Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
... LastLast
  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    ive always liked this picture


    It wouldn't matter if they had guns...

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight Gil View Post
    If your view of tyranny is the british empire in the XVIII century trying to get hold of the american lands, yeah, that's probably the point of that amendment. But no, you probably one of those people who just don't like the federal government and think each tax increase they do means they are turning into a communist dictatorship
    Here is what I know. I know that my government conducts its self with little to no accountability. I know that my government has committed war crimes and violations against civil liberties, rights, and the Constitution before and currently. What I also know is that many in the Global Economic circle are predicting a complete collapse of the US Economy and a move from the USD by the World Bank (Most likely to Yuan but who knows.) What I also know is what happened to the UK the last time something like this happened with the British Sterling.

    What I DO NOT KNOW is the future and because I do not know that I prefer to reflect back on history and make decisions based on constant repeats in order to avoid a predictable future.

  3. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    It wouldn't matter if they had guns...
    The point i was more trying to prove was that the govt can and has committed tyranny against its citizens.

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    The point i was more trying to prove was that the govt can and has committed tyranny against its citizens.

    Yeah, but my point is that a few guns won't make enough of a difference.

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    It wouldn't matter if they had guns...
    Yes, and the gun laws back then were leaner than they are now. It shows that even leaner gun laws than we have now, would not help if government came for you. It proves that having guns no longer has the intended effect, because just like technological advances changed what guns people have, the weapons government has is much more advanced.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 05:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    The point i was more trying to prove was that the govt can and has committed tyranny against its citizens.
    Were gun laws leaner or more tight at that time?
    Go Hawks!!!!

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Yes, and the gun laws back then were leaner than they are now. It shows that even leaner gun laws than we have now, would not help if government came for you. It proves that having guns no longer has the intended effect, because just like technological advances changed what guns people have, the weapons government has is much more advanced.
    You are assuming that the government would be using bombs and shit which would most likely not happen on us soil. it would be all on ground, men with guns.


    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Were gun laws leaner or more tight at that time?
    Gun laws being leaner or tighter are one thing, gun laws being leaner or tighter for japanese americans is another.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by cz75fan View Post
    Here is what I know. I know that my government conducts its self with little to no accountability. I know that my government has committed war crimes and violations against civil liberties, rights, and the Constitution before and currently. What I also know is that many in the Global Economic circle are predicting a complete collapse of the US Economy and a move from the USD by the World Bank (Most likely to Yuan but who knows.) What I also know is what happened to the UK the last time something like this happened with the British Sterling.

    What I DO NOT KNOW is the future and because I do not know that I prefer to reflect back on history and make decisions based on constant repeats in order to avoid a predictable future.
    You don't know the future, yet use a prediction to demonstrate what you know?

    The constitucion has been amended many times, but that includes voting rights for minorities. You simply cannot hinge the changing of the constitucion on solely negative view, unless you have an irrational destain for government.
    Go Hawks!!!!

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    You are assuming that the government would be using bombs and shit which would most likely not happen on us soil. it would be all on ground, men with guns.


    Why would a tyrannical government care about dropping a few bombs / collateral damage?

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    Why would a tyrannical government care about dropping a few bombs / collateral damage?
    The only reason they would care is if they were to continue allowing people to vote in unrigged elections.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  10. #230
    Bloodsail Admiral dacoolist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In front of the computer - Naked
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Harakhte View Post
    It isn't about being the solution, it's about finding a stepping stone path to a solution.

    For one, a ban on assault weapons is only logical. There is no reason for citizens to own an assault weapon. Yes, they will still be around due to a black market, but at least it removes some of the market (and the easily obtained market of rob person, now you have assault weapon).
    If law abiding citizens are not allowed to own assault weapons, then the government already controls it's people with NO POSSIBLE way to overthrow mislead/corrupted government that's in power. As much as I'd LOVE to protect my family with a single loading daisy bb-gun - I think one person with ANY type of fully auto weapon would be 10 to 1 ratio of actual RAW POWER vs, single action... Whatever, I'm sure I just added into the flame

  11. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    You are assuming that the government would be using bombs and shit which would most likely not happen on us soil. it would be all on ground, men with guns.
    No, that's your assumption. My assumption is simply based on trained personal using guns that you cannot afford. I am assuming that US millitary outnumbers you and has more resources. I am assuming that it would be much easier to get any armed to the teeth American citizen, than an armed to the teeth Bin Ladin in Pakistan.

    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    Gun laws being leaner or tighter are one thing, gun laws being leaner or tighter for japanese americans is another.
    Who is proposing such a law? The laws were leaner than they are now, before Pearl Harbor. Yet, they did not help with either the Japanese being put in camps or the attack it self.
    Go Hawks!!!!

  12. #232
    There was a gun control act right after the repeal of prohibition that outlawed all gangster style weapons, notably the Thompson Machinegun. So that has to be early 30's.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by dacoolist View Post
    If law abiding citizens are not allowed to own assault weapons, then the government already controls it's people with NO POSSIBLE way to overthrow mislead/corrupted government that's in power. As much as I'd LOVE to protect my family with a single loading daisy bb-gun - I think one person with ANY type of fully auto weapon would be 10 to 1 ratio of actual RAW POWER vs, single action... Whatever, I'm sure I just added into the flame
    The government already controls it's people. Who do you think enforces the laws we have? Even with assault weapons, you do not have the ability to go to a war with a country that is capable of having 2 wars against whole countries, while having troops in just about every part of the world. Going up against the government is a delusion of grandeur... They have unmanned drones... Aircraft carriers... Trained personal... Bigger guns than you can afford and they are trained to use them...
    Go Hawks!!!!

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    The government already controls it's people. Who do you think enforces the laws we have? Even with assault weapons, you do not have the ability to go to a war with a country that is capable of having 2 wars against whole countries, while having troops in just about every part of the world. Going up against the government is a delusion of grandeur... They have unmanned drones... Aircraft carriers... Trained personal... Bigger guns than you can afford and they are trained to use them...
    you are also assuming the military would go right along with it.

  15. #235
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  16. #236
    I suggest most of you gun control advocates educate yourselves before opening your mouths and sounding like idiots. Here's a starting point:

    1) The term "Assault Rifle" refers to select fire (choice between semi auto and full auto usually) rifles that are in use in the military and HEAVILY regulated and restricted for civilian use. These literally have nothing to do with the current discussion as they are not relevant to the recent incident that sparked all of this jibber jabber.

    2) The term "Assault Weapon" is a term that politicians made up to make certain types of firearms sound scary and is based primarily on cosmetic features which have little to do with the function or lethality of a firearm.

    3) Semi automatic means that you pull the trigger every time you fire. It is impossible for semi automatic firearms to fire more than 1 shot for each trigger pull.

  17. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by vaeevictiss View Post
    you are also assuming the military would go right along with it.
    So are you... If we assume millitary does not go along with it, what enforsment are your guns protecting you from? The millitary, is the only federal enforsment tool. If you remove them from the equation, than there is nothing to protect your self from that stems from the government. You think senators and judges will pick up arms against US millitary?
    Go Hawks!!!!

  18. #238
    Ban guns. I'm sure it'll make them magically disappear from closets and cabinets. Ban assault weapons- we see how well banning cocaine and heroine have worked. Ultimately- put it on paper if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling... my guns not going anywhere.

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by madwabbit View Post
    Ban guns. I'm sure it'll make them magically disappear from closets and cabinets. Ban assault weapons- we see how well banning cocaine and heroine have worked. Ultimately- put it on paper if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling... my guns not going anywhere.
    Are you addicted to guns? Do guns create an addiction where the consumer's body craves another hit, to the point where the cost of manufacturing is incredibly slanted due to the demand? If you honestly think guns and drugs are the same, you have a problem and should not be permitted to own guns. People who have a physical craving for guns due to a dependance, should go to rehab before they are permitted to own a gun.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 05:51 PM ----------

    Than and then can eat my ass... I'm aknowledging it, but not fixing it...
    Go Hawks!!!!

  20. #240
    I am Murloc! Fenixdown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    5,785
    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawsix View Post
    damage done in mass shootings would be greatly reduced if they had hand guns thats the point
    No it wouldn't. Anyone that wants to shoot up a school or government building or anything else for that matter would still have access to any tool they desired to have access to. Just because something becomes illegal does not mean people stop having access to it. Cocaine is illegal. Yet you still see people ODing on the stuff, don't you.

    Also, someone earlier made a VERY valid point. Some of the largest mass murders in history were done without the use of guns. Hell, two planes were crashed into two of the tallest structures in the world with only the use of BOX CUTTERS. Should we outlaw box cutters because of 9/11?

    Banning automatic weapons does nothing to solve the problem. I mean, think about it this way. Remember Columbine? Tragic, am I right? Where did parents put the blame? Video games. Did we start banning violent video games from being made because of it? Last time I checked, the games only got more graphic and more violent as the years have gone forward. Yet for some crazy reason, there's not a "mass high school shooting of the week" segment on ABC news as a result of that very "necessary" ban.

    Crazy people do crazy shit, and there's nothing you're going to do and no law you're going to pass to stop them. Period. The best solution is better security at public schools.
    Last edited by Fenixdown; 2013-01-15 at 05:55 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •