the_gooch Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Re: dowmagik Originally posted by KaBar2 I'm sorry if you think I sound like a psycho. Obviously, that was not my intent (LOL.) Probably, if you think that my examples sound wacky or paranoid, it is because you are not familiar with the facts. Try looking into the website "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership." Their articles are very well researched and footnoted. I'm not Jewish, but I think Aaron Zelman is a very well-spoken, intelligent and dedicated guy. And his arguments are irrefutable. One of the worse things about the modern political climate is the profound differences between the experiences of the "urban liberal intelligensia" in cities like New York, Boston and San Francisco, and the experiences of people in most of the rest of the country. People who are educated in Ivy League colleges tend to think of themselves as "knowing what's best" for the rest of us benighted souls. They think that concern about genocide is ludicrous. "It can't happen here." Except that it CAN happen here, and already HAS happened here several times, the most recent instance I can think of being the massacre of the Branch Davidians in 1993. And numerous other examples abound in history, from the Haymarket Massacre, to Little Big Horn, to the Republic Steel strike, to the massacre of strikers' families by mining company gun thugs and the Colorado Militia's machine guns at Goldfield, CO., the attacks upon the Bonus Army, Coxey's Army, the massacre of black people in Tulsa, Oklahoma, you name it. There have been scores of massacres, big and small, and ALWAYS OF UNARMED OR VERY NEARLY UNARMED, DEFENSELESS PEOPLE. The liberal Establishment propagates it's ideas, people who wish that the world was a better place adopt the ideas, and try to put them into practice, and somehow or another the ideas often involve curtailing the rights of someone else. Like the right to defend one's own life and the lives of others. Like the right to keep and bear arms. I do not trust the Government, and I do not trust any of the leaders of any of the political parties, Demopublican or Republicrat. In BOTH CASES, their idea of a perfect world is one in which the people are subject to all their goddamned rules and are HELPLESS TO RESIST. Each of us must decide for himself or herself what we will do. The laws are not always just, most of the time, not even close. But, despite that, I feel a strong urge to obey the law as much as is possible. People have the right of self defense. And we also have a right, a God-given right, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, to overturn a Government that becomes a tyranny. Well put! I have to say that I agree 110% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLIK$ Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 rather than spouting off to thousands of people who couldnt care less on the internet, go do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Re: Amorphic not worth my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_dowmagik Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL526/1339797/2633548/51732289.jpg'> simmer down seeks :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 you know why this isn't worth discussing? because everyone is on polar sides, but it's not a polar issue and none of you care enough to understand that. you want to be 'righteous', but could give a shit about what is actually 'right', and what is actually realistic. guns are not bad, and guns are not good, they are reflections of society. if we banned guns, bad, bad shit would happen. guns would still be available to criminals and innocent people would wind up paying the price. no one would be any safer, and infact, people would be less safe, that is proven fact. every state that allows citizens to get ccw's, has seen lowered crime rates. it's a sad fact, but it's a fact. an armed society is indeed a polite society. we live in a country where people are basically encouraged to be criminals. we dangle one carrot in front of 30 starving men, then tell them all they can have the carrot if they really want it badly enough. we give people a piss poor education, constantly reinforce in them that wealth is the only thing that brings happiness, then expect them to just accept the fact that they can not have it. what the fuck do you think is going to happen? other countries do not have lower crime rates because they have less guns, they have lower crime rates because they have better societies. if you flooded them with guns, they would STILL have lower crime rates. they don't have guns because they don't need them. this is why i hate this fucking discussion, because no one sees it for what it is. it's not a simple issue of guns=death. 'guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people'. that is unarguable. until we fix society, there will always be a need for guns, because there will always be criminals with guns. it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for us to rid america of guns. flat out, it can not possibly happen. there will always be guns on this soil. the only question is of who will have control over them. we will never be able to get the guns out of criminals hands, what we can do though is fix our society, so that the guns are irrelivent. that is why i hate this discussion, because you're all ommiting facts in order to be 'right', and in doing so, you gurante the ineffectiveness of your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gooch Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by seeking you know why this isn't worth discussing? because everyone is on polar sides, but it's not a polar issue and none of you care enough to understand that. you want to be 'righteous', but could give a shit about what is actually 'right', and what is actually realistic. guns are not bad, and guns are not good, they are reflections of society. if we banned guns, bad, bad shit would happen. guns would still be available to criminals and innocent people would wind up paying the price. no one would be any safer, and infact, people would be less safe, that is proven fact. every state that allows citizens to get ccw's, has seen lowered crime rates. it's a sad fact, but it's a fact. an armed society is indeed a polite society. we live in a country where people are basically encouraged to be criminals. we dangle one carrot in front of 30 starving men, then tell them all they can have the carrot if they really want it badly enough. we give people a piss poor education, constantly reinforce in them that wealth is the only thing that brings happiness, then expect them to just accept the fact that they can not have it. what the fuck do you think is going to happen? other countries do not have lower crime rates because they have less guns, they have lower crime rates because they have better societies. if you flooded them with guns, they would STILL have lower crime rates. they don't have guns because they don't need them. this is why i hate this fucking discussion, because no one sees it for what it is. it's not a simple issue of guns=death. 'guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people'. that is unarguable. until we fix society, there will always be a need for guns, because there will always be criminals with guns. it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for us to rid america of guns. flat out, it can not possibly happen. there will always be guns on this soil. the only question is of who will have control over them. we will never be able to get the guns out of criminals hands, what we can do though is fix our society, so that the guns are irrelivent. that is why i hate this discussion, because you're all ommiting facts in order to be 'right', and in doing so, you gurante the ineffectiveness of your argument. good point. i did mention 'guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people'. honestly a good debate never hurt, especially when it's on the internet with people i will never meet. when ever i get into debates with my friends they always get super heated and tension follows afterwards. what my dad always told me rings true: "never discuss religion or politics with friends or coworkers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOx Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I am a gun-enthusiast in Australia. Since the 1996 Port Arthur massare in Tasmania where Martin Bryant shot 37 men, women and children with semi automatic rifles Australia's gun laws have been highly restricted. I have my A and B rifle licence with means i can own bolt action rifles and and break barrell shotguns. Pistols are restricted outside of gun clubs. Not even BB guns are legal in Australis. It is costly and extremely troublesome to get a license in Australia. You have to provide legal documentation of club membership, ownership of rural land and a passed firearmes safety test. This is followed by a 4 month wait for a license to be awarded. Furthermore for EVERY gun you buy you need to apply for a permit for each individual gun which takes over two months. In all honestly, despite my fondness of friearms and hunting I am extremely glad, that these laws have been put forth. I am 18 and I know for a fact that if guns were as easy to aquire both illegaly and legally as in America I would know many, many peope who would own pistols and semi auto rifles who quite frankly shouldn't be allowed to have possession of them. These people include my friends who really, in my opinion are not fit to own firearms. I know shootings would become extremely common even with normal kids getting into street fights and beefs. SHIT WOULD BE FUCKED UP. There are so many stupid filthy assholes out there who don't hve enough respect for human life and lack common sense. to conclude I deserve a gun because i'm know how to treat them but too many cunts out there are to stupid and foolish to own them. In my opinon AUstralia has the perfect level of gun control (that is no handguns and only bolt action rifles and single shot shotguns). FUCK HAVING PISTOLS AND SEMI AUTO rifles on the street for christ sake that is a recipe for disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kr430n5_666 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 http://www.kak.ru/images/archive/15/national/Cigar%2337.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOx Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 you seriously must be the saddest cunt macros your gay randoms pictures are not profound you pretentious fuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kr430n5_666 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by WhiteOx you seriously must be the saddest cunt macros your gay randoms pictures are not profound you pretentious fuck http://www.kak.ru/images/archive/15/national/VOD02.jpg'> ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOx Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by the_gooch potential owners of either should be trained and evaluated to some extent in order to determine if they are capable of responsible ownership. I do not think that if every citizen is strapped with a gun we will magically have some utopian society, but I do feel that many people will be more cautious of the things that they do. Also, I DO NOT think it is a good idea for people to walk around with handguns on a normal basis. Look at incidents of road rage; imagine if those same people had a hand gun in their glove or on their person. THis is my belief exactly, however i recognise that there is no fair objective and reliable screening process to determine that right and therefore the it should not exist. As i said earlier just restrit guns to the point where it is complicated confusing and expensive and most trigger-happy fuckwits will not be bothered. There is a need to outlaw handguns, and semi autos of all kinds beause the only need for semi-automati and concealable firearms is to kill people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh0wnz Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Nooobody knows the trouuuuble I've seen, nooobody knows the sorrowwwwwww. runs a tin cup across the bars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milton Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 White Ox makes a good point. It is the "cunts" that don't know how to treat guns that makes them unsafe. A gun in the wrong hands is no more dangerous than a car. I believe that the right to own firearms comes with the responsibility of respecting them for what they are. Just like when you get a drivers license I think in order to get a gun license or permit you should have to take a safety course and show your ability to carry and possess it safely. The problem is that any restriction is a slippery slope towards total restriction. I discussed this with LaCosaNostra earlier. Neither of us thinks "any old wackjob off the street" should have the right to bear arms. But the person who decides who is a wackjob and who isn't has a lot of power. Lets talk about the constitution for a minute. Why is it that the second amendment to the constitution deals with this issue? In my opinion it is because an armed populace is a precursor to real democracy. Like I said before, there is the ever present threat of corruption when the people do not have a drastic recourse. The right to bear arms puts the average citizen on a more equal playing field than the leaders. Like Gandhi said civil unrest is a responsibility when the government no longer represents the people. There are times in history when it has been necessary for people to take up arms. It is what our country is based on. So when the time comes, if it comes in my lifetime, I will be there ready to fight for what I believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar2 Posted July 18, 2004 Author Share Posted July 18, 2004 White Ox Well, I'm not sure how to reply to you. On the one hand, I want to give you props for going through all the bullshit to obtain Australian firearms licenses, and on the other hand, I am appalled at your attitude towards your fellow Australians. There wasn't wholesale slaughter on the streets of Australia BEFORE the confiscation, so why on earth would there be wholesale violence NOW? The biggest change has been an increase in violent strong-arm attacks against women and elderly persons by sorry-ass coward robbers. The last time Australia was in dire straights (WWII), they, like Great Britain, BEGGED the free world for firearms, and the United States delivered hundreds of thousands of rifles and pistols to the ANZAC forces. It's a damned good thing we were able to do so, otherwise Australia would be a Japanese province today. Of all the nations on earth (excepting Great Britain itself, and possibly Canada) Americans feel closest to Australia. It has always puzzled me that our affection for Australia is not reciprocated. We see Australia as sort of a gigantic California. When Australia passed a law confiscating guns, my friends and I sort of went into mourning. One less place we can count on for help when the shit finally hits the fan. I am bouyed by the fact that hundreds of thousands of Australian gun owners buried their rifles rather than surrender them. I cannot believe that Aussies would EVER bend over and spread 'em for the gun grabbing assholes of the world. NOT AUSTRALIA! I hope to Christ that Australia never surrenders. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Peanut Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 white ox made me laugh with the macros comment :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteOx Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Re: White Ox Originally posted by KaBar2 Well, I'm not sure how to reply to you. On the one hand, I want to give you props for going through all the bullshit to obtain Australian firearms licenses, and on the other hand, I am appalled at your attitude towards your fellow Australians. There wasn't wholesale slaughter on the streets of Australia BEFORE the confiscation, so why on earth would there be wholesale violence NOW? The biggest change has been an increase in violent strong-arm attacks against women and elderly persons by sorry-ass coward robbers. The last time Australia was in dire straights (WWII), they, like Great Britain, BEGGED the free world for firearms, and the United States delivered hundreds of thousands of rifles and pistols to the ANZAC forces. It's a damned good thing we were able to do so, otherwise Australia would be a Japanese province today. I hope to Christ that Australia never surrenders. Ever. WOAH...lets not get carried away Kabar....That is a gross assumption which is easily disputed... Kabar. I understand that you represent the conservative far-right in the gun debate. Remember, it is resistance to social change that brings about social conservatism in society. I'm sorry , but the Cold War is over and Russia isnt going to invade and occupy your country so its time you relinquish your fantasy about about forming underground resistance squads and 'fighting for your freedom and country' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest amorphic Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Re: Re: Amorphic Originally posted by seeking not worth my time. I'm from Boulder, you're from Detroit. Let's agree to disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar2 Posted July 18, 2004 Author Share Posted July 18, 2004 Talk to me about the Maylasian armed forces, which are like five or six times the size of the Australian armed forces. Maylasia is JAM PACKED with people. Australia is practically vacant. You live in a bad neighborhood, bro. Best buy ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinup Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I don't feel like developing much. Few points i wanted to get straight : - Prohibiting guns does not mean no right to security. I just believe Citizens cant decide of law for themselves. Guns makes it so easy it's frightening and so prone to abuse it makes me cringe to think about it. I've explained my view on this before. - Guns only preserve "security" because of a climate of fright, and don't ascertain the problem justly. As i've written, like, 20000 times, i don't believe it's ok to be prone to violence if you can't execute your actions. Furthermore, what next. Everyone has guns. So in order to be the powerful one, i'll wear a bullet proof vest or something. So everyone has to wear bullet proof vests. So i'll get a rocket launcher. I'm exxagerating, but see what i mean ? How can this be a solution. This applies to the example with Kabar's wife. What if the other guys in the car had guns ? Good thing they didn't, but they could have. - Kabar suggested arming the people gave the people power. I don't think both connect. Detaining a gun under Nazi ruling, in France, meant execution. And people got hold of guns. The only difference is that, in the states, people already have guns. But the essence does not change. -Furthermore, i don't agree with gooch when he says cars are like guns in the way of danger. Guns are GUNS. You have to drive a car to kill someone. You need movement, you need an actual long run impulse. Some people have killed others with cars, but those people are real crazy to the extent that they never question their action during the whole span which precedes it. Guns do not provide this span. Pull out the gun, press on a trigger and voila. To this extent, guns cannot be compared. In fact, the french patrol militaries are compelled NOT to have their guns loaded when they patrol. The ammo is kept in a seperate pocket, so that the time during which you have to reach for the ammo and load it should serve to make sure you're doing the right thing. That's how weak man are, that only a rare few should carry guns. I'm obviously not saying not carrying guns is the solution to all problems. I believe Guns cause more problems, and don't go about correcting the problem to which they are applied in the right way at all. This is why i disagree with seeking when he says this whole thing is a moot point b/c people are discussing on ethical principles. Sure, that's to do with it, and i said quite a bit about it (- there's a difference to me between self defence, protection and the actual act of killing. Once again, guns patch the whole, but don't "mend" the problem. I've written this already in my first post. Sorry if i'm repeating this, i'm just quite driven about the whole thing and i guess it 'soothes' me, haha), but the issue of guns is also quite down to earth. Not saying it can be solved. Probably won't be. But there are definitely several problems to tease out of the issue. I think Dubya is going to win, although i sincerely hope not. The fact the voting machines were contracted to pro republican companies whoses bosses have already been convicted for fraud and insider trading gives me no faith at all in the authenticity of the result. But imagine if Republicans were to win forever because of this. Does this mean we won't be able to criticize the government anymore either ? Goodnight to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 http://www.teamrous.org/PhotoGallery/adipietro_superSoaker.jpg'> http://www.teamrous.org/PhotoGallery/adipietro_superSoaker_posse.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gooch Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Originally posted by Milton Lets talk about the constitution for a minute. Why is it that the second amendment to the constitution deals with this issue? In my opinion it is because an armed populace is a precursor to real democracy. Like I said before, there is the ever present threat of corruption when the people do not have a drastic recourse. The right to bear arms puts the average citizen on a more equal playing field than the leaders. Like Gandhi said civil unrest is a responsibility when the government no longer represents the people. There are times in history when it has been necessary for people to take up arms. It is what our country is based on. So when the time comes, if it comes in my lifetime, I will be there ready to fight for what I believe in. yup, milton hit it on the head! that's why they want us disarmed...bottom line. when the clampdown comes the less people that have firearms the better, less of a struggle. am i paranoid? about bad government....you bet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gooch Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Originally posted by Pinup I think Dubya is going to win, although i sincerely hope not. The fact the voting machines were contracted to pro republican companies whoses bosses have already been convicted for fraud and insider trading gives me no faith at all in the authenticity of the result. But imagine if Republicans were to win forever because of this. Does this mean we won't be able to criticize the government anymore either ? Goodnight to all. yeah, i agree. and that my friend is what scares me, cause after that what is next?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abracadabra Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Originally posted by KaBar2 In Australia, when they banned private ownership of firearms, the robbery rate and the "kick burglary" rate went up 44%, especially against women and elderly people. true, but i do feel a hell of a lot safer knowing there aren't many guns out there (not that there were many to begin with. there was never really a gun culture over here as there is in the states). i grew up in an area that has one of the lowest average income rate for an urban area in the country, and in turn one of the highest crime rates. in all my years i never felt the need to own a firearm. a cricket bat with a nail through it was all that was needed to fend off would-be robbers. the reason for the ban was a massacre in which a deranged man went for a walk around a popular tasmanian tourist attraction and picked off about 30 or so people. prior to that you would often hear about people going into shopping malls, places of work and whatnot with a gun and killing people. incidents of this since the ban are few and far between interesting tidbit: it was an australian shooter that one the gold medal at the last olympics, and is on his way to get another in athens this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 i changed my mind, i'm back to not caring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brownbread? Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Originally posted by WhiteOx there is no fair objective and reliable screening process to determine that right and therefore the it should not exist. As i said earlier just restrit guns to the point where it is complicated confusing and expensive and most trigger-happy fuckwits will not be bothered. I agree. I think that is the most practical solution. Both sides of the arguement have good points which is why guns should be available to the public but they should be hard to obtain. This creates a healthy balance which wouldn't be achieved by excepting the extremes of the right or left side of the arguement because they'd cause safety in one area and chaos in another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodney Trotter Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Guns don't kill people, rappers do. You knows it clart. http://www.hyperlaunch.com/goldielookinchain/vids.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_b0b Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I'm with Pinup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sneak Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Re: Re: Pin-up and KaBar's Big Firearms Debate Thread Originally posted by Mr. ABC a cricket bat with a nail through it was all that was needed to fend off would-be robbers. Strewth moite! but this is also another point, more or less... 'low guns, make your own weapons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.T Boy Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 in my whole life i could never imagine why on earth i would ever need a semi automatic assault rifle. seriously. i feel better knowing people arent armed when i walk the streets, cause i just think, when you give a local a gun, next thing you know hes captain hero shooting terrorists. but with a guy like kabar, i could see him having a gun, he seems responsible enough to not just fire it at will. thank god im not from texas. if im onna get jacked for my wallet ill get jacked at gunpoint, they can have it, im not gonna start a james bond shootout over my bank card and maxed out visa. no sir. and also, noone will ever invade my country i dont think, if anyone was to do so, it would be the us, which wouldnt be so bad i guess. more fast food, more teror alerts, and more cheap beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Originally posted by Milton Lets talk about the constitution for a minute. Why is it that the second amendment to the constitution deals with this issue? In my opinion it is because an armed populace is a precursor to real democracy. Like I said before, there is the ever present threat of corruption when the people do not have a drastic recourse. OK, lets get this straight...after your president illegaly took over cause he wasnt legally elected and then violated all the rights an individual deserves in democracy...the american citizens used their guns to reinstate whats fair?... Fuck guns, if you cant understand why you need to live in a gunfree country for a while and see the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.