“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: swanne

Your illusion of pacifism I'm sure would go right out the window if someone was hellbent on killing your wife. Daughter son or mother.

Remember that if you're ever in a position where one of those wolves comes knocking at your door

And who gave this hellbent monster the tool to kill a wife/kids? More weapons means more potential monsters. No thank you.

a reply to: starheart
I face palmed so hard at that.
WTF is going on in these kinds of threads?

a reply to: macman

Absolutely agree w you on that

originally posted by: Galvatron
a reply to: swanne
What you want is very utopian. And while I admire that, and I would rather be able to trust anyone without a second thought, that's not the world we live, never has been.

Don't ever call someone a coward unless you are ready to put your life on the line for someone elses. All of your posts in this thread have now been invalidated by your own ad hominem.

Funny. I would. You can put me in a loop, and I would every time give my life for someone else. Would you? Tell me, would you be really that non-cowardly to give a second chance to a burglar, and possibly risk your life, or would you just shoot him down, because you are too scared to give a try at changing the burglar's mind? That is courage: give someone a second chance. Not doing so makes you become the person that you shoot at. You say we are not in an utopian world. What about all you guys trying to change that, instead of even more darken the world with even more violence?

originally posted by: starheart

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: swanne

Your illusion of pacifism I'm sure would go right out the window if someone was hellbent on killing your wife. Daughter son or mother.

Remember that if you're ever in a position where one of those wolves comes knocking at your door

And who gave this hellbent monster the tool to kill a wife/kids? More weapons means more potential monsters. No thank you.

Well unless you plan on melting down every single thing on this planet that could be used as a weapon. And somehow making sure no one can ever make anything that could be used as a weapon....then I assume he could get it anywhere.....

Is this a serious question ? It seems like a pretty obvious answer

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
a reply to: starheart
I face palmed so hard at that.
WTF is going on in these kinds of threads?

Exactly. That is exactly why Swanne made that thread. Because those people, those thoughts, are growing in numbers.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Well unless you plan on melting down every single thing on this planet that could be used as a weapon. And somehow making sure no one can ever make anything that could be used as a weapon....then I assume he could get it anywhere.....

Is this a serious question ? It seems like a pretty obvious answer

Well, we could start by the most obvious lethal weapons. When all is left are 1 single-shot weapons and fists, maybe there would be less violence, wouldn't you agree? Hard to do a mass shooting, or a gang attack when you can only shoot 1 shot.

originally posted by: starheart

originally posted by: Galvatron
a reply to: swanne
What you want is very utopian. And while I admire that, and I would rather be able to trust anyone without a second thought, that's not the world we live, never has been.

Don't ever call someone a coward unless you are ready to put your life on the line for someone elses. All of your posts in this thread have now been invalidated by your own ad hominem.

Funny. I would. You can put me in a loop, and I would every time give my life for someone else. Would you? Tell me, would you be really that non-cowardly to give a second chance to a burglar, and possibly risk your life, or would you just shoot him down, because you are too scared to give a try at changing the burglar's mind? That is courage: give someone a second chance. Not doing so makes you become the person that you shoot at. You say we are not in an utopian world. What about all you guys trying to change that, instead of even more darken the world with even more violence?

Violent criminals don't care if you live in a pacifist world. They will take what they want whether you like it or not.

And no I would rather not give that person a chance to harm my family on the "hopes" he might change his ways. If he's violated the sanctity of my home and is a threat to myself and my family I will do what I must


However not every person who owns a fun shoots and asks questions later. Actually most of the time just brandishing the firearm at the intruder sends them running. These instances make up the majority if instances where legally armed people have to defend themselves....

But you wouldn't know that. Because you haven't done your research. You have a bias and that's all you can see. You claim we are the ones that are scared and ignorant.

Seems to me the fear and ignorance is coming from those scrambling to make guns illegal.

Go buy a firearm. Then maybe you won't feel so vulnerable

You have got to be kidding me.

originally posted by: swanne

I realize that we pacifists have no freedom of speech in a world dominated by you hawks.

You don't live in the US. I don't know of the Right to Free speech in Canada.
In the US, all parties have the Right to Free Speech, which is hand in hand with OUR other Rights.

originally posted by: swanne
Just like the governments you criticize. So, these are my last words to you today, last words which I know you will thoroughly ignore.

So now it is poor pacifist, comparing yourself to the plight of a do good Govt. Give me a break.

originally posted by: swanne
You live under the illusion that having guns portray you as bold, heroic figures.

And this is about the most ignorant comment yet.
Where and when did anyone state this?

originally posted by: swanne
You even called me coward because I refuse to give in to the easy way which is violence.

It is cowardly to just allow yourself to be a victim. You can take that any way you wish.

originally posted by: swanne
But I'm afraid it is not us pacifists who are the true cowards in the end. You lack the courage to work for a better world, so you cower behind your guns.

WOW!!! So, people are cowards for hiding behind guns and want to fight back.
But you are the righteous one to allow yourself to be a victim.
You go on with your bad......I mean pacifist self then.
Remember, if being attacked and they attempt to rape you, just pee your pants. That will make the attacker think twice.....

originally posted by: swanne
Violence is the weapon of the coward.

No, preying upon the week is the act of a coward.
Defending yourself is human nature. Not acting upon that is in itself stupid.

originally posted by: swanne
The true measure of a hero is not in the amount of people he killed, but in the amount of people he didn't.

Oh good grief.
You attempt to relate people wishing to be armed to defend themselves with wanton killing.

originally posted by: swanne
To mine eyes you hawks are simply the next Military, and you even think like the military. You think more violence will magically solve violence. So in a way, you already lost the battle, since you and the Military you criticize are already the same. You and the Military already share the same mentality, the same worship of Killing.

Yep, because that is exactly what has been stated.
Maybe think for yourself, instead of relying on talking points from Progressive Groups.

originally posted by: swanne
So what difference does it make in the end? It is like losing but continue believing in the illusion that you've won.

Yeah, uh-ha.

originally posted by: swanne
Turn enemies into allies, work for harmony, stop misunderstandings and promote tolerance and freedom is the job you ignore, leaving it to us pacifists. Instead, you hawks resort to the most easiest thing a man or even an animal can do: violence. Then you wonder why violence never stops. Yet you nevertheless continue making the same actions over and over again, and each time expecting a different result.

So tell me, in any point in history, when has it ended up as a positive for people to lay down and be ruled, or victimized just so you satisfy your want to not fight back?

originally posted by: swanne
So in the end, which are the truly cowardly ones?

Plainly, you.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

There is a shop (this was from our local news, but not sure where the shop was) that went big into the "no guns on premises" thing and advertised themselves as a gun free zone. Within a couple of weeks they were held up at gun point. Never had been robbed before.

If only the criminals have guns then everyone else are the defenseless prey.

a reply to: starheart

I think you mean rob. Burgle is to steal property that is not occupied, on an individual, or being used by an individual. Change the criminals mind? I take it you haven't been robbed before. On two occasions someone has attempted to rob me. Both occasions I was carrying my firearm. Both occasions I merely presented my weapon to diffuse the situation. I had no intention of shooting unless he tried to pursue the robbery regardless of me trying to put us on equal footing. Even then, killing the individual would be catastrophic for both of us. Both occasions the individual fled before I had a chance to make them change their mind. If I didn't present my firearm, their knife would have kept me in a position of compliance, what I said wouldn't have mattered.

How do you imagine these things going down? Seriously, walk me through it.

a reply to: Galvatron

finally, lol. all those pages of people picturing washington with a colt...... i feel sorry for this country. yeah, we know what the second amendment means.

a reply to: starheart

Seeing as that any person that wishes to do you harm doesn't not have to rely on a firearm really blows your statement out of the water.

That, and the whole "Being eaten last" mentality hasn't worked out for any group in the history of mankind.

You are free to not be armed, and are free to deal with violent/criminal actions towards you in the manned you see fit.

How about you respect others and how they wish to deal with it.
Or is that just too much to ask.

a reply to: starheart Cain killed Abel with a rock, there are billions of rocks on earth. Who is going to collect and destroy all the rocks, we would be so much safer if people didn't have access to those deadly rocks. This philosophy makes as much sense as most anti gun arguments in this discussion.

a reply to: swanne

Yeah, because gun control has been so very very successful in Chicago, Detroit, Memphis and New Orleans.

You are welcome to my gun. Once you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

originally posted by: starheart
Funny. I would. You can put me in a loop, and I would every time give my life for someone else. Would you? Tell me, would you be really that non-cowardly to give a second chance to a burglar, and possibly risk your life, or would you just shoot him down, because you are too scared to give a try at changing the burglar's mind? That is courage: give someone a second chance. Not doing so makes you become the person that you shoot at. You say we are not in an utopian world. What about all you guys trying to change that, instead of even more darken the world with even more violence?

Great, good luck with that.

My life is too valuable to me to try and give someone a second chance and I have never held or owned a gun.

What good is that second chance if I say "please mister robber stop breaking into my house" and he shoots me?
I'll tell you what real courage is and that is working for a living and not breaking the law by breaking into someones else and stealing. Anyone that does that is a coward and deserves whatever repercussions their are from their crime.

You seem to be living in this fairy tale world of "changing a criminals mind" hopefully the real world never drops you someday.

originally posted by: swanne
Many ATSers are rubbing their hands at the prospect of putting these said hands unto heavy machine guns, like little children in front of water guns. “We need it”, they tell me. “We really do - it’s so that we can defend against the military." To such people I am here to show that your logic is full of holes.

Lol you suggest this would not be a popular thread, so to be more exact it is the same tired thread that we have seen over and over.

You guys keep on citing the Second Amendment in the hope to justify this ammunophiliac madness. I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having automatic weapons, I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having bazooka at their home, I saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having a tank at their home, and I even saw ATSers quote the Second Amendment to justify having bombs.

No holes here, it is a right to own guns, firearms... We can dicker over what an "arms" is, but in general to "bare arms" one single person needs to hold it, and shoot it. Last time I looked I could not "bare" a tank.... Also your debate is firearms so I'm missing your point about nukes, tanks stinger missiles etc...

When the Second Amendment was drafted almost three centuries ago, guns were at the stage of revolvers and muskets. Limited quantity of bullets, and often slow to re-charge - basically, you had to think twice before shooting someone. Today one automatic gun can turn a peaceful school yard into a horror crime scene. Hundred of children were killed - why? Because someone went crazy with an automatic, most of which fire more than one bullet per seconds. That's more than one can do with a three-hundred years-old musket, I can tell you that.

Ok, so you are suggesting we all need supervision, control, nanny state since we can not possibility be responsible enough. So what is your point? I can kill more with a car than with a horse, so should we go back to horses? Why didn't we reverse the 2nd 100 years ago? Guns were still much better, so your logic is the same for even then. How about a sword, how many could a person kill with that, or 2 pistols and a bunch of 10 round mags? The deal is if someone wants to kill they will do it. You could drive a truck through a school bus stop and get the same effect.

Similarly, your argument implies that to protect themselves from the shooters, schoolchildren should all carry an equally dangerous automatic weapon than the shooter. To me this is not logic, it is a recipe for disaster.

Hmm, who suggested this one...lol

Additionally: you guys often claim that having military grade equipment at home will protect you from an ever-elusive FEMA invasion. Let me simply point out to you that if the military really wanted to kill you all, they would have done it long ago, using a special modern technology which we call the Bomb. In case you've never seen one in your life:

I'm starting to get the feeling you are very young...

What is this new special thing called the bomb do?

Now you understand why I conclude that in modern, everyday life, automatic guns are only a promise of death at worst, and a promise of chaos at best.

So once again, I'm not understanding your need here when riles kill less than hammers per year? There are a ton of other things that take 10 times the life per year than rifles, so unless you have an agenda of just a big Government type control you really didn't make a true point at all...

originally posted by: starheart

originally posted by: riffraff
Starhart, an AK-47 shoots 7.62 NATO ammo. Arguably not a strong enough round for deer hunting. A hunting rifle like a 30 ought 6 would be more powerful inside 200 yards. Also, just like these hunting rifles you keep referencing they both fire one bullet per trigger pull. Also known as semi-automatic. For you to want me to shoot a burglar with a hunting rifle instead of an ak is like you saying stabbing an intruder with a ten inch blade is too much; I should use foot-long blades because they're safer

Okay. Let's say that you are right, and that a Remington hunting rifle with only 3 shots is more dangerous than a 600 rounds per minute AK-47.

That's not the main point in the OP. The main point is that people use the Second Amendment as a justification to have tanks, bazookas, and apc. The point still stands that people wants to own tanks and bazookas, and mainly everything the military owns, which would include machine guns, missiles, aircrafts. Then these same person wants automatic and assault rifles to be allowed in households as "self-defense". It doesn't really inspire confidence in these persons's sanity and true motives behind owning those weapons.

But that's the thing. They aren't just for self defense. They are " necessary for the security of a free state" the Supreme Court already ruled on this. What else is there to debate?

originally posted by: paraphi
From the many threads on sunjects like this, it seems the only reason why American's need to be armed to the teeth is becuaes they fear their neighbours, who are similarly armed. You are not afraid of the military, you're afraid of your your fellow citizen and he's afraid of you.

What does my neighbor have to do with any of this? Well unless my neighbor is the one breaking into my house. Do you feel that no matter the situation the cops have you covered? The old "when seconds count the cops are minutes away" is no longer true in most areas, as sad as it is. Cops do not protect anymore they cleanup and investigate. The crime happens and they can not possibility stop it.

No one is afraid of the military either. To suggest anyone is afraid is really a very immature stance on the subject.

originally posted by: chopperswolf
a reply to: starheart Cain killed Abel with a rock, there are billions of rocks on earth. Who is going to collect and destroy all the rocks, we would be so much safer if people didn't have access to those deadly rocks. This philosophy makes as much sense as most anti gun arguments in this discussion.

Once again the focus is on guns and not the desire to kill. One needs to ask the question why are people killing, and that seems to be a question many care little about. The other side is so many are like the dog that all of a sudden is distracted by a "squirrel!", to us the squirrel is the media and one guy kills and the whole country knows about it, but the other 6000+ deaths per day in the US are ignored... SQUIRRELL!!!