By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Obama's Continued War on Human Rights

sc94597 on 07 March 2015

o_O.Q said:

i think it comes from an acknowledgement of the flaws of other people in society that can cause harm to yourself and as a result the appeal to a higher power to place regulations in place that restrict the freedom of others and raise the level of safety

and that is an admirable cause but it is flawed imo for several reasons : the higher power or governement in this place is not infallible and above all does not have your best interests in mind, you relinquish your responsibilities with regards to taking safety measures etc

I agree with the bolded. The state usually is composed of the worst of humanity in terms of morality (war starts with them), not the best. So it is silly to think that they are the ones who should make decisions affecting individual liberty. 



Around the Network
NobleTeam360 on 07 March 2015
beeje13 said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Well yeah because any black market for guns currently is pointless since they are legal (in most places)

In the scenario where guns are banned though the black market for guns would explode. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree though, it's clear we won't change each others mind on the subject. 


In the UK, its probably close to impossible to smuggle guns into the country (surrounded by sea, guns are metal-detectable etc... In the U.S. It's probably a little easier because you have land borders.

If Guns were outlawed across the U.S tomorrow, you still have maybe millions of guns in circulation that won't go away quickly or easily.

Exactly, guns would still be easy to get, legal or otherwise. 



NobleTeam360 on 07 March 2015
Teeqoz said:
NobleTeam360 said:

No, I think people should be able to own whatever weapons they want for self defense. What I find ideal for self defence may differ with what someone else thinks. 


If I find long range, high power snipers, coupled with cluster bombs as my ideal self defence, should I be able to own that because it fits me best?

Funny enought high power sniper rifles are legal for civilian use . Not with cluster bombs though . Although it wouldn't be logically to use a sniper rifle for home defense. 



sundin13 on 07 March 2015
o_O.Q said:

now, what would have to be discussed is can circumstances arise where a citizen would need a weapon that has that level of effectiveness?

i would say yes they can

 

"I was quite obviously speaking about civilian use."

therefore you believe that the government should have special rights that are not shared with citizens which is how dictatorships start

a. As I've stated, the primary benefits are longer range and increased capacity, neither or which are particularly necessary in home defense situations. Homes typically have a more compact layout, meaning that the range of pistols is more than adequate and if you can't hit an intruder with the amount of bullets a handgun has, I don't think you should be trusted with an AR-15.

b. Well yes...its quite obvious that the goverment should have more rights than civilians. Governments have tanks, nukes, ability to enforce laws, ability to enforce policy changes etc.. That is not "how dictatorships start", its how the world works. If there exists a government that doesn't have any increased power or rights, they wouldn't be a government.



Goatseye on 07 March 2015
Puppyroach said:
So whether or not a gun is armor piercing or not should be the measure now? America has enormously more liberal gun laws than, for example, Sweden. Yet I feel that America is a much more unsafe country in every conceivable way...

You wouldn't believe the amount of mentally ill people in this country.



Around the Network
NobleTeam360 on 07 March 2015
sundin13 said:
o_O.Q said:

now, what would have to be discussed is can circumstances arise where a citizen would need a weapon that has that level of effectiveness?

i would say yes they can

 

"I was quite obviously speaking about civilian use."

therefore you believe that the government should have special rights that are not shared with citizens which is how dictatorships start

a. As I've stated, the primary benefits are longer range and increased capacity, neither or which are particularly necessary in home defense situations. Homes typically have a more compact layout, meaning that the range of pistols is more than adequate and if you can't hit an intruder with the amount of bullets a handgun has, I don't think you should be trusted with an AR-15.

b. Well yes...its quite obvious that the goverment should have more rights than civilians. Governments have tanks, nukes, ability to enforce laws, ability to enforce policy changes etc.. That is not "how dictatorships start", its how the world works. If there exists a government that doesn't have any increased power or rights, they wouldn't be a government.

The people are the government in this country. Or at least it's supposed to be



DJEVOLVE on 07 March 2015
mornelithe said:
Justagamer said:
The ultimate goal is to disarm america. For obvious reasons too. I am a gun owner, and I want it to remain that way.

Please elaborate.


Yes please do. Seems the drones and massive arsernal of weapons couldn't easily take away your gun if they really wanted or as if your gun could stop it. Our military is massive. I would also say it makes no economic sense, this whole article is pure sensationalism. The only thing congress or Obama asked for is regulation. Pure and simple.. Just like a car, if you want to drive you should have to take some classes and get qualified. Is that really asking that much? Or is this article from The blaze or the NRA, which is completely funded by the weapons manufacturers? Hmmmmm I wonder.



sc94597 on 07 March 2015
sundin13 said:
o_O.Q said:

now, what would have to be discussed is can circumstances arise where a citizen would need a weapon that has that level of effectiveness?

i would say yes they can

 

"I was quite obviously speaking about civilian use."

therefore you believe that the government should have special rights that are not shared with citizens which is how dictatorships start

a. As I've stated, the primary benefits are longer range and increased capacity, neither or which are particularly necessary in home defense situations. Homes typically have a more compact layout, meaning that the range of pistols is more than adequate and if you can't hit an intruder with the amount of bullets a handgun has, I don't think you should be trusted with an AR-15.

b. Well yes...its quite obvious that the goverment should have more rights than civilians. Governments have tanks, nukes, ability to enforce laws, ability to enforce policy changes etc.. That is not "how dictatorships start", its how the world works. If there exists a government that doesn't have any increased power or rights, they wouldn't be a government.

a. There do not exist people who own acres of property that can find use from using an AR15? As for clip size, there is no scenario where you have multiple aggressors? 

b. Interesting statement. Should the government have tanks, and nukes? I won't ask the other ones as I know it isn't yet popular belief that the government shouldn't force laws and policy changes on individuals. 



Goatseye on 07 March 2015
DJEVOLVE said:
mornelithe said:

Please elaborate.


Yes please do. Seems the drones and massive arsernal of weapons couldn't easily take away your gun if they really wanted or as if your gun could stop it. Our military is massive. I would also say it makes no economic sense, this whole article is pure sensationalism. The only thing congress or Obama asked for is regulation. Pure and simple.. Just like a car, if you want to drive you should have to take some classes and get qualified. Is that really asking that much? Or is this article from The blaze or the NRA, which is completely funded by the weapons manufacturers? Hmmmmm I wonder.

A *uckton of people wouldn't be qualified and that means a lot of potential gun sales.



sc94597 on 07 March 2015
Puppyroach said:
So whether or not a gun is armor piercing or not should be the measure now? America has enormously more liberal gun laws than, for example, Sweden. Yet I feel that America is a much more unsafe country in every conceivable way...

The United States is also a much more diverse country than Sweden, in almost every certain way. Diversity is a great motivator for criminal activies, whether it is economic or cultural, crimes usually are commited for those reasons. Think of Europe as a single country. Would you still say the U.S is very unsafe in retrospect? That is essentially what one is doing when they generalize the U.S as, "a much more unsafe country."