Alex Jones wants to deport Piers Mogan.

[Dyra]

I watched the video of this utter farce of an 'interview' the other night and while I personally don't like Piers Morgan and glad he's not being returned to us, I think he did exceedingly well to not punch Alex Jones in the mouth.

The man did nothing but rant over Piers Morgan, and when he did allow Piers to get a word in edgeways it wasn't exactly long before he was off on another tangent about how it's not guns killing people and twisting the stats to show how it was everything else that's wrong with the world that's causing all the problems. I did particularly enjoy the bits about 1776 and how Britain is a police state though. ^_^

[Xarkan]

You take two different points that had nothing to do with each other and then call me dense, good going.

And you seriously don't need an assault rifle for the government. The government has way more assault rifles than you do, and they have the weapon expertise to back it up, so you don't stand a chance anyway. I still can't grasp how you people can seriously compare yourself to an American soldier.

You trust your government? Which Nordic country are you from exactly?

[Daerio]

How many children / innocent people need to be murdered in cold blood, with the firearms you seem to hold with such esteem, before you will consider giving up you "God given right" to own them?

How many tyrannical governments in history need to come into power and slaughter billions before people understand that they cannot surrender all control to a centralized body of humans? I'm willing to make a comparison there of how many people have died. I think the tyrants have it by a mile.

[Deleted]

You trust your government? Which Nordic country are you from exactly?

Sweden.

10chars

[iamthedevil]

You no, I have not.

We have the 2nd Amendment because at the time of the constitution the US was very much a frontier nation and the framers argued against a standing military. Guess what, we have a standing military and a huge percentage of the US is no longer a frontier nation.

On top of that, the main gun at the time was the musket... not a carbine assault rifle.

[Xarkan]

Sweden.

10chars

Heh

For Denmark i believe one of the founding guidelines for the Danish Home Guard was to protect the population from crimes against humanity both foreign and domestic implying amongst other things protecting the population against a vile government that would surrender to the inevitable coming of the soviet army (or the Swedish when you walk over the ice again)

The relevance being obvious here. What happens happens and cannot be made unhappened (that should be a word) .. Countries take lessons from their past and form their laws and organizations around them

[Deleted]

How many tyrannical governments in history need to come into power and slaughter billions before people understand that they cannot surrender all control to a centralized body of humans? I'm willing to make a comparison there of how many people have died. I think the tyrants have it by a mile.

As I stated in my orignal post, which seemed to cause some offence to you, the world has moved on a great deal in the last 125 years.

This discussion should be about western nations, which have a majority of shared values and similar(ish) cultures. So, when was the last time a western government becaome tyrannical? I would be interested to know, as the ONLY one I can think of are the Nazi's. They didn't kill their own people either, and I do not believe an armed population would have prevented them gaining power due to the fact they were voted in democratically and on a huge wave of popularity with the general public. So 67 years since it happened.

Now, when was the last mass shooting in America?

[Daerio]

As I stated in my orignal post, which seemed to cause some offence to you, the world has moved on a great deal in the last 125 years.

This discussion should be about western nations, which have a majority of shared values and similar(ish) cultures. So, when was the last time a western government becaome tyrannical? I would be interested to know, as the ONLY one I can think of are the Nazi's. They didn't kill their own people either, and I do not believe an armed population would have prevented them gaining power due to the fact they were voted in democratically and on a huge wave of popularity with the general public. So 67 years since it happened.

So you already acknowledge that there are examples, and they aren't that long ago. Stalin, Hitler, Mao - this is ONLY THE LAST 100 YEARS. HELL, Mao was alive until 1976 - that's only 37 years ago. I'm talking about history that extends back to the beginning of society; tyrannical kings imposing their will on an unwilling population, this wasn't a new invention accompanying guns. There are OBVIOUSLY still tyrannical governments in power today.

You're trying to draw this arbitrary line and say, "Our society is too good for that! We're obviously better than every other society in the history of Earth!" I cannot imagine anything more arrogant or stupid. Imagine what the Romans thought before the collapse of their society. All I can say is, "You're wrong." The forefathers who wrote our Constitution knew how important it was for the public to be able to oppose a government that had gotten out of control, and nothing has changed.

I'm not arrogant enough to assume western governments can't become tyrannical to the point that the citizens are forced to overthrow them. The forefathers weren't arrogant enough to assume it about America.

[ptwonline]

How many tyrannical governments in history need to come into power and slaughter billions before people understand that they cannot surrender all control to a centralized body of humans? I'm willing to make a comparison there of how many people have died. I think the tyrants have it by a mile.

Then again, look at all the cultures that were wiped out because they didn't have a strong, central authority to bind them together, making them easy pickings.

[Kasierith]

I watched the video of this utter farce of an 'interview' the other night and while I personally don't like Piers Morgan and glad he's not being returned to us, I think he did exceedingly well to not punch Alex Jones in the mouth.

The man did nothing but rant over Piers Morgan, and when he did allow Piers to get a word in edgeways it wasn't exactly long before he was off on another tangent about how it's not guns killing people and twisting the stats to show how it was everything else that's wrong with the world that's causing all the problems. I did particularly enjoy the bits about 1776 and how Britain is a police state though. ^_^

I dunno.. the part with a grown man showing he has the maturity of a 5 year old by imitating a British accent was priceless. Although it is worrying to think that weapons are allowed to people with absolutely minimal mental maturity.

[Deleted]

So you already acknowledge that there are examples, and they aren't that long ago. Stalin, Hitler, Mao - this is ONLY THE LAST 100 YEARS. HELL, Mao was alive until 1976 - that's only 37 years ago. I'm talking about history that extends back to the beginning of society; tyrannical kings imposing their will on an unwilling population, this wasn't a new invention accompanying guns. There are OBVIOUSLY still tyrannical governments in power today.

You're trying to draw this arbitrary line and say, "Our society is too good for that! We're obviously better than every other society in the history of Earth!" I cannot imagine anything more arrogant or stupid. Imagine what the Romans thought before the collapse of their society. All I can say is, "You're wrong." The forefathers who wrote our Constitution knew how important it was for the public to be able to oppose a government that had gotten out of control, and nothing has changed.

I'm not arrogant enough to assume western governments can't become tyrannical to the point that the citizens are forced to overthrow them. The forefathers weren't arrogant enough to assume it about America.

Here's why it's not as likely in modern Western countries: China, Russia and Germany had been in a total dump before, and I don't mean in a Greece-kind of way. 1 million for an egg in Germany, you know. So what do people do? They follow the most charismatic guy that can lead them, so they pick a dictatorship so this almighty guy can lead them. This was the case of Hitler, Mao, Kim Il Sung and Lenin. Then they got to power and then the shit started to happen. The only time guns were used by the people to take down these guys were when the Russian Empire was replaced with the Soviet Union, the revolution that was led by the future dictator himself. Nazi Germany got bombed to bits by all the other countries in the world, the Soviet Union was destroyed by it's own economy and mass protests, you know, no actual revolution, and China today is still there, but it's been converted into a capitalist dictatorship as well - and it's starting to loosen up on the dictatorship thing. Any revolution? No. Hell, the Chinese people don't live all that bad unless you're at the very bottom of the class scale, the people who don't have homes and shit.

So yeah, the governments that gotten out of control where chosen by the people itself. What was that? The Republicans want to make gay marriage and abortion illegal? Aspects of private life that the government shouldn't care about in the first place? Oh, what's that, they say they want a smaller government as well? And it's being democratically elected into power? That sounds like a reason to be scared, rather than keeping your guns, which is also advocated by the goddamned Republicans.

[Fahrenheit]

Who doesn't want to deport that british cunt?

[ddsad2212]

So when you boil it down to its base elements. Alex jones wants to deport Piers Mogan for freely expressing an opinion on the American constitution because he does agree with it, If I am not mistaken does this not in essence contradict the first amendment?. Or am I missing something

[Daerio]

Here's why it's not as likely in modern Western countries: China, Russia and Germany had been in a total dump before, and I don't mean in a Greece-kind of way. 1 million for an egg in Germany, you know. So what do people do? They follow the most charismatic guy that can lead them, so they pick a dictatorship so this almighty guy can lead them. This was the case of Hitler, Mao, Kim Il Sung and Lenin. Then they got to power and then the shit started to happen. The only time guns were used by the people to take down these guys were when the Russian Empire was replaced with the Soviet Union, the revolution that was led by the future dictator himself. Nazi Germany got bombed to bits by all the other countries in the world, the Soviet Union was destroyed by it's own economy and mass protests, you know, no actual revolution, and China today is still there, but it's been converted into a capitalist dictatorship as well - and it's starting to loosen up on the dictatorship thing. Any revolution? No. Hell, the Chinese people don't live all that bad unless you're at the very bottom of the class scale, the people who don't have homes and shit.

As far as being in an economic mess to catalyze tyranny, I don't know where you've been, but the US government isn't exactly a shining example of economic stability lately.

Also, another key aspect to those tyrannies forming, as I've already said - the government take the guns away from the people. You then go on to point out, "Oh, they didn't overthrow them!" - No shit, Sherlock.

And no, I'm not going to agree with your assessment that "The people of Russia and China CHOSE their tyrant willingly!" I'm not going to entirely agree with that for Hitler either. They may have gotten them into power, but once they were in power and disarmed, the people had no choice in the matter. We could elect Obama (insert X leader, it doesn't matter) willingly, and then he takes the guns and declares marshal law and turns into a nightmare that we couldn't have imagined. This doesn't mean "We chose our own fate."

Oh, something else I want to address... "It isn't that bad in China." Well, "Critics have labeled [Chairman Mao] a dictator whose administration oversaw systematic human rights abuses, and whose rule is estimated to have caused the deaths of between 40–70 million people through starvation and executions." I'm going to have to disagree with you again, and counter with, "It isn't that bad having guns in America."

[Deleted]

As far as being in an economic mess to catalyze tyranny, I don't know where you've been, but the US government isn't exactly a shining example of economic stability lately.

So you're implying the US is crumbling due to it's economic situation, so what?

Also, another key aspect to those tyrannies forming, as I've already said - the government take the guns away from the people. You then go on to point out, "Oh, they didn't overthrow them!" - No shit, Sherlock.

Nazi Germany actually made the ownership of guns easier in 1938, lowering the age required to carry firearms for example. The amount of firearm permits for different firearm-related activities were reduced and was valid a longer time as well.

Chinese firearms were banned in the 19th century by the Qing dynasty.

Only one I can agree with is the USSR which banned firearms when Stalin came to power.

And no, I'm not going to agree with your assessment that "The people of Russia and China CHOSE their tyrant willingly!" I'm not going to entirely agree with that for Hitler either. They may have gotten them into power, but once they were in power and disarmed, the people had no choice in the matter. We could elect Obama (insert X leader, it doesn't matter) willingly, and then he takes the guns and declares marshal law and turns into a nightmare that we couldn't have imagined. This doesn't mean "We chose our own fate."

They willingly elected a dictator and they knew they'd put one guy in power. If the US decided to elect Obama and then suddenly he'd turn all dictator and shit then it still doesn't matter, the American military still has to take him out, since he's breaking American law, so you still wouldn't need your assault rifles.

Oh, something else I want to address... "It isn't that bad in China." Well, "Critics have labeled [Chairman Mao] a dictator whose administration oversaw systematic human rights abuses, and whose rule is estimated to have caused the deaths of between 40–70 million people through starvation and executions." I'm going to have to disagree with you again, and counter with, "It isn't that bad having guns in America."

Never said it was bad in China. Just said it's getting better than before.

And you're still totally ignoring my question: Why do you need assault rifles to protect yourself from the government? Isn't shotguns and handguns enough? Hell, can't you even purchase a sniper rifle over there? Isn't that more effective against the government?

[ptwonline]

Who doesn't want to deport that british cunt?

Only people without respect for The Constitution, I guess.

[Daerio]

Nazi Germany actually made the ownership of guns easier in 1938, lowering the age required to carry firearms for example. The amount of firearm permits for different firearm-related activities were reduced and was valid a longer time as well.

The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.

Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

Yeah. They made it easier for "the right people" to have guns, and they took them away entirely from the Jews. Lets not interpret this as, "They made it easier to get guns." Thanks.

They willingly elected a dictator and they knew they'd put one guy in power. If the US decided to elect Obama and then suddenly he'd turn all dictator and shit then it still doesn't matter, the American military still has to take him out, since he's breaking American law, so you still wouldn't need your assault rifles.

They may have "elected" a dictator, but that doesn't mean they "deserved what happened to them" afterwards, especially once disarmed. I liken this to, "The Jews OBVIOUSLY deserved the holocaust." That said, it would be my HOPE that the military would side against the government if they went out of control, but that would obviously go against all of their training from the moment they enter boot camp. Thankfully I don't think military training has reached the level of brain-washing that our soldiers are willing to murder their parents or siblings just because they're ordered to... but they might kill yours. They're working on it though.

Never said it was bad in China. Just said it's getting better than before.

Tell that to the 70 million Mao starved to death / executed. I'm SURE they will agree they're better off without guns.

And you're still totally ignoring my question: Why do you need assault rifles to protect yourself from the government?

lol, and you're back to asking this same question again after I've already directly answered it repeatedly. Anyway, I'm not going to bother responding any more - my point should be clear. (and nobody else responding to the thread after page 5 will read any posts other than the OP anyway, in typical MMO forum fashion) The defense against tyranny of our own government and the right to bear arms does in fact outweigh the possibility of the occasional insane man going on a killing spree - statistics support this also.

On the other hand, I do support the prevention of mentally ill people getting their hands on guns. I think we just have to be careful about who gets labelled "mentally ill" - hopefully it won't one day become, "anyone who questions authority."

[Deleted]

We don't want him back. He's yours now.

[Deleted]

Yeah. They made it easier for "the right people" to have guns, and they took them away entirely from the Jews. Lets not interpret this as, "They made it easier to get guns." Thanks.

They made it harder for Jews to get weapons, rest of the people they made it easier for. Even if the Jews had gotten weapons, they still wouldn't be able to take out the German army, don't believe anything else.

They may have "elected" a dictator, but that doesn't mean they "deserved what happened to them" afterwards, especially once disarmed. I liken this to, "The Jews OBVIOUSLY deserved the holocaust."

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I think they deserved it?

That said, it would be my HOPE that the military would side against the government if they went out of control, but that would obviously go against all of their training from the moment they enter boot camp. Thankfully I don't think military training has reached the level of brain-washing that our soldiers are willing to murder their parents or siblings just because they're ordered to... but they might kill yours. They're working on it though.

You've been to boot camp before? How do you know they have secret plans to make every soldier a heartless armed drone of the government?

Tell that to the 70 million Mao starved to death / executed. I'm SURE they will agree they're better off without guns.

My bad, made a typo. "Never said it was good in China. Just said it's getting better than before." is what I meant.

lol, and you're back to asking this same question again after I've already answered it repeatedly. Anyway, I'm not going to bother responding any more - my point should be clear. (and nobody else responding to the thread after page 5 will read any posts other than the OP anyway, in typical MMO forum fashion)

You're only saying "derp government". Nowhere have you even said the word handgun, shotgun, assault rifle, whatever, you're just saying guns, you seem to be assuming directly that I'm absolutely talking about all guns whereas I've said multiple times "All guns are fine, except assault rifles."

Though I do understand that you don't want to answer it, because the answer is there's no reason why you should be able to carry assault rifles. Assault rifles do not provide any better hunting, any better protection, any better government protection, it only provides a higher bullet rate which means it's easier to kill unsuspecting unarmored people without taking too long time to reload, and again, it has faster fire rate so it's easier to hit multiple targets.

[Deleted]

So you already acknowledge that there are examples, and they aren't that long ago. Stalin, Hitler, Mao - this is ONLY THE LAST 100 YEARS. HELL, Mao was alive until 1976 - that's only 37 years ago. I'm talking about history that extends back to the beginning of society; tyrannical kings imposing their will on an unwilling population, this wasn't a new invention accompanying guns. There are OBVIOUSLY still tyrannical governments in power today.

You're trying to draw this arbitrary line and say, "Our society is too good for that! We're obviously better than every other society in the history of Earth!" I cannot imagine anything more arrogant or stupid. Imagine what the Romans thought before the collapse of their society. All I can say is, "You're wrong." The forefathers who wrote our Constitution knew how important it was for the public to be able to oppose a government that had gotten out of control, and nothing has changed.

I'm not arrogant enough to assume western governments can't become tyrannical to the point that the citizens are forced to overthrow them. The forefathers weren't arrogant enough to assume it about America.

I would say yes, we are currently (in Western countries, Europe, USA, Canada etc.) at a stage where although we may not be able to trust our governments to stick to election pledges 100%, we can safely say they will not try to go all "Hitler" on us.

Thats twice you've dodged my questions in consecutive posts. I even asked you to stick to western countries as these are more closely affiliated with the USA by culture etc. Forgive my ignorance, but when were China and Russia considered western countries? We could also go in to the Middle east situation, most of Asia around Pakistan and Afghanistan etc BUT they are also NOT WESTERN COUNTRIES THAT SHARE THE VALUES OF THE USA.

Hopefully thats clear enough, now back to the original question I asked in my first post:

Because legalising guns would do what exactly, in a society that gets by quite well without them and deems them unnecessary? The reason "us Europeans" are against guns in the majority, is because of the harm they cause.

All I ask, is for you to think about the following and give me an honest answer:

How many children / innocent people need to be murdered in cold blood, with the firearms you seem to hold with such esteem, before you will consider giving up you "God given right" to own them?