Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

having a gun to fight the goverments tanks and missiles is going to save your country.....or give you a chance to host another civil war.Poor America has had what,two hundred and twenty three years of paranoia?If a dictator takes over nothing civilians will do will matter.its all who the military sides with. In Ireland we cant carry handguns. Even the police in Ireland only have roughly 25 percent of themselves armed at the moment. This might be linked to the fact that we dont let our civilians have pretty much any type of gun anywhere we want at an time to shoot them with.

 Tjomball wrote:
As for home defence.. 21 feet is all I'll say..

A friend of mine has a Thunder Five. Google it if you don't know what it is. He keeps it loaded and in the sock drawer. His rule is if a bad guy breaks in and he hears it (which is very likely as his doors have good locks on them, something I make sure of for all my friends) he will stand at the end of the hallway where the bedrooms are. The hall is around that magical distance. As long as the bad guy stays out of that hall he wont do anything. But if the bad guy starts down that hall, well the Thunder Five holds five .410 shotgun shells and he loads 00 buck. His motto, three balls-no waiting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Received additional intel that the weapon discharge happen in Wal-Mart parking lot

Mom left purse in vehicle with kid

So sad.... That she didn't die BEFORE she passed her idiot genes on to another generation.

Sometimes I think we are too civilized. We need that frontier edge to weed out stupidity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Considering in this case, her own progeny offed her, it seems Darwin didnt work at all, as her genetic material remains in the gene pool, at least in part.

Well, we can hope the kid is so messed up by this that he spends his live in a mental institution and never has the opportunity to breed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
And you do know that if that day ever comes, you'll be using your second amendment rights to shoot cops right? and then the national guard & maybe even the military?

Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Think about that when you consider the new york city cops, and the cops go to phrase "He tried to take my gun, and he was charging me, so I had to shot him" Where anyone who could possible, but not known til after the fact is shot dead because they might have a gun. You've already lost the revolution that will never happen, so worried about the 2nd amendment you no longer have any others.

I agree that by and large both sides of the aisle have unloaded their bladders and bowels upon the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But they did so to appease the Baby Boomers. I have hope that my sons generation will be the one to reclaim the ideals of our founding. They seem disillusioned by both major parties and are open to new ideas. As long as we can keep them from falling for socialist dogma I think we have a good shot at fixing things. Of course they may fix things by moving to Mars and leave the earth to the whiner babies who are scared of everything. But that's another topic for another day.

sirlynchmob wrote:
And you do know that if that day ever comes, you'll be using your second amendment rights to shoot cops right? and then the national guard & maybe even the military?

What is even more absurd is the idea that this "people's militia" would be able to coordinate and agree on anything. You're gonna have a bunch of guys fighting to bring back slavery alongside anti-capitalists, NRA alongside PETA, paranoid tinfoil hat guys with hollow points. Roving bands of looters, rape gangs. It would be anarchy meets massacre. I think I'd prefer to totalitarian government TBH.

Furthermore governments have evolved since the 20th century. They don't use guns anymore to invade or control people, they use things like debt, scaremongering about terrorism, ironically keeping people busy arguing about the 2nd amendment while they sneak in TTIP under the radar. Oppression is now, and guns aren't stopping it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
To be fair, even if she did not return fire, having a gun on your person does magically protect you from all harm...

You almost are getting it. Nothing will protect you form all harm. Not a gun, a knife, a religious symbol or forces of government are able to protect you form everything. In fact trying to protect you from everything is the root of the problem. I watch Top Gear and hear them talking about the "Health and Safety Nazis" all the time. From their perspective it seems England has gone insane with a desire to protect the citizens from every possible venue of harm and by doing so is making life far less fun.

The idea of carrying a gun is the same as carrying a pocket knife or a cell phone. If you don't need them they are just so much more weight you carry but when you need them... Such tools don't stop bad things from happening, they just give you options to deal with the bad things when they happen.

You can't legislate risk away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da krimson barun wrote:
.Poor America has had what,two hundred and twenty three years of paranoia?If a dictator takes over nothing civilians will do will matter.its all who the military sides with.

You realize most of the resistance in Afghanistan started off without much more than the average American has in their gun cabinet? They used those civilian type arms to acquire the military arms the invaders brought with them. A pistol isn't much good against a tank, but it is rather effective against the guy guarding the armory filled with weapons that can kill a tank. Many of us have military training with those weapons. It's a side effect of having one of the largest military forces in the world. Plenty of trained vets who may not side with the govt forces. Also the fact that we are armed would give pause to the policeman or soldier ordered to disarm a city and make them wonder if they are on the right side. Human nature is such that if it is easier to go along with evil we will, but raise the danger level of siding with evil and many will rethink their loyalties.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
In Ireland we cant carry handguns. Even the police in Ireland only have roughly 25 percent of themselves armed at the moment. This might be linked to the fact that we dont let our civilians have pretty much any type of gun anywhere we want at an time to shoot them with.

I have a friend who spent a lot of time in England with the Air Force. We were talking one time about the cops without guns thing and he pointed out that they have vans full of guns that they can call in and suit up with an array of military weapons. I would figure Ireland wouldn't be much different. So while the cop walks about with narry more than a stick if things get hairy there's a van full of deadly weapons ready to roll to back him up. Your nations iron fist is just kept in a sneakier bag than ours.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
From their perspective it seems England has gone insane with a desire to protect the citizens from every possible venue of harm and by doing so is making life far less fun.

That all grew out of this culture of suing people for every little thing, which feels a lot like an American import.

I recall a few years ago it snowed here, chaos ensued. A bus skidded a little on the ice that morning, so all the buses were canceled. It was excruciatingly stupid, like people had never seen snow before. 70 years ago they would have just got on with it and muddled through, but the truth is, you can't do that anymore because you'd be liable. The problem isn't with people being wusses, it is with people being greedy.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
To be fair, even if she did not return fire, having a gun on your person does magically protect you from all harm...

You almost are getting it. Nothing will protect you form all harm. Not a gun, a knife, a religious symbol or forces of government are able to protect you form everything. In fact trying to protect you from everything is the root of the problem. I watch Top Gear and hear them talking about the "Health and Safety Nazis" all the time. From their perspective it seems England has gone insane with a desire to protect the citizens from every possible venue of harm and by doing so is making life far less fun.

Top Gear is not a reliable source of anything to do with facts.

Health and Safety law exists to protect people in the workplace from unnecessary risks. If by less fun you mean less risk of inhaling asbestos fibres due to lax law regarding its removal then yes, it is less fun. Around 99% of the time someone complains about health and safety it isn't the HSE imposing the rules, it's some middle management idiot who doesn't understand how to do a risk assessment.

One example was the school which banned conkers, then rescinded the ban but made students wear goggles to play. The HSE has never recommended either of those, it never commented on playing conkers at all. The problem is not with health and safety, it is with idiots who don't understand what health and safety law is for, such as Jeremy Clarkson who is an idiot about most things and a racist, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:


You realize most of the resistance in Afghanistan started off without much more than the average American has in their gun cabinet? They used those civilian type arms to acquire the military arms the invaders brought with them. A pistol isn't much good against a tank, but it is rather effective against the guy guarding the armory filled with weapons that can kill a tank. Many of us have military training with those weapons. It's a side effect of having one of the largest military forces in the world. Plenty of trained vets who may not side with the govt forces. Also the fact that we are armed would give pause to the policeman or soldier ordered to disarm a city and make them wonder if they are on the right side. Human nature is such that if it is easier to go along with evil we will, but raise the danger level of siding with evil and many will rethink their loyalties.

I didn't realise that fully automatic AK-47s are regularly in american gun cabinets. Or that all of those came from the russians rather than the CIA arming them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:


I have a friend who spent a lot of time in England with the Air Force. We were talking one time about the cops without guns thing and he pointed out that they have vans full of guns that they can call in and suit up with an array of military weapons. I would figure Ireland wouldn't be much different. So while the cop walks about with narry more than a stick if things get hairy there's a van full of deadly weapons ready to roll to back him up. Your nations iron fist is just kept in a sneakier bag than ours.

We have armed response teams, which are basically swat teams. That's it. There's no "van full of guns" which arrives and equips every bobby at the scene. There's highly trained, expert units who will answer calls regarding firearms. These teams are not armed with an array of military weapons, standard equipment is a semi-automatic MP5. My uncle was in the force and was first a member of such a team in London then trained such teams before switching to close protection detail in the City.

And, here in the UK at least, they aren't required very much.

 Smacks wrote:
What is even more absurd is the idea that this "people's militia" would be able to coordinate and agree on anything. You're gonna have a bunch of guys fighting to bring back slavery alongside anti-capitalists, NRA alongside PETA, paranoid tinfoil hat guys with hollow points. Roving bands of looters, rape gangs. It would be anarchy meets massacre. I think I'd prefer to totalitarian government TBH.

There is an amazingly detailed board game that plays out the Russian Revolution. It shows how all these different factions with their own agendas fought not only the Czar but each other for control of Russia. You really get the feel of how one mishap with the railroads or one person waiting an extra day to decide what side to join could have changed the outcome of that very messy revolution. I mentuion this to make a point. Revolutions are always messy and in the end it's the winners that write the history books, they clean up things and make it seem like everyone was pulling together for "the cause".

If the fecal matter hits the rotary air circulation device here in the states I suspect it will be no less messy. However I doubt the Anti Capitalists and PETA members would be out on the streets with their AR-15's capping cops and national guardsmen. They tend to be in the no guns camp. But you're right about the Neo Nazis and Clansman being an armed movement. However they are a small minority of the "Patriot Movement" types who await the day the government out-steps the bounds that a majority of Americans will accept.

Most of us are reasonable folks who leave our guns at home when we go to the store and don't insist that McDonnalds allow us to open carry an AK into the kiddy play area. We use our guns to hunt and target shoot. We may carry concealed if the state we live in allows such things or we may just keep a pistol under the seat of the pickup. We are law abiding citizens whose guns have killed fewer people than Teddy Kennedy's cars. We ask simply to be left alone to live our lives and raise our children to be responsible hunters and gun owners without our doctors or kids teachers giving us a hard time over our lawfully purchased firearms.

Why are some people so afraid of that? What about a 45 year old locksmith who pays his taxes and leaves his neighbors be having a few long arms and pistols in a closet is so frightening? My family is an example of the great majority of gun owners. There are a few who go overboard and could use some anti psychotic medications to level them out and even fewer who chose to use firearms for criminal reasons. Why punish the majority for the actions of a minority?

 Smacks wrote:
Furthermore governments have evolved since the 20th century. They don't use guns anymore to invade or control people, they use things like debt, scaremongering about terrorism, ironically keeping people busy arguing about the 2nd amendment while they sneak in TTIP under the radar. Oppression is now, and guns aren't stopping it.

Very true. We have been divided into small camps, all of which distrust each other. We are divided by gender, ethnicity, sexuality, age and our entertainment preferences. We each see our own liberties as vital and the liberties we do not share with others as dangerous. But that is changing. I see it growing in my sons generation, they are watching the melt down of the mega-state and seeing that the Emperor is buck naked. I think they will change the world for the better. That could be a fathers blind spot where his son is concerned, who knows.

The sadness in this story is that woman took this gun to feel secured and "protect herself/her family".

And it was her two-years old child who killed her in the end, with her own weapon.

Looks like guns don't protect, after all. Out of fear, she brought her own demise.

Gun defenders will keep saying it was her fault (some would blame the two-years old, I'm sure). Well, this surely would have never happened if she didn't have a gun in the very beginning, that is the truth.

Now her children are motherless. A real pity.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:


Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.

Wow.... you slipped in right at the buzzer but you definitel;y win Most Asinine Post of 2014!

Welcome to Ignore.

Still though that child is going to have a horrible life when he grows up.*waits for squig excrement about genes and "offspring of stupidity"*

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
There is an amazingly detailed board game that plays out the Russian Revolution. It shows how all these different factions with their own agendas fought not only the Czar but each other for control of Russia. You really get the feel of how one mishap with the railroads or one person waiting an extra day to decide what side to join could have changed the outcome of that very messy revolution. I mentuion this to make a point. Revolutions are always messy and in the end it's the winners that write the history books, they clean up things and make it seem like everyone was pulling together for "the cause".

This might just be coincidence, but I love board games, that sounds amazing. Do you recall what it is called?

However I doubt the Anti Capitalists and PETA members would be out on the streets with their AR-15's capping cops and national guardsmen. They tend to be in the no guns camp. But you're right about the Neo Nazis and Clansman being an armed movement. However they are a small minority of the "Patriot Movement" types who await the day the government out-steps the bounds that a majority of Americans will accept.

Haha yeah, I wasn't being too serious about PETA, I was just pointing out that there are a lot of different agendas out there.

There are a few who go overboard and could use some anti psychotic medications to level them out and even fewer who chose to use firearms for criminal reasons. Why punish the majority for the actions of a minority?

That question seems to come up a lot. I think "punish" is a slightly hyperbolic word. I'm not allowed a hand gun here in the UK, and I don't feel punished especially. I acknowledge that they are dangerous, and have been ruled as contraband. Even Americans should be familiar with the idea of some weapons being prohibited.

I don't feel my freedom is threatened (at least not about that). There is a place down the road where I can go shoot clay pigeons all day long, if I felt like it.

As for the majority being "restricted" by the actions of minority. I think the argument is always going to come down to risk versus reward. There are some weapons (Nukes, WMDs) that just aren't worth the risk for anyone to have, regardless of how responsible they are (perhaps even governments shouldn't have them). Then there are are things such as cars which are obviously very dangerous, but the rewards in terms of mobility often outweigh the risks (not that I'm against making cars and roads as safe as possible). I think guns fall in a slightly middle area where about half of people think the risks outweigh the rewards and half think the opposite, making them a divisive issue. I don't really want to argue either side is right, as it is quite subjective, and depends on circumstances, but an argument can be made for something dangerous being prohibited, even if the majority of people would use it responsibly.

 Sarouan wrote:
The sadness in this story is that woman took this gun to feel secured and "protect herself/her family".

And it was her two-years old child who killed her in the end, with her own weapon.

Looks like guns don't protect, after all. Out of fear, she brought her own demise.

Gun defenders will keep saying it was her fault (some would blame the two-years old, I'm sure). Well, this surely would have never happened if she didn't have a gun in the very beginning, that is the truth.

Now her children are motherless. A real pity.

Drawing a huge blanket statement based on one incident. You could say "Looks like airbags don't protect, after all." based on the recent Japanese airbag explosion incidents. A few people, who would otherwise have been fine, were killed when their airbags failed catastrophically. The fact of the matter is that airbags, and guns, save thousands of lives every year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:


Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.

Wow.... you slipped in right at the buzzer but you definitel;y win Most Asinine Post of 2014!

Welcome to Ignore.

Might as well add me too. I agree with him. Enemies foreign and domestic, tree of liberty, yadda yadda yadda.

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.

What?

 Ouze wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
way to go, blame the victim.

Damn right. In this case, the incident was 100% the fault of the victims utterly preventable, wholly negligent actions.

I wasnt serious.

All this "government is out to get us" fearmongering bs really gets annoying after a while. If you honestly think that the US government is going to start revoking your rights and declaring a dictatorship, then you are a sad, sad person. You are the reason that some nuts want to ban guns.

You realize the government HAS been revoking our rights since pretty much day 1, right? Especially post WW2.

having a gun to fight the goverments tanks and missiles is going to save your country.....or give you a chance to host another civil war.Poor America has had what,two hundred and twenty three years of paranoia?If a dictator takes over nothing civilians will do will matter.its all who the military sides with. In Ireland we cant carry handguns.

Middle Eastern insurgencies beg to differ.

Furthermore governments have evolved since the 20th century. They don't use guns anymore to invade or control people, they use things like debt, scaremongering about terrorism, ironically keeping people busy arguing about the 2nd amendment while they sneak in TTIP under the radar. Oppression is now, and guns aren't stopping it.

Sure it will. Armed revolution means not having to pay back your credit card debt and student loan bills

I didn't realise that fully automatic AK-47s are regularly in american gun cabinets. Or that all of those came from the russians rather than the CIA arming them.

There might be more AKs in the US than Afghanaland... not many of the AKs in afghanistan were automatic mind you, and most were using far older weapons than that (like the stash of Martini Henry 1888s that my friends unit discovered). If your knowledge of the war in afghanistan was derived from something other than Call of Duty and The Hurt Locker youd probably know this.

Well, this escalated quickly.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
way to go, blame the victim.

Damn right. In this case, the incident was 100% the fault of the victims utterly preventable, wholly negligent actions.

I wasnt serious..

... sorry, I fell into the sarchasm.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:


Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.

Wow.... you slipped in right at the buzzer but you definitel;y win Most Asinine Post of 2014!

Welcome to Ignore.

Might as well add me too. I agree with him. Enemies foreign and domestic, tree of liberty, yadda yadda yadda.

You did read everything he wrote, right? The part about having no problem with drug dealers shooting police, too?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:


Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.

Wow.... you slipped in right at the buzzer but you definitel;y win Most Asinine Post of 2014!

Welcome to Ignore.

Might as well add me too. I agree with him. Enemies foreign and domestic, tree of liberty, yadda yadda yadda.

You did read everything he wrote, right? The part about having no problem with drug dealers shooting police, too?

Doesn't China execute them? Didn't they do that way back when JC was a PFC by rounding up the opium den owners, users and makers and executed them?

If America were ever to rebel against a tyrannical government, if you actually thing that the government could retain control then you haven't been paying attention to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, if citizens just ran around guns blazing then coordinated airstrikes, artillery fire, and infantry forces would just kill everyone real fast. That's not how a rebellion or resistamce would go down, though, not unless the US military itself fractured and fought against itself (which is exactly what happened in the civil war).

No, you would just have local leadership ignore the federal government, and any troops or police would be met with ambushes and IEDs, and there's no way for even the US military to secure the full territory of the US, especially not without the full support of the people.

If the government ever did become so tyrannical as to prompt a widespread rebellion or violent resistance, that givernment would only be able to retain power if the resistance was a small minority. Either way, it would be violent and a lot of Americans would die, and no one wants that, but it absolutely does present a strong deterrent against, say, a political party like the Nazis or a Mao style communist party taking over.

Conversely, it does not mean that if popular opinion is against, say Democrats but they win a big election anyways and there's controversy and conspiracy theories that suddenly people are going to whip out their guns. This is like doomsday stuff, it can happen, it has happened both to the USA and to countless other nations in history, and it would be dangerous and trying for everyone involved, but giving the people a means of exerting their will even under extreme duress is a fundamental part of the constitution. After all, it's how we won our independence in the first place.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


We have armed response teams, which are basically swat teams. That's it. There's no "van full of guns" which arrives and equips every bobby at the scene. There's highly trained, expert units who will answer calls regarding firearms. These teams are not armed with an array of military weapons, standard equipment is a semi-automatic MP5. My uncle was in the force and was first a member of such a team in London then trained such teams before switching to close protection detail in the City.

And, here in the UK at least, they aren't required very much.

You realize that 1) MP5s were standard military issue for half the world's militaries for decades, and that 2) the extend of the "array of military weapons" the police use in the USA amounts to... tear gas? Maybe the same model shotgun? Our police use AR-15s, not M-16s, most police forces just use remington 700s or similar comercially available hunting rifles for marksman rifles, and the police don't use M203s, machine guns, anti-material rifles, or anything similar. At best, you can moan about how they're getting used MRAPs basically for free, but those are just heavily armored cars, something pretty useful to have if someone's trying to shoot you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.

What is wrong with you? Are you actually so jacked up in the head that you actually belive that non-political murder is justified because you don't care for our drug laws? Do you realize how many people have been pointlessly murdered because of this opinion? I can only pary that you're just an internet tough guy and aren't actually serious about this.

 Sarouan wrote:
Looks like guns don't protect, after all.

One instance explains everything about an entire sub culture? I suppose that one black guy who robbed a liquor store once means all black males are criminals. Who knew that southern racists had it right all along.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkLink wrote:
What is wrong with you?

Stage five renal failure, Multiple Ideopathic Neuropathy and a collection of issues from having Boomers for parents.

 DarkLink wrote:
IAre you actually so jacked up in the head that you actually belive that non-political murder is justified because you don't care for our drug laws?

I think police enforcing what are clearly unconstitutional laws with the defense of "just following orders" is no different than the German soldiers who rounded up Jews and locked them up in death camps claiming they were "just following orders". Sure the young african americans arested under our nations drug laws aren't put to real death, they are simply put to a political death as in something like 2/3 of the states a convicted felon has his voting rights taken away and in all fifty states he will have a hard time getting any job that isn't illegal. Had the police in the 60's simply said "no, we wont enforce these clearly unconstitutional drug laws" we could have avoided having our nation dragged through the last fifty plus years of nightmare. So yes, I consider cops who willingly enforce these drug laws to be an enemy of individual liberty. You see, I take my liberty seriously and will say and cop who tries to take my guns is the same as a cop going after people for selling weed. That is to say a criminal himself.

But this is a drastic turn from the OP topic and I ask the kind mods to make this into a separate thread as it is likely to get a little crazy.

All of this 'protect second amendment rights' and 'ability to protect yourself against the government', it's all fething nonsense. When you have a massive arms trade, of people becoming extremely rich from sales of arms, they have managed to persuade people that holding these guns is in the interests of personal freedoms, has substituted for a form of cultural foundation, and is somehow acceptable in the 21st century civilised world.

You have to realise, every other country in the developed world thinks that the situation in the US with regards to ownership of weaponry is absolutely, fething nuts. That people are walking around armed with lethal weapons, something where it is so simple and quick to take the life of another that even a 2-year old can do it.

If the kid had been growing up in any pretty much any other developed country in either Europe or Australasia, where it is not legal nor a requirement to carry a loaded weapon, the mother would still be alive. Really that's it and all about it.

 Pacific wrote:
All of this 'protect second amendment rights' and 'ability to protect yourself against the government', it's all fething nonsense. When you have a massive arms trade, of people becoming extremely rich from sales of arms, they have managed to persuade people that holding these guns is in the interests of personal freedoms, has substituted for a form of cultural foundation, and is somehow acceptable in the 21st century civilised world.

You have to realise, every other country in the developed world thinks that the situation in the US with regards to ownership of weaponry is absolutely, fething nuts. That people are walking around armed with lethal weapons, something where it is so simple and quick to take the life of another that even a 2-year old can do it.

If the kid had been growing up in any pretty much any other developed country in either Europe or Australasia, where it is not legal nor a requirement to carry a loaded weapon, the mother would still be alive. Really that's it and all about it.

It's not a requirement to carry a loaded weapon in the US, by any stretch of the imagination. That said, what do you find so frightening about a law-abiding citizen carry a firearm? Why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen be allowed to own a weapon?

 Pacific wrote:
You have to realise, every other country in the developed world thinks that the situation in the US with regards to ownership of weaponry is absolutely, fething nuts. That people are walking around armed with lethal weapons, something where it is so simple and quick to take the life of another that even a 2-year old can do it.

You have to realize that we Americans don't give a pile of steaming dog excrement what you Europeans think of us. Not a one of you has a military large enough to take on the South Dakota National Guard so why should we care? In this world you can blather on all you want about peace and civilization but in the end it's people with guns and the balls to use them that make it safe to go to bed at night in a house that doesn't have iron bars on every window and door. A majority of Americans accept that responsibility ourselves instead of hoping for a government agent to come save the day with a gun.

Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am sick and tired of being lectured by a bunch of people who aren't willing to get their hands dirty, hiding behind our military while blathering on about how barbaric we are. He we left you alone in WWII like we should have you would have gone on having a war every ten to twenty years like you had done prior to WWII getting lots of your young men killed while we could have enjoyed some serious economic success spending money on our own people instead of keeping yours safe.

So in short. Stick it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

Me Like Burnaz wrote:
Yup. I've got no problem with shooting those that would follow such an unlawful order as to forcibly disarm American citizens or otherwise enforce laws that are blatantly against the ideals of America. Which BTW is why I've no problem with drug dealers shooting cops. I think drug laws are against all that America stands for. But that's another thread so I wont go ant further into it.

What?

What part of that is hard to understand. After WWII we established that "I was just following orders" isn't a viable defense. Why should cops get to use that defense?

Me Like Burnaz wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
You have to realise, every other country in the developed world thinks that the situation in the US with regards to ownership of weaponry is absolutely, fething nuts. That people are walking around armed with lethal weapons, something where it is so simple and quick to take the life of another that even a 2-year old can do it.

You have to realize that we Americans don't give a pile of steaming dog excrement what you Europeans think of us. Not a one of you has a military large enough to take on the South Dakota National Guard so why should we care? In this world you can blather on all you want about peace and civilization but in the end it's people with guns and the balls to use them that make it safe to go to bed at night in a house that doesn't have iron bars on every window and door. A majority of Americans accept that responsibility ourselves instead of hoping for a government agent to come save the day with a gun.

Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am sick and tired of being lectured by a bunch of people who aren't willing to get their hands dirty, hiding behind our military while blathering on about how barbaric we are. He we left you alone in WWII like we should have you would have gone on having a war every ten to twenty years like you had done prior to WWII getting lots of your young men killed while we could have enjoyed some serious economic success spending money on our own people instead of keeping yours safe.

So in short. Stick it.

And people wonder why the term is gunnut...

I am stunned.

<---Gunnut

So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?

 Ashiraya wrote:
I am stunned.

Just take a few deep breaths. You'll get over it.

"Our Ignore function can't repel idiocy of that magnitude!!"

Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.

 Jihadin wrote:
<---Gunnut

So what's the justification of me not owning weapons?

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to own guns (within reason), I'm saying that anyone who thinks that the validity of someones arguments should be based on their contires military needs to learn some common sense, and not just spout rehtoric.

I personally use gunnut for any gun enthusiast who is nutty, not just gun enthusiasts in general. I like guns as well. Know feth all about them, but I find them interesting, and kind of fun.