Self defense not a valid reason to own a firearm

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 19Bones79

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

Actually the founding fathers intended to allow American citizens to have equal firepower to maintain a free state from an oppressive government.
That was the whole point of the 2nd

a reply to: 19Bones79
Are you trolling Bones???? If you're really from SA you know what the problem is and you don't want to say. Do you want somebody else to say it so it wont make you look like a racist?
It's what the whole of SA is dealing with.

a reply to: chr0naut


I see you didn't respond to Hecate666's post here...

What are you on about? Nobody in real adult life needs a weapon ofmass distraction. You love comparing apples to sports equipment don't you?

This thread is about people who live in one of the most dangerous counries in the world. Rape mad, home intruder mad etc. Maybe you should read up about S.Africa.

The criminals have all the gear, willingness to kill and are brazen as feck about it.
Do you think they will listen and hand in their weapons or stop being rapists or killers when all decent folk have handed in the only deterrent or means to defend themselves?

I do not dare to let you think of the answer by youself because in yor world everything is rainbows and unicorns.

The answer is: will they heck. Now they can enter any home, knowing the people are basically sitting ducks.

Lovely idea mate. For the rapists and killers at least.

Do you care to make a comment or is this too logical for you?

a reply to: lordcomac

Much like SA those cities also have another similar situation. No one wants to address that elephant in the room however.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: Alien Abduct


A few years ago I felt the same but nowadays there is nowhere to run.


The whole world is changing for the worse.

They are doing this to you in SA because they can claim deniability when they are called out for genocide by claiming the gov does not support the killings of whites in SA.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 19Bones79

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

Following that logic:

Certainly law enforcement or any other government agency shouldn't have weapons to defend themselves. They shouldn't have any more right to self defense as anyone else.

I guess the same would go for biological weapons and vaccines. Bacteria and viruses have a right to exist.

Insurance is a way to protect yourself against unexpected events. All forms of insurance should be banned.

And it's long past time we addressed steel-toe shoes, helmets, sunglasses, sun-block, flyswatters, insecticides, etc. Anything a person could use to protect themselves from harm.

a reply to: chr0naut

I think your nuclear weapon analogy fails. Why? Because guns will are allowed in the U.S. and other places as HOME defense. Someone invades your home. You have the right to defend yourself on your own turf.

To use your analogy would be to suggest that a country would nuke itself to repel aggressors. It's an emotive argument, I'll give you that.

Actually the founding fathers intended to allow American citizens to have equal firepower to maintain a free state from an oppressive government.
That was the whole point of the 2nd

Spot on truth.
Sadly some will refuse to acknowledge such.

a reply to: chr0naut

You're being asinine.

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: 19Bones79
Sorry you guys don't have limits on your government, like a constitution and bill of rights.
Good luck.

😂😂😂😂😂😂because they work so well for us😂😂😂😂

It's not perfect, and exercising some rights has been problematic, but its the best system in the world imo.
Even British princes, gifted access to the best education on the planet, are baffelled by actual freedom, as they don't actually have it.

Not suprised others outside the usa don't get it either.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut


I see you didn't respond to Hecate666's post here...

What are you on about? Nobody in real adult life needs a weapon ofmass distraction. You love comparing apples to sports equipment don't you?

This thread is about people who live in one of the most dangerous counries in the world. Rape mad, home intruder mad etc. Maybe you should read up about S.Africa.

The criminals have all the gear, willingness to kill and are brazen as feck about it.
Do you think they will listen and hand in their weapons or stop being rapists or killers when all decent folk have handed in the only deterrent or means to defend themselves?

I do not dare to let you think of the answer by youself because in yor world everything is rainbows and unicorns.

The answer is: will they heck. Now they can enter any home, knowing the people are basically sitting ducks.

Lovely idea mate. For the rapists and killers at least.

Do you care to make a comment or is this too logical for you?

I have been off-line for a few days, but I feel no compunction to answer Hecate666's post.

Because the current level of danger and violence in S.A. is enabled by the very firearms that you seem to believe are only going to be used defensively.

Please explain, what prevents the criminal from getting a firearm, if just about any citizen can just purchase one? Someone with criminal intent can just walk up to the counter, spin a few lies, flash some cash, and walk out with guns and ammo.

So the same laws that arms the good guys, arms the bad guys. Zero-sum.

The only ones that consistently profit are arms dealers.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 19Bones79

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

Actually the founding fathers intended to allow American citizens to have equal firepower to maintain a free state from an oppressive government.
That was the whole point of the 2nd

Some of those founding fathers were legitimately considered to be criminals, smugglers, and excise avoiders, by the several appointed governments of their day.

Many other colonies peacefully gained self-governance.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 19Bones79

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

Following that logic:

Certainly law enforcement or any other government agency shouldn't have weapons to defend themselves. They shouldn't have any more right to self defense as anyone else.

I guess the same would go for biological weapons and vaccines. Bacteria and viruses have a right to exist.

Insurance is a way to protect yourself against unexpected events. All forms of insurance should be banned.

And it's long past time we addressed steel-toe shoes, helmets, sunglasses, sun-block, flyswatters, insecticides, etc. Anything a person could use to protect themselves from harm.

And people who cognitively seem to have lead poisoning already, without even being shot yet. We should be protected against them.

However, I don't think that there is a Universal Declaration of Viral Rights. Perhaps you should write one.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: chr0naut

You're being asinine.

Surely. And other gun-ho respondents in this thread are being so comparatively sensible.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 19Bones79

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

Actually the founding fathers intended to allow American citizens to have equal firepower to maintain a free state from an oppressive government.
That was the whole point of the 2nd

Some of those founding fathers were legitimately considered to be criminals, smugglers, and excise avoiders, by the several appointed governments of their day.

Many other colonies peacefully gained self-governance.

What colonies gained peaceful self governance?
I will wait......
......
.....
......

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 19Bones79

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

Actually the founding fathers intended to allow American citizens to have equal firepower to maintain a free state from an oppressive government.
That was the whole point of the 2nd

Some of those founding fathers were legitimately considered to be criminals, smugglers, and excise avoiders, by the several appointed governments of their day.

Many other colonies peacefully gained self-governance.

What colonies gained peaceful self governance?
I will wait......
......
.....
......

Australia, New Zealand, Canada.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 19Bones79

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

Actually the founding fathers intended to allow American citizens to have equal firepower to maintain a free state from an oppressive government.
That was the whole point of the 2nd

Some of those founding fathers were legitimately considered to be criminals, smugglers, and excise avoiders, by the several appointed governments of their day.

Many other colonies peacefully gained self-governance.

What colonies gained peaceful self governance?
I will wait......
......
.....
......

Australia, New Zealand, Canada.

1986, 1982
Lol
Sure, wait 200 years, alot can happen in that time.
Too freaking funny.
Wait until others fight the crown for independence, and wait it out until the empire is no more. Be bootlickers for centuries.
Hahahaha
No wonder you have no appreciation for rights, your parents, grandparents, great grandparents never had any.
Ahahahaha

a reply to: crayzeed

Research Zambia's crime rate and how they do it over there then get back to me.

a reply to: 19Bones79
Still trolling heh! Come on, come on and come out with the real reason you're not answering. Do you want me to draw you out

Question 1. Just who are the majority of people (that means to you, what colour) that the SA government want to disarm?

Question 2. Just who are the majority of people (that means to you, what colour) that are raping etc. and getting killed because the SA government have given them the green light to do it?

I'll wait for your answer. Don't spin it, come out with it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Surely, by extension, nuclear weapons are even more protective.

Why would anyone want to limit the access of the general public to nuclear weapons?

These 'nuke grabbers' must be fascists who want to take away everyone's right to freedom and self defense.

You are better than this logical fallacy...