posts: 83
    they also wrote it back before people started calling 911 when they were burglarized. its out of date. but so is the rest of it then. keep it how it is.

    dont ban guns, but be reasonable and ban concealed carry. thats just asking for trouble. this isnt fucking 1865. you dont need a six-shooter on your hip like john wayne to protect the good guys in the white hats from the outlaws. we pay policemen to protect us. they're overpaid for a reason. ask the cops what they think about concealed carry. they deal with the bad guys every day. your typical nra-member "shoot first ask questions later" cowboy doesnt. hes the type of guy who wants to walk into the local bar with a gun. i'd rather have cops take care of the bad guys. these cowboy wanna be motherfuckers can romanticize all they want but i say keep the guns away from them.
    6/26/98, 6/27/98, 06/13/99, 10/08/00, 6/18/03, 6/21/03, 6/29/06, 6/30/06, 5/7/10
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    More difficult or not, in the end guns would make no difference.

    They make a lot of difference. Difference in cost (time, casualties, munitions/supplies), and difference in the surviving population. The cost difference changes the go/no-go equation.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    jeffbr wrote:
    They make a lot of difference. Difference in cost (time, casualties, munitions/supplies), and difference in the surviving population. The cost difference changes the go/no-go equation.

    Prolonging the inevitable?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    mikeg19_82 wrote:
    dont ban guns, but be reasonable and ban concealed carry. thats just asking for trouble. this isnt fucking 1865. you dont need a six-shooter on your hip like john wayne to protect the good guys in the white hats from the outlaws. we pay policemen to protect us. they're overpaid for a reason. ask the cops what they think about concealed carry. they deal with the bad guys every day.

    Your conclusions aren't supported by the facts. Here are some facts about Right To Carry laws:
    The violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991, to a 30-year low. (Meanwhile, 21 states adopted RTC and the number of guns rose by over 60 million.) And on average, RTC states have 21% lower total violent crime, 28% lower murder, 43% lower robbery, and 13% lower aggravated assault. Nine of the 10 states with the lowest violent crime and murder rates have RTC.

    And I don't give a shit about what the police think about right to carry. If you think the police can protect you from violent crime, you're mistaken. They'll be there AFTER THE FACT to try to figure out what happened, but they're helpless before any crime is committed.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Prolonging the inevitable?

    Perhaps, but it isn't inevitable if the cost is too high.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    jeffbr wrote:
    Perhaps, but it isn't inevitable if the cost is too high.

    Costs wouldn't matter too much if they lost power.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • mpg82
    mpg82 Posts: 83
    jeffbr wrote:
    Your conclusions aren't supported by the facts. Here are some facts about Right To Carry laws:


    And I don't give a shit about what the police think about right to carry. If you think the police can protect you from violent crime, you're mistaken. They'll be there AFTER THE FACT to try to figure out what happened, but they're helpless before any crime is committed.

    If I wanted some facts, I'd visit the NRA website. The people that protect us on the streets, not jeffbr, are against it because they realize that more guns equals more crime. You can give me all the "facts" and percentages fit your side of the argument. I side with the cops. You know what protects me from violent crime? Not walking around with a gun. I'm a whole lot more likely not to be shot (not to mention the people I'm driving with) if I don't point a gun at the hoodlum who wants to steal my car than if I point it at him. There's no need to be a hero over things material.
    6/26/98, 6/27/98, 06/13/99, 10/08/00, 6/18/03, 6/21/03, 6/29/06, 6/30/06, 5/7/10
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Costs wouldn't matter too much if they lost power.

    But it is a check against them amassing more power too quickly. So instead we have the situation where we're lulled into complacency while they continually erode our rights and liberties. As long as we stay awake and stay vigilant we can keep the government in check.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    mikeg19_82 wrote:
    If I wanted some facts, I'd visit the NRA website. The people that protect us on the streets, not jeffbr, are against it because they realize that more guns equals more crime. You can give me all the "facts" and percentages fit your side of the argument. I side with the cops. You know what protects me from violent crime? Not walking around with a gun. I'm a whole lot more likely not to be shot (not to mention the people I'm driving with) if I don't point a gun at the hoodlum who wants to steal my car than if I point it at him. There's no need to be a hero over things material.

    Since you are not interested in facts, your argument must be based on your own hatred for firearms as the statistics how you have no valid reason against the Right to Carry.

    Of course cops don't want you to have guns! Only they should have guns, right? The cops did a great job of protecting the citizens of New Orleans now didn't they?

    All your other "rights" mean jack squat without the right to defend those rights.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    mikeg19_82 wrote:
    If I wanted some facts, I'd visit the NRA website. The people that protect us on the streets, not jeffbr, are against it because they realize that more guns equals more crime. You can give me all the "facts" and percentages fit your side of the argument. I side with the cops. You know what protects me from violent crime? Not walking around with a gun. I'm a whole lot more likely not to be shot (not to mention the people I'm driving with) if I don't point a gun at the hoodlum who wants to steal my car than if I point it at him. There's no need to be a hero over things material.

    If ignoring facts helps you get through the day I will try not to disabuse you of your fantasies.

    But for the rest of us who look at facts and statistics, right to carry states have lower crime rates. Period. Regardless of what the cops want you to think.

    And I completely agree with you about your hoodlum stealing a car scenario. Save the use of deadly force for when the lives of you and/or your loved ones are in mortal danger.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    jeffbr wrote:
    But it is a check against them amassing more power too quickly. So instead we have the situation where we're lulled into complacency while they continually erode our rights and liberties. As long as we stay awake and stay vigilant we can keep the government in check.

    Those with the guns are killing off each other and keeping the rest in line thus ensuring the corrupt govt remains in power. I don't think the govt has a care in the world about our guns being used against them....they flourish in the fact that the guns keep us separate and at odds.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    they flourish in the fact that the guns keep us separate and at odds.

    Guns keep us seperate? Are you kidding? That's like saying "forks keep us fat" or "hammers build houses". Why does the anti-gun crowd gloss over personal responsibility and choose to blame inanimate objects for our problems?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    69charger wrote:
    Guns keep us seperate? Are you kidding? That's like saying "forks keep us fat" or "hammers build houses". Why does the anti-gun crowd gloss over personal responsibility and choose to blame inanimate objects for our problems?

    no, guns bring us all together...my bad.

    I'm talking about reality here...what is actually happening, not just some ideal.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • thunder_balls
    thunder_balls Posts: 117
    It doesn't matter. You can't go against the 2nd ammendment! If you want your rights, you'll have to live with the ammendments you don't like. Otherwise you can just reap off the benefits of the ones you pick out, and then throw away the ones you dissaprove of. It solely depends on the person with the gun. If they choose to use guns to go kill people, well, you're allowed to have a gun to kill that person when they attack you.
    7/10/06
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    no, guns bring us all together...my bad.

    They can and they have and they are far less dangerous than cars, yet I don't see you posting a thread suggesting we ban cars. Maybe the police should be the only ones with cars also?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    69charger wrote:
    They can and they have and they are far less dangerous than cars, yet I don't see you posting a thread suggesting we ban cars. Maybe the police should be the only ones with cars also?

    Guns are not necessary nearly as much as cars are. Do people use guns in everyday life? Who needs a gun everyday besides police? And even police could get by with traquilizers and stun guns....there's no need to have potentially fatal weapons when there are reasonable alternatives.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    there's no need to have potentially fatal weapons when there are reasonable alternatives.

    What is a reasonable alternative when faced with a potentially fatal threat? Slap fighting? Asking nicely for them to stop?
  • EvilToasterElf
    EvilToasterElf Posts: 1,119
    Will1659 wrote:
    I agree, at least with the part about it being outdated. If the defense of our "freedoms and liberties" ever comes down to the US Army vs. a bunch of rednecks with deer rifles, freedom and liberty are fucked.

    The Iraqi's seem to be doing ok.

Categories