Guns: Opinions?

by RichieRich 138 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  EscapedLifer1

  Evilforce,

  The fall of the Berlin Wall?
  
  Unarmed civilians.... the TV camera and internet are the new "weapons" my friend.

  Dude, read your history book. Unarmed civilians did not make the Berlin Wall fall. Reagan drove the Soviet Union, and thereby its satellites, into bankruptcy with the rapid acceleration in the arms race. All of the satellites, including East Germany, were losing their political power rapidly. Glasnost, Parastroyka, (spelling ?), programs started under pressure from the West, were finally giving the populace behind the Iron Curtain a few freedoms, and they liked it. A mistaken announcement about opening up the Wall, accidentally made by the East German government way before Moscow was ready for them to make it, started the whole celebration. The unarmed public did not "rise up" and rebel, they thought the government was opening the gates and they were celebrating. Under pressure from Moscow to make sure they didn't embarass themselves and Mother Russia with a televised massacre, the East German government decided to pull their border forces away from the wall. The civilians that were celebrating and tearing up the Wall thought, because of the announment from the government, that what they were doing was OK. It was not an unarmed rebellion.

  Maybe they want less guns for safer streets...novel concept. Just admit that the gun violence is an acceptable price for you to have your guns.

  Again, do some research. Most of the gun deaths in the US are criminals with stolen weapons, and the occassional accidental shooting (cleaning a gun, kid finds improperly stored firearm, shoots brother, hunting accident because Bubba Joe is drunk, etc.). Very rarely are gun deaths the result of a law abiding, permit carrying, NRA supporting, gun owners.

  So the difference in the total death toll if outlawing personal ownership of firearms happens is going to be a really small percentage. The rest of the gun deaths will still happen.

  Brandon
• 

  OldSoul

  Criminals in this country already own illegal firearms. If firearms are outlawed to the public only two public entities will own firearms: police forces and criminals.

  It really boils down to whether law makers respect their boundaries. Private ownership of firearms for the potential creation of militias (insurgents or defenders) is a guaranteed right of each of "the people" and that right "shall not be infringed."

  I can tell you an act that would, not surprisingly, touch off an immediate (and very effective) insurgency in this country. Any law passing that outlawed public ownership of firearms would create an immediate insurgency, and you would find out how well a bunch of rifles in the right hands can overthrow a well-trained military whose heart isn't even in the orders they've been given. Platoons of troops would surrender to the citizens of this country.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  RichieRich

  I can tell you an act that would, not surprisingly, touch off an immediate (and very effective) insurgency in this country. Any law passing that outlawed public ownership of firearms would create an immediate insurgency, and you would find out how well a bunch of rifles in the right hands can overthrow a well-trained military whose heart isn't even in the orders they've been given. Platoons of troops would surrender to the citizens of this country.

  I've dropped deer at 350 yards plus. You dont think I couldn't pop a fool wearing camo in the middle of a street?

  THis is a nickel hit from 200 yards with a .300 win mag.

  Bring on your insurgents!
• 

  OldSoul

  Psst! RR, you would likely be one of the insurgents, if our government ever tried to enforce a law that would take away arms from the people.
• 

  Sith

  Thus the right to bear arms
• 

  EvilForce

  My bad lifer....my brain was thinking the Yeltsin / Gorby standoff that was peacefully put down...my fingers typed fall of Berlin wall. But the other examples I gave were still good examples of my point that you did not take issue with.
  
  I've done plenty of reserach as you can read on the 2nd amendment threads on this board. I've posted gun deaths from the top 36 major countries. But you took what I wrote and leaped to a conclusion that I did not make. I simply stated what the gun death rate is today...29,000+ given CURRENT law. You somehow concluded that I was for a personal ban of law abiding citizenry, or some other simplistic answer. I made no such conclusions or statements.
• 

  EscapedLifer1

  EvilForce,

  My bad lifer....my brain was thinking the Yeltsin / Gorby standoff that was peacefully put down...my fingers typed fall of Berlin wall.

  No prob!

  But the other examples I gave were still good examples of my point that you did not take issue with.

  Didn't take issue with them because I'm not as familiar with them as I am the Berlin Wall thingy. I need to do some research on them, but probably won't because I do agree with you to a degree (and I'm busy with other stuff right now and I'm too lazy to take time away from that to go look them up ). The recent events in Lebanon could also fall into the same category. The information age is changing some of the rules of how governments and their citizens interact, and I think we're only seeing the beginning. It's going to be interesting to see how close we ever get to a true democracy (every major decision being made by majority population vote). Of course, that will take the citizenry becoming much better informed, and I may be cynical here, but I don't see that as happening too soon.

  But you took what I wrote and leaped to a conclusion that I did not make. I simply stated what the gun death rate is today...29,000+ given CURRENT law. You somehow concluded that I was for a personal ban of law abiding citizenry, or some other simplistic answer. I made no such conclusions or statements.

  Sorry, that one's my bad. I guess I am too used to arguing this issue with people who do take a simplistic "all guns are evil and only the police should have them" stance out here in the real world. Sorry I projected that onto you!

  Maybe I missed it somewhere, and if I did, I apologize. But would you mind stating what you see as the problem with guns, and what you think would fix it?

  Nice talking to you, and I appreciate your candor. We can disagree and still have a civil discussion (and hey, we both might learn something). Most of the folks I'm used to discussing this issue with get real emotional real quick.

  Brandon
• 

  Leolaia

  Carry a samurai sword instead. Less likely to injure bystanders. Also, attackers will avoid a person carrying a sword, because 'why is that dude carrying a sword'.

  LMAO!! That was funny. It sounded like it came from the mind of Jack Handy.

  (Hey, 4444th post! )
• 

  avishai

  I may be gay but I can hold my own in a fight.... a few scars are my badge of honor....and well my hubby....he's small but he's mean....he'd kick my ass.

  I will always go up against the equivalent straight guy rather than a gay guy. Being openly gay in todays society takes guts. And I've known SEVERAL that have had to defend that right to be openly gay, physically. Nope, I won't do it. Not since I saw my buddy luna beat the living crap outta two big skinheads, while in drag, in three in. spike heels. No way in hell.

  Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.
• 

  doofdaddy

  Being from Australia we have a tottally different history and therefore a different view of personal protection.

  I was raised in the country so was familiar with rifles and how to check the breach etc. and ammo was never near the rifle for us kids to play with. After a particularly horrendous mass murder by a sick guy and an automatic( about 21 deaths I think) all autos were banned. Hand guns only for gunclubs and stricter licences.

  So far its worked . Most disagreements are settled with fists.

  I hope this doesn't start another hot debate e.g. learning marshall arts