Ninjafire72:
*snip*

Thanks for your words of wisdom. (was going to write a long post, but this about did it! Also good job about making a headshot reference after saying that a headshot joke might be to hard :P)

They already did that here. There was no civil war and the earth continued to orbit the sun.

Aetherlblade:

Thanks for your words of wisdom. (was going to write a long post, but this about did it! Also good job about making a headshot reference after saying that a headshot joke might be to hard :P)

Ahaha glad you liked it :)

Honestly, I for the love of me cannot understand why people think they NEED guns. It makes things easier, for sure; to defend yourself, and to attack others. I mean the whole reason ranged weapons became the norm (crossbows and the like) was because it was easier and more efficient than swinging a broadsword around. And it's perfectly clear and very obvious that guns are designed to very easily and effficiently end a person's life.

Keywords: Efficient and Easy

Yes, there will still be violence without guns. There will ALWAYS be violence without guns. But without guns, it will also be A LOT HARDER and A LOT LESS EFFICIENT to commit violence. You can still punch or beat someone, but it'll take a while before deaths occur. You can still stab someone, but they have to get to you first. You can poison, push off a building, sabotage their cars, etc... but at this point you're committing pre-meditated murder and have therefore slipped away from the whole 'self-defense' thing.

Short version: Without guns, there'd still be violence and crime. Just not from a 15 yr old who bought their guns from walmart.

PatrickXD:
I would ask the police force for conclusive evidence that they have total control over the illegal gun trade across the entire country.
When they fail to provide me with such evidence, I would back myself into a corner with my gun pointed ahead of me and shout 'I feel threatened'. Your move, officer.

That's cute how you think you can get your hand anywhere near a gun before police would fire 20 shots at you.

mastermaniac117:
My personal favorite was a Brady nut who was slamming people for the "need to possess 'high-capacity' 'clips.'" In the same argument, that person said owning a gun was worthless, and you can't protect yourself anyway. To give himself credence, he cited a story about an elderly man who had his weapon taken from him by four burglars, who shot him with his own weapon. Not only does this prove the point that people DO assault people's homes in groups, intending to do harm, his pathetic point was further harmed when it was revealed that the weapon in question was a pea-shooting .22 caliber BOLT-ACTION rifle with a five round internal magazine. All the fool managed to do was present a case where a semi-automatic weapon with a "high capacity" magazine was the only thing that could have saved that man from harm.

I'm no hunter. My handgun is a combat weapon, pure and simple.

Collapse of the USSR. Pshaw. Really? So what? Why does the "who" of it even matter? The point remains the same. What, are you trying to say, "they're Russians, y'know how they are?" Your so-called "developed" nations stand on countless hundreds of corpses, where ruling powers slaughtered the weak and the helpless to stay in control. The dead of dozens of large wars are the foundation for those modern "utopias." Please.

What really gets me are the English. Yes, those...people. I love how they show up on media outlets of all types and lambast "crazy Americans" for their cowboy obsession with firearms, our supposed letting of people run rampant with firearms and shoot the place up. Then they hop on a box and say "the UK has HALF TEH VILEENT CRYME of the US." Yes, they say this. Yes, they say this frequently, in support of their lovely, brutal, blatantly immoral police state. This. Is. Their. Argument.

It really makes me wonder about the quality of the education system in Britainland. 'Cause, you see, the population of the UK isn't even HALF of the population of the US. The US owns more than 300,000,000 souls. I believe the UK is home to 70 million. Guess I could wiki it, but the point is IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE. For the UK to have HALF the violent crime rate of the United States -- Actually, you know what, it's not worth...no.

Just...what is WRONG with you people? Really? What is WRONG with you? England is ALWAYS the poster child for successful gun control preventing crime. And, sure, gun crime is very low! Thumbs up! And it happens that violent crime is through the roof, and the country, London in particular is a cess-pit of drunken homicides, violent home invasions, and mugging, with a populace that drinks itself to oblivion 24 hours a day to dull the pain of their horrid, miserable existence. Go UK! Go UK!

"Kick a 'rottie' in the front legs?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Say, was that a housepet, or a dog really trying to tear your throat out? Actually, just... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

To answer the unasked question: democracy as we know it exists as force mitigation. One party presses its issues, and another party resists. The basis of contention is distribution of force. If one party has a stronger following, it edges out the other party and the will of the stronger is enforced as the weaker is made to submit.

Let me say this plainly. Democracy exists because of the capability of parties to resist. Resistance equals force. It's not the promise of armed resistance and destruction of life and property, it's the POSSIBILITY that brings men to the table, it's the POsSIBILITY that prevents those who command the men with guns from simply ordering wholesale slaughter of those who resist.

"Ohh," I hear you say, "conspiracy this conspiracy that, this is America, the people of authority are inhuman angels gifted by God with their positions of power and they'd never ever do anything to harm our freedumb."

Yeah, sure. Right. So, if one single person or organization were to command all the little paid-for walking guns, what's to stop them from getting their way 100% of the time? What, their sense of civil duty? Give me a break. It's the threat of force - not just violent, physcial force, but all manner of resistance - that engenders individuals to live their lives with...I guess, SOME semblance of personal freedom from absolute tyranny. Democracy is the sitting-down period, the dicussion phase. And what's behind the men at the table?

That's right. An army.

Argue it all you want, but really, to do so is hopelessly pathetic. All laws are enforced by steel. EnFORCED, being the operative word. A pen may lend a law a corporeal form, but it is a sword that forces men to obey. It absolutely cannot be denied. A law itself is no more than a statement by those who own the guns that you had better do what they say or they'll have you killed.

Let's compare "democracies," shall we? In England, the people are subjects of the state with nearly no say in events whatsoever. The government doesn't even bother listening to popular demand, let alone addressing concerns. They simply do not care, and there is no imperative to.

I don't even have to waste my time explaining this. If you care to educate yourself, which you probably don't, just look up "UK Social Services stealing children" on Google. If I have to explain to you why stealing people's children en masse is an act of war against a defenseless populace, then you clearly have no hope.

wow. so many parts wrong with this.
1) if the old man had no gun they couldn't have shot hiim either.
2) my point of the russian collapse leading to multiple rebellions was that it wasn't caused by gun culture or laws, but by a collapse of a communist state that did control it's citizens with an iron fist. It was a one off really and you cannot make generalized statements about post war europe without considering the socio-economic fortunes of the individual countries.
3)stand on the coprses of thousands? who's dead. please be more specific. i could say that America stands on the corpses of millions of native americans, loyal British, Spanish, Canadian, and Mexicans. but it would be pointless to this arguement.
4)you mock it, but England does have a quater of the murders, a tenth of the violent crime, and a rougthly equal rate of robbery. that seems like a good reason to get rid of guns. and "Imoral police state"? England may have a couple of CCTV cameras too many, but they don't have phone taps like anothe country i could name (America, Patriot act)
5) You worry about british education while calling it Britanland, the crime rates are as a ratio of crimes per one hundred thousand people.
6)no, violent crime is not through the roof. quote figures from a reliable site before saying that. and Endland isn't the only poster child, look at australia too.
7)Kick any dog betseen the front legs nad it will crack it's breastbone and push it into the dogs heart. the species or aggressionof the dog doesn't matter. it's dead.
8) okay, you can describe deocracy. well done. have a cookie.
9) Damn, it was a trap. you are retarded. let me say this clearly. IF THE GOVERMENT WAS SCARED OF IT'S CITIZENS IT WOULD DISARM THEM QUICKLY BEFORE THEY COULD OBJECT, ANY NATION REALLY FEARS IT'S ARMY. THE ARMY IS MADE OF PEOPE TOO. IF THE GOVERMENT GOES CRAZY WITH BULLS**T LAWS THE ARMY WILL DEFEND THE PEOPLE.
10) where was it suggested that one person should control what i think you're describing as a militia. in the time the constitution was written each town and city would have it's own militia.
11) firstly, i hope you mispelled freedom intentionaly. and no, people in goverment are the slime of the universe. they become more successful by lying and stealing their way up the ladder. but they are still held accountable for their actions by the voting system of democracy. both in public votes, or votes in your congress.
12) Can you give an example of English goverment not listening. i could give several og American goverment misleading and not caring about the public.
13)in the last three lines of that post i lost all respect for you. go back to your bridge you little troll. (Of if you actually belived any of that jump off the bridge)

mastermaniac117:
"They already did that here. There was no civil war and the earth continued to orbit the sun."

Sure, I guess. I don't know where "here" is regarding your post, but I'm sure everything was okay when people turned over their weapons to the government. The state didn't have to go around kicking down doors and shooting people, so I guess it's cool.

One quick little observation: if armed resistance to the government is so meaningless, then why are governments so terrified of armed citizens? Why do totalitarian regimes ALWAYS disarm their populace?

because while a resisatance has little chance of overthrowing any goverment bigger than Libya, it can attract help from the rest of the world. case in point, libya.

Shock and Awe:
Sit back for a week and see the giant rebellion that would occur if something like that just came in suddenly. I wouldn't have to do jack.

problem is, everyone would jut chill waiting for it and noone would do it themselves. thats the problem why pretty much any armed revolution in 1st world country has failed - too many people dont do anything even if they agree.[

PatrickXD:
I would back myself into a corner with my gun pointed ahead of me and shout 'I feel threatened'. Your move, officer.

And this is exactly why we should not give you a weapon.

Katatori-kun:
Why ask the question? It will never happen. Not a single credible voice is calling for a total ban on gun ownership in the US. Such a move would require re-writing the constitution, which is unlikely to happen without a radically unprecedented shift in public opinion. You may as well ask what we would do if a race of aliens that look exactly like Elvis descend from the sky one day and demand we all shave the right half of our heads and glue jelly beans to our temples or else they'll destroy the world's Bananarama CD supply.

Yeah because baning guns is so much far fetched than threads claiming that "you are immortal, discuss". its a hypthotetical situation, if you cant imagine that, then dont post.

Higgs303:
I would be pretty pissed off to see my collection of WW2 firearms thrown into the smelter. If such a law were passed there is no way anyone would be getting any compensation, I would expect $3000 alone. I would probably get them all deactivated before I would let the mounties take them, history deserves to be preserved. However, collecting these old relics would be far less interesting if I couldn't take them to range once in a while.

there is a difference between historical collections and having 10 brand new guns "because someone else who also has 10 bran new guns may try to shoot me"

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:
If the law was passed, I would sell them before they got a chance to take them.

To who? who woudl buy guns that are not legal to own?

Ryotknife:

Oh that would be nice.

That would be so effing nice, and not just for gun control issue either. unfortunately i dont think we will see such a day anytime soon, both sides have become quite polar in the past decade. I would say we are in for more polar bullcrud for at least another 4 years.

When it comes to pro-gun, I think the key is to ask the individual gun owners a question. Specifically "what wouldnt you mind being passed"? As a general rule they may not be for any more gun control, but a lot of them woulndt be angry or mind such things such as (more) registration, background check, mental health checks, closing loopholes, that sort of thing. im generalizing of course.

It is unfortunate that both sides kinda feel that it is 100% victory or nothing in these issues.

Oh yes, the increasing radicalisation is a concern in all matters of politics and I think you are right with regards to the first step that needs to be taken. The end result in a situation that requires compromise will never be what either side wants, but the result that provides the most possible mutual satisfaction.

mastermaniac117:
The so-called "bad wording" of that section of the Constitution is in fact nothing more than today's poor education at work. It's a matter of stupid interpretation by stupid people who fail to understand the language of the day. In fact, I've read that the diaries of common rank-and-file, farm-raised Civil War soldiers utterly confound today's English majors.

I shouldn't have to tell you that, though. I don't. You already know. But I will anyway.

If you look at ANYTHING the so-called Founding Fathers EVER said, you will plainly see that not only did they wish for the people of America to be armed, they wanted citizens to be WELL armed.

Cards on the table, I don't give two fifths of a fuck what some American politicians thought two centuries ago. They were slave owning exeptionalists and their opinion is about as relevant as Edmund Barton's thoughts on race relations.

The reason for that is simple. America's formation as a country was little more than a fluke, a land grab, an exploitation. They had the task of holding on to a vast, pristine, largely unexplored land ripe with resources and opportunity. You might say America still has that task...

Yep, it sure is a shame that you don't have the worlds best funded military, both of the worlds two largest air forces the worlds largest navy and the second largest land force, before we even get to reserve numbers.

But you already know that. The whole anti-gun argument is essentially organized trolling.

Sweetheart, you are not that important, nobody gives a rats arse about your feelings and maybe, just maybe people have more concern for the safety of others than just pissing you off.

No. Fluffy talk, well-intentioned, but no. A key thing for both sides to realize is that the anti-gun side of the debate is woefully outmatched by proven data,

Yep a key stage in any debate is for everyone to agree with you, because that is how debates work. Also, every time I see 'proven data' it tends to be less 'proven' and more 'blindly accepted' I mean, if you were so bloody keen on your 'side' (because hey, there are ONLY TWO SIDES in this debate) having proven facts, why did you not stand up against the bullshit 'facts' about australia posted above?

and presses its point purely for complete personal satisfaction.

Because hey, if they were actually sincere, they would agree with you, because A-all pro legislation people are the same and B-That is totally how opinions work

The attitude is almost always "Oh, we'll show you! Enjoy your temporary gun rights!"

Yep, that's pro legislation types, right there in a nutshell, I personally said that when I made my last post, and twirled my mustache when I typed it.

There is no desire to compromise,

Yep, keep telling me what my desires are, and keep ignoring the dozens of posts made that basically amount to 'what can we agree on?'

and this entire argument has nothing to do with safety or protection at all.

Did you stop taking your meds or something, I mean there is a lot of paranoia coming out here.

Anti-gun types can't stand "common folk" having rights rights at all,

Okay, this pisses me off more than anything, I grew up poor, very fucking poor, my parents skipped meals so that we had enough money for us kids to eat, we had years where we put up a picture of a Christmas tree because we couldn't afford the real thing, we spent ages hunting for silver change behind the back of the couch because we were 50c off having our water cut off or being evicted so Fuck your idea that I am some commie chardonnay sipping elitist!

let alone the right to belittle them by owning a firearm.

So you just want to belittle people by owning a firearm, well not only does that speak against the almost sacred prominence you give that 'right' but it also invalidates your complainant, unfounded as it was in the first place, that people were trying to troll you.

mastermaniac117:
Yes, you incredible fool, I indeed said LARGELY UNEXPLORED. Crack open a book. It's good for you.

Yep, open with an insult, it is the best way to get people to listen to you.

"They wished for an America where a majority of the population could not vote?" No such thing at all. In fact, America pioneered women's rights

You lose to Armenia by 3 years, Australia by 18, Austria by 1, Azerbaijan by 2, Belorussia by 1, Canada by 3, Denmark by 5, Estonia by 3, Finland by 14, Georgia by 2, Germany by 2, Hungary by 2, Kyrgyzstan by 2, Latvia by 3, Lithuania by 2, Luxembourg by 1, the Netherlands New Zealand by 27 years Norway by 7, Poland by 3, Russia by 3, and Zimbabwe by 1. So no, while it is nothing to be ashamed of that the US was a few years late, they did not pioneer women's rights.

and was founded based on equality of all men.

Except for the natives, and Black people, and Gay people, and Atheists, and fuck those Catholics too.

America was the engine for that change. Just because it didn't BOOM suddenly happen does not invalidate the intent. Remember, black slaves were SOLD, not captured.

1700 , any slave who sets foot on British soil becomes free by law,
1761, Portugal bans slavery
1802, Denmark/Norway ban slavery
1807, Prussia bans serfdom
1810, Mexico bans slavery
1814, The Dutch ban it
1816, Estonia bans it
1822, the Greeks ban it
1831, Bolivia
1833, Slavery declared illegal across the British empire
1847, the ottomans
1847, the Swedes
1848, France frees the last french slaves
1853, Argentina
1854, Peru
1854, Venezuela
1855, Moldovia
1861, Russia

...1865, United states eliminates its slavery.

So all of your bullshit loopholes aside, the US was one of the last civilised nations to hold onto its slaves and I don't give a fuck who kidnapped them, it was still US citizens who were forcing them to work and beating them to death if they didn't.

Not that I'm an Ameri-phile. America has a lot of blood on its hands...but you know what, I dare say a LOT less than your European fantasyland,

Yep, it is true that Europe had literally more than a millennium head start but the US is doing a good job of catching up.

of where military takeovers and police states are the order of the day.

Lol and also what the fuck?! On top of that, I am Australian.

England is the greatest slime pit in the western Europe, and so far the loudest voice against guns.

because hey, you haven't made enough of a fool of yourself attacking people, might as well throw out nonsense against their nations as well.

1) We're allowed to own guns because we SHOULD. I'm not seeing any good reason we SHOULDN'T,

Well then you aren't fucking listening then are you.

and repeating "guns are so last century" makes you sound like the idiot you are if you think so.

yep, because society and geopolitics never change, and the US is still using its god given right to bear arms to drive natives off their land...

If you want to argue that I shouldn't, because my owning guns kills babies - right?

no not right you intolerable... over simplifier, the general ownership of firearms in the community provides an increased risk of innocent fatalities, or is that too much 'big city lernin speak' for you.

- then what have you to say regarding the fact that I protected myself, my wife, and my then 1 year-old son from a vicious, unrestrained dog using my gun?

that going by the nature of your posts and claims so far that it was probably a Labrador running up to say hello and also that anecdotes fall away into a sea of irrelevance in the grand scheme of things.

2) You used the phrase "score a headshot." Now I really AM leaning against videogames.

I have heard that same phrasing used on many a range.

In fact, your statement is pointless. You're defenseless. Good. That's great. Now make sure you don't marry or have kids, because if you're unwilling to do what is necessary to protect your partner and your children then you deserve neither. By all means.

because the only way to ensure your family's safety is to arm everybody regardless of their qualification to posses lethal force

3) And I laugh at everyone who doesn't understand what constitutes power. It's really pretty sad. Do you know WHY Democracy exists? I'll just leave that question open. In fact,

someone please tell me. Let's hear it. Why, in fact, does democracy exist?

Democracy came about through the advent of the middle class, people with skills and money, but no political sway. However, as time went on, 'the nation' became increasingly dependent on these people and this led to pressure to lend them more power. As time went on, the distinction between the classes began to fade and suffrage became more and more universal.

Also, most stable nations where a democratically elected government went all Orwell did so due to public support leaning towards increasing radicalization.

I would gladly break the law. I can't wait for the police to come and help. This is more than just taking guns away. It's about how to be self reliant. Stand up for yourselves. Look how prohibition ended. "The War on Drugs" is ending. You can't restrict the natural order of things.

The focus on controlling weapons is the wrong direction. You can't put a band-aid on a broken leg. It's about mental health and the taboo of communities addressing it. It takes a village to raise a child. You develop a system that is compassionate and educated and these mass killings won't happen. People want the quick fix these days.

mastermaniac117:

Single Shot:

mastermaniac117:
My personal favorite was a Brady nut who was slamming people for the "need to possess 'high-capacity' 'clips.'" In the same argument, that person said owning a gun was worthless, and you can't protect yourself anyway. To give himself credence, he cited a story about an elderly man who had his weapon taken from him by four burglars, who shot him with his own weapon. Not only does this prove the point that people DO assault people's homes in groups, intending to do harm, his pathetic point was further harmed when it was revealed that the weapon in question was a pea-shooting .22 caliber BOLT-ACTION rifle with a five round internal magazine. All the fool managed to do was present a case where a semi-automatic weapon with a "high capacity" magazine was the only thing that could have saved that man from harm.

I'm no hunter. My handgun is a combat weapon, pure and simple.

Collapse of the USSR. Pshaw. Really? So what? Why does the "who" of it even matter? The point remains the same. What, are you trying to say, "they're Russians, y'know how they are?" Your so-called "developed" nations stand on countless hundreds of corpses, where ruling powers slaughtered the weak and the helpless to stay in control. The dead of dozens of large wars are the foundation for those modern "utopias." Please.

What really gets me are the English. Yes, those...people. I love how they show up on media outlets of all types and lambast "crazy Americans" for their cowboy obsession with firearms, our supposed letting of people run rampant with firearms and shoot the place up. Then they hop on a box and say "the UK has HALF TEH VILEENT CRYME of the US." Yes, they say this. Yes, they say this frequently, in support of their lovely, brutal, blatantly immoral police state. This. Is. Their. Argument.

It really makes me wonder about the quality of the education system in Britainland. 'Cause, you see, the population of the UK isn't even HALF of the population of the US. The US owns more than 300,000,000 souls. I believe the UK is home to 70 million. Guess I could wiki it, but the point is IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE. For the UK to have HALF the violent crime rate of the United States -- Actually, you know what, it's not worth...no.

Just...what is WRONG with you people? Really? What is WRONG with you? England is ALWAYS the poster child for successful gun control preventing crime. And, sure, gun crime is very low! Thumbs up! And it happens that violent crime is through the roof, and the country, London in particular is a cess-pit of drunken homicides, violent home invasions, and mugging, with a populace that drinks itself to oblivion 24 hours a day to dull the pain of their horrid, miserable existence. Go UK! Go UK!

"Kick a 'rottie' in the front legs?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Say, was that a housepet, or a dog really trying to tear your throat out? Actually, just... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

To answer the unasked question: democracy as we know it exists as force mitigation. One party presses its issues, and another party resists. The basis of contention is distribution of force. If one party has a stronger following, it edges out the other party and the will of the stronger is enforced as the weaker is made to submit.

Let me say this plainly. Democracy exists because of the capability of parties to resist. Resistance equals force. It's not the promise of armed resistance and destruction of life and property, it's the POSSIBILITY that brings men to the table, it's the POsSIBILITY that prevents those who command the men with guns from simply ordering wholesale slaughter of those who resist.

"Ohh," I hear you say, "conspiracy this conspiracy that, this is America, the people of authority are inhuman angels gifted by God with their positions of power and they'd never ever do anything to harm our freedumb."

Yeah, sure. Right. So, if one single person or organization were to command all the little paid-for walking guns, what's to stop them from getting their way 100% of the time? What, their sense of civil duty? Give me a break. It's the threat of force - not just violent, physcial force, but all manner of resistance - that engenders individuals to live their lives with...I guess, SOME semblance of personal freedom from absolute tyranny. Democracy is the sitting-down period, the dicussion phase. And what's behind the men at the table?

That's right. An army.

Argue it all you want, but really, to do so is hopelessly pathetic. All laws are enforced by steel. EnFORCED, being the operative word. A pen may lend a law a corporeal form, but it is a sword that forces men to obey. It absolutely cannot be denied. A law itself is no more than a statement by those who own the guns that you had better do what they say or they'll have you killed.

Let's compare "democracies," shall we? In England, the people are subjects of the state with nearly no say in events whatsoever. The government doesn't even bother listening to popular demand, let alone addressing concerns. They simply do not care, and there is no imperative to.

I don't even have to waste my time explaining this. If you care to educate yourself, which you probably don't, just look up "UK Social Services stealing children" on Google. If I have to explain to you why stealing people's children en masse is an act of war against a defenseless populace, then you clearly have no hope.

wow. so many parts wrong with this.
1) if the old man had no gun they couldn't have shot hiim either.
2) my point of the russian collapse leading to multiple rebellions was that it wasn't caused by gun culture or laws, but by a collapse of a communist state that did control it's citizens with an iron fist. It was a one off really and you cannot make generalized statements about post war europe without considering the socio-economic fortunes of the individual countries.
3)stand on the coprses of thousands? who's dead. please be more specific. i could say that America stands on the corpses of millions of native americans, loyal British, Spanish, Canadian, and Mexicans. but it would be pointless to this arguement.
4)you mock it, but England does have a quater of the murders, a tenth of the violent crime, and a rougthly equal rate of robbery. that seems like a good reason to get rid of guns. and "Imoral police state"? England may have a couple of CCTV cameras too many, but they don't have phone taps like anothe country i could name (America, Patriot act)
5) You worry about british education while calling it Britanland, the crime rates are as a ratio of crimes per one hundred thousand people.
6)no, violent crime is not through the roof. quote figures from a reliable site before saying that. and Endland isn't the only poster child, look at australia too.
7)Kick any dog betseen the front legs nad it will crack it's breastbone and push it into the dogs heart. the species or aggressionof the dog doesn't matter. it's dead.
8) okay, you can describe deocracy. well done. have a cookie.
9) Damn, it was a trap. you are retarded. let me say this clearly. IF THE GOVERMENT WAS SCARED OF IT'S CITIZENS IT WOULD SLOWLY DISARM THEN, ANY NATION REALLY FEARS IT'S ARMY. THE ARMY IS MADE OF PEOPE TOO. IF THE GOVERMENT GOES CRAZY WITH BULLS**T LAWS THE ARMY WILL DEFEND THE PEOPLE.
10) where was it suggested that one person should control what i think you're describing as a militia. in the time the constitution was written each town and city would have it's own militia.
11) firstly, i hope you mispelled freedom intentionaly. and no, people in goverment are the slime of the universe. they become more successful by lying and stealing their way up the ladder. but they are still held accountable for their actions by the voting system of democracy. both in public votes, or votes in your congress.
12) Can you give an example of English goverment not listening. i could give several og American goverment misleading and not caring about the public.
13)in the last three lines of that post i lost all respect for you. go back to your bridge you little troll. (Of if you actually belived any of that jump off the bridge)

I really don't know why I'm doing you the honor of a response, but it's late in the morning and I've spent this much time so why not?

You can take your "reliable source" and shove it.

Total crimes 6,523,706 UK/ 11,877,218 US
Ranked 2nd. Ranked 1st. 82% more than United Kingdom

Total crime victims 26.4% UK/ 21.1% US
Ranked 3rd. 25% more than United States Ranked 15th.

So have fun with that. That's even before the government admitted an "under-reporting" of cases of "grevious bodily harm with intent," which, in case you didn't know, essentially means someone was trying to beat/bludgeon/stab someone to death and the victim just barely survived.

Point 7) Sure, kung-fu master. Hope you get that right when it's trying to tear out your throat. And goodness, I hope there's not more than one! Oh, I still call BS, by the way, I'm just humoring you. I love armchair martial arts masters who obviously do not get out enough.

"IF THE GOVERMENT WAS SCARED OF IT'S CITIZENS IT WOULD SLOWLY DISARM THEN, ANY NATION REALLY FEARS IT'S ARMY. THE ARMY IS MADE OF PEOPE TOO. IF THE GOVERMENT GOES CRAZY WITH BULLS**T LAWS THE ARMY WILL DEFEND THE PEOPLE."

The first part of that was practically incomprehensible, and that last part? lololol. Know what a military junta is? That's when the military decides it's going to run the show because it's got the guns. Happens quite a bit, or so I'm told. Despite this, sure, you think the GI Joes are more than paid killing machines. That's fine. It's a popular sentiment. But I didn't see any soldiers refuse to obey orders back in New Orleans when they were tasked with going door to door, asking people if they "needed assistance" as they forced entry, rifles up, proceeding to confiscate personal property with orders to shoot resisters. Those were in fact illegal, unlawful orders which soldiers are not "expected" to carry out. But they did anyway.

It brings to mind what I learned about the fall of the Soviet Union...the protesters, the women and children throwing candy at the soldiers and weeping out of pure joy because the government was no longer in power to give the order to kill them. Soldier worship is one of the first practiced professions of those terrified of their government.

EDIT: Funny you say armed resistance is useless. China owns the largest army in the world. More than a million people. There are 80 million armed citizens in the United States. Nothing short of mass, systematic slaughter could stop 80 million people from defending themselves from tyranny, and if that were the case, it would be sad, irrevocable proof that said government DESERVED resistance.

1) let's start with the stats. what is your source. according to the UNODC 2000 report all the statistics i previously gave are correct.
2) yeah, because if you can't trust the people trained to use guns you can totally trust the people who aren't trained. you appear to have mis quoted me in captials and then said it made no sense. I never suggested a millitary takeover, meerly that if public opinion is against a goverment then chances are the average army soldier will also be against them.
The New Orleans disaster was tragic, yes. but the fact is that in a time of confustion, and in an atomsphere of hate and prejudice the soldiers were given a job to do. the people could have helped themselves if they didn't spout the racial card soo easilly as the reason they weren't protected/evacuated. the army was there to stop looting, and they did. case closed on that one.
3) as to soldier worship, after the fall of the communist goverment why shouldn't they praise their soldiers? the majority of them were decent people who were commonly faced with hard choices in tougth times. their only real crime was joining the army to escape the goverment persecution in the first place.
4) if America's 80million untrained masses really tried to resist your hypothetical Chinese invasion it would only result in total slaughter. Imagine Red Dawn, the old one, but without the American victory at the end. groups of huddled survivours might survive in the hills for a few years like the french and polish resistance of WW2, but they would need a majot outside power for real victory. such as was provided by Britan, the commonwealth, and America in WW2.

EDIT: In responce to your edited in warsaw uprising example, all i have to say is "Yeah, a few weeks. and only because they had quite a good defence set up and the germans didn't want to just slaughter the civilians. plus, the lazer guided missiles in those days. think about it."

Is illegal here in Germany anyway.

And contrary to popular American believe I am still alive because the streets aren't full of serial killers.

Zhukov:
I would continue living my gun-free life.

This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.

Gun crime went way down and we haven't had another massacre since.

Funny, that.

It's strange that Australia didn't do that earlier, I mean don't you have enough things that can kill you?

OT:
I would give up my guns, obviously. Why risk being marked as a criminal because you're being stubborn?

I'm amazed at how many would refuse or hide their guns if this actually happened.

mastermaniac117:
But you already know that. The whole anti-gun argument is essentially organized trolling.

Sweetheart, you are not that important, nobody gives a rats arse about your feelings and maybe, just maybe people have more concern for the safety of others than just pissing you off.

Cute. You are implying I was talking about myself. Let me clarify: The ENTIRE anti-gun LOBBY is ORGANIZED TROLLING. I think much less of the argument HERE, as here we have butt-hurt gamers taking out their frustrations on a senile douche who started a pointless anti-game rant to deflect already misdirected criticism. One of my opposition uses the moniker "single shot," no less.

Live vicariously!

EDIT: "Democracy came about through the advent of the middle class, people with skills and money, but no political sway. However, as time went on, 'the nation' became increasingly dependent on these people and this led to pressure to lend them more power. As time went on, the distinction between the classes began to fade and suffrage became more and more universal.

Also, most stable nations where a democratically elected government went all Orwell did so due to public support leaning towards increasing radicalization."

BRAHAWHAHAHAHAHA. Did you visit wikipedia for that one?

Did you just have an arguement? with yourself?

mastermaniac117:
But you already know that. The whole anti-gun argument is essentially organized trolling.

Sweetheart, you are not that important, nobody gives a rats arse about your feelings and maybe, just maybe people have more concern for the safety of others than just pissing you off.

Cute. You are implying I was talking about myself. Let me clarify: The ENTIRE anti-gun LOBBY is ORGANIZED TROLLING. I think much less of the argument HERE, as here we have butt-hurt gamers taking out their frustrations on a senile douche who started a pointless anti-game rant to deflect already misdirected criticism. One of my opposition uses the moniker "single shot," no less.

Live vicariously!

EDIT: "Democracy came about through the advent of the middle class, people with skills and money, but no political sway. However, as time went on, 'the nation' became increasingly dependent on these people and this led to pressure to lend them more power. As time went on, the distinction between the classes began to fade and suffrage became more and more universal.

Also, most stable nations where a democratically elected government went all Orwell did so due to public support leaning towards increasing radicalization."

BRAHAWHAHAHAHAHA. Did you visit wikipedia for that one?

You know what mate, you are just shouting nonsense. I sincerely hope that you are trolling and if you are not, then at least I can hope that you were, as with most of your post, bullshitting about having a child.

You make a long rambling full of shit post, I take the time to actually go through your post and when my reply is not the same ill thought out nonsense as yours you reply with 'butt hurt' accusing the whole idea of people disagreeing with you as 'trolling' and then laugh off people who don't conform to your Maoist bullshit.

Sod off, you are contributing nothing.

I actually have a question: Why can't the constitution change?

Right now, Iceland is attempting to rewrite it's constitution. It's been a massive clusterfuck, as one might expect, but nonetheless, we're getting closer and closer to actually going through with it.

Basically, I'm asking why a nation can't change the laws that it's founded on, if the nation no longer agrees with those laws. Why are the original laws so sacred that even once the culture, technology and general outlook of the populace has changed, the constitution can not.

Now I'm not saying that this option is available to all, Iceland's tiny size helps a lot (300.000 people) but it's still a legitimate question.

OP:

Practically no guns in Iceland, mostly just hunting / shooting range stuff, so I'm guessing people would be fine.

Shanicus:
I would weep openly and threaten all who came near me with a hand-held belt-fed minigun. Nobody takes my Nerf guns! NOBODY!

tehroc:

Zhukov:
I would continue living my gun-free life.

This actually already happened here in Australia. We had one of those massacres go down in a place called Port Arthur, not far from where I live. About 35 people dead if memory serves. Within a couple of week they passed a law banning private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and tightened controls. There were large scale buy-back schemes and voluntary hand-ins.

I'd imagine you Australians would want to keep your guns considering how everything in Australia wants to kill you (at least according to Cracked).

You'd be amazed at what a sturdy pair of boots and a cricket bat can stop.

Don't tell them that! You'll break the illusion that we're all Saxton Hale types who face mortal danger every day before we've even had our morning slice of Vegemite toast!

geK0:
Well not being a gun owner, I'd be completely unaffected by this

but if I had guns, I'd expect some sort of compensation, otherwise it's theft as far as I'm concerned. I owned the guns before they made the law and they can't just take them without giving something in return.

*obligatory joke answer*
They can't have my guns but they're free to have the bullets.

All I can imagine from that is you trying to hide your guns while flinging unspent rounds at the people trying to take them.

OT: Wouldn't care much, my friends would be pretty pissed though.

mastermaniac117:
Goodness, if my opinion matters so little then why do I have so much to divide up my precious attention for?

Man, so much of that can be rightfully responded to with...well, just a good old-fashioned from-the-gut laugh.

1) Try doing a little research. I'm not getting paid for this, so I'm not posting a bibliography. The internet is free to peruse! Go, and have a ball. Or just jack to 4chan like everyone else. I really don't care.

2) Do you even know what constitutes "training?" No, you probably do not. It's an easy card to play, I'll give you that.

3) Decent people facing tough times. I LOVE the modern, 1st world way of thinking. No such thing as personal accountability. If someone can be persuaded to pick up a gun and murder for a wage, HEY, it's not their fault. It's the times! Sorry 'bout your family, though, being massacred and all.

4) Red Dawn? Red ****ing Dawn? Really. People are raised on crappy Hollywood movies, that's their edjumacation? And nothing of that miserable, pointless slaughter we know as "WWII(tm)" can be considered a victory. It was just an example of what happens when the people with all the guns decide to take from everyone else, and nobody learns anything. Hence, this entire debate. What should I celebrate? That the Nazis were defeated? What, so that another crackpot socialist entity can come up and take its place, force its will on a stupid, lazy, undereducated populace?

Look, I cannot POSSIBLY cover every last point up there. Certainly not for a dead-end forum on a games-review site. But I'll pick at a couple.

- "The engine for that change." It was hastily written, but I was referring to America being the engine for change in women's rights. The slavery issue is an aside, really - it hasn't actually gone away, last time I checked.

- 1) if the old man had no gun they couldn't have shot hiim either."

- Yeah, it's not like they broke into the guy's house in the middle of the night expecting anyone to be there. Are you kidding? They would have just stomped him to death (which has happened too many times for me to reference).

"and presses its point purely for complete personal satisfaction.

Because hey, if they were actually sincere, they would agree with you, because A-all pro legislation people are the same and B-That is totally how opinions work"

- I literally read "blehblehblehbleh" there with how articulate that was. No, the greater majority of pro-disarmament types are either rich people who don't want commoners to be armed, or people who feel diminished that others own "scary guns" and want them taken away for the "I told you so" factor. Don't bother arguing this with me. I've had this argument dozens of times before, and they ALL come out to admit it with a bit of wrangling. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

There is no desire to compromise,

Yep, keep telling me what my desires are, and keep ignoring the dozens of posts made that basically amount to 'what can we agree on?'

- And you failed to read previous posts that explained that very conundrum. There is no way to prevent your "measures" from being blown wide open by the federal government for the ultimate effect of outright eliminating gun ownership for the intended purpose of self-defense. It's either gun ownership or outright bans. That's it. Don't forget that not too long ago fully automatic weapons were perfectly legal and popular among gun enthusiasts. The government feared a public armed to such an extent, but rather than seize those weapons outright, they used a tax code which made owning such weapons practical only for the "deserving" wealthy. When ownership slackened, then they managed to implement bans, ironically because people thought "oh, I don't have an automatic weapon anyway, who cares?"

Okay, let's go again
1) so far i'm the only one to provide a source for the information i posted. i'm not asking for much, just a quick link to something.
2) Training in my mind is something like the Swiss system where every gun owner must have gone through at least basic millitary training.
3) Okay, you are in prison, you are offered a chance to escape brutal dayly beatings and embarresment if you stab another prisoner, you will also be safe because no other prisoner will be offered this in return for stabbing you. do you do it? a lot of people would. does that make them more evil than the people who wouldn't?
4) i used Red Dawn because i thought you'd understand it (This is a gaming site, most people here have watched it)
4)a) WWII(tm) ? who trademarked WW2, the Nazi's?
4)b) yes, you should be happy we got rid of the Nazi's in WW2. millions of jews, homosexuals, cripples, and other persecuted groups were saved. what other "Crackpot socialist entity?" this is wrong both because the nazi's were not socialist, and because Russia, who i think you were refering to, existed before WW2.
and in responce to your answer to my point. it takes a lot more to beat a man to death than to shoot him. most people survive assult when a robber is caught, fewer survive shooting.

you might have had this arguement before, but common sense only has to win once for the law to change.

mastermaniac117:
Funny, he calls a pro-gun, pro-liberty individual a "Maoist." I fear for this generation, truly. Do you even know who Mao was? Do you know that Mao believed firmly in...wait...

Gun control?

I don't know where it all went wrong. People today spout buzzwords left and right without actually understanding what they're saying.

Fucks sake mate, you need to quote people so people know when you have responded,
now I admit it may be a bit obtuse on my part, I am not accusing you of following the whole ideology, but I was trying to make a subtle allusion,

where did you say power comes from
where did mao say power comes from

hint mate, I am not trying to drag you down as a communist, I am trying to get you to see that your 'pro liberty' ideal leads anywhere but.

and by the way, you still have not responded to to bullshit you posted in your first few posts.

Ryotknife:

Thyunda:

Ryotknife:

you cited an example for your country, i cited one from mine.

which one carries more weight on how gun control affects my nation.

ill give you a hint, not yours.

does your nations suffer the same gang problems, has the same diverse population, organized crime, borders that make it impossible to stop illegal goods from getting in the country, population density across the nation, police response times, and a culture of mistrust towards law enforcement among certain communities due to the police being harsher on that community than normal?

if the answer to this question is no, then you have proven that you dont know anything about the gun issue IN AMERICA.

...let me tell you about a little group called the 'IRA'...

I will take the IRA, give them effing tanks and all the explosives they want, and STILL prefer them over the Cartels. The Cartels are nasty pieces of works. About the only good thing I can say about them is that they are businessmen, but if you get in their way they will kill you and your entire family just to make a point. Cartels are actually more dangerous than the terrorists who want to murder us, our only saving grace is that it doesnt make much sense to kill off your best customer (ie the US). But considering they have hundreds of officials bribed, blackmailed, or intimidated across both borders, their influence is immense.

Your IRA is closer to our Al Queda, and I still prefer the IRA to them. Bombings and mass murder is merely a tool for the IRA (at least that is how it seems to me, but im not in the UK so i may very well be wrong), it is not their endgoal. Mass murder and the destruction of the west is Al Qeuda's endgoal.

Al Qaeda are thousands of miles away from the United States and their acts were relatively few and far between. Don't forget the United Kingdom was also subject to a couple of Al Qaeda attacks. The IRA in their prime were easily more of a threat than Al Qaeda or the Cartels are to the United States. The Cartels thrive in Mexico - and while their influence DOES spread across the border, when's the last time you heard of a major, high profile Los Zetas attack? They don't happen. They're drug-runners and murderers but they're NOT an invading army.

Now you tell people over the age of forty that you would rather live with the threat of the IRA than in the situation you're in now. Why don't you ask people present at the Manchester bombings? Or even better, you could ask the police in Westminster why they have submachine guns. You live in an era of security where all the scary things are over the border. My country is no stranger to terrorism and violence, and yet as a culture we totally lack paranoia. Your government might take your guns away and you're in uproar. One of our party leaders tried to turn the country into a mirror image of Nazi Germany, and were the British angry? Not in the slightest. He was laughed at. Everything he tried to do was just mocked.

Your weapons and your media create a terrifying image of an America besieged on all sides by Arab terrorists and Mexican drug lords. As for being told to keep doors and windows locked? That's par for the course wherever you live. There are police bulletins all over the place in this country telling you to do it. It's nothing special.

Where I live, there's violence. There's a lot of violence. People get stabbed, mugged and beaten half to death every five minutes. I've had a few close encounters.

But I'm bloody glad there were no guns. Shoot and kill a mugger and I guarantee that won't be the last you hear of it. People with more guns and more bodies than you will want revenge, because that's how things get twisted. He just wanted your wallet but you took his life. You were in the wrong. Guns escalate violence.

Hah! Imagine Ireland with legal guns! Sorry. Read up on the Troubles. THEN imagine Ireland with guns. You'll see EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

mastermaniac117:
If you call any of that tripe "common sense," then I feel for you. Sorry. Truly.

1) Sure, if it'll make you happy, let's just pretend I pulled those numbers out of my ass. Yeah, there you go, there's a point for you!

2) BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF TRAINING THAT ACTUALLY IS? You MUST know before you herp a derp and say "lol everyone needs spshal militarre trainin'" WHAT, pray tell, is your "military training," and HOW can you ****ing justify asking your common, non-military, non-combat citizen being made to subject themselves to it for the purposes of carrying a firearm?

3) This...no. This doesn't even get an answer. That doesn't...just...no. Nope.

4) Yeah, and it's eminently clear that FAR too many people need to lay off the games and movies for a LONG, LONG time. I came a gamer, I'll probably leave an anti-games advocate. Who knew, right?

WWII has become a brand, a concept, a "thing," rather than an actual mass slaughter of millions upon millions of human beings. Thus the (tm).

The Nazis = National SOCIALIST Party. Try the Reading Rainbow. You can do anything!

And what's this crap about robbers "beating" people? Actually, more robbers use knives than they do guns, a little known fact. Criminals aren't stupid enough to run around empty-handed, and you shouldn't be stupid enough to allow yourself to think they do.

Fun fact anti-gun nuts love repeating: stabbings send people to the hospital instead of the morgue! Oh, yay! Let's not forget that knives inflict extreme physical trauma, cause extensive bleeding, and although many people survive long enough to get to a hospital, there's a 55% survivability rate for deep knife wounds versus 85% of most handgun rounds once they get there.

Don't want to be stabbed? It's pretty ****ing horrible business.

1) if you don't want to post a link, something that would take maybe a minute at the most, then yeah, let's assume that.
2) the Swiss system provided range time, tactical training for both open area nad urban combat, leadership training and command structure, and a course on gun care and safety.
3) you don't answer it, but explain to me how they are differnt. in both cases people are offered safely in exchange for essentialy murder. in both cases people would accept, in both cases people have accepted in the past.
4) the nazi's were fascist, not socalist, no matter what their name suggested.
4) again) despite what people think robbers are people too. they often don't want to risk murder charges and just want to escape if they get caught. as such most people are quickly assaulted and then left. it is far quicker and less personal to aim a gun than hack someone to death. and if they want to kill you they will succeed no matter what you have.

The way I see it, having the rights to own a gun makes people feel like they need to own a gun.

Look away from the US for a second. There are many, many countries where owning a gun is illegal, and the majority of the people there probably do not feel like they need to own a gun either. Now look back at the US, where owning a gun is legal, and many people feel like they need one.

I believe full gun control by government isn't such a bad thing. It's already that way here in the Netherlands. You can't have a gun, nor do you need a gun. What do you think you need a gun for anyway? To shoot people? I sincerely hope not! Someone could get hurt!

Fortunately, I live in a country where guns are already outlawed, so I wouldn't be affected by this.