| An amendment to repeal the 2nd is exactly that, an infringment and you can be sure the people would not stand for it. First of all, if an amendment is to be passed, it must go through congress anyway and the odds of that happening are slimmer than slim. And they can't just be all Jean-Luc Picard and "Make it so." The express purpose of the 2nd is to PREVENT shit like that from happening. Also, if enough people are not for it to begin with, the chances of a congressman even bothering with his time and money to present it to the House is also slimmer than slim. This is why I don't understand what Hillary and Obama were trying to accomplish by pushing a gun restriction bill through the UN. Obviously if it's through there rather than our own government, we'd be so much more likely to bend over and take it up the ass. This whole damn thread is just one big circle... |
Ntad said: Sakura_jp said: RandomChampion said: Basically, it is completely unConstitutional (in word and spirit of the Law) to ban guns (i'm talking about in America of course). Any American who thinks otherwise can leave, or something, if they don't agree with it. The Constitution is not meant to be arbitrarily ignored at will. Without the Constitution, the Law of the land, we are nothing. You realise if they want to ban guns they can simply add an amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment right? First of all, if an amendment is to be passed, it must go through congress anyway and the odds of that happening are slimmer than slim. I never said that it was easy, or even likely to happen. Merely that it is certainly possible to ban guns in the US, if they wanted to. And they, of course being the people in government required to make it happen. I'm not saying Obama can ban guns if he wants to. An amendment to repeal the 2nd is exactly that, an infringment There is no such thing as a law that cannot be repealed. You cannot make a law and add text saying "BY THE WAY YOU CAN'T EVER REPEAL THIS LAW". The constitution makes it very clear that amendments can be repealed and details the process in doing so. |
Sakura_jp said: RandomChampion said: Basically, it is completely unConstitutional (in word and spirit of the Law) to ban guns (i'm talking about in America of course). Any American who thinks otherwise can leave, or something, if they don't agree with it. The Constitution is not meant to be arbitrarily ignored at will. Without the Constitution, the Law of the land, we are nothing. You realise if they want to ban guns they can simply add an amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment right? you realize 1.) 2/3 of both the senate and congress needs to agree to ratifying an amendment that directly affects the bill of rights. 2.) Political backlash that will occur as a result. 3.) Riots can be caused if this is repealed and could cause the 2nd civil war |
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
| Guns are a good way to reduce over population, they actually help the people they don't kill in many way! |
| In rules of fair play, it is possible. But the rules of probability are what make it IMpossible. The reason why it is impossible to ban guns is because enough people would never stand for it. A ban is only a ban if people are willing to enforce or be subject to it. Otherwise it's just a bunch of words. SOExclusive said: 2.) Political backlash that will occur as a result. 3.) Riots can be caused if this is repealed and could cause the 2nd civil war And then there's that. The first American Civil War began because two sides of the country couldn't agree on ways to live. Not really interested in a second. |
| No cuz US is a place of freedom- even tho the gov't limits that. But hey why should we let criminals have guns while good citizens dont |
| To bicycle, or not to bicycle: that is not a question |
SOExclusive said: Sakura_jp said: RandomChampion said: Basically, it is completely unConstitutional (in word and spirit of the Law) to ban guns (i'm talking about in America of course). Any American who thinks otherwise can leave, or something, if they don't agree with it. The Constitution is not meant to be arbitrarily ignored at will. Without the Constitution, the Law of the land, we are nothing. You realise if they want to ban guns they can simply add an amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment right? you realize 1.) 2/3 of both the senate and congress needs to agree to ratifying an amendment that directly affects the bill of rights. 2.) Political backlash that will occur as a result. 3.) Riots can be caused if this is repealed and could cause the 2nd civil war If this were to happen now? Sure. But keep in mind popular consensus changes as time goes on. If this were the 1920s, and I were to suggest the civil rights act would happen, people then would've said both numbers 2 and 3 would happen as well. Same if I were to have suggested gays would be able to marry. |
Ntad said: This is why I don't understand what Hillary and Obama were trying to accomplish by pushing a gun restriction bill through the UN. Obviously if it's through there rather than our own government, we'd be so much more likely to bend over and take it up the ass. I assume you are talking about this. Please educate yourself before buying into these conspiracies. |
 |
Narmy said: Ntad said: This is why I don't understand what Hillary and Obama were trying to accomplish by pushing a gun restriction bill through the UN. Obviously if it's through there rather than our own government, we'd be so much more likely to bend over and take it up the ass. I assume you are talking about this. Please educate yourself before buying into these conspiracies. Interesting how the sources are all mass-media outlets that I do recall us bickering over earlier. It's all speculation either way. The information I received about the arms treaty was also through what I would consider more reliable sources than the New York Times. Snopes is definitely not what I would call a reputable source for education either. Narmy, if you must troll me, please troll less obviously. You only target me here and frankly, I find it arousing. |
NTADMay 12, 2013 7:56 PM
Ntad said: Interesting how the sources are all mass-media outlets that I do recall us bickering over earlier. http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/index.htm 'KEY U.S. REDLINES' straight from the state department. Did you even read that article, or did you just go straight to the sources to try and discredit it? All the important facts are hyperlinked. Ntad said: Narmy, if you must troll me, please troll less obviously. You only target me here and frankly, I find it arousing. I don't target you specifically, you just happen to say the most ridiculous things that need correcting. It's kinda hard to take you seriously when your arguments are based on misinformation. |
|
Narmy said: Ntad said: Interesting how the sources are all mass-media outlets that I do recall us bickering over earlier. http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/index.htm 'KEY U.S. REDLINES' straight from the state department. Ntad said: Narmy, if you must troll me, please troll less obviously. You only target me here and frankly, I find it arousing. I don't target you specifically, you just happen to say the most ridiculous things that need correcting. It's kinda hard to take you seriously when your arguments are based on misinformation. As I said, it's ALL specualtion. More than half the things mentioned in this thread are ridiculous, but hold on if I don't back up every single thing I say with a link to a government website and then go on about misinformation- a tactic I might add -which this country happens to excel at. You're like the poster-boy for government sponsored misinformation. Next you'll tell me that Operation: Fast & Furious was a movie...wait....maybe it was? Just cause it's what The Man says, it's gotta be true, huh? |
| Also, if the military is ordered to attack citizens the orders will be under a completely different guise like putting down domestic terrorist and rebels. People have a way to justifying their actions because someone with bigger authority told them too. Ntad said: Nicole said: ezikialrage said: Gun should be kept legal in the US. The fact we have at least 80 million people in the US owning over 310 million guns is a good deterrent against a tyrannical government and ensures other countries will not be invading the US anytime soon. The fact that people believe this nonsense is hilarious. I like how you ignored the rest of his post. You're a fool if you think that the only reason nobody has tried to invade the US since the 1800s is because we're all a bunch of swell individuals. While our economic value (what little there is left of it) plays a part, the primary things that keep the US sovereign is an armed population and sheer military might. It's the same for most countries...either the strong help the weak....or try to crush them and take over. Your only real deterrent against an overzealous opponent is your enemy's fear of retaliation. If you don't have the power to fight back, you're that much more likely to become just another statistic. No you dumbass. The reason no one invades the USA since 1812 is because of the USN and the Atlantic Ocean. Also, USA stayed away from the true powerhouses of Europe for most of its existence.Then the Root reforms allowed USA to match and eventually surpass European powerhouses which made invasion a fruitless endevour. Your gun conjecture is rubbish. |
dankickyouMay 12, 2013 8:11 PM
| The Art of Eight |
Ntad said: Just cause it's what The Man says, it's gotta be true, huh? No, the fact that the Constitution is above all international treaties does. The idea that the UN can make any laws to restrict our 2nd amendment rights is a fantasy. It has nothing to do with truth or lies, it's just the law. I don't trust the government in every instance, in fact I am more likely to distrust them. But when their statements are backed up by facts, you'd have to be willfully ignorant to argue otherwise. |
|
dankickyou said: Also, if the military is ordered to attack citizens the orders will be under a completely different guise like putting down domestic terrorist and rebels. People have a way to justifying their actions because someone with bigger authority told them too. The British backed off during the AR because they were having trouble defeating- here's a shocker -farmers and colonists with guns...and pitchforks! Yup, they had those, too. At the time, they had the most powerful Navy and Army, but were beaten back by a bunch of guerrillas and rank and file militia who had a better understanding of the land and a will to fight. Other factors like the weather came into play as well. The rebels could have very well lost. The odds were certainly in Britain's favor. In the end though, they just gave up. They didn't really even have to, but it was becoming a war of attrition. Too much money, material and men being lost. The US at that point and had to become self-sufficient. 1812 occurred because the Brits had imposed a blockade barring trade. It really doesn't even count as a victory for either side. But still, the British for the most part possessed the only fleet capable of reaching the US mainland to cause problems. Once they backed off, the US was able to try and establish itself, albeit with a few more set-backs, as a country. Fast-forward to today, however, where many a country has air-power, sea-power and whatnot, but still, no invasion attempt since. This could be in-part as I said earlier, due to the sheer military force the US possesses, but also the fact that it is no secret that civilians possess the means to defend their land. Or maybe it's just 'cause nobody wants to. Always a possibility right there. Narmy said: Ntad said: Just cause it's what The Man says, it's gotta be true, huh? No, the fact that the Constitution is above all international treaties does. The idea that the UN can make any laws to restrict our 2nd amendment rights is a fantasy. It has nothing to do with truth or lies, it's just the law. I don't trust the government in every instance, in fact I am more likely to distrust them. But when their statements are backed up by facts, you'd have to be willfully ignorant to argue otherwise. Finally, we agree on something. That's what I was talking about. It's not whether or not it would actually happen. Of course it wouldn't. But I wouldn't put it past them to try something so futile. But virtually everything one way or the other can be construed as hearsay. One person says one thing, another says something else, but unless you were there, you have to take it all with a grain of salt. |
NTADMay 12, 2013 8:42 PM
Ntad said: dankickyou said: Also, if the military is ordered to attack citizens the orders will be under a completely different guise like putting down domestic terrorist and rebels. People have a way to justifying their actions because someone with bigger authority told them too. The British backed off during the AR because they were having trouble defeating- here's a shocker -farmers and colonists with guns...and pitchforks! Yup, they had those, too. At the time, they had the most powerful Navy and Army, but were beaten back by a bunch of guerrillas and rank and file militia who had a better understanding of the land and a will to fight. Other factors like the weather came into play as well. The rebels could have very well lost. The odds were certainly in Britain's favor. In the end though, they just gave up. They didn't really even have to, but it was becoming a war of attrition. Too much money, material and men being lost. The US at that point and had to become self-sufficient. 1812 occurred because the Brits had imposed a blockade barring trade. It really doesn't even count as a victory for either side. But still, the British for the most part possessed the only fleet capable of reaching the US mainland to cause problems. Once they backed off, the US was able to try and establish itself, albeit with a few more set-backs, as a country. Fast-forward to today, however, where many a country has air-power, sea-power and whatnot, but still, no invasion attempt since. This could be in-part as I said earlier, due to the sheer military force the US possesses, but also the fact that it is no secret that civilians possess the means to defend their land. Or maybe it's just 'cause nobody wants to. Always a possibility right there. LOL the British backed of because of the French. and the militia didnt do jack shit besides be an annoyance. Numerous times they broke and run too early and left the continental army to get slaughtered by the British. It was only after the German and Polish officers train them in continental war tactics could the US military and militia stand consistently before the British. And still the biggest reason is because the British was afraid o put all the chips on the table against the US since France and SPain was waiting for the opportunity to pounce. In 1812, just the British troops in Canada alone was able to smash their way all the way to the WhiteHouse and burn it down. And the reason they back off was because of pressure by the merchants and motherfucking Napoleon, they were scared shitless fighting him together with the rest of Europe combined. In fact, if it wasnt for Napoleon, the British was contemplating sending Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington over to rape USA. |
| The Art of Eight |
Ntad said: Bunch of text During the American Revolutionary War, America had France, Spain and the Netherlends backing it. Supplying America with ammunitions, weapons, troops, training, etc. Britain didn't lose the war because of farmers with rifles, come on now. During the War of 1812, the majority of Britain's forces were engaged in war in Europe, and even still the war between America and Britain ended in a stalemate. The reasons nobody invades the USA is because: 1) The US has the most powerful military in the world 2) It is quite impractical for any country to send a large enough invasion force across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean to invade America. 3) It is logistically impossible for any country currently to control America assuming it did successfully defeat America's army. It is a large country, with one of the largest populations. You would need to keep the vast majority of your forces in the country to maintain control. And whilst your troops are in America, America's allies would just ship their armies over to the offending nation and defeat it with ease. 4) Nobody has a reason to invade America, and nobody would benefit from invading America These reasons are all 1000s of times more successful in deterring enemy attacks than civilians having guns are. |
Sakura_jp said: Ntad said: Bunch of text During the American Revolutionary War, America had France, Spain and the Netherlends backing it. Supplying America with ammunitions, weapons, troops, training, etc. Britain didn't lose the war because of farmers with rifles, come on now. During the War of 1812, the majority of Britain's forces were engaged in war in Europe, and even still the war between America and Britain ended in a stalemate. The reasons nobody invades the USA is because: 1) The US has the most powerful military in the world 2) It is quite impractical for any country to send a large enough invasion force across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean to invade America. 3) It is logistically impossible for any country currently to control America assuming it did successfully defeat America's army. It is a large country, with one of the largest populations. You would need to keep the vast majority of your forces in the country to maintain control. And whilst your troops are in America, America's allies would just ship their armies over to the offending nation and defeat it with ease. 4) Nobody has a reason to invade America, and nobody would benefit from invading America These reasons are all 1000s of times more successful in deterring enemy attacks than civilians having guns are. Are you a parrot? All of this shit has been covered already. |
Ntad said: Sakura_jp said: Ntad said: Bunch of text During the American Revolutionary War, America had France, Spain and the Netherlends backing it. Supplying America with ammunitions, weapons, troops, training, etc. Britain didn't lose the war because of farmers with rifles, come on now. During the War of 1812, the majority of Britain's forces were engaged in war in Europe, and even still the war between America and Britain ended in a stalemate. The reasons nobody invades the USA is because: 1) The US has the most powerful military in the world 2) It is quite impractical for any country to send a large enough invasion force across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean to invade America. 3) It is logistically impossible for any country currently to control America assuming it did successfully defeat America's army. It is a large country, with one of the largest populations. You would need to keep the vast majority of your forces in the country to maintain control. And whilst your troops are in America, America's allies would just ship their armies over to the offending nation and defeat it with ease. 4) Nobody has a reason to invade America, and nobody would benefit from invading America These reasons are all 1000s of times more successful in deterring enemy attacks than civilians having guns are. Are you a parrot? All of this shit has been covered already. So if the answer to 2+2=4 has already been covered then why did you write a post saying the answer is 3? Surely you know that farmers having guns did not provide a reasonable threat to Britain during the wars, and neither does civilians with guns provide a real deterrent to invasions in modern times, because as you said it has already been covered. |
Fapdus said:  |
Sakura_jp said: So if the answer to 2+2=4 has already been covered then why did you write a post saying the answer is 3? Surely you know that farmers having guns did not provide a reasonable threat to Britain during the wars, and neither does civilians with guns provide a real deterrent to invasions in modern times, because as you said it has already been covered. Things that were covered, per your list: 1. Military power - Go back and read 2. Practicality - Go back and read 3. Logistics - See 1 and 2 4. I think I covered this when I said "Because nobody wants to" I never even said that the French weren't crucial to winning. France didn't even get involved until almost halfway through. It's likely the colonists would have lost without them (I did say that by the way) but they were still capable of holding their own for a few years, which is why I said the British "were having trouble." Even 1812 was covered when I said that it was not a victory for either side. Britain was stupid for even bothering BECAUSE they had a war to fight at home and the Americans played it off as their own win so as not to lose face. Not once did I ever say that this was an American victory or that we even had a chance of winning, which is why I said "It doesn't count as a victory." You can go back and read that, too. Particularly the part where I didn't say anything about why they lost. And you're just one more person discounting the American people at large as a viable means for their own defense, whether they face 10,000 or 10,000,000. I try to have enough common sense to know since I was at one time a cog in what you view as the superbly powerful military machine known as the US Military, that it's citizens can be a force to reckon with. All this, by the way, has been covered. Again, and again, and again. |
NTADMay 12, 2013 10:09 PM
| @Ntad I totally understand what you saying. I dont see why these people on here just disregard the US citizen like they dont know how to handle a weapon let alone strategically plan out military tactics Again We have citizens with small and big guns We have citizens who are trained to use the guns better than most We have vets We have police We have national guard Saying that the US citizens which is over 100 million would stand a chance against the US army of 600,000 is ignorance This is not Sparta. This is real. numbers make a difference |
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
| lol @ people saying Americans not having guns didnt mean anything. Of course France and a few other countries supported us (thankfully), and Britain was worried about fighting what was for them, a very inefficient and risky war. However, the fact that Americans were armed and were willing to fight made all the difference. They lived by the creed of "Give me liberty, or give me death." This was the main reason America won. Americans were willing to pull all of their chips on the table, unlike the British. And they could only stay a threat to the British because they were armed. Sustaining a fighting force across the Atlantic was, of course, a logistical nightmare for the British. But let's be real here. Britain ruled an empire in which "the sun never set". They were able to conquer powerful regions (as opposed to the relatively dingy American colonies) such as Indian subcontinent, which is a much bigger potential logistical nightmare and a cradle of empires and military. India was highly populated and extremely difficult to access. Yet, India did not win its independence from Britain until almost 200 years later. In the end, it was a lose-lose situation for Britain. Yea, America had a jank ass military compared to that of the British Empire. However, Americans did have guns, and for that reason they could attempt to match the general firepower of the British and fight to the death if they had to. Nobody's invading America anytime soon. most military forces cant even handle national guard units (these are under the 2nd Amendment). |
SOExclusive said: @Ntad I totally understand what you saying. I dont see why these people on here just disregard the US citizen like they dont know how to handle a weapon let alone strategically plan out military tactics Again We have citizens with small and big guns We have citizens who are trained to use the guns better than most We have vets We have police We have national guard Saying that the US citizens which is over 100 million would stand a chance against the US army of 600,000 is ignorance This is not Sparta. This is real. numbers make a difference let's also consider some other facts - There are the national guard forces (not complete allegiance to federal power) - The US military is manned by American residents. It's reasonable to assume that not every (in fact I woudl bet that most wouldnt) enlisted member would wage war against the people. |
RandomChampionMay 12, 2013 10:53 PM
Sakura_jp said: I did. It doesn't really prove anything. The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Therefore, if the Second Amendment is repealed, then the right to bear and keep arms can be infringed. If they could not be infringed even without the Second Amendment, then the Second Amendment would never have been necessary in the first place. The Second Amendment isn't some stand-alone part of the Constitution that has nothing to do with anything else. It is not something that can be removed and added at will without changing the protection of the Constitutional rights. It is considered in tandem with the original document, and that was deemed appropriate after intense consideration by those are arguably the most familiar with the spirit of the law. They did not just add it without considering the Constitution. They added it because it protects the Constitution. Where is your counter-argument as to why gun should be banned? Why isnt keeping a gun exercising rights to preservation of own rights and right to be unmolested? |
Fapdus said: so why are people afraid of tyranny again? Since the military wouldn't turn on its population why are people defending gun rights on the basis of fighting tyrannical governments. If the military is on our side, a military mutiny or coup would occur, in the scenario of a tyrannical US government. A government without its military is powerless. lol It doesnt matter if people are afraid, not afraid, whatever. The fact is that an individual's right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Tyranny exists in many forms, by the way. Whether it is an oppressive government with robotic weaponry, or a pickup trick full of drunk assholes with baseball bats looking to do you in. A government without a full military isnt powerless. America is all about the idea of autonomy. |
Fapdus said: RandomChampion said: SOExclusive said: @Ntad I totally understand what you saying. I dont see why these people on here just disregard the US citizen like they dont know how to handle a weapon let alone strategically plan out military tactics Again We have citizens with small and big guns We have citizens who are trained to use the guns better than most We have vets We have police We have national guard Saying that the US citizens which is over 100 million would stand a chance against the US army of 600,000 is ignorance This is not Sparta. This is real. numbers make a difference let's also consider some other facts - There are the national guard forces (not complete allegiance to federal power) - The US military is manned by American residents. It's reasonable to assume that not every (in fact I woudl bet that most wouldnt) enlisted member would wage war against the people. so why are people afraid of tyranny again? Since the military wouldn't turn on its population why are people defending gun rights on the basis of fighting tyrannical governments. If the military is on our side, a military mutiny or coup would occur, in the scenario of a tyrannical US government. A government without its military is powerless. It's about keeping the status quo. The 2nd is essentially there, as Champion said, to protect the constitution. It's not just about protecting the citizen's right to bear arms, but their right to all other rights granted to them. For example, say for sake of argument the government were to suddenly try and impose a single religion on the people. This is not completely unheard of as it was quite common hundreds of years ago. My right to bear arms would allow me, and anyone else willing to stand with me, to take an armed stance against someone trying to force a belief on me that I do not share. The Battle of Athens I brought up earlier in the thread is another example of this. A corrupt local government attempting to control election through coercion and fear. However, the 2nd is not a "Free pass to go shoot up the police station" just because you think the Sheriff is a dick...it is there to keep the status quo. A reminder that "You have the right to fight for your rights" to both you and the powers that be. |
NTADMay 12, 2013 11:28 PM
| Banning guns won't change a thing people will still get fucked up on a daily basis. |
Ntad said: The British backed off during the AR because they were having trouble defeating- here's a shocker -farmers and colonists with guns Your "knowledge" of history is hilarious. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
| The guns will never be banned in the US because of 2 main reasons. 1- Gun commerce is, and will always be profitable. This reason leads us to the next and most important point. 2- The US people mentality. A couple of weeks ago I heard a quote that resumes very well their mentality nowadays. "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with another gun". So far I know this didn't fix anything to date. On the other hand we got the people who believe that is better to have a gun just in case or the people who think that having a gun means freedom when it is known that the effect is the opposite. The only result of all this is the fear, the people of the United States is a nation that lives in constant fear of what might happen, If you don't believe me just try to watch the US TV for a while, watch the commercials, their news. Ask someone who owns a gun the reason why he owns one. Fear and paranoia. All those people still believe that owning guns will resolve something in their lifes in some way or another. In my opinion, they are still living with a mentality of 200 years ago when the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was approved. They passed the years, now some of them want to fix it up only to realize that everything is out of control. It's late, too late for that. |
Nicole said: Ntad said: The British backed off during the AR because they were having trouble defeating- here's a shocker -farmers and colonists with guns Your "knowledge" of history is hilarious. he doesnt mean that the British couldnt ever defeat the revolutionaries no matter what they did. He means that the fact that they had guns to go up against the british army was why britain just backed off. Of course there were many factors involved, such as foreign help, logistical difficulty, etc. But if the colonists werent armed, then nothing would have mattered and there would be no independence. it's a pretty standard scenario of major military power against guerrilla forces. the british expected a quick and easy victory, but that didnt happen and the colonists were willing to fight keep fighting till the death. not worth it for the British. Arkondeath said: The guns will never be banned in the US because of 2 main reasons. 1- Gun commerce is, and will always be profitable. This reason leads us to the next and most important point. 2- The US people mentality. A couple of weeks ago I heard a quote that resumes very well their mentality nowadays. "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with another gun". So far I know this didn't fix anything to date. On the other hand we got the people who believe that is better to have a gun just in case or the people who think that having a gun means freedom when it is known that the effect is the opposite. The only result of all this is the fear, the people of the United States is a nation that lives in constant fear of what might happen, If you don't believe me just try to watch the US TV for a while, watch the commercials, their news. Ask someone who owns a gun the reason why he owns one. Fear and paranoia. All those people still believe that owning guns will resolve something in their lifes in some way or another. In my opinion, they are still living with a mentality of 200 years ago when the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was approved. They passed the years, now some of them want to fix it up only to realize that everything is out of control. It's late, too late for that. lol |
| Yes they should be banned, gun only cause death. The answer "It's good for self defense" is not acceptable, in every other country we don't need guns for protecting ourself. |
Nicole said: Ntad said: The British backed off during the AR because they were having trouble defeating- here's a shocker -farmers and colonists with guns Your "knowledge" of history is hilarious. Nice to see that you still excel in ignoring the better portion of what people post. RandomChampion said: Nicole said: Ntad said: The British backed off during the AR because they were having trouble defeating- here's a shocker -farmers and colonists with guns Your "knowledge" of history is hilarious. he doesnt mean that the British couldnt ever defeat the revolutionaries no matter what they did. He means that the fact that they had guns to go up against the british army was why britain just backed off. Of course there were many factors involved, such as foreign help, logistical difficulty, etc. But if the colonists werent armed, then nothing would have mattered and there would be no independence. it's a pretty standard scenario of major military power against guerrilla forces. the british expected a quick and easy victory, but that didnt happen and the colonists were willing to fight keep fighting till the death. not worth it for the British. ^This...but for the 'slow' people, I'll explain aaaagain. Everyone knows (or should know) that the big reason why the war was won was due to foreign influence, however... The French didn't even get involved until almost halfway through the war. They were waiting to see if anything would even come of the fighting. Even though the French had been looking for a chance to dish some payback to Britain, they were playing things by ear. In the real world, you don't send your own country to fight someone else's war unless you stand to gain something and you certainly wouldn't do it if it was a completely one-sided fight with no chance for victory at all...at least, MOST people wouldn't. /coughUSA Up until then it was the colonies fighting their own battles. Had they not been armed, the Brits would have walked right over them. It wouldn't have even lasted a couple of months, more than likely. But since they were armed and had the lay of the land on their side, plus a will to fight (even if the outcome was death) they were able to struggle long enough to gain the attention of the French and other supporters. If they hadn't even lasted as long as they did, it is likely the French would not have committed anything to the war to begin with, since they would have seen no viable outcome for themselves...and even still, they did not make out very well with the losses they incurred, particularly financial. But hey...a win is a win, right? |
NTADMay 14, 2013 2:24 AM
| No, and for one reason. When the world turns to complete shit and utter anarchy, guns are going to be the only thing that can keep a person alive. |
  |
Fapdus said: RandomChampion said: SOExclusive said: @Ntad I totally understand what you saying. I dont see why these people on here just disregard the US citizen like they dont know how to handle a weapon let alone strategically plan out military tactics Again We have citizens with small and big guns We have citizens who are trained to use the guns better than most We have vets We have police We have national guard Saying that the US citizens which is over 100 million would stand a chance against the US army of 600,000 is ignorance This is not Sparta. This is real. numbers make a difference let's also consider some other facts - There are the national guard forces (not complete allegiance to federal power) - The US military is manned by American residents. It's reasonable to assume that not every (in fact I woudl bet that most wouldnt) enlisted member would wage war against the people. so why are people afraid of tyranny again? Since the military wouldn't turn on its population why are people defending gun rights on the basis of fighting tyrannical governments. If the military is on our side, a military mutiny or coup would occur, in the scenario of a tyrannical US government. A government without its military is powerless. if you look back in history, a tyranny has always occurred after the government has successfully disarmed the soldiers and/or citizens or the economy is in such a disaster that it is not hard to take power. Stalin Hitler Castro Kim Jong-un I not afraid of tyranny, i just want our people to be ready if it is to ever occur |
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
Zackstrife2 said: Yes they should be banned, gun only cause death. The answer "It's good for self defense" is not acceptable, in every other country we don't need guns for protecting ourself. how about your country ban guns and that includes all people. Military included. Watch what happens when it hits the media. Can guarantee one of those countries in Europe will be all over your country for captial using "their" guns. |
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
| Personally, i'm not for US, but i don't think guns should be banned, instead licencing for gun ownership should be more strict. For instance, when i got my licence for sports shooting and hunting, first i had to go trough very strict psychological screening, i had to state reasons for owning/using on police station and it was all vety strctly evaluated before issuing me a permit. Also, i have to keep them locked, if someone else would use them i'd get jail. As for what i heard, for most extreme example from US, Texas there you can buy a pistol for example if you have money and and citisenship in Texas, thats bad because some nutjob can get it that way... (i don't know if things changed, but it was like that couple of years ago). |
Arkondeath said: The guns will never be banned in the US because of 2 main reasons. 1- Gun commerce is, and will always be profitable. This reason leads us to the next and most important point. Just as Nicole said earlier on in the thread. >Profit >Human lives Pick one. |
 |
| this poll is jipped spyrocoot can shoot with his fingers |
| "I hate all of you." - Squidward |
Devasta said: this poll is jipped spyrocoot can shoot with his fingers LOL Also, it's an honour that you included me amongst your favourite quotes. |
|
| I know this may seem like a leap and completely irrelevant, but if you think people should be able to own guns, then you should also believe that people have the right to possess artificial images of child porn (e.g. lolicon material). Trust me here, there is logic behind this seemingly bizarre statement. |
InfiniteRufus said: I know this may seem like a leap and completely irrelevant, but if you think people should be able to own guns, then you should also believe that people have the right to possess artificial images of child porn (e.g. lolicon material). Trust me here, there is logic behind this seemingly bizarre statement. I back this seemingly random but coherent statement. |
| I don't think they should ban guns but regulate it I guess. |
 |
apatch3 said: InfiniteRufus said: I know this may seem like a leap and completely irrelevant, but if you think people should be able to own guns, then you should also believe that people have the right to possess artificial images of child porn (e.g. lolicon material). Trust me here, there is logic behind this seemingly bizarre statement. I back this seemingly random but coherent statement. child porn and a gun are too different things The guns is not meant for entertainment. It is meant to protect yourself |
| Schools out, No job at moment, STILL hello MAL Eh..I will try to be online |
| this thread needs to die specifically by getting shot |
 |
InfiniteRufus said: Trust me here, there is logic behind this seemingly bizarre statement. Please, do tell. Enlighten us with your undeniable wisdom. |
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
SOExclusive said: apatch3 said: InfiniteRufus said: I know this may seem like a leap and completely irrelevant, but if you think people should be able to own guns, then you should also believe that people have the right to possess artificial images of child porn (e.g. lolicon material). Trust me here, there is logic behind this seemingly bizarre statement. I back this seemingly random but coherent statement. child porn and a gun are too different things The guns is not meant for entertainment. It is meant to protect yourself Guns are meant for killing. They are not a protective device. The point is that owning a gun is not in itself a crime, as there is no victim. Watching lolicon material is a victimless crime, and is only a crime because it could potentially (and there is fuck all evidence to back this up) lead to real life cases of pedophilia. People generally say no to guns because whilst simply owning a gun is fine, it creates the potential for people to shoot and kill others, and it does, a lot. Therefore, saying "simply owning a gun is hurting anyone" is true, but then the same is true of lolicon material. If you believe that the individual should be able to own and do whatever they want if it doesn't directly create victims (i.e. allow people to own guns), then saying "but no lolicon shit" is just hypocrisy at the worst level. |
InfiniteRufus said: SOExclusive said: apatch3 said: InfiniteRufus said: I know this may seem like a leap and completely irrelevant, but if you think people should be able to own guns, then you should also believe that people have the right to possess artificial images of child porn (e.g. lolicon material). Trust me here, there is logic behind this seemingly bizarre statement. I back this seemingly random but coherent statement. child porn and a gun are too different things The guns is not meant for entertainment. It is meant to protect yourself Guns are meant for killing. They are not a protective device. The point is that owning a gun is not in itself a crime, as there is no victim. Watching lolicon material is a victimless crime, and is only a crime because it could potentially (and there is fuck all evidence to back this up) lead to real life cases of pedophilia. People generally say no to guns because whilst simply owning a gun is fine, it creates the potential for people to shoot and kill others, and it does, a lot. Therefore, saying "simply owning a gun is hurting anyone" is true, but then the same is true of lolicon material. If you believe that the individual should be able to own and do whatever they want if it doesn't directly create victims (i.e. allow people to own guns), then saying "but no lolicon shit" is just hypocrisy at the worst level. What the fuck kinda logic is that? Of course guns are designed for killing. It is that purpose that makes them effective for protection. If I were in a position where I had to draw on someone who was trying to kill me, I would prefer that they BELIEVE that I might actually do it and back off, rather than push me. However, if I have no other choice than to pull the trigger, it's still better them than me. And the gun has effectively protected my right to live...which then brings us to your hypocrisy gripe. Obviously I don't have the right to kill, but I have the right to defend my own life. It is because of a bass-ackwards, hypocritical rule like this that people who kill their attackers in self-defense are still charged with manslaughter and murder. Because, as we should all know, hypocrisy comes in many shapes and forms. But that's the fucking world we live in and if anything the US probably suffers from it the most. Hypocrisy and ignorance...everywhere. Edit: Oh, but since you WERE using roricon/guns as your comparison, I guess I should address that point. I suppose I have no REAL problem with people who have their cake, so long as they are not eating it, too. Which is why I said before, I do not own a gun, but I have no problem with upstanding citizens who do. |
NTADMay 16, 2013 8:27 AM
More topics from this board
» So I just got into Yugioh Speed Duelrohan121 - Jun 10 |
16 |
by DreamWindow
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» I think zodiac signs are more real than people think ( 1 2 )Taiyaa - Oct 13, 2023 |
57 |
by Taiyaa
»»
25 minutes ago |
|
» Biggest life hot takes? ( 1 2 3 )Rabnawaz2 - Jun 15 |
143 |
by DreamWindow
»»
41 minutes ago |
|
» When did more women start to work than being houswifes in the USA? ( 1 2 3 )Zack312 - Yesterday |
105 |
by DreamWindow
»»
42 minutes ago |
|
» What advice would you give a guy on dating a lady who has controlling helicopter parentsTheBlockernator - Jun 17 |
10 |
by DreamWindow
»»
2 hours ago |