Pro-gun vs. Anti-gun

[Watch Me Sink]

Not to mention the majority (I'm familiar with most of those leaders, but not all) of those leaders were communist leaders, and a few (Hitler, Pol Pot) were overthrown by wars, some/most just flat out sucked as leaders (Mao, Kim, Stalin, Pol Pot), or participated in some sort of ethnic clensing (Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim, Amin). So that arguement isn't going to work.

 

[Canadian Marksman]

History is one thing I am an expert on my friend. And I will tell you right now that in all those regimes there had been serious strife going in the first place and these leaders simply capitalized.

If your such an expert why ignore its lessons?

such as arrogance .........."it can't happen here "

Let me further clarify something. If you have the notion that "Oh them big government boys are gonna come in here and take my freedom" if they take your assault rifles, you are severely wrong.

I never said anything about big government I am simply telling from experience what happened in my own country.

WAKE UP. If the American government wanted to do that to its citizens, it doesn't matter how many people with assault rifles there are running around. The army will quell them regardless.

WOW your seem to be pretty keen for that ..........when you have martial law in democratic country its basically acknowledging that countries failure.
armies are not for internal strife ...........I am disgusted

So don't even try that bull**** "we need to be protected and be able to stop the government from taking us over".

all I said was historically goverments who siezed weapons from the people ended up praying upon it

tell me of one successful government that has done this in the last 50 years. and the UK doens't count as that one is still up for debate.......I am sure that there are hundreds of examples judging on your "vast knowledge"

BTW now that you have alienated yourself from anyone who owns a firearm that was used by the military .........i urge you to check the stats on how many of those people are criminals

Not to mention the majority (I'm familiar with most of those leaders, but not all) of those leaders were communist leaders, and a few (Hitler, Pol Pot) were overthrown by wars, some/most just flat out sucked as leaders (Mao, Kim, Stalin, Pol Pot), or participated in some sort of ethnic clensing (Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim, Amin). So that arguement isn't going to work.

ah check your history most of those leaders got to power by support of the people .......they just didn't walk into their government offices and proclaim themselves king

and once again I STATE THAT

THE LINE BETWEEN MILTARY AND CIVILIAN FIREARMS IS BLURRY AND BANNING THEM IS A WASTE OF TIME AS CRIMINALS WILL ALAWYS GET WHAT THEY WANT ..OUTSIDE THE LAW!!!!!! that is why they are criminals

 

[Watch Me Sink]

While I never claimed that these leaders were never supported by "people," often the "people" weren't the majority nor did they gain power democratically. or the leaders just flat out lied, and fucked up as leaders (Stalin). In fact, some gained power just because they had a different political opinion than the government before (Kim il-Sung, Mao).

And Kim Jong-il gained power from his father, Kim il-Sung. While both these political figures have great support from the DPRK population, it is undoubtably because of brainwashing and incorrect reports of history (North Koreans still don't accept that they started the Korean War, and instead blame it on the evil, capitalistic Americans). DPRK will undoubtably be the next country to have a revolution. I just want to visit there/the DMZ before it happens.

 

[Canadian Marksman]

While I never claimed that these leaders were never supported by "people," often the "people" weren't the majority nor did they gain power democratically.

hitler sure as hell did ! he was voted in

or the leaders just flat out lied,

your right that seldomly happens :roll:




and f****d up as leaders (Stalin). In fact, some gained power just because they had a different political opinion than the government before (Kim il-Sung, Mao).

And Kim Jong-il gained power from his father, Kim il-Sung. While both these political figures have great support from the DPRK population, it is undoubtably because of brainwashing and incorrect reports of history (North Koreans still don't accept that they started the Korean War, and instead blame it on the evil, capitalistic Americans).

you Right !!!! brainwashing never took place in modern western society that whole WMD thing in Iraq was just an oversight :roll:

 

[Watch Me Sink]

Hitler was elected, which I never denied, but he didn't gain complete power until the Enabling Act was signed by Hindenburg.

But that was one leader. Germany obviously didn't know what they were getting themselves into.

Brainwashing and claiming that there are WMD in Iraq are two very different things. While the DPRK's constitution allows for many rights (such as freedom of the press), those rights are never allowed. The only newspaper that is allowed is the government newspaper. The only TV station is a 24/7 loop of military footage of Kim il-Sung and Kim Jong-il (note, this may have changed, as the documentary that showed this is about 5 years old now). Textbooks in DPRK show Kim il-Sung as a military genious, when in fact he was just lucky that he didn't get killed. Not to mention the government there is one of, if not the most totalitarian since Stalin's rule. Everything that happens there is because of the "great leader." The sun rising, crops growing, the soccer/football team's sucess in the World Cup in the 1960's (forgot which one) is all credited to one of the Kims. And if one talks shit about one of the Kims, the teachers at the schools there teach the students to turn the parents in. Once turned in, one would be sent to a work camp for the rest of their lives.

That is brainwashing. True brainwashing of the public cannot happen in anything but a totalitarian society, whether it be left (Stalin, Kim) or right (Hitler).

 

[Canadian Marksman]

The point i making was 99% of governments who ban firearms from their public end up turning on them or are or end up repressive.

Remember some policies in both the USA and CAN ran eerily close to the national socialists, ie eugenics, and if you say something similar couldn't happen in North America then i am afraid you don't know history that well.

The more laws you have the more they will be used against people they shouldn't be.

eg you have the police who are running around in teams of 4 confiscating firearms from people whose license has simply ran out, rather than give them a call to renew it!

That is great i didn't know the police had all the real crime problems fixed.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article ... ook-my-gun

 

[Watch Me Sink]

I wouldn't say 99%. There are tons of governments that have banned firearms that haven't experianced a major revolution.

And you keep on claiming that I don't know history. While I could just be looking everything up on wikipedia, I'm not. I know a ton about WWII and the Cold War, despite not being alive during either.

 

[Canadian Marksman]

And you keep on claiming that I don't know history.

I didn't say that.

I said you didn't now anything about firearms.......I also said you seem to ignore histories lessons

I wouldn't say 99%. There are tons of governments that have banned firearms that haven't experienced a major revolution.

name 10 that have banned firearms and not did not suffer criminal spikes or spelled disaster for the civilian population

 

[katy perry is hot]

Listen, Canadian, we can go back and forth bullshitting each other all day with lists.

The fact here is, if America all out banned firearms, it wouldn't make a difference. The army here is well organized, well lead, and the most powerful one in the world. It doesn't matter how many idiots with M16s running around, they will be quelled. Whether or not it's legal to possess such types of weapons.

That is why your argument is totally moot. Fully and totally moot.

Same with Canada. The Canadian Army is not the falling apart piece of crap pre-Hitler Germany was. Same with China. There was a civil war that was going on for years before Mao took leadership. It was put on hold during WWII, but sparked right back up again, and eventually Kai-shek was forced out of the country to what is now called the ROC (Republic of China) and Mao founded the PRC. It's not like there was a gigantic democracy in China with great lives and full constitutional rights to bear arms and then suddenly Mao said one day "All guns are banned" and then he was able to take control. That's not how it worked at all. Out of all those regimes in your picture, Mao is the one I know the most about. And I can tell you right now not ONE of those on your picture was in the same status America or Canada is today. All of them were already facing severe strifes before firearms were banned. They were not all peaceful happy flower planting countries and then someone banned firearms and they went down the tube.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

CM: I cannot name 10, since I can't find a full list of coutries where guns have been completely banned. But there are 3 that I could find.

China, North Korea, Japan (Japan doesn't outright ban ALL firearms, but the laws are so strict that few people even own guns). No disasters yet, though DPRK will undoubtably have a revolution soon.

 

[Canadian Marksman]

Listen, Canadian, we can go back and forth bullshitting each other all day with lists..........
That is why your argument is totally moot. Fully and totally moot...........

:rofl:

wow that was quite the rant there.........

Mao also killed 40 mil or so of his own people

ok how about to other shining examples of gun control...........Mexico and Jamaica .........no problems there :rofl:

-- 23 Aug 2010, 05:38 --

CM: I cannot name 10, since I can't find a full list of coutries where guns have been completely banned. But there are 3 that I could find.

China, North Korea, Japan (Japan doesn't outright ban ALL firearms, but the laws are so strict that few people even own guns). No disasters yet, though DPRK will undoubtably have a revolution soon.

China, North Korea, Japan (Japan doesn't outright ban ALL firearms, but the laws are so strict that few people even own guns). No disasters yet, though DPRK will undoubtably have a revolution soon.

Good point with Japan though i can't say i would want to live there.

China and DPRK?...... they are not exactly jewels of human rights advocacy either.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Mao did not kill 40 million people. His stupid attempts at socialism causing famines did. He did not commit genocide.

But the fact is China runs just fine. And human rights aren't really a problem there anymore. The main problems now with China are the restrictions on press and internet usage.

 

[Nexus]

I'm pro-gun - let's say guns are banned in america: Who would defend 'the people' if the government tries to do a radical change? The whole reason guns are allowed is to act as a check to the government. If they start straying away from being a Republic Democracy, we have the right to assemble and take back what is rightfully ours (or rights, freedoms, and a people-run government).

And, if you're thinking, "Well that's never happened and never will happen" you're right - it's never happened because the public can have guns, and it never will happen, because that right will not be taken away seeing as it's hard-coded into our Bill or Rights - the top 10 rights the founding fathers decided upon.

Now, what they SHOULD do, is require a background check for any weapons purchase period. If you have anything short of a relatively clean record (minor traffic offences, maybe a drunk in public) then you should be barred from purchasing, owning or trafficking any firearms. I know here in Virginia, you can buy a rifle without a license nor a background check. A simple Google search can show you how to make it into an automatic weapon.

-Rich

 

[Canadian Marksman]

Mao did not kill 40 million people. His stupid attempts at socialism causing famines did. He did not commit genocide.

would that be something like Stalin didn't really kill anyone starving out how many Ukrainians ?

its forgivable i guess :roll:

But the fact is China runs just fine. And human rights aren't really a problem there anymore. The main problems now with China are the restrictions on press and internet usage.

* Defence lawyer and human rights activist Gao Zhisheng remained under tight police surveillance throughout the year after his conviction in December 2006 for "inciting subversion". Between 24 June and 4 July and again between 22 September and early November, he was held incommunicado and tortured in unknown locations, before being returned to house arrest in Beijing.
* Human rights lawyer Li Heping was abducted by unidentified individuals in late September, beaten for several hours and told to stop his human rights work. He was then released.
* Several activists died either in detention or shortly after their release.

Around 30 journalists were known to be in prison and at least 50 individuals were in prison for posting their views on the internet. People were often punished simply for accessing banned websites.

The trafficking of women and girls remained widespread, particularly from North Korea (see below).

Millions of people were impeded from freely practising their religion. Thousands remained in detention or serving prison sentences, at high risk of torture, for practising their religion outside of state-sanctioned channels.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport. ... 2008&c=CHN

Man! and what about the death vans.

Inside each ‘death van’ there is a dedicated team of doctors to ‘harvest’ the organs of the deceased. The injections leave the body intact and in pristine condition for such lucrative work.

After checking that the victim is dead, the medical team first remove the eyes. Then, wearing surgical gowns and masks, they remove the kidney, liver, pancreas and lungs.

Little goes to waste, though the heart cannot be used, having been poisoned by the drugs.

The organs are dispatched in ice boxes to hospitals in the sprawling cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, which have developed another specialist trade: selling the harvested organs.
http://cnreviews.com/life/news-issues/c ... 90802.html

[/size]

Dude your view of freedom is starting to really scare me

Nexus

you got some points there but i think its also a gauge that the public can use on how much their government trusts them

whats your view on semi auto rifles that tend to be black or resemble military arms like ar15s or the remington r15 and r35

BTW your probably going to be accused of being me if your say you think they are ok.

I am not sure i agree with your idea reference a background check as from the Canadian experiences thing worded like that become law 😀 with forethought of the complications.

i am not sure what you meant with your reference to google as full auto guns are easyer to make than semi autos

I have a few friends who are history buffs and they made stens from scratch with a few barrel blanks and it was more of a job to make a semi auto one than a full auto "real" one esp when doing something like that here in Canada they have to be sent to the RCMP techs and verified that they cannot be converted to FA.

BTW this is how things are in Canada

Fired weapon after trio firebombed his home
http://www.thespec.com/news/crime/ar...rearms-charges
THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR
PORT COLBORNE – A string of suspicious fires across the Niagara region has taken a bizarre twist.
A homeowner who rushed out to confront three men after his Snider Road home was fire bombed early Sunday has been charged with careless use of a firearm.

Police said the 53-year-old homeowner ran out of his house with a handgun – properly registered to him – and fired the weapon in a bid to drive suspects away.

The man ran out after hearing the sound of glass breaking and put out several small fires that had begun around his home. Three people in dark clothing fled the scene in a two-door, mid-sized, vehicle after the owner fired.

Police said they have no evidence to suggest that anyone was injured as a result of the firearm being discharged.

The incident comes hot on the heels of another suspicious fire on Bowen Road in Fort Erie Saturday and is the seventh suspicious blaze in the Niagara region in under a month. The Ontario Fire Marshal’s office is investigating the Bowen Road blaze which caused $25,000 damage.

The first fire happened on Oakwood Avenue in St. Catharines Aug. 4 when an elderly woman died in a blaze.

Her death has since been deemed a homicide.

With files from Canadian Press

 

[Cosmic]

What I gather from your opinion is that the government is tyrannical unless you can legally have one of these in your back yard:

That's absurd.

 

[Canadian Marksman]

What I gather from your opinion is that the government is tyrannical unless you can legally have one of these in your back yard:

That's absurd.

:rofl: cute you can be serious


Your Right it is absurd

BECAUSE I DID NOT SAY THAT !!!!!!!

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

nice straw man there

lets recap
1st point.
I stated that if your for any fire arms ownership at all you must be careful at what limits and rationalizations you volunteer for yourself as you cannot speak for others! Regretfully those limits and rationalizations will be thrust up others as their rationalizations and limitation WILL be thrust upon you. As anti firearms people WILL incrementally target what is left and get rid of it.

It has happened in Canada, the UK , and Australia.

ie In Canada we were told the current legislation was going to be, "IT" and registration would not lead and legislation would NOT lead to confiscation, it did right after that they arbitrarily "banned" several types of firearms and confiscated them from people who did nothing wrong nor had records.

2nd point

banning one type of firearm is a very blurry issue, to ban "military" firearms would see about 90% of them banned, from your semi auto to your scoped deer rifle to even muzzle loaders.

3rd point

Its not fair or correct to limit ones protective choices as each individual has different circumstances,I currently have firearms but not for protection, my local police respond in about 2 mins (I am very lucky) but that is not to say that will be permanent.

Also people in the woods will have different needs than somebody in a city , on the border of mexico or out in bear country (BTW a 223 is next to useless against a grizz) so its simple asinine to limit people and do the thinking for them.

4th point

Saying somebody doesn't "need" something is also asinine as I bet everyone of you has several things in your home or possession that you don't need whether it be cable an suv, the black berry or cell phone that you natter on or even maybe your house (one family can live in one room) but i would not dare say you did not have a right to own it even after you plowed into my car while nattering on my cell phone I would never think of saying you didn't have a right or need for either........i might call you an idiot. I might even be mad but the truly disgusting part that some of have trouble coping with is that the horrible truth of being free is others are free too and may do something you find illogical.


5 point

firearms ownership is a bench mark of western society and 99% of countries that ban them end up being hell holes, are hell holes or beginning to be hell holes.

Finally the point on firearms , regretfully like so much of life people don't dare make their own opinions they just repeat others they hear or read.


At no point did i say i wanted a battle mech in back yard (though i hear some guy in alaska is working on it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfdOPF4VGM I guess he should be thrown in jail

 

[katy perry is hot]

I'm pro-gun - let's say guns are banned in america: Who would defend 'the people' if the government tries to do a radical change? The whole reason guns are allowed is to act as a check to the government. If they start straying away from being a Republic Democracy, we have the right to assemble and take back what is rightfully ours (or rights, freedoms, and a people-run government).

And, if you're thinking, "Well that's never happened and never will happen" you're right - it's never happened because the public can have guns, and it never will happen, because that right will not be taken away seeing as it's hard-coded into our Bill or Rights - the top 10 rights the founding fathers decided upon.

Now, what they SHOULD do, is require a background check for any weapons purchase period. If you have anything short of a relatively clean record (minor traffic offences, maybe a drunk in public) then you should be barred from purchasing, owning or trafficking any firearms. I know here in Virginia, you can buy a rifle without a license nor a background check. A simple Google search can show you how to make it into an automatic weapon.

-Rich

Rich, I can totally see your point. You really would have a good point if we were talking about a small tiny little country. This is the US we're talking about. What you don't understand is that it DOES NOT MATTER how many people with assault rifles and other high powered weaponry there are. The army will quell it easily. The argument that we need to have legalized assault weapons to "protect our freedoms" is totally moot and there is no way to argue for it.

 

[Cosmic]

Yes, yes you did say that. You said that banning any gun was massive government intrusion. Banning a lot of guns, banning most guns, and banning all guns would be wrong, but banning this is essential:

By the giant mecha I mean honking huge sniper rifles, explosive weapons, and anything fully automatic. It's not a fallacy, but an analogy.

 

[Canadian Marksman]

Rich, I can totally see your point. You really would have a good point if we were talking about a small tiny little country. This is the US we're talking about. What you don't understand is that it DOES NOT MATTER how many people with assault rifles and other high powered weaponry there are. The army will quell it easily. The argument that we need to have legalized assault weapons to "protect our freedoms" is totally moot and there is no way to argue for it.

I was avoiding this due to the stigma and labels that I know will come out if I actually commented about it.
but what the hooo.

what cosmic talked about actually did happen in the U.S.A returning veterans litterally battled a corrupt boss hog type local government .........the battle of athens

as for the military putting down its own people .........first that is the last thing any soldier would want to do it would have to be a pretty damn good plane jane obvious reason and is why us troops swear loyalty to the constitution not a president.

but a group of simple people in afghanistan did a job on the soviets and is giving us a run for the money as well

also look at Iraq.

also look at the number of people in the US who once served.

So to make such conclusions is definitely short sighted and premature.


also note that the term "High powered" are useless in describing firearms and it only adds drama

it sounds like your trying to sell something ........"look i have a high powered toaster for sale"

.......now i am waiting for the "militia remarks" of which i am not part of

 

[Cosmic]

Canadian Marksman, where do you draw the line when it comes to gun ownership? Remember Sadam Hussein's "gun"? Someone could claim to have a "gun" and it really be a piece of artillery. a "gun" could also be a long-ranged military sniper rifle, not the kind used during the civil war, but a modern-day one which is operated by two men, can shoot further than the eye can see, and could not be practically used for self-defense or even hunting due to its long-range design? The line has to be drawn somewhere. Do you think citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons too, in case they have to hunt some really big game or defend themselves?