American Guns out of Control: Shouldn't the World Intervene?

Well, America runs around the globe getting knee-deep in other nation's issues -- why is America immune to the international community?

Just throwing that out there for discussion ...

seeker1963
Just remember, the supreme court ruled it is not the polices responsibility to protect us measly citizens. Their job is to only "ENFORCE" the laws......

That's the sad truth. Also, laws do not prevent crime, they punish criminals.

If laws prevented crime, then you would only need one law. Don't break the law.

What I see as the bigger issue is, you really want to be a defacto protection service. Something that actually does serve and protect. But no one is willing to sign up for that and it's all about being anon while having the ability to do this.

The police are not what they once were, we all know that. They are privtised and controlled by companies, not communities.

If people focused more on community, inclusion of all people within it and not sitting by and ignoring the world, maybe you'd not have so many rude rapists. you'd still have them... can't break the cycle of broke human behaviour. But community is something foreign these days. Mostly, anyway. Cyborgs are not communal.

But if you just let any one who wants one, to have a gun... well you have to expect broken people will be armed. And that's not working out so well for you guys. Unless you're willing to accept mass shootings every other month. There is a lot of pontificating about how bad it would be without them, but no reflection on how bad it is now.

apart from pointing the finger at everywhere else and saying how stupid they are for not killing intruders on the spot.

reply to post by rockoperawriter


Ah.
Not the hero some make him out to be. Unless you believe in Mel Gibson portrayal

reply to post by MystikMushroom


well it's not the people who want it. and other countries can say "we'll be fine without you for now but there will be an after party" but they can't?

reply to post by alldaylong


that wasn't paul revere being depicted. he said "the british are coming" lanterns one by land two by sea remember?

rockoperawriter
reply to post by MystikMushroom

 

well it's not the people who want it. and other countries can say "we'll be fine without you for now but there will be an after party" but they can't?

Exactly! As soon as we pulled our resources how many of these countries would be invaded the next day?
How many nations would go bankrupt the next day? This is just laughable.

freethinker123
First off this story wasn't by the Guardian, any more than my post is by Above Top Secret.
It was in the comment is free section, where the opinion is that of the author...

You guys just love stories like this just a bit too much don't ya? We all love ourselves a bogeyman, so lets stir up some liberals, some Europeans, a nice big piece of UN and season with the NWO.

And what do we have? A tasty meal on Amen corner, YUM!

Actually it's pushed as a link and story on/from the Guardian as far as I'm concerned. They (or you) may try to pawn this of as a personal op-ed (from a journalist from Vanity Fair) doesn't mean they don't own it. Just ask our bloody senators. This guy is a "real" journalist. He published on the Guardians news site.

This post wasn't to "stir up" anyone, it was mainly informational directed to folks in the US.
Globalist plan > One World Order > No guns > (People as serfs.)

Amen

jesus christ i'm going to rage if i see one more person say "NWO" in regards to removing our guns or supporting the english empire and the money changing bastards

revolutionary war, anyone? civil war, anyone? remember, russia supported the north and britian supported the south. WWI? WWII? how'd europe like that trap called nazi germany we helped after you guys forced us into the federal reserve, drove us into debt and forced us to surrender our gold, on MAYDAY, ironically.

you're thinking of the /OLD WORLD ORDER/.

the new world order hasn't even revealed it's final form yet.

rockoperawriter
reply to post by alldaylong

 

that wasn't paul revere being depicted. he said "the british are coming" lanterns one by land two by sea remember?

Er No
Revere never actually said that. Pure myth and folklore.

winofiend

JohnPhoenix
It is a proven fact law abiding gun owners in the USA help protect more people from evil thugs wanting to kill people by being there with the gun to stop the thug.

American guns save more lives than are taken - and no matter the laws - criminals will always get guns so what to do.. just let these thugs go around killing people - i don't think so.. this author is all washed up and hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

"Guns don't kill people."

"Guns save more people than they kill."

Which one is it.

I'm not really arguing either way here, but there is always so much flip flopping with this topic from people that it's insane that you guys just dont see, or refuse to see it.

Don't you mean, people with guns, save people? The very same guns that these law abiding people, right here in this thread, are threatening to shoot people who come at them bro?

It's a bit like saying "Ambulances save people. And if you try to take my ambulance, I'll run you over with my ambulance."

Sure I could have said " American gun owners save more lives with their guns than the lives that are taken by thugs with guns"

Better now? I didn't think it was necessary because it was a given.. something understood via reading comprehension.

Of course guns themselves don't kill anyone ( unless you have the new guns that aim and fire themselves LOL)

reply to post by Bassago


Yeah they could try that crap sure....but then they would have Americans talking about telling the UN to forget about us...and our funding.

The populace would demand that DC break ties with the UN.... I isht you not...and there would be.little they could do to avoid doing just that. Unless they want to be taken out of power.....

I almost welcome a mistake like that....do it....go ahead....call the UN...see what happens ...

reply to post by alldaylong


myths? no youre thinking of jason and the argonauts.

Just remember, the supreme court ruled it is not the polices responsibility to protect us measly citizens. Their job is to only "ENFORCE" the laws......

reply to post by seeker1963


Actually, they really only enforce code, not law. Code enforcement like those annoying inspector types.

rockoperawriter
reply to post by alldaylong

 

myths? no youre thinking of jason and the argonauts.

That was no myth.
Just a pure work of fiction.
However Revere...............

The thing that gives me the willies is the potential for the use of totally autonomous drones to enforce code, who could one blame then when a mistake is made?.

This is the direction things seem to be headed, just a few more years of development....

AI, Terminator, all that jazz.......Uh, Ummmm, we didn't do it, it was a malfunction, the weapon just fkd up and mistakenly sensed weapons in that house....Sorry, but we are not accountable for acts of God. OOOOPS.

boymonkey74
reply to post by winofiend

 

Don't think the rifle was aboot at that time

Oh and go Wino

you sure know how to rile them up

edit on 24-9-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

ahh you have to ad lib, how can I make ronald mcdonald and william wallace fit a modern scenario unless I throw absurdity into the mix, and abandon all hope for sanity.

it is, after all, 5am.



Oo

reply to post by winofiend


I bet If you had a poll many would prefer the UN to take their guns and leave the Mcnuggets.

Just thinking about this subject and could the UN apply sanctions against the USA? If they do not go along with it?

boymonkey74
reply to post by winofiend

 

Just thinking about this subject and could the UN apply sanctions against the USA? If they do not go along with it?

Don't think so, not yet at any rate. After the bankers have collapsed the economy completely it may be another story.

JohnPhoenix
Sure I could have said " American gun owners save more lives with their guns than the lives that are taken by thugs with guns"

Better now? I didn't think it was necessary because it was a given.. something understood via reading comprehension.

Of course guns themselves don't kill anyone ( unless you have the new guns that aim and fire themselves LOL)

Well it's often in sheer indignation that it is written "Guns don't kill people!" when it is obviously implied that guns cannot get up off their butts and wander around haplessly shooting people.

Reading comprehension is not a given in this topic, don't ya know. Plus, I'm iulliteratiea.. illetri.. I'm slow.



(ps the auto aiming gun... scary and strangely intersting, but more scary..)

HooHaa
I currently don't own any guns.. If outsiders decided to step in and intervene... I'd become a gun owner... I live in flint michigan, for the last few years the murder Capitol of the world... I still support the 2nd amendment..

Now that's ballsy. Or stupid.

But I don't really want to insult you so I'll go with ballsy. Chuck Norris ballsy.