I freakin love this gun billboard (features Native Americans)

Originally posted by muse7
We have companies advertising bullet-proof backpacks for children so they can wear to school....

If that is not a sign that there is something seriously with our society, then we are definitely going down the toilet

Oh, so because certain people in society don't obey the current laws, you believe in punishing everyone.

And not just punishing, but infringing upon a right.


I guess that if this were regarding something that you deem as important, your tune would change.

As always, you banter on about how everyone should give up more rights, to be "safe".

That's the thing though. The billboard may not be factually comprehensive and may or may not be insulting.

So some are insulted? As an adult, one should have the mental and emotional faculties to deal with it. When did it become forbidden to insult someone or be in poor taste? I'm not saying native Americans deserve it, but sometimes insults are justified and accurate.

People want to live in a free society governed by a representative republic and then cry foul when they get insulted, it's really strange. People are naturally going to disagree and naturally be insulted on some level eventually. Dealing with it and addressing it dispassionately is what makes someone an adult and mature.

Do I think the billboard was in poor taste? Yes I do, Does that mean you will see me calling for it to be pulled down? No way. The person obviously paid for the billboard space, probably quite a lot of money, and as their temporary property they can do as they please. Hell, I get insulted when I see 20" wheels on a late 90s crown vic, mainly because I don't understand the aesthetic and therefore don't like it, but I'm not going to tell the owner of the vehicle to take the wheels off their car. That would be, in my opinion, a very immature thing to do.

reply to post by Anonbeleiver77


Another anti-gun rights foreigner thinking they know what is best for us.


And what country do you reside in?
Sure would love to actually research your claimed stats.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by muse7

 

So what laws can you create that criminals will obey?

Or is what you mean that you want laws that law-abiding citizens will obey that criminals won't?

Tired of Control Freaks

Most criminals are stupid.... I guess. So,..maybe reverse psychology will work...

Make it public that guns are free of charge and no permit necessary.... What will happen is that criminals will insist to buy a gun and will demand a permit for the weapon.

Just trying to help and think in the box..

Originally posted by muse7
We have companies advertising bullet-proof backpacks for children so they can wear to school....

If that is not a sign that there is something seriously with our society, then we are definitely going down the toilet

You think society will not be as twisted if there were no guns?


There will be a substitute i garantee.
As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic park "Live will find a way"
, to kill in this case

Originally posted by TruthSeekersRUS

Originally posted by Ghost375
the federal government hasn't tried to get anyone to turn in their guns...I've seen nothing that indicates they are trying to.

In CT

I'll stop you there. I'm pretty sure I made it clear I was talking about the federal government. Why respond with what they're doing in CT?

reply to post by Bearack


hmm you really need to get your statistics up to date

www.bbc.co.uk...

"Rates of murder and violent crime have fallen more rapidly in the UK in the past decade than many other countries in Western Europe, researchers say.

The UK Peace Index, from the Institute for Economics and Peace, found UK homicides per 100,000 people had fallen from 1.99 in 2003, to one in 2012.

The UK was more peaceful overall, it said, with the reasons for it varied."

"These reductions came despite a 6% drop in the number of police officers per 100,000 people, it said."

reply to post by Bearack


Or the tanks , rockets and ak clones would have been turned on the crowd and thousands more dead

do you really think a well armed militia could take on a profesional military in the c21?
?

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by Bearack

 

hmm you really need to get your statistics up to date

www.bbc.co.uk...

"Rates of murder and violent crime have fallen more rapidly in the UK in the past decade than many other countries in Western Europe, researchers say.

The UK Peace Index, from the Institute for Economics and Peace, found UK homicides per 100,000 people had fallen from 1.99 in 2003, to one in 2012.

The UK was more peaceful overall, it said, with the reasons for it varied."

"These reductions came despite a 6% drop in the number of police officers per 100,000 people, it said."

edit on 1-5-2013 by gambon because: (no reason given)

UK peace index... LOL, seems almost oxymoron one would think.

But alas, the numbers that most anti gun lobbyist like to use when using violent crime in the UK is ALWAYS flaud in the reporting utility the country uses is not like any other nation on the planet. Example being murder that involved 3 murders is considered 1 murder through the bureau.

This articel details many of the inaccuracies of how the country manages their statistics. www.guardian.co.uk...

It's almost how our government calculates unemployment here. Because they are bureaucrats, they use the best number possible by eliminating certain aspects of the detail. It's also common practice with publicly trade companies so they look more profitable than they really are.

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by Bearack

 

Or the tanks , rockets and ak clones would have been turned on the crowd and thousands more dead

do you really think a well armed militia could take on a professional military in the c21?
?

Yes... Absolutely and unequivocally! Afghanistan not only put the hurt on the British, but the French, the Soviets and the US. Vietnam... remind me again... it wasn't the North Vietnamese army that won that war, but the Vietcon whom were the militia of the country.

ETA: Also, least not forget the one that created this nation. The one that went against the most advanced military in the world with more resources and weapons against there mere common farmer.

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by Bearack

 

Or the tanks , rockets and ak clones would have been turned on the crowd and thousands more dead

do you really think a well armed militia could take on a profesional military in the c21?
?

Yes. Are you unaware of the conflict in Afghanistan? What about Libya? What about Syria? What about South Ossetia? What about the Yugoslav Civil War? Do you believe that the people in these areas are not able to resist modern militaries? Would they be more effective with missiles, artillery, tanks, planes etc? They sure would. However, the modern small arm is precisely why these people were able to or are able to project credible force. Regardless of right or wrong, good or bad, modern small arms give people this that power.

Do you think the Taliban would be in control of the Afghan countryside if it weren't for their access to modern small arms? Do you think coalition forces there would have such a tough time? In the 80s the afghans effectively resisted the soviet union, armed mainly with WWII era Lee-Enfield bolt action rifles.

To suggest that a well armed militia can't take on a modern military is to not only ignore military history, but to ignore contemporary history as well. Considering the structure of our government and the demographics of our military, one must consider that a very large proportion of our own military would rather side with the people than with the government. The armed militia is in case the military doesn't fracture, and if it does, then the armed militia, combined with the fractured military that side with the people, ought to be enough to dismantle the government and start fresh.

reply to post by Bearack


haha funny how you use stats picked from the uks most leftist broadsheet paper

And you do realise that statistics have to be weighted to be any use whatsoever , this isnt mean, median or mode calculations .Or anything as simple as averages.

The fight for independance was won with help from france

the mujahideen are fighting in a whole country not a city square..slight difference there.

And America lost the v war , the Nvietnamese didnt really win , you gave up.

yugoslav civil war fought by groups as well armed as any army .

the mujahidden were loosing badly against the russian untill the cia provided them with arms , especially stinger missiles via IRAN ..do you remember tyhat?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

Star and Flag!

The American Indians have no problem with the billboard.

It's the crazy Secular Progressives charging out there and declaring this billboard is

politically incorrect.

Note to self: Always Ignore the Secular Progressives

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by Bearack

 

haha funny how you use stats picked from the uks most leftist broadsheet paper

And you do realise that statistics have to be weighted to be any use whatsoever , this isnt mean, median or mode calculations .Or anything as simple as averages.

The fight for independance was won with help from france

the mujahideen are fighting in a whole country not a city square..slight difference there.

And America lost the v war , the Nvietnamese didnt really win , you gave up.

yugoslav civil war fought by groups as well armed as any army .

the mujahidden were loosing badly against the russian untill the cia provided them with arms , especially stinger missiles via IRAN ..do you remember tyhat?

edit on 1-5-2013 by gambon because: (no reason given)

LOL, I love the little cat and mouse chase you do when slapped with reality. Stats that doesn't represent your argument are arbitrary, huh?

And regarding North Vietnam, I clearly state that the North Vietnamese did not win, but the vietcong did, however. And we gave up because we could not win. Against the North Vietnamese federal military, we won every engagement. Against the Vietcong we took our largest casualties and were forced to abandon our support for the south.

And regarding the Mujaheddin, yes, i absolutely remember the US providing stinger missiles. The Soviet helicopters were dismantling civilian populations hence the reason why the senator to Texas did what he did to give support to the villages that were getting mowed down. The Mujahaddin were handling their own in that the Soviets, even before arms dealings, and the Soviets could never get a foothold on the area. Same with the US military today. They can't win because it's a hidden army. Unless you wipe the entire populous off the planet, no country will ever win in Afghanistan.

reply to post by Galvatron


And this is why speech is protected. Our founders knew the history of what happens when TPTB got "offended" by media or a citizen speaking their mind. How short-sighted the "offended" are. This is just more of the PC crowd not wanting to tackle the actual message, but how the message is presented. ONLY Native Americans can talk about their plight, ONLY African Americans can talk about their plight, ONLY LGBT's can talk about their plight, and ONLY persons in congress can represent the minority viewpoint while trying to control the talking points and passing unconstitutional laws to make some more equal than others. Be damned if all citizens actually have a say in laws that affect their everyday lives!!

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by Bearack

 

haha funny how you use stats picked from the uks most leftist broadsheet paper

And you do realise that statistics have to be weighted to be any use whatsoever , this isnt mean, median or mode calculations .Or anything as simple as averages.

The fight for independance was won with help from france

the mujahideen are fighting in a whole country not a city square..slight difference there.

And America lost the v war , the Nvietnamese didnt really win , you gave up.

yugoslav civil war fought by groups as well armed as any army .

the mujahidden were loosing badly against the russian untill the cia provided them with arms , especially stinger missiles via IRAN ..do you remember tyhat?

edit on 1-5-2013 by gambon because: (no reason given)

In the soviet afghan war before US money and weapons started to flow, which was a solid 5 year into the conflict, the Afghans were still able to resist. Before the US supply, the soviets got about a far in controlling afghanistan as coalition forces have today... not far. Mainly city centers and that's about it.

You should read about how the Americna Revolution for Independence started. If the people weren't armed, it wouldn't have started the way it did. Yeah, France supplied ships and cannon later in the war, but initially, it was very much the militia men and their small arms.

The point went over your head. Almost all rebellion/resistance/revolution gets support from the outside eventually. The point is to look at how the rebellion/resistance/revolution starts. Without an armed society, there isn't a credible threat of force against the government.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by muse7
We have companies advertising bullet-proof backpacks for children so they can wear to school....

If that is not a sign that there is something seriously with our society, then we are definitely going down the toilet

Oh, so because certain people in society don't obey the current laws, you believe in punishing everyone.

And not just punishing, but infringing upon a right.


I guess that if this were regarding something that you deem as important, your tune would change.

As always, you banter on about how everyone should give up more rights, to be "safe".

edit on 1-5-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)

We have identified the Secular Progressives and we have our eyes on them all.

Senator Ted Cruz pushed one out into the very bright sunlight.

Originally posted by bmullini
reply to post by Galvatron

 

And this is why speech is protected. Our founders knew the history of what happens when TPTB got "offended" by media or a citizen speaking their mind. How short-sighted the "offended" are. This is just more of the PC crowd not wanting to tackle the actual message, but how the message is presented. ONLY Native Americans can talk about their plight, ONLY African Americans can talk about their plight, ONLY LGBT's can talk about their plight, and ONLY persons in congress can represent the minority viewpoint while trying to control the talking points and passing unconstitutional laws to make some more equal than others. Be damned if all citizens actually have a say in laws that affect their everyday lives!!

Nice post. Yeah. I agree.

What's funny is that I've heard people say well not all speech is free. They will then cite slander and libel. What they don't understand is that slander and libel aren't necessarily illegal in that they are criminal. It's a civil dispute rather than a criminalized form of expression and has less to do with what was said than the context of how it was said (usually to ruin a business with malicious intent needed to be proved etc etc). I've also heard the argument against completely free speech that child pornography is criminal speech. What is interesting is that it's not the imagery per-se that is illegal, but the victimization of a minor is what is illegal about it. There are plenty of movies, especially those that take place several hundred years ago, that portray the sexual relationship of two minors or an adult and a minor, but since the content is fake, it isn't illegal. Just like portraying murder in a movie. The portrayal is fake. If it were real, then the movie would be criminal because murder is illegal.

Originally posted by Anonbeleiver77

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by Anonbeleiver77

Gun control has worked in every country in which it has been mandated. It has not led to the oppression of the people in those country's and it has more than halved the homicide rate and made for a safer and happier society.

You really haven't done much research into other countries laws have you? Much less look at the actual stats.

It's time to move on be more enlightened and trust that if you put your guns down so will your neighbors as the rest of us have.

Like all the criminals out there are peace-niks?

There is a saying here in the U.S. "A armed society is a polite society." (Of course, that presumes everybody is armed)

It's time to grow up for your children's sake.

And there is that tired old argument again.

It's always "What about the children!?" To that I reply,

What about them? I know how to raise my family and I would appreciate it if you minded your own business. Have a nice day.

Umm yes I have done research.
Heres one for you.
In my own country since gun control was introduced in 1996 the homicide rate has dropped 59%
Over half.
But you'd rather keep your gun and let that 59% die so you can keep your toys.
While the children in your own country shoot each other. That's "what about the children".
That's the maturity level I'd expect from a gun toting American."git her done bobby ray yeehaw!"
You don't think we have crims here too?
The crime rate has dropped along with the homicide rate.
And I suppose your idea of knowing how to raise your family is to put guns and ammo in their hands and fill them full of paranoia, mistrust and violent instincts.

A real man dosnt need a gun to feel like a man.
Just cowards hiding behind a shiny peice of metal at the expense of people's lives.

As I said grow up.


As has been pointed out several times, the guns used to kill the children (sandy hook school children) were bought legally by a law abiding citizen and taken by an unstable one. Can you provide stats for the United States to show how many people who would not pass a background check have gone on a killing spree of children (where they went in and legally purchased a gun and then went and shot children)? And then explain how stricter background checks will help? Criminals do not do background checks but buy illegally (or just steal them). Really the arguments come to our borders and better gun cabinets and not background checks and the facts point to that.

Unfortunately there are guns in the world. As long as they are the United States insures citizens have the right to their personal protection from oppression. When you can stop them from coming over our borders, which maybe isn't a problem in your country, and when absolutely noone has a gun - government included, then your argument becomes the ideal in an ideal world. America was built on the idea that the people are the government and therefore are equal to them. Just because citizens have guns doesn't mean they are paranoid. In fact, everyone I know uses them for hunting or as a hobby. I would recommend looking at the NRA stats as they clearly demonstrate many points that are contrary to your argument. I have no idea why people in your country used guns so irresponsibly (for such a drop to occur) but that can't be generalized to the facts here

Nice poster.

However, when the Native Americans fought to hold on to their status and lost against overwhelming superior fire power of the Government, and in the end, were all put on reserves.

Thousands of Natives died as a result of this superior firepower, and this hasn't changed much since then.

No matter how many guns are in the civilian marketplace, the Government will have weapons that the average civilian can only dream of. In the Native's era, it was the machine gun that was the newest kid on the block in terms of firepower, that they simply couldn't fight against.

For the average citizen to rise up or use their guns against Government forces is insane, and in this day and age, will end in hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths, and the Government will still end up getting their way in the end, just like they did with the natives.

I'm not saying that rebellion against Goverment plans isn't the way to go, just that there are smarter ways to do it.

In India, the people got what they wanted following Ghandhi's example. Many were killed, but it would have been much, much worse had it have been an armed rebellion.