another school shooting

[christo-f]

That was pretty much what I figured. Germany invaded the rest of Europe because it had equalled the industrial capacity and the military power of the sole super power; Great Britain. Therefore I could not see them being too worried about a small nation that had a few pop guns in their wardrobe. They sure as hell didn't have RPGs back then and they didn't have Bazookas in the garage either. Switzerland was for all intents and purposes a German ally as much as Austria (ok, not that much but not far off).

 

No one invaded Switzerland since then because it wasn't strategically important compared to others, was mountainous and logistically challenging and they don't now because no one really invades countries...., unless you are the US of course. If Switzerland wasn't getting invaded because of it's reserve forces then countries that don't have reserve forces would be getting invaded everywhere. That obviously is not happening.

 

 

Whilst I don't mind you having your opinion and I respect you and all, your reasoning and logic is completely flawed and easily demonstrated so.

[shitting]

Switzerland was for all intents and purposes a German ally as much as Austria (ok, not that much but not far off).

 

 

not quite, Germany annexed Austria before the war and the vast majority of both Austrians and Germans saw it favourably, as an ethnic unification.

[christo-f]

Yeah, allied was the wrong word to use. Willingly co-opted is better. Either way, neither they nor Switzerland allied themselves with Russia or the Western powers or opposed Germany in any substantial way is what I was notioning towards. Also as I said, my WW2 knowledge isn't what it should be...

[WORDISM45]

i also wouldn't describe pre ww2 britain as anywhere near a 'sole superpower', more a decaying colonial empire

[angelofdeath]

Modern firearms don't compare to the muskets or whatever shit was in use when your constitution was written.

 

in 1775, american patriots fought tyranny. upon the act of arms confiscation by british troops, these radical right wing militant 'racist' militia members took up unregistered military assault weapons in defense of their lives and liberty. in 1775 these assault weapons or military small arms were flintlock muskets. in 2008 assault weapons are full auto m4's. the american populace has right to own these weapons in defense of their liberty. if they have these rights and delegated duties to the federal government to form a common defense, how in the hell can the citizens not have this right now? owning full auto or semi auto assault weapons should be the right and duty of every liberty loving american.

 

 

the atom bomb didn't kill hundreds of thousands of japanese people, Einstein did. :rolleyes: he just probably couldn't have killed quite so many people without it.

 

bad logic, hoss. einstein didnt kill them, the american government did. a gun cannot kill anyone unless someone is behind the trigger. but lets face facts, killing innocents is bad no matter who does it. but the fact is some people, like criminals, murderers, tyrants NEED to be killed and someone has to do it...

[angelofdeath]

haha, the way you twist history is hilarious

 

Germany invaded and occupied nation after nation. They crushed many large European armies. Did you know that at the onset of wwii France's army was roughly as large and impressive as the whermacht. And you think Germany didn't invade Switzerland because Hitler was worried about Swiss militia? lol. just lol.

 

Had the whermacht invaded, occupation would have been inevitably swift. Switzerland and Germany were political (but not military) allies and also trading partners.

 

switzerland was neutral. armed and neutral. they were not 'allies'

german officers stated that invasion of switzerland would of been impossible. they would of had to fight a nation of riflemen on their own terrain and were ready to destroy the nation instead of letting an occupying force take over. like i said... SWISS JEWS did not get boarded on boxcars. hitler wanted to invade switzerland, but he was talked out of it by his generals. the swiss motto is save money, not the world. they walk softly and carry a big stick... automatic weapons.

[angelofdeath]

"If Switzerland wasn't getting invaded because of it's reserve forces then countries that don't have reserve forces would be getting invaded everywhere."

 

i find that very flawed. the american militia system of old was based on the swiss model. over history you can look at the countries that were attacked and you can look at countries that were never taken. armed neutrality is the best deterrent. the swiss have not been invaded in 500 years. napolean tried, but retreated. they understand patriotism. defend your country, leave others alone.

[angelofdeath]

i always liked this quote in reguards to the swiss....

 

Prior to WWI, the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers. In response a man from Switzerland replied: "shoot twice and go home".

 

during ww2, the swiss, germany's 'allies' had their airspace violated over 200 times and the swiss forced down german airplanes and shot down something like a dozen luftwaffe. their 'allies' in germany responded by sending in saboteurs to destroy swiss airfields, unsuccessfully. not long after, hitler called the swiss "the most despicable and wretched people, mortal enemies of the new Germany" then came hitlers operation tannenbaum that never came to be after he realized the extent switzerland was armed, that their was no central government to decapitate (the cantons would not recognize the surrender of the central government if they did surrender) and that woman were manning anti aircraft artillery, that 20% of the population VOLUNTARILY mobilized in defense of the country.

[shitting]

 

Germany invaded and occupied nation after nation. They crushed many large European armies. Did you know that at the onset of wwii France's army was roughly as large and impressive as the whermacht. And you think Germany didn't invade Switzerland because Hitler was worried about Swiss militia?

 

 

 

Did you not read this? Germany had more professional soldiers than the population of Switzerland.

They also had a powerful air force and armoured divisions

 

If Hitler did actually want to attack Switzerland, and decided against it i can assure you the reason was not the swiss militia, WHY would he be afraid of civilian rifleman when he confidently invaded France and Russia?

 

If hitler did truly consider the invasion of Switzerland he probably decided against because it is too mountainous and was of insignificant economic worth

[angelofdeath]

i dont hold all the answers, but i am quite confident that since switzerland hasnt been invaded and occupied in 500 years... that definately has something to do with it. think what you want, because i know we come at things from way different angles. you apparently despise self defense and defense of liberty, i believe in it, and it shows in our different world views. i believe arms can be used for deterrence, you dont.

back to gun control.

[shitting]

Maybe those swiss alps and lack of natural resources have also been around for 500 years?...who knows?

 

;)

[angelofdeath]

the alps are a major major reason for them having a good defense. i have never said otherwise and include the terrain in the formula for the best national defense in the world today. rough terrain, an armed populace trained warfare in defense to the death with automatic weapons and other politically incorrect things and a policy of not interfering with others.

[christo-f]

i also wouldn't describe pre ww2 britain as anywhere near a 'sole superpower', more a decaying colonial empire

 

Yeah, sorry, I was thinking WW1. I've embarrassed myself enough with my lack of WW2 history, I'll shut up about it now.

because i know we come at things from way different angles. you apparently despise self defense and defense of liberty

Just because he doesn't agree that it was a reason for not invading Switzerland is related to a militia doesn't mean he despises it. It just means we think you are have a little confirmation bias influencing your views.

 

Australia has never been invaded (unless you're an aborigine) and we don't have a militia. There are many variables and like Switzerland, our geography is one of our main defences as is America's.

 

My bottom line is; countries that don't have a lot of violent crime benefit from gun control. Countries that have a lot of violent gun crime needed gun control a long time ago, now it's too late for them and their social situation is unenviable.

[JigaboosPigaboos]

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Im not arguing anymore but this is a good site to check out.

[shitting]

My bottom line is; countries that don't have a lot of violent crime benefit from gun control. Countries that have a lot of violent gun crime needed gun control a long time ago, now it's too late for them and their social situation is unenviable.

 

pretty much sums it up.

[JigaboosPigaboos]

Could it be that people deserve the freedom to bear arms no matter what the situation is in terms of crime?

[christo-f]

Could it be that people deserve the freedom to bear arms no matter what the situation is in terms of crime?

I can't see why it is necessary. People can be sports shooters, hunters and so on, no probs. But just free and open ownership of guns creates situations like that we see in the US today. The most recent shooter legally bought his arms and shot up a school, like so many before him. This is the result of the "right to bare arms". In my opinion it creates more violence and more trouble than it's worth. The people who do not wish to bare arms have their freedom encroached upon by the need to arm themselves against all the loonies that do. That, to me, is what the situation has become in many places in the US.

[angelofdeath]

"But just free and open ownership of guns creates situations like that we see in the US today. "

 

absolutely positively false!

 

the guy bought a gun, which is an inanimate object, went to a disarmed school zone and shot people who had no means to defend themselves. the gun didnt do it, the maniac did it and the victims had no means to end the threat. if guns are so bad, then why do you allow cops to have them? or the military? citizens can use them for the same purpose they do you know, because if you dial 911 instead of using the combat triad, you will die.

 

to think that you can miraculous zap 240 million 'legal' guns out of the hands of US citizens whose country was created with military assault weapons is not only absurd but highly impossible. guns will still be had and the people who can dont have them will be using machete's. you will create a whole country that is a gun free school zone. i choose not to live like that. all the states with lax gun laws have the lowest crime and have the most polite populace.

 

zapping away millions of guns peacefully from gun owners who take gun ownership seriously is almost as absurd as the greens who think they can some how miraculously zap away 5 billion people from the earth so the snail darters can have a place to live.

[christo-f]

WTF??!!

 

Who said anything about zaping guns out of people's hands dude??!

 

You're building a complete strawman here. You haven't paid attention to the many times I've said that the US is probably too far gone for gun control now but other countries that don't have high violent crime rates don't need private citizens to be armed.

 

Here, I'll say it again for you: The US now has far too many weapons in the hands of private citizens to make gun control useful. Places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England, France, Sweden, Norway, Spain, China, Malaysia, and so on and so on are nice peaceful countries that don't have loonies shooting schools, churches and shopping centers up. WE DON'T NEED FIREARMS TO FEEL SAFE!

 

the guy bought a gun, which is an inanimate object, went to a disarmed school zone and shot people

Oh dude, you just backed my point up better than I could. Can you not understand that in countries with tight gun laws he would not be able to do that? Seriously, can you understand that?

 

Guns are inanimate objects, people like to go crazy and kill each other. Give the crazies guns and they will use them to kill each other...., LOT'S MORE EACH OTHERS. That's the whole fucking point dude. What, do you think that we're of the opinion the guns walk the streets and kill people themselves??! WE DON'T WANT SOCIETY TO BE ARMED TO THE TEETH BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED WITH WEAPONS THAT EFFICIENTLY KILL PEOPLE. Your country is the perfect example of this.

 

The US is the only deveoloped country that has mass shootings on a scale like we have been witnessing. Dude, you keep your guns and you keep your argument because you're going around in circles and not listening to what other people have said. You've made pointless and irrational arguments that are based on self serving assumptions so you can justify your opinion. Good luck to you, you're welcome to have your own opinion. unfortunately discussing it with you has become pretty much useless and from here on in, you can just enjoy the company of your straw men you like building. Myself, I'll sit in this cafe without fear of getting shot, tomorrow I'll go to class without fear of getting shot and I'll spend my money on booze, smoke, pretty girls, good music and motorbikes instead of wasting money buying guns out of fear of the government and all the people around me.

 

Sorry jigaboospigaboos, was an interesting discussion but it's just going around in circles, see you in other threads.

[JigaboosPigaboos]

The school zone was disarmed. People should have the freedom to bear modern small arms equivalent or better than those of the military for self defense as well as recreation and hunting.

[christo-f]

Yes but the surrounding country wasn't so that makes the no gun zone irrelevant. If the citizens are better armed than the government forces, what's to stop them from organising themselves and launching coup de tat after coup de tat? What's to stop paramilitary groups from creating their own states and seceding from the country? What's to stop total anarchy with mob rule? Who's going to hold society together when there isn't one ruling/governing factor? What's to stop the drug cartels from forming large organised forces and running the show? Having the citizens armed better than the government defeats the state's monopoly of coercive force and basically dissolves a unified nation. All other countries would cease to recognise the US as a functioning state, order would fall apart, industry would die and the US would wither as a state.

 

You may have law, but the people when better armed than the government they could decide the law for themselves and then you would no longer have one nation unified under god, you'd have one piece of territory torn apart by the gun.

 

Have you ever spent much time in countries that don't have well armed criminals?

 

Can't believe I'm still in this thread, I'm a sucker...

[JigaboosPigaboos]

The thing to stop stupid shit like what your talking about involves the united states going to how it should have been for the last 150 years.

People should decide what is a moral and just law. If the goverment decides to pass stupid laws even democratically I believe people should secede and use violence if necessary.

[christo-f]

What makes you think "the people" are all going to agree with each other and not start fighting over what's right and wrong?

[angelofdeath]

there is no straw man.

any victim disarmament advocate believes in getting rid of all guns in the hands of private citizens. they want only the state to be armed. that is what they have been fighting for since day one and havent let up and will not let up until all arms are confiscated. there are 20,000 gun laws in the united states. how many more shootings at malls and schools and other 'gun free zones' (funny how the criminals dont have to follow these laws huh?) will it take to realize that the police cannot be every where, have no obligation to stop crime or defend citizens, and that these gun free zones are nothing more than 'free crime' zones?

 

in the 1950's if you took a gun to school in your trunk, the principal would come out and ask you what loads you are shooting in it. if this happens today, the swat team would be called in, the school locked down. in the 50's gun laws were much more relaxed. today it is about impossible to legally defend yourself. it is no mere coincidence that violent crime has increased dramatically.

 

last time i checked murder was illegal whether it is with a gun, a knife, in a gun free zone or in an armed state. do victim disarmament advocates really believe that a criminal bent on murdering people is going to follow some stupid gun law when he is bent on murdering someone? all the gun laws do is disarm victims. the criminals dont pay attention to it anyway.

 

170 million people killed by the own government is the main reason to remain armed. if you believe that people shouldnt have the right to own arms and defend themselves... ask the jews in warsaw, or the kulaks in russia if they think they should of been able to own guns, shoot their masters and hang their carcasses for scavengers to eat.

 

that is what it ALWAYS means when people talk about gun control. victim disarmament.

[angelofdeath]

Yes but the surrounding country wasn't so that makes the no gun zone irrelevant. If the citizens are better armed than the government forces, what's to stop them from organising themselves and launching coup de tat after coup de tat? What's to stop paramilitary groups from creating their own states and seceding from the country? What's to stop total anarchy with mob rule? Who's going to hold society together when there isn't one ruling/governing factor? What's to stop the drug cartels from forming large organised forces and running the show? Having the citizens armed better than the government defeats the state's monopoly of coercive force and basically dissolves a unified nation. All other countries would cease to recognise the US as a functioning state, order would fall apart, industry would die and the US would wither as a state.

 

You may have law, but the people when better armed than the government they could decide the law for themselves and then you would no longer have one nation unified under god, you'd have one piece of territory torn apart by the gun.

 

Have you ever spent much time in countries that don't have well armed criminals?

 

Can't believe I'm still in this thread, I'm a sucker...

 

the US was created by secession from tyranny. it is a great principle. the people used to hold the power. the militia was supreme. we didnt have non war time standing armies. what was to prevent the people from destroying and rebuilding the government? it was the miracle of republican liberty. the experiment lasted a long time and did well. till king lincoln got in power.

 

secession is a key element of liberty and self government. thomas jefferson argued that nullification and secession were totally justified and moral. he as a 'founding father.' today he would be a 'terrorist'

 

the united states for years was referred to as 'these united States.' not a single unified country. it was to be an assembly of republics. free to come and go as they pleased. the government having a monopoly on coercive force is a bad thing. that is what nazi germany had. what soviet russia had. the people suffered from tyranny. the people and the decentralized states feared consolidation and americans and liberty lovers across the world should also fear it. centralized totalitarianism is the worse thing for anyone to deal with. i'd much rather deal with a state peacefully seceding than having to worry about a totalitarian bureaucracy within my own countries shores.

[christo-f]

You are aware that the United States is not the whole world, yes?

 

You are aware that I HAVE SAID SO MANY FUCKING TIMES THAT THE UNITED STATES IS PAST GUN CONTROL, YES?

 

You are aware that countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, England, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Japan, Taiwan, etc. have strong gun control and low violent crime rates, yes?

 

You are aware that in our countries it's not disarming victims BECAUSE OUR CRIMS AREN'T ARMED WITH MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS. any idea why we don't have crazy people running everywhere with guns? BECAUSE WE HAVE STRICT GUN CONTROL!!!!

 

You are aware that none of us in our respective countries are scared that the government boogie man is coming to get us, yes?

 

 

You are aware that no other developed country in the world has mass shootings on the scale of America, yes?

 

 

No, I don't think you are, because you seem to be making an argument based on the US and the US only. You should travel some day, it might cure this paranoia you seem to have.

[christo-f]

Hey angelofdeath, here you go!

 

 

Gunmen wounded eight people including three children in a shooting in southern Los Angeles today, emergency services said.

 

Three girls aged 10, 11 and 12 were hospitalised in critical condition along with a 49-year-old woman, city fire service spokeswoman Lisa Davies said.

 

Four other people were also injured.

 

Police were hunting two men who opened fire as the victims waited for a bus about 3.15pm (1015 AEDT Friday) and then fled, police spokesman Jason Lee said.

 

AFP

 

 

It's a great thing these idiots were able to freely acquire weapons and shoot kids up, it's their right god damnit! Maybe if those silly liberal 10, 11 and 12 year old were packing heat they wouldn't have been shot!

 

Newsflash, these guys still would have shot at least 3-5 people before anyone could have pulled their weapon out and returned fire. These guys are in a speeding car, unless the bystanders were crack shots and using well zeroed assault rifles, the chances of scoring a winning hit is pretty close to zero.

 

But let's defend the right of the murderers and crazies to freely buy weapons. I know it's too late to do anything about it now, but the original idea of allowing people to freely buy whatever weapon they want leads to this outcome. Now you're all in the shit because all the morons have guns and are shooting up the peaceful people. Great policy, sustainable culture!:rolleyes:

 

I'm happy this does not happen on a regular basis in my country. I support the strict gun laws we have. I am not afraid my government is going to kill me or take away my freedom. If I am, I'll campaign to have them deposed in the next democratic election.

[angelofdeath]

the principles of liberty pass all borders. you act as there is no genocide in the world today. or that only genocide has happened in the US. (clue, it hasnt because we are still armed)

 

murder is already illegal. guns dont kill people. people do. you cannot magically zap away all guns. impossible, so the best thing you can do is allow law abiding citizens the means to obtain weapons for defense. the people who kill people with guns, should be hung in front of the state houses in this country.

do you know the amount of crime committed with military style assault weapons in the US, when they are readily available? i dont think you want to know, because if you did know your whole bogie man theory of 'military weapons' being used by all murderers would be out the window and you'd find yourself banning .22 cal handguns instead.

 

do you really believe that criminals can walk into a store and buy a gun? they buy guns illegally. they dont follow legal channels. why cant you figure this out? they dont follow gun laws. there are 20K on the books in the US and it has only INCREASED crime. gun control simply doesnt apply to them. 20K gun laws have increased crime, so how in the hell are more stupid bureaucratic laws going to deter anything when the first 20K havent done a thing? and before you say 'dooood sweden has low crime and gun controlZ!@' im talking about the US.

 

seriously. look at what groups are targeted by criminals. are huge body builders targeted by muggers? or are old women targeted more?

would you rather have a telephone in your hand calling the police when a murderer is in your house at 2 am or would you rather have a 12 gauge with a bead drawn?

 

it is insane for me to actually think that there is an ideology that does not support self defense. the right of ones self to defend their life against aggression.

 

the facts are in. states that have adopted ccw laws have lower crime. disarmed cesspools full of violent criminals have the strongest gun laws and the most crime.

guns have worked for me. i currently live in an area that has been over run with low class criminals. after i moved back a year ago, i noticed the area changed. they were running wild over my acreage. after i confronted a handful of them, with a holstered 1911, one has yet to cross my property. they are polite now. they dont trespass.

 

and i know you'll be saying the ol' 'i'll just vote out the government that tries to take away our freedom...' works real good. it has really worked here in america. i always vote and they still take my freedom. my freedom isnt up for grabs.

hitler was elected democratically. they could of easily just thrown him out right?

sure.

you'll be one of those people sitting on your front step waving to the panzers as they roll down your street giving a salute right? and you'll be saying the ol' 'i'll vote them out' line as they are doing this to your people wont you?

 

 

i like this better:

 

[christo-f]

Ahahahahaaaa, you're one of those dudes that hears voices in your head aren't you?

 

Who said anything about genocide ya loony?!

 

Pretty sure I always stated that no country IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD, that means not africa, most of Asia and some of South America. That's where you have genocide. Guess what, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, Canada, Spain, etc. don't have genocide, NEITHER DO THEY HAVE MASS SHOOTINGS IN SCHOOLS, CHURCHES AND SHOPPING CENTERS!

 

Do I believe that crims can walk in to shops and buy guns, nah, but people who shoot up colleges can!

 

Meh, military weapons, hand guns made only for killing people, take your pick. Society can do without them all. Against self defence? MY COUNTRY ISN'T AFLOOD WITH CRIMS WHO HAVE GUNS AND PEOPLE SHOOTING UP SCHOOLS! What the hell have I got to defend myself against other than the sort that can be sorted out in an unarmed fashion? NONE, that's because we have gun laws! :)

 

Haha Hitler was democratically elected, THAT MEANS THEY DIDN'T WANT TO THROW HIM OUT!!!!

 

Panzers down the street, HAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! Yep, my government's sole purpose is destroy my country and enslave us all and the whole military and police force is in on it too! Hahahahahaaa

 

Dude, you're as fringe element as it gets. Do you realise that there is a whole normal world out there that doesn't live in fear of everyone else? That's where I live.

 

anyway, thanks mate, it's been fun. Look forward to reading about you in the news.

[christo-f]

http://www.12ozprophet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123962

 

It's the kid's own fault for not having a fire arm on his person ready to protect himself.