Want to defend yourself? Get a taser!

Originally posted by Wongbeedman
reply to post by phroziac

 

You pro gun people are literally incapable of understanding where im coming from.

Again you are using history and the fact its been the norm for so long to justify it.
Is religion right because its been around for so long? No
Is having 5 wives right because people were doing it a long time ago? No
Is racism right because once upon a time we were all seperated anyway? No

Im not canadian (althought me and im sure alot of people outside america would choose if they had to choose)
Im british, were not stupid
Here the vast majority of people dont feel the need to be armed.
Here the people with guns are the drug dealers and the military.
The drug dealers dont go round shooting random innocents like you love to make out, they shoot other dealers or users.

A while ago a young girl was killed as a result of crossfire between two gangs.
Now here comes the "aha youve just proved our point!"
No what difference would it make if it was a crackhead shooting at someone he just tried to mug, the victim pulled a gun, fired a few shots an killed an innocent 9 year old girl?
Guns in the hands of "non criminals" are just as reckless, were all human

If banning guns stops gun crime, how are your drug dealers able to shoot each other? I thought gun bans were supposed to take guns away from criminals?

Originally posted by Pepeluacho
Kill any man/woman who tries to steal your freedom.

That's probably what the gunman thought too. There is probably plenty of crazy, whack nut-jobs all over the country, armed with guns to their teeth, prepared to shoot "anyone who wants to steal their freedom".

And, irony, not all of those people are RATIONAL. For example, republicans could start shooting liberals since they think their freedom is in danger? (This is just an example): It's in the fricking eye of the beholder because what you consider your own, freedom can be HIGHLY subjective - and we dont need to talk about mentally ill people who might also have some reasoning, although entirely irrational and deluded.

reply to post by NavyDoc


"Why all of the concern for the life of a dangerous predator?"
Dont lay that on me, you know thats not what i mean dont try and make me seem like the bad guy.

"Mr Lee, how do you happen to stay so safe in this bad neighborhood and you never carry a weapon??"

Well it's simple little man. Ancient chinese secret..... He who lives by the sword shall also die by the sword.


Spin on calgon? you get it ha ha

reply to post by NavyDoc


Never once did i say that. Your stupidity is astounding.
If guns are legal they are easier to get then when they are illegal yes?
You all want guns legal so more of you can have them.
MEANING MORE GUNS.

Where do the guns come from in the places that theyre illegal?
Places where you can buy them legally.
People dont sit at home making guns like they do drugs.
Theres a massive business in the illegal gun trade.
The reason? Because they are legal in certain places so the business is made from getting them into places where you cant have them.

Do you seriously think them being legal makes it harder for criminals to aquire them?

Originally posted by Wongbeedman
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

"Why all of the concern for the life of a dangerous predator?"
Dont lay that on me, you know thats not what i mean dont try and make me seem like the bad guy.

I'm not. I'm just saying that there is nothing immoral to using a weapon to kill a rapist as he is trying to rape a woman. Killing is often justified.

Originally posted by Wongbeedman
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Never once did i say that. Your stupidity is astounding.
If guns are legal they are easier to get then when they are illegal yes?
You all want guns legal so more of you can have them.
MEANING MORE GUNS.

Where do the guns come from in the places that theyre illegal?
Places where you can buy them legally.
People dont sit at home making guns like they do drugs.
Theres a massive business in the illegal gun trade.
The reason? Because they are legal in certain places so the business is made from getting them into places where you cant have them.

Do you seriously think them being legal makes it harder for criminals to aquire them?

So if you cannot debate a topic without personal insults? The SOviet UNion made sure that there were millions of AK-47s throughout the world. With a drill press and a little know-how, you can make a perfectly serviceable machine gun, the ATF is missing thousands of weapons from their evidence locker. If a criminal wants to get a gun, they can. THis is a simple fact. Also a simple fact, all gun bans do is prevent the people who obey the law from getting guns. Since they obey the law, you don't have to worry about them.

AS for your last bit. Of course not. Making them legal will not make it harder for criminals. However, it will make self defense easier for the good guys since the criminals will always find ways around the laws. Do you seriously think total gun bans have stopped the mafia or the cartels one iota?

You said this at the beginning:

Yes i am aware this is a naive post but its simple really, guns are for killing people. At what point do you need to kill?

It sounds like you have a problem with criminals getting killed too, because you did not delineate between innocent and non-innocent deaths. My suggestion is that sometimes it is necessary to kill and if a woman kills a rapist, that is a good thing. If you state that guns shold be banned soley because they can kill, then the implication is that you also consider killing that rapist a bad thing as well.

reply to post by Wongbeedman


Grow a set of gonads man . If you a girl get a man with a set . Criminals are always going to have guns ,just like in England where the US guns saved their butts from a country that was not supposed to have all those guns . Only the good people would give up their guns . I guess baseball bats , butcher knives , bombs and cars should be banned also . Have you any idea how many people die from them every year ? The death rate from being shot would be about the same as a knifing . People get shot all the time and live . If a drug nut is coming at you most of the time a bullet won't stop him .

reply to post by Wongbeedman


You conveniently ignore the legal issue i brought up. I will go to JAIL if i get caught with a taser. If i get caught with a gun, nothing. Which sounds better?

Here in Australia, we had serious gun control law brought in after the Port Arthur shooting. And as expected, gun related deaths declined. Sure, the criminals are still shooting each other, but overall it's made our country much safer.
Hearing all you Americans say "what's the problem, I have an assault rifle"? and "I always go to the movies with my loaded handgun" sounds so very ridiculous to us Aussies. In fact, as go as far as to say that guns are for pussies!

reply to post by SimonPeter


"Grow a set of gonads man . If you a girl get a man with a set . Criminals are always going to have guns ,just like in England where the US guns saved their butts from a country that was not supposed to have all those guns"

Obviously theres a gun where your balls should be.
Having a gun does not take balls. Anywhere but america thats generally the way it is. Guns are for cowards.

Im in england, what you said doesnt even make sense. There are barely any guns here and everyone here agrees thats a good thing.

The US cant even save its own butt let alone ours

Originally posted by homerJ
Hearing all you Americans say "what's the problem, I have an assault rifle"? and "I always go to the movies with my loaded handgun" sounds so very ridiculous to us Aussies. In fact, as go as far as to say that guns are for pussies!

I will make sure to tell that to my 85 year old grandmother, who carries a pistol for her personal protection.

"Grandma you are just a pussy! If you can't fend off those thugs with your arthritis afflicted hands, walker, and false hips then you are supposed to suffer in whatever way those thugs see fit...."

Originally posted by Wongbeedman
Im sick of people trying to justify the use of deadly weapons as self defence, yes you can say its a tool but why is it a tool for? Killing. Theres so many other ways to defend yourself which dont involve shooting someone. At how many points in your life are you going to need to anyway?

Yes i am aware this is a naive post but its simple really, guns are for killing people. At what point do you need to kill?

There is NO justification for using a deadly weapon, unless someone else has already Justified it for you. there is NO right answer for the debate on guns and self defense, every situation is different.

Is there a middle ground for Americans?

It seems okay to have a handgun for self defense.

But is it okay to have an automatic weapon that shoots off 100 rounds in a minute?

Again, is there a middle ground?

Originally posted by BellaSabre
Is there a middle ground for Americans?

It seems okay to have a handgun for self defense.

But is it okay to have an automatic weapon that shoots off 100 rounds in a minute?

Again, is there a middle ground?

For defense against tyranny, and defense of liberty? No there is no middle ground...we are meant to have access to the same weaponry as our military.

In the days of the Revolutionary War farmers were known to have large cannons ready to fire on their property....this continues on until this very day actually. Point being that the citizens of this country originally had possesion of large scale military hardware.

I see no reason for this change except cowardice, and complacency. Again, anything the the US government has access to, we the people are meant to have access to.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


I think you are wrong, and are vastly over exaggerating what we as private citizens "are intended" to own. We were simply granted by the constitution to "bear arms".

Do you think we are each "intended" to possess our own nuclear weapon?

ETA: Sorry, you didn't say "intended" you said "meant to have". I believe the meaning is the same.

Originally posted by BellaSabre
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

 

I think you are wrong, and are vastly over exaggerating what we as private citizens "are intended" to own. We were simply granted by the constitution to "bear arms".

Do you think we are each "intended" to possess our own nuclear weapon?

ETA: Sorry, you didn't say "intended" you said "meant to have". I believe the meaning is the same.

edit on 7/26/2012 by BellaSabre because: (no reason given)

The constitution does not "grant" any rights to US citizens...it merely reinforces "natural rights" that all on this earth are born with, and directly limits action that may be taken by our state and federal governments.

Secondly here is a quick definition of "infringe".

Infringe- To violate, to invalidate, to encroach on someone or something.

So what the second ammendment states is that no government in this union has the power to invalidate, violate, or encroach on any person's ability to arm themselves. It is not a matter of what power the goverment has, it is simply a fact of what power the government doesn't have. It has no authority to restrict any type, or amount of weaponry a person may possess.

Also, someone having access to nuclear arms frightens me a great deal less than the genocidal governments of our world(including ours) having such arsenals with no checks to such power...however I do wish that humanity would get over it's desire to destroy our world in general, and that we could all just learn to love one another.

Originally posted by BellaSabre
Is there a middle ground for Americans?

It seems okay to have a handgun for self defense.

But is it okay to have an automatic weapon that shoots off 100 rounds in a minute?

Again, is there a middle ground?

Automatics are heavily restricted bro. I cant buy one without a 3500 to 14,000 dollar markup. Are you really this ignorant? Theres also a background check thwt takes about 6 months. And we cant carry them....

Edit: but i can buy one illegally.....gun control for the win right? Youre lookin at 10to 20years for posesssion

Originally posted by BellaSabre
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

 

I think you are wrong, and are vastly over exaggerating what we as private citizens "are intended" to own. We were simply granted by the constitution to "bear arms".

Do you think we are each "intended" to possess our own nuclear weapon?

ETA: Sorry, you didn't say "intended" you said "meant to have". I believe the meaning is the same.

edit on 7/26/2012 by BellaSabre because: (no reason given)

If you look at the militia act of 1792, which was passed shortly after the Constitution, it states that citizens are to equip themselves with the same weapons and equipment of hte average soldier, so at least one can say that the intent of the 2nd was to enable civilians to have the same weapons and gear of the average soldier. It covers rifles like in Switzerland by that token.

reply to post by Wongbeedman


Well when you get older how are you going to protect yourself against knuckle heads who gang together . And let America deal with Americas problems no you . We left that place to get rid of the King and Queen and your ilk .. What you don't realize is that you are already under the Rothschilds surveillance and control . Some people still have guns over there . You live your blimey life and we will live ours .