How about considering this fact... I don't like the federal government. I have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that was written to limit it's powers and to protect certain rights of mine. The way I see it is this. Leave me the f*ck alone with your damned laws and rules and everything else that takes away from my abilities to make my own decisions about what is right for me and my family. And in turn, I will leave everyone else alone to make their own decisions. That's American tradition. And I see nothing wrong with that. If someone breaks into my house, I PROMISE you they are in for a heap of pain caused by a sudden onslaught of puncture wounds to their body.
And I don't miss too often.
What does a breaking and entering case has to do with the matter at hand, apart from being an empty boast?
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I disagree, owning a gun and actually shooting at another person are two very different things.
I have gun at hand most of the day and night.
I'm comforatble with the thought of using it on an intruder even though it would undoubtably result in my internment at Her Majesty's pleasure.
I don't think there is any point owning something you are unwilling to use, it defeats the object entirely. Quite apart from all the hassle of lisencing and regular inspections there is the concern of having them stolen or the kids pissing around with them.
I understand the gangster cred and all and just wanting to have one for bragging rights, but the responsability isn't worth the extra effort if it is just a paper tiger.
It is quite common for people to buy a gun not for bragging but most for the emotional factor of feeling "Strong" and "secure", even though more than likely they will never use it.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I disagree, owning a gun and actually shooting at another person are two very different things.
I have gun at hand most of the day and night.
I'm comforatble with the thought of using it on an intruder even though it would undoubtably result in my internment at Her Majesty's pleasure.
I don't think there is any point owning something you are unwilling to use, it defeats the object entirely. Quite apart from all the hassle of lisencing and regular inspections there is the concern of having them stolen or the kids pissing around with them.
I understand the gangster cred and all and just wanting to have one for bragging rights, but the responsability isn't worth the extra effort if it is just a paper tiger.
It is quite common for people to buy a gun not for bragging but most for the emotional factor of feeling "Strong" and "secure", even though more than likely they will never use it.
Ah, I see... I see.
So for those "emotional sensitives" who own guns to feel "Strong" and "secure" are just bozos huh?
I'd rather be "strong" and "secure" than "stupid" and "dead". Meth is a serious drug, and some meth-heads go on serious benders and will break into a home at 3am with a meat cleaver, making a bee-line straight to your medicine cabinet for a quick fix. You were up as soon as the door got kicked in and you started going upstairs by the time he got to the bathroom and your mom or wife came to investigate. He freaks out, swings the knife and hacks her.. ... You grab a rolling pin, because that's all you have... Good Luck, and hope you're covered by your health insurance.
It is quite common for people to buy a gun not for bragging but most for the emotional factor of feeling "Strong" and "secure", even though more than likely they will never use it.
Ah, I see... I see.
So for those "emotional sensitives" who own guns to feel "Strong" and "secure" are just bozos huh?
I'd rather be "strong" and "secure" than "stupid" and "dead". Meth is a serious drug, and some meth-heads go on serious benders and will break into a home at 3am with a meat cleaver, making a bee-line straight to your medicine cabinet for a quick fix. You were up as soon as the door got kicked in and you started going upstairs by the time he got to the bathroom and your mom or wife came to investigate. He freaks out, swings the knife and hacks her.. ... You grab a rolling pin, because that's all you have... Good Luck, and hope you're covered by your health insurance.
Did I say anywhere in my text "bozos"? Next time try to write your opinion without adding things I haven't said. It makes you look less insecure. Especially since what I wrote was directed to baff about the "bragging" line.
Owning a gun that you don't know how to use/maintain properly and having personality issues makes you a liability and neither strong nor secure. Actually it is quite possible it would make you dead.
Secondly, cool story bro. So you are saying in such an area with a meth problem, people live in houses that their door/windows break that easy?
The story in general is irrelevant because you describe something circumstantial. I can just as easily add that because you panic you start shooting blindly leaving fate to decide who lives and who dies.
Let's not make a novel out of it.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
It is quite common for people to buy a gun not for bragging but most for the emotional factor of feeling "Strong" and "secure", even though more than likely they will never use it.
Ah, I see... I see.
So for those "emotional sensitives" who own guns to feel "Strong" and "secure" are just bozos huh?
I'd rather be "strong" and "secure" than "stupid" and "dead". Meth is a serious drug, and some meth-heads go on serious benders and will break into a home at 3am with a meat cleaver, making a bee-line straight to your medicine cabinet for a quick fix. You were up as soon as the door got kicked in and you started going upstairs by the time he got to the bathroom and your mom or wife came to investigate. He freaks out, swings the knife and hacks her.. ... You grab a rolling pin, because that's all you have... Good Luck, and hope you're covered by your health insurance.
Did I say anywhere in my text "bozos"? Next time try to write your opinion without adding things I haven't said. It makes you look less insecure. Especially since what I wrote was directed to baff about the "bragging" line.
Owning a gun that you don't know how to use/maintain properly and having personality issues makes you a liability and neither strong nor secure. Actually it is quite possible it would make you dead.
Secondly, cool story bro. So you are saying in such an area with a meth problem, people live in houses that their door/windows break that easy?
The story in general is irrelevant because you describe something circumstantial. I can just as easily add that because you panic you start shooting blindly leaving fate to decide who lives and who dies.
Let's not make a novel out of it.
You also live in Greece.. am I right? Here's a story for you to digest. It's titled "Worrying About Your Own Country's Problems: a Study in Social-Dynamics".
You also live in Greece.. am I right? Here's a story for you to digest. It's titled "Worrying About Your Own Country's Problems: a Study in Social-Dynamics".
Ooooh catty. What you run out of cute emotional arguments and now you are trying to use my country of origin as your defense for being an ass?
Because heaven's forbid that I may have worked in the US for a year or two or have studied there, or visit very often for holidays or to see relatives:P
Grow up dude and don't read too much into things.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
You also live in Greece.. am I right? Here's a story for you to digest. It's titled "Worrying About Your Own Country's Problems: a Study in Social-Dynamics".
Ooooh catty. What you run out of cute emotional arguments and now you are trying to use my country of origin as your defense for being an ass?
Because heaven's forbid that I may have worked in the US for a year or two or have studied there, or visit very often for holidays or to see relatives:P
Grow up dude and don't read too much into things.
Just saying pal, maybe you ought to be concerned about your own country a little more. You know, like the big Elephant in the Room called the European Union.. for starters?
Rather than getting on an internet forum and complaining about the 2nd amendment, that does not affect you in the slightest. Pretending to be intelligent and advanced above all those "gun owners". lol
Just saying pal, maybe you ought to be concerned about your own country a little more. You know, like the big Elephant in the Room called the European Union.. for starters?
Rather than getting on an internet forum and complaining about the 2nd amendment, that does not affect you in the slightest. Pretending to be intelligent and advanced above all those "gun owners". lol
Hmm a presumptuous ass also not only catty I see.
Well at the places that there is a discussion about the European Union, I voice my concerns there. And dont worry we let Americans play also:) It's really weak of you to use my origin as a point just because you run out of arguments.
Whether it affects me or not I think you are not capable enough to decide since you don't know me. And really how do you know I am not a "gun owner" as you so eloquently put it?
As for the intelligent and advanced as you put it I think really you are just projecting your insecurities rather than anything else.
Grow up and have a civil discussion ok? Don't make personal attacks or at least make them more original.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I am not discussing your point of origin because I am "out of arguments". I'm not even saying any of this to prove any sort of point really..
Frankly, I am just tired of foreigners, especially Europeans and that sort, blasting into a discussion and acting like what they say is the end-all and be-all because they belong to a super-advanced society, lol.
I wouldn't care, if the person was rational about it, but I have issues with the folks who are not rational, and tend to use insults to Americans as their basis of argument. They tend to call Americans stupid and fat, etc. but then pretend like the gun violence in America is of their sincere concern.
No, you didn't "insult Americans", but you have that tone, and you're getting there with the remarks you're making about "Letting the Americans play".
Seriously, it's just bs.. There are other non-Americans in this discussion right now, and they don't boast about acting all high and mighty. They bring points into an argument, rather than just acting like they have the right to greater understanding because "Americans are lesser than them".
I am not discussing your point of origin because I am "out of arguments". I'm not even saying any of this to prove any sort of point really.. Frankly, I am just tired of foreigners, especially Europeans and that sort, blasting into a discussion and acting like what they say is the end-all and be-all because they belong to a super-advanced society, lol.
I wouldn't care, if the person was rational about it, but I have issues with the folks who are not rational, and tend to use insults to Americans as their basis of argument. They tend to call Americans stupid and fat, etc. but then pretend like the gun violence in America is of their sincere concern.
No, you didn't "insult Americans", but you have that tone, and you're getting there with the remarks you're making about "Letting the Americans play".
Seriously, it's just bs.. There are other non-Americans in this discussion right now, and they don't boast about acting all high and mighty. They bring points into an argument, rather than just acting like they have the right to greater understanding because "Americans are lesser than them".
Fair enough, I see your point there.
Sorry for the "letting Americans play" but it was a reaction to your comment about my point of origin, which annoyed me because I perceived it as a cheap shot.
Other than that yes many Europeans when it comes to guns issues, especially when it involves America, they have a bit more uptight stance forgetting the cultural difference thus coming out as arrogant.
Personally I think it's just my style of writing that comes out as arrogant, but I could be wrong.
My opinions, up to a point ,stem from the fact that I have had the privilege and the good luck of being able to work for extensive amounts of time in various places (tourist industry) both in Europe and US and also from the fact that I have in the US dear friends and relatives, hence the gun issue especially with the rising of criminal activity is of concern to me.
Lastly it would be quite stupid of me to imply that Americans are lesser since I have met many good ones:)
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
"Right to bear arms, cool, but what arms? When this was written there weren't automatic weapons, grenades, etc.
So how far does this stretch? "
Remember all these types of weapons were allowed for civilian purchase (especially as military surplus after WWI) up until the problems of prohibition in the 1920s in the USA. In 1934 title 2 was placed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons
The idea of arms (firearms or bladed) exist today under certain rules some I agree with and some I find arbitrary.
The reason fully automatic weapons, grenades, bombs, ICBMs, etc are generally held from the public is because of their indiscriminate nature. They have tremendous difficulty in function to minimize colateral damage. Throw a grenade at a home invader, sure you'll stop his threat. But little sally in the next room is going to get shredded by shrapnel that rips through the drywall.
Fully automatic weapons. They work great on the battlefield as a suppresive tool or to eliminate known targets. In war right or wrong there is acceptable colateral damage of civilian bystanders if a fire fight breaks out. When these weapons are fired in war the soldiers are pressumed to have training to minimize loss of control and minimize colateral damage. Fully automatic weapons can be indiscriminate weapons by the shear volume they can fire and degrading accuracy from recoil. In the hands of the untrained or persons that don't care about stray rounds of fire they can be as indiscriminate as a grenade. http://www.dailybuzzz.com/trends/child-dies-after-shooting-himself-with-an-uzi#more-632.
Some weapons are indiscriminate even though they fire one round at a time. They are called cannons. One shot from a 9mm pistol is not going to penetrate very far compared to the 30mm cannons the military uses; even if one round is fired. The cannon rounds penetrate so deep, average civilian construction whether buildings or vehicles will not stop the rounds past the intended target. So there is a civilian caliber limit of .50 with few exceptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act also explains that civilians in the USA can own legally fully automatic weapons without a class 3 license. The weapon must be registered and is taxed. Plus they have many rules that must be followed to obtain, keep, and use.
I agree with the laws in place regarding these types of indiscriminate weapons for restricing civilian use including the laws in place that do allows civilians to legally own them. Either as a matter of business or for personal use. Under the idea of gun control the only improvement I would want is required professional training. The type of training required by most states with CCW laws. Most require eight to sixteen hours of classroom and range training before a CCW is given. As a resident of Arizona I have mine and feel the eight hours of training was too short and wish they would go back to sixteen hours.
Many people would say forced training is unconstitutional because it doesn't say so in the second amendment. Sure I agree, while it is legal to buy a car you must have a license to drive it. Guns like cars are inanimate and are only as safe as the persons using them. I am not saying that there sould be a gun license to own discriminate (semi-auto handguns and rifles)guns but I do think as part of the required federal background check there should be a block on the form for professional training completed at least once for all future purchases. Most people when they buy a cell phone or DVD player do not read the instructions. I know many gun owners that never read the gun manual. I know personlly told stories of accidents that happend that could have been avoided buy reading the manual. Professional training can cover most safe practices related to all fire arm use epecially the idea not all guns function the same. Because of the lethality professional training could only help; never hurt.
If the gun in question is not fully automatic, I feel there should not be any restrictions on them except for caliber size. The semi-automatic "assault" weapon is a silly idea in my opinion. They are civilian versions of their full auto and dangerous looking military derivitives, sure. But functionally they are different. I have a civilian M4. It is mean and ugly looking. I am of the opinion that because it is so ugly it would act as a deterent by its looks alone. I feel I would be less likely to have to fire it to stop a threat in defense compared to a less ugly weapon. Ruger makes the Mini14 Ranch. Functionally it is the same as a civilian M4 but looks like generic small hunting rifle. It doesn't have the same visual menace, but it can fire the same number of rounds (the exact 5.56mm round) as the M4 with the exact damaging outcome.
Keep in mind in 1776 the firearms used are not as sophisticated as today. That is a matter of technology, not definition of the word "arms." 400 hundred years prior the word arms were still used to describe weapons. The weapons were bladed like swords and knives. Some were medevil bludgening weapons like the Morning Star. IMO any item to be held as a force multiplier is an"arm." http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/arms The "arms race" used today refer to nuclear weapons. The advancement of technology does not define the arms; the fact it is a force multiplier (a weapon) does. You give me a baseball bat as a force multiplier and I promise I will win 98% of one on one fights with a fully unarmed random person(s). I am actually waiting for Star Trek Phasers to be invented. The stun setting is a wonderful defensive concept. That weapon is still an "arm" because it is a force multiplier even though it is non lethal. I expect it would also be protected under the constitution.
FYI grenades were around in 1776. You manually lighted a fuse with fire. Our modern grenades do it mechanically for us so we don't have to carry matches or fire. But they were grenades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenadier_(soldier)
Sorry about using Wiki for many references. I know wiki can be inaccurate depending on what is being discussed. I was too lazy to search more emperical sites.
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
The second amendment was created to allow people to " bear arm " defending themselves from intruders. Yet, others read the second amendment and think it's right to carry a shotgun or/and grenades in their house. I dont know. I think it's insanely immoral for people to carry any weapons at all. But i know weapons must be possessed because once in a while, they will need to pull their weapon from their safe and use it to defend themselves. In my opinion, weapons should be banned in the world. But i know this can never happen because there are so much people in the world that the government can't control. Innocent people are dying each day from gunshot and this occurence has to stop. Correct me if i'm wrong but the people who to blame are our ancestors. They were the one who put power as their first priority killing other people for the smallest patch of land. Weapons were made and influence the community in today's society to use guns for their pleasure or power. Past, present, and future, innocent people will continue to die and we have no control of it whatsoever.
I think it's insanely immoral for people to carry any weapons at all.
Your concept of morality is "insane." You think ("I think it's insanely immortal for people to carry any weapons at all") it is immoral for people to "carry" weapons ("any" weapon "at all"). I find that insane. In fact, either you are just being dramatic, or you are insane. I do not see, and I cannot find, a middle ground here.
It is a struggle for me to reason with you because many people, on this issue, have this peculiar premise or theory that disarming regular Americans will make them "safe" or "reduce violence" (especially suicides).
I have looked at the studies. I have listened, and heard, the arguments. I have even done my own research, fairly extensive in fact, but I will not --no matter what-- really discuss it. My conclusion is simple: disarming regular people will not make other regular people "safe" (in fact, the exact opposite is typically true).
EDIT: It is not for me about liberalism. It is not about conservatism. It is not about parties. It is about programs, policies, and institutions that work. The Second Amendment is crystal clear. It has been exhaustively explored. Yes. Indeed. American citizens have a right to defend themselves with a firearm; this requires that they have a right to own, and indeed even possess,and use weapons. Shockingly, utterly shocking, how uncomplicated it is. Laws exist, many and varied, that prevent the mentally ill from owning and possessing arms; that prevent felons from owning and possessing arms; that prevent those with domestic violence arrests (and/or convictions) from owning and possessing arms. Laws exist that make it a severe felony to purchase a gun and give it to someone else. Laws punish the transportation of firearms, locally and across state lines. All sorts of laws exist to prevent the wrong people from getting weapons. If you have a carry permit in one state, go to another state, guess what? FELONY. That is a felony arrest.
We have nothing left to do in terms of passing more laws and regulations and ordinances and this and that regarding firearms other than to go after lawful citizens. Waste of time. Waste of energy. Waste of resources. And, ironically, so many criminals are armed to the teeth. So many guns out there that get into circulation from estates, antiques, and so forth. We are swimming in guns in the United States, and going after lawful owners will not help us.
Study the purpose of the 2nd ammendment. It's not to give us a cool hobby or just for hunting but for personal / community defense and the preservation of a free society. It's a check and balance against corrupt government and foreign invasion.
Read some of the writings of Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers. When the government stops caring about the constitution and personal liberties the 2nd ammendment comes into play and provides a check that we control. A government that starts getting uncomfortable with it's armed citizens is a goverment that's no longer looking out for the interests of it's citizens and should fear them.
Don't think Jefferson had a point? Then look at History. It's also to prevent atrocities like Nanking from happening who's people were disarmed by their own government prior to the Japanese having their way with them. Imagine what a foreign army or a tyrannical government would have to go through in this country currently with the number of guns in the hands of an alerted populace. Then there's disasters like Katrina where law-enforcement will be unable to respond immediately if your home is being looted or you're threatened physically.
Still not convinced? Try common sense. Crime has only gone up with gun control directed at assualt rifles and handguns. Criminals are more bold knowing home-owners aren't packing. It is not a solution. Gun control will happen gradually as people naively hand over their ultimate security to central government and allow their minds to be manipulated by gun crime media coverage and the characterizing of gun owners as gangsters or senseless rednecks.
Just clear your mind of all the garbage surounding this arguement, your own personal predudices against some of those who may like guns and realize.
Study the purpose of the 2nd ammendment. It's not to give us a cool hobby or just for hunting but for personal / community defense and the preservation of a free society. It's a check and balance against corrupt government and foreign invasion.
Then the 2nd amendment has failed miserably........
Unless you want to argue that our poiliticians are all honest, and you and your gun can shoot down a MIG.
Study the purpose of the 2nd ammendment. It's not to give us a cool hobby or just for hunting but for personal / community defense and the preservation of a free society. It's a check and balance against corrupt government and foreign invasion.
Then the 2nd amendment has failed miserably........
Unless you want to argue that our poiliticians are all honest, and you and your gun can shoot down a MIG.
Well you just don't know how bad "currupt" can get. Private gun ownership has prevented a lot of bad. Always has always will.
History has proven that governments need to increase control over its citizens is to disarm them;this applies even predating the invention of firearms.
History has proven that governments need to increase control over its citizens is to disarm them;this applies even predating the invention of firearms.
Times change, your rifle or possibly even automatic means shit. If your government has declared war on the populace i highly doubt they will have a problem carpet bombing you. In a modern world the argument of "guns to ensue possible revolution" is null and void.
"A stupid idea to you is the memory of a lifetime for me"
History has proven that governments need to increase control over its citizens is to disarm them;this applies even predating the invention of firearms.
Times change, your rifle or possibly even automatic means shit. If your government has declared war on the populace i highly doubt they will have a problem carpet bombing you. In a modern world the argument of "guns to ensue possible revolution" is null and void.
^This
Unless of course we want to allow private ownership of current restricted military equpment. I'd love to see that argument.
History has proven that governments need to increase control over its citizens is to disarm them;this applies even predating the invention of firearms.
Times change, your rifle or possibly even automatic means shit. If your government has declared war on the populace i highly doubt they will have a problem carpet bombing you. In a modern world the argument of "guns to ensue possible revolution" is null and void.
^This
Unless of course we want to allow private ownership of current restricted military equpment. I'd love to see that argument.
Sorry but really doesnt apply.Terrorists groups are extremely outgunned by tech by the US and you see how how much trouble it caused us.It is also a matter of resisting population size as well (being outnumbered).
Also would Service people loyally attack its OWN citizens on mass if ordered to with out the borders of the civil war and not instead join the cause if they saw it will cause them to loose their liberties as well
Another is just a threat there and would not be worth the effort due to mass chaos.Example of this is Unions where the gorvernment could shut them down at any time but doesnt due to discontemptment and recently with this administration kissing their ass.(Squeaky wheel gets the Grease) while other businesses that dont have half the benefits or pay for similar skilled work get the shaft
History has proven that governments need to increase control over its citizens is to disarm them;this applies even predating the invention of firearms.
Times change, your rifle or possibly even automatic means shit. If your government has declared war on the populace i highly doubt they will have a problem carpet bombing you. In a modern world the argument of "guns to ensue possible revolution" is null and void.
^This
Unless of course we want to allow private ownership of current restricted military equpment. I'd love to see that argument.
Sorry but really doesnt apply.Terrorists groups are extremely outgunned by tech by the US and you see how how much trouble it caused us.It is also a matter of resisting population size as well (being outnumbered).
Also would Service people loyally attack its OWN citizens on mass if ordered to with out the borders of the civil war and not instead join the cause if they saw it will cause them to loose their liberties as well
Another is just a threat there and would not be worth the effort due to mass chaos.Example of this is Unions where the gorvernment could shut them down at any time but doesnt due to discontemptment and recently with this administration kissing their ass.(Squeaky wheel gets the Grease) while other businesses that dont have half the benefits or pay for similar skilled work get the shaft
1. Terrorist groups do so well because they are able to use human shields. Hamas and Hezbollah for example, both fire rockets from within cities at Israel. People think Israel uses excessive force but they have NO idea how bad they could really make it, like bombing the entire square mile instead of just the spot the rocket was fired from. Not to mention this doesn't help your cause because now your suggesting that we should be able to keep guns because if revolution did ensue, we could make them useful because we could take cities hostage....ya...
Also with your second point, you used history as a example so i can to. Yes the armed forces WILL serve their paychecks, do you know hos easy it would be for them to convince them that the people are the problem? It has happened MANY times before. Just look at Cambodia , the "killing fields" or many of the current African situations.
"A stupid idea to you is the memory of a lifetime for me"
Originally posted by Scubie67 Sorry but really doesnt apply.Terrorists groups are extremely outgunned by tech by the US and you see how how much trouble it caused us.It is also a matter of resisting population size as well (being outnumbered). Didn't seem to slow Saddam down at all in dealing with the Kurds, or Shiites.
Also would Service people loyally attack its OWN citizens on mass if ordered to with out the borders of the civil war and not instead join the cause if they saw it will cause them to loose their liberties as well Didn't seem to slow the Ohio National Guard down at all in shooting the student protestors at Kent State University.
Another is just a threat there and would not be worth the effort due to mass chaos.Example of this is Unions where the gorvernment could shut them down at any time but doesnt due to discontemptment and recently with this administration kissing their ass.(Squeaky wheel gets the Grease) while other businesses that dont have half the benefits or pay for similar skilled work get the shaft
Didn't seem to slow Reagan down at all in dealing with the air traffic controllers union (PATCO).
You are very naive. A diverse country is very open to control by playing one group off against another. Convince whites to round up, or even fire on, blacks would not be hard at all. Convince Christians and Hindus to round up, and even fire on, Muslims would not be hard at all. Convince conservatives to round up, or even fire on liberals (or vice versa) would not be hard at all.
Britain controlled India through playing off one group against another. very often Indian troops fired on, or beat on, other Indians.
It is easier than you think to control and manipulate a large, diverse population.
Originally posted by Scubie67 Sorry but really doesnt apply.Terrorists groups are extremely outgunned by tech by the US and you see how how much trouble it caused us.It is also a matter of resisting population size as well (being outnumbered). Didn't seem to slow Saddam down at all in dealing with the Kurds, or Shiites.
Also would Service people loyally attack its OWN citizens on mass if ordered to with out the borders of the civil war and not instead join the cause if they saw it will cause them to loose their liberties as well Didn't seem to slow the Ohio National Guard down at all in shooting the student protestors at Kent State University.
Another is just a threat there and would not be worth the effort due to mass chaos.Example of this is Unions where the gorvernment could shut them down at any time but doesnt due to discontemptment and recently with this administration kissing their ass.(Squeaky wheel gets the Grease) while other businesses that dont have half the benefits or pay for similar skilled work get the shaft
Didn't seem to slow Reagan down at all in dealing with the air traffic controllers union (PATCO).
You are very naive. A diverse country is very open to control by playing one group off against another. Convince whites to round up, or even fire on, blacks would not be hard at all. Convince Christians and Hindus to round up, and even fire on, Muslims would not be hard at all. Convince conservatives to round up, or even fire on liberals (or vice versa) would not be hard at all.
Britain controlled India through playing off one group against another. very often Indian troops fired on, or beat on, other Indians.
It is easier than you think to control and manipulate a large, diverse population.
just watch Fox News.......
Ken state was 4 people ,I am talking about millions or more which would be mass genocide.We are still for the most part an ethical and an elected society.The checks and balances are there to keep this from happening on mass scale.
As for the Fox news comment they are the only conservative leaning cable or broadcast service out there I guess it would serve liberals well to have them shut down so that there is no discretion in the media to further a liberal agenda without any objectivity,Hitler would be proud of what they are trying to do.
The rest are left leaning ,ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC,CNN,FOX Broadcast(Yep thats right even Fox has shows which attack their own Fox News (ie. Family Guy),CNBC,HLN,BBC ,I am sure there others I am leaving out (the easiest way to discern is Fox News and possibly Fox Business vs. everyone else).
Fox news keeps coming up by liberals because it is the last shred of objectivity left .Who is the real sheep in this case?
Our soldiers I like to believe will show compassion for its own citizens that most Non democratic nations wouldnt even dream of.
Originally posted by Scubie67 Ken state was 4 people , 4 people, 67 rounds, and they don't count? The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent-State massacre, occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis. I am talking about millions or more which would be mass genocide. Millions can be killed one incident at a time, over a period of time. It does not have to be all at once in one event. Four killed, 9 wounded here, 6 killed 20 wounded there, that is how it happens. Nobody wakes up one day and says, "Lets go kill millions of people". We are still for the most part an ethical and an elected society.The checks and balances are there to keep this from happening on mass scale. Ethics are a matter of perspective. Some have ethics that support abortion, some have ethics that oppose abortion. Some have ethics that support gay marriage, some have ethics that oppose gay marriage. Some have ethics that believe in White Power, some have ethics that oppose White Power. The checks and balances to keep two opposing factions from going at each other are a thin veneer. All it takes is a leader to greenlight one group to go after another group. That's how it started in Germany. And, by the way, Hitler was also elected. Elections are no guarantee of anything.
As for the Fox news comment they are the only conservative leaning cable or broadcast service out there I guess it would serve liberals well to have them shut down so that there is no discretion in the media to further a liberal agenda without any objectivity,Hitler would be proud of what they are trying to do. Fox News is a valid example. I seem to recall a woman confronting John McCain, telling him he has to start doing something about Obama, because Obama is a Muslim. McCain took the microphone away from her and said no, that Obama is a decent family man. Just like the recent confrontation between a Republican House member and his constituents over Obama's place of birth. I have also seen politicians such as John McCain and John Kerry degraded for having served in combat, with groups support that degradation. I have seen Mike Dukakis attacked using the infamous Willie Horton ad. The media is used to incite people, pitting American against American in an effort to emphasize differences and divide the nation. That's what the Gates arrest was about. There was no other reason for that to make national news for so long.
Our soldiers I like to believe will show compassion for its own citizens that most Non democratic nations wouldnt even dream of. Are you willing to bet your life on it, like those that died at Kent State?
Comments
What does a breaking and entering case has to do with the matter at hand, apart from being an empty boast?
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I disagree, owning a gun and actually shooting at another person are two very different things.
I have gun at hand most of the day and night.
I'm comforatble with the thought of using it on an intruder even though it would undoubtably result in my internment at Her Majesty's pleasure.
I don't think there is any point owning something you are unwilling to use, it defeats the object entirely. Quite apart from all the hassle of lisencing and regular inspections there is the concern of having them stolen or the kids pissing around with them.
I understand the gangster cred and all and just wanting to have one for bragging rights, but the responsability isn't worth the extra effort if it is just a paper tiger.
It is quite common for people to buy a gun not for bragging but most for the emotional factor of feeling "Strong" and "secure", even though more than likely they will never use it.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I disagree, owning a gun and actually shooting at another person are two very different things.
I have gun at hand most of the day and night.
I'm comforatble with the thought of using it on an intruder even though it would undoubtably result in my internment at Her Majesty's pleasure.
I don't think there is any point owning something you are unwilling to use, it defeats the object entirely. Quite apart from all the hassle of lisencing and regular inspections there is the concern of having them stolen or the kids pissing around with them.
I understand the gangster cred and all and just wanting to have one for bragging rights, but the responsability isn't worth the extra effort if it is just a paper tiger.
It is quite common for people to buy a gun not for bragging but most for the emotional factor of feeling "Strong" and "secure", even though more than likely they will never use it.
Ah, I see... I see.
So for those "emotional sensitives" who own guns to feel "Strong" and "secure" are just bozos huh?
I'd rather be "strong" and "secure" than "stupid" and "dead". Meth is a serious drug, and some meth-heads go on serious benders and will break into a home at 3am with a meat cleaver, making a bee-line straight to your medicine cabinet for a quick fix. You were up as soon as the door got kicked in and you started going upstairs by the time he got to the bathroom and your mom or wife came to investigate. He freaks out, swings the knife and hacks her.. ... You grab a rolling pin, because that's all you have... Good Luck, and hope you're covered by your health insurance.
"The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand."
- Lewis Thomas
It is quite common for people to buy a gun not for bragging but most for the emotional factor of feeling "Strong" and "secure", even though more than likely they will never use it.
Ah, I see... I see.
So for those "emotional sensitives" who own guns to feel "Strong" and "secure" are just bozos huh?
I'd rather be "strong" and "secure" than "stupid" and "dead". Meth is a serious drug, and some meth-heads go on serious benders and will break into a home at 3am with a meat cleaver, making a bee-line straight to your medicine cabinet for a quick fix. You were up as soon as the door got kicked in and you started going upstairs by the time he got to the bathroom and your mom or wife came to investigate. He freaks out, swings the knife and hacks her.. ... You grab a rolling pin, because that's all you have... Good Luck, and hope you're covered by your health insurance.
Did I say anywhere in my text "bozos"? Next time try to write your opinion without adding things I haven't said. It makes you look less insecure. Especially since what I wrote was directed to baff about the "bragging" line.
Owning a gun that you don't know how to use/maintain properly and having personality issues makes you a liability and neither strong nor secure. Actually it is quite possible it would make you dead.
Secondly, cool story bro. So you are saying in such an area with a meth problem, people live in houses that their door/windows break that easy?
The story in general is irrelevant because you describe something circumstantial. I can just as easily add that because you panic you start shooting blindly leaving fate to decide who lives and who dies.
Let's not make a novel out of it.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
It is quite common for people to buy a gun not for bragging but most for the emotional factor of feeling "Strong" and "secure", even though more than likely they will never use it.
Ah, I see... I see.
So for those "emotional sensitives" who own guns to feel "Strong" and "secure" are just bozos huh?
I'd rather be "strong" and "secure" than "stupid" and "dead". Meth is a serious drug, and some meth-heads go on serious benders and will break into a home at 3am with a meat cleaver, making a bee-line straight to your medicine cabinet for a quick fix. You were up as soon as the door got kicked in and you started going upstairs by the time he got to the bathroom and your mom or wife came to investigate. He freaks out, swings the knife and hacks her.. ... You grab a rolling pin, because that's all you have... Good Luck, and hope you're covered by your health insurance.
Did I say anywhere in my text "bozos"? Next time try to write your opinion without adding things I haven't said. It makes you look less insecure. Especially since what I wrote was directed to baff about the "bragging" line.
Owning a gun that you don't know how to use/maintain properly and having personality issues makes you a liability and neither strong nor secure. Actually it is quite possible it would make you dead.
Secondly, cool story bro. So you are saying in such an area with a meth problem, people live in houses that their door/windows break that easy?
The story in general is irrelevant because you describe something circumstantial. I can just as easily add that because you panic you start shooting blindly leaving fate to decide who lives and who dies.
Let's not make a novel out of it.
You also live in Greece.. am I right? Here's a story for you to digest. It's titled "Worrying About Your Own Country's Problems: a Study in Social-Dynamics".
You also live in Greece.. am I right? Here's a story for you to digest. It's titled "Worrying About Your Own Country's Problems: a Study in Social-Dynamics".
Ooooh catty. What you run out of cute emotional arguments and now you are trying to use my country of origin as your defense for being an ass?
Because heaven's forbid that I may have worked in the US for a year or two or have studied there, or visit very often for holidays or to see relatives:P
Grow up dude and don't read too much into things.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
You also live in Greece.. am I right? Here's a story for you to digest. It's titled "Worrying About Your Own Country's Problems: a Study in Social-Dynamics".
Ooooh catty. What you run out of cute emotional arguments and now you are trying to use my country of origin as your defense for being an ass?
Because heaven's forbid that I may have worked in the US for a year or two or have studied there, or visit very often for holidays or to see relatives:P
Grow up dude and don't read too much into things.
Just saying pal, maybe you ought to be concerned about your own country a little more. You know, like the big Elephant in the Room called the European Union.. for starters?
Rather than getting on an internet forum and complaining about the 2nd amendment, that does not affect you in the slightest. Pretending to be intelligent and advanced above all those "gun owners". lol
Just saying pal, maybe you ought to be concerned about your own country a little more. You know, like the big Elephant in the Room called the European Union.. for starters?
Rather than getting on an internet forum and complaining about the 2nd amendment, that does not affect you in the slightest. Pretending to be intelligent and advanced above all those "gun owners". lol
Hmm a presumptuous ass also not only catty I see.
Well at the places that there is a discussion about the European Union, I voice my concerns there. And dont worry we let Americans play also:) It's really weak of you to use my origin as a point just because you run out of arguments.
Whether it affects me or not I think you are not capable enough to decide since you don't know me. And really how do you know I am not a "gun owner" as you so eloquently put it?
As for the intelligent and advanced as you put it I think really you are just projecting your insecurities rather than anything else.
Grow up and have a civil discussion ok? Don't make personal attacks or at least make them more original.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I am not discussing your point of origin because I am "out of arguments". I'm not even saying any of this to prove any sort of point really..
Frankly, I am just tired of foreigners, especially Europeans and that sort, blasting into a discussion and acting like what they say is the end-all and be-all because they belong to a super-advanced society, lol.
I wouldn't care, if the person was rational about it, but I have issues with the folks who are not rational, and tend to use insults to Americans as their basis of argument. They tend to call Americans stupid and fat, etc. but then pretend like the gun violence in America is of their sincere concern.
No, you didn't "insult Americans", but you have that tone, and you're getting there with the remarks you're making about "Letting the Americans play".
Seriously, it's just bs.. There are other non-Americans in this discussion right now, and they don't boast about acting all high and mighty. They bring points into an argument, rather than just acting like they have the right to greater understanding because "Americans are lesser than them".
Fair enough, I see your point there.
Sorry for the "letting Americans play" but it was a reaction to your comment about my point of origin, which annoyed me because I perceived it as a cheap shot.
Other than that yes many Europeans when it comes to guns issues, especially when it involves America, they have a bit more uptight stance forgetting the cultural difference thus coming out as arrogant.
Personally I think it's just my style of writing that comes out as arrogant, but I could be wrong.
My opinions, up to a point ,stem from the fact that I have had the privilege and the good luck of being able to work for extensive amounts of time in various places (tourist industry) both in Europe and US and also from the fact that I have in the US dear friends and relatives, hence the gun issue especially with the rising of criminal activity is of concern to me.
Lastly it would be quite stupid of me to imply that Americans are lesser since I have met many good ones:)
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
"Right to bear arms, cool, but what arms? When this was written there weren't automatic weapons, grenades, etc.
So how far does this stretch? "
Remember all these types of weapons were allowed for civilian purchase (especially as military surplus after WWI) up until the problems of prohibition in the 1920s in the USA. In 1934 title 2 was placed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons
The idea of arms (firearms or bladed) exist today under certain rules some I agree with and some I find arbitrary.
The reason fully automatic weapons, grenades, bombs, ICBMs, etc are generally held from the public is because of their indiscriminate nature. They have tremendous difficulty in function to minimize colateral damage. Throw a grenade at a home invader, sure you'll stop his threat. But little sally in the next room is going to get shredded by shrapnel that rips through the drywall.
Fully automatic weapons. They work great on the battlefield as a suppresive tool or to eliminate known targets. In war right or wrong there is acceptable colateral damage of civilian bystanders if a fire fight breaks out. When these weapons are fired in war the soldiers are pressumed to have training to minimize loss of control and minimize colateral damage. Fully automatic weapons can be indiscriminate weapons by the shear volume they can fire and degrading accuracy from recoil. In the hands of the untrained or persons that don't care about stray rounds of fire they can be as indiscriminate as a grenade. http://www.dailybuzzz.com/trends/child-dies-after-shooting-himself-with-an-uzi#more-632.
Some weapons are indiscriminate even though they fire one round at a time. They are called cannons. One shot from a 9mm pistol is not going to penetrate very far compared to the 30mm cannons the military uses; even if one round is fired. The cannon rounds penetrate so deep, average civilian construction whether buildings or vehicles will not stop the rounds past the intended target. So there is a civilian caliber limit of .50 with few exceptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act also explains that civilians in the USA can own legally fully automatic weapons without a class 3 license. The weapon must be registered and is taxed. Plus they have many rules that must be followed to obtain, keep, and use.
I agree with the laws in place regarding these types of indiscriminate weapons for restricing civilian use including the laws in place that do allows civilians to legally own them. Either as a matter of business or for personal use. Under the idea of gun control the only improvement I would want is required professional training. The type of training required by most states with CCW laws. Most require eight to sixteen hours of classroom and range training before a CCW is given. As a resident of Arizona I have mine and feel the eight hours of training was too short and wish they would go back to sixteen hours.
Many people would say forced training is unconstitutional because it doesn't say so in the second amendment. Sure I agree, while it is legal to buy a car you must have a license to drive it. Guns like cars are inanimate and are only as safe as the persons using them. I am not saying that there sould be a gun license to own discriminate (semi-auto handguns and rifles)guns but I do think as part of the required federal background check there should be a block on the form for professional training completed at least once for all future purchases. Most people when they buy a cell phone or DVD player do not read the instructions. I know many gun owners that never read the gun manual. I know personlly told stories of accidents that happend that could have been avoided buy reading the manual. Professional training can cover most safe practices related to all fire arm use epecially the idea not all guns function the same. Because of the lethality professional training could only help; never hurt.
If the gun in question is not fully automatic, I feel there should not be any restrictions on them except for caliber size. The semi-automatic "assault" weapon is a silly idea in my opinion. They are civilian versions of their full auto and dangerous looking military derivitives, sure. But functionally they are different. I have a civilian M4. It is mean and ugly looking. I am of the opinion that because it is so ugly it would act as a deterent by its looks alone. I feel I would be less likely to have to fire it to stop a threat in defense compared to a less ugly weapon. Ruger makes the Mini14 Ranch. Functionally it is the same as a civilian M4 but looks like generic small hunting rifle. It doesn't have the same visual menace, but it can fire the same number of rounds (the exact 5.56mm round) as the M4 with the exact damaging outcome.
Keep in mind in 1776 the firearms used are not as sophisticated as today. That is a matter of technology, not definition of the word "arms." 400 hundred years prior the word arms were still used to describe weapons. The weapons were bladed like swords and knives. Some were medevil bludgening weapons like the Morning Star. IMO any item to be held as a force multiplier is an"arm." http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/arms The "arms race" used today refer to nuclear weapons. The advancement of technology does not define the arms; the fact it is a force multiplier (a weapon) does. You give me a baseball bat as a force multiplier and I promise I will win 98% of one on one fights with a fully unarmed random person(s). I am actually waiting for Star Trek Phasers to be invented. The stun setting is a wonderful defensive concept. That weapon is still an "arm" because it is a force multiplier even though it is non lethal. I expect it would also be protected under the constitution.
FYI grenades were around in 1776. You manually lighted a fuse with fire. Our modern grenades do it mechanically for us so we don't have to carry matches or fire. But they were grenades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenadier_(soldier)
Sorry about using Wiki for many references. I know wiki can be inaccurate depending on what is being discussed. I was too lazy to search more emperical sites.
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
The second amendment was created to allow people to " bear arm " defending themselves from intruders. Yet, others read the second amendment and think it's right to carry a shotgun or/and grenades in their house. I dont know. I think it's insanely immoral for people to carry any weapons at all. But i know weapons must be possessed because once in a while, they will need to pull their weapon from their safe and use it to defend themselves. In my opinion, weapons should be banned in the world. But i know this can never happen because there are so much people in the world that the government can't control. Innocent people are dying each day from gunshot and this occurence has to stop. Correct me if i'm wrong but the people who to blame are our ancestors. They were the one who put power as their first priority killing other people for the smallest patch of land. Weapons were made and influence the community in today's society to use guns for their pleasure or power. Past, present, and future, innocent people will continue to die and we have no control of it whatsoever.
Your concept of morality is "insane." You think ("I think it's insanely immortal for people to carry any weapons at all") it is immoral for people to "carry" weapons ("any" weapon "at all"). I find that insane. In fact, either you are just being dramatic, or you are insane. I do not see, and I cannot find, a middle ground here.
It is a struggle for me to reason with you because many people, on this issue, have this peculiar premise or theory that disarming regular Americans will make them "safe" or "reduce violence" (especially suicides).
I have looked at the studies. I have listened, and heard, the arguments. I have even done my own research, fairly extensive in fact, but I will not --no matter what-- really discuss it. My conclusion is simple: disarming regular people will not make other regular people "safe" (in fact, the exact opposite is typically true).
EDIT: It is not for me about liberalism. It is not about conservatism. It is not about parties. It is about programs, policies, and institutions that work. The Second Amendment is crystal clear. It has been exhaustively explored. Yes. Indeed. American citizens have a right to defend themselves with a firearm; this requires that they have a right to own, and indeed even possess,and use weapons. Shockingly, utterly shocking, how uncomplicated it is. Laws exist, many and varied, that prevent the mentally ill from owning and possessing arms; that prevent felons from owning and possessing arms; that prevent those with domestic violence arrests (and/or convictions) from owning and possessing arms. Laws exist that make it a severe felony to purchase a gun and give it to someone else. Laws punish the transportation of firearms, locally and across state lines. All sorts of laws exist to prevent the wrong people from getting weapons. If you have a carry permit in one state, go to another state, guess what? FELONY. That is a felony arrest.
We have nothing left to do in terms of passing more laws and regulations and ordinances and this and that regarding firearms other than to go after lawful citizens. Waste of time. Waste of energy. Waste of resources. And, ironically, so many criminals are armed to the teeth. So many guns out there that get into circulation from estates, antiques, and so forth. We are swimming in guns in the United States, and going after lawful owners will not help us.
Study the purpose of the 2nd ammendment. It's not to give us a cool hobby or just for hunting but for personal / community defense and the preservation of a free society. It's a check and balance against corrupt government and foreign invasion.
Read some of the writings of Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers. When the government stops caring about the constitution and personal liberties the 2nd ammendment comes into play and provides a check that we control. A government that starts getting uncomfortable with it's armed citizens is a goverment that's no longer looking out for the interests of it's citizens and should fear them.
Don't think Jefferson had a point? Then look at History. It's also to prevent atrocities like Nanking from happening who's people were disarmed by their own government prior to the Japanese having their way with them. Imagine what a foreign army or a tyrannical government would have to go through in this country currently with the number of guns in the hands of an alerted populace. Then there's disasters like Katrina where law-enforcement will be unable to respond immediately if your home is being looted or you're threatened physically.
Still not convinced? Try common sense. Crime has only gone up with gun control directed at assualt rifles and handguns. Criminals are more bold knowing home-owners aren't packing. It is not a solution. Gun control will happen gradually as people naively hand over their ultimate security to central government and allow their minds to be manipulated by gun crime media coverage and the characterizing of gun owners as gangsters or senseless rednecks.
Just clear your mind of all the garbage surounding this arguement, your own personal predudices against some of those who may like guns and realize.
Then the 2nd amendment has failed miserably........
Unless you want to argue that our poiliticians are all honest, and you and your gun can shoot down a MIG.
Then the 2nd amendment has failed miserably........
Unless you want to argue that our poiliticians are all honest, and you and your gun can shoot down a MIG.
Well you just don't know how bad "currupt" can get. Private gun ownership has prevented a lot of bad. Always has always will.
History has proven that governments need to increase control over its citizens is to disarm them;this applies even predating the invention of firearms.
Times change, your rifle or possibly even automatic means shit. If your government has declared war on the populace i highly doubt they will have a problem carpet bombing you. In a modern world the argument of "guns to ensue possible revolution" is null and void.
"A stupid idea to you is the memory of a lifetime for me"
Times change, your rifle or possibly even automatic means shit. If your government has declared war on the populace i highly doubt they will have a problem carpet bombing you. In a modern world the argument of "guns to ensue possible revolution" is null and void.
^This
Unless of course we want to allow private ownership of current restricted military equpment. I'd love to see that argument.
The Official God FAQ
Times change, your rifle or possibly even automatic means shit. If your government has declared war on the populace i highly doubt they will have a problem carpet bombing you. In a modern world the argument of "guns to ensue possible revolution" is null and void.
^This
Unless of course we want to allow private ownership of current restricted military equpment. I'd love to see that argument.
Sorry but really doesnt apply.Terrorists groups are extremely outgunned by tech by the US and you see how how much trouble it caused us.It is also a matter of resisting population size as well (being outnumbered).
Also would Service people loyally attack its OWN citizens on mass if ordered to with out the borders of the civil war and not instead join the cause if they saw it will cause them to loose their liberties as well
Another is just a threat there and would not be worth the effort due to mass chaos.Example of this is Unions where the gorvernment could shut them down at any time but doesnt due to discontemptment and recently with this administration kissing their ass.(Squeaky wheel gets the Grease) while other businesses that dont have half the benefits or pay for similar skilled work get the shaft
Times change, your rifle or possibly even automatic means shit. If your government has declared war on the populace i highly doubt they will have a problem carpet bombing you. In a modern world the argument of "guns to ensue possible revolution" is null and void.
^This
Unless of course we want to allow private ownership of current restricted military equpment. I'd love to see that argument.
Sorry but really doesnt apply.Terrorists groups are extremely outgunned by tech by the US and you see how how much trouble it caused us.It is also a matter of resisting population size as well (being outnumbered).
Also would Service people loyally attack its OWN citizens on mass if ordered to with out the borders of the civil war and not instead join the cause if they saw it will cause them to loose their liberties as well
Another is just a threat there and would not be worth the effort due to mass chaos.Example of this is Unions where the gorvernment could shut them down at any time but doesnt due to discontemptment and recently with this administration kissing their ass.(Squeaky wheel gets the Grease) while other businesses that dont have half the benefits or pay for similar skilled work get the shaft
1. Terrorist groups do so well because they are able to use human shields. Hamas and Hezbollah for example, both fire rockets from within cities at Israel. People think Israel uses excessive force but they have NO idea how bad they could really make it, like bombing the entire square mile instead of just the spot the rocket was fired from. Not to mention this doesn't help your cause because now your suggesting that we should be able to keep guns because if revolution did ensue, we could make them useful because we could take cities hostage....ya...
Also with your second point, you used history as a example so i can to. Yes the armed forces WILL serve their paychecks, do you know hos easy it would be for them to convince them that the people are the problem? It has happened MANY times before. Just look at Cambodia , the "killing fields" or many of the current African situations.
"A stupid idea to you is the memory of a lifetime for me"
You are very naive. A diverse country is very open to control by playing one group off against another. Convince whites to round up, or even fire on, blacks would not be hard at all. Convince Christians and Hindus to round up, and even fire on, Muslims would not be hard at all. Convince conservatives to round up, or even fire on liberals (or vice versa) would not be hard at all.
Britain controlled India through playing off one group against another. very often Indian troops fired on, or beat on, other Indians.
It is easier than you think to control and manipulate a large, diverse population.
just watch Fox News.......
You are very naive. A diverse country is very open to control by playing one group off against another. Convince whites to round up, or even fire on, blacks would not be hard at all. Convince Christians and Hindus to round up, and even fire on, Muslims would not be hard at all. Convince conservatives to round up, or even fire on liberals (or vice versa) would not be hard at all.
Britain controlled India through playing off one group against another. very often Indian troops fired on, or beat on, other Indians.
It is easier than you think to control and manipulate a large, diverse population.
just watch Fox News.......
Ken state was 4 people ,I am talking about millions or more which would be mass genocide.We are still for the most part an ethical and an elected society.The checks and balances are there to keep this from happening on mass scale.
As for the Fox news comment they are the only conservative leaning cable or broadcast service out there I guess it would serve liberals well to have them shut down so that there is no discretion in the media to further a liberal agenda without any objectivity,Hitler would be proud of what they are trying to do.
The rest are left leaning ,ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC,CNN,FOX Broadcast(Yep thats right even Fox has shows which attack their own Fox News (ie. Family Guy),CNBC,HLN,BBC ,I am sure there others I am leaving out (the easiest way to discern is Fox News and possibly Fox Business vs. everyone else).
Fox news keeps coming up by liberals because it is the last shred of objectivity left .Who is the real sheep in this case?
Our soldiers I like to believe will show compassion for its own citizens that most Non democratic nations wouldnt even dream of.