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

NobleTeam360 on 07 March 2015
Teeqoz said:
NobleTeam360 said:

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. 


Is it a sign of having watched way too much Mythbusters if I knew that?

 

That's actually part of what I find so ridiculous. American citizens can buy a fucking sniper. Why the fuck would you need that? Recreation? I would not feel safe if everyone in Norway could just go and buy a sniper "just to have fun".

But explain to me, is the reason for being allowed to own guns that you can defend yourself against a tyrranical government? Cause as you explained, you doubt the military would turn against their own people, and if the military doesn't attack you, who would? And if the military does attack you (american citizens), then you wouldn't have too much of a chance anyway, so either way this point is moot. Either the military doesn't turn against you, and you have nothing to defend yourself from, or the military does turn against you, and you're fucked anyway

Well they cost 10k + so your average american isn't going to ever buy one of those. 

Also there would no doubt be those in the military who will fight, not all would join the right side. 



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 07 March 2015

the comments i'm seeing in this thread are starting to fucking scare me honestly



Teeqoz on 07 March 2015
SocialistSlayer said:
Teeqoz said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Self defense maybe? 


You use an AR 15 rifle for self defense? Talk about overkill.

AR's are pretty low powered rifles actually


Handguns are even lower powered weapons.



sc94597 on 07 March 2015
Teeqoz said:

But explain to me, is the reason for being allowed to own guns that you can defend yourself against a tyrranical government? Cause as you explained, you doubt the military would turn against their own people, and if the military doesn't attack you, who would?

You can't imagine a scenario where there would be political unrest to the point of violent conflict in the U.S (or any other country?) Sorry, that has been the historical truth for millenia and much of the world today. Just because there is a semblance of a peaceful, calm state today doesn't mean that is the truth even a year from now. Plenty of things can happen. It's better to be prepared for the circumstances. 



Teeqoz on 07 March 2015
sc94597 said:
Teeqoz said:

But explain to me, is the reason for being allowed to own guns that you can defend yourself against a tyrranical government? Cause as you explained, you doubt the military would turn against their own people, and if the military doesn't attack you, who would?

You can't imagine a scenario where there would be political unrest to the point of violent conflict in the U.S (or any other country?) Sorry, that has been the historical truth for millenia and much of the world today. Just because there is a semblance of a peaceful, calm state today doesn't mean that is the truth even a year from now. Plenty of things can happen. It's better to be prepared for the circumstances. 


Those conflicts would be more like civilians vs civilians than civilians vs tyrranical government. And that's actually another good reason to have restrictions on guns, do you want people to carry weapons during conflicts or cases of political unrest? That's like asking for people to get shot...

Also, I'm not even sure why I'm replying to this, because all you did was only quote part of what I said and then twist it to something I did not say at all. Way to go



Around the Network
sc94597 on 07 March 2015
Teeqoz said:

Those conflicts would be more like civilians vs civilians than civilians vs tyrranical government. And that's actually another good reason to have restrictions on guns, do you want people to carry weapons during conflicts or cases of political unrest? That's like asking for people to get shot...

Also, I'm not even sure why I'm replying to this, because all you did was only quote part of what I said and then twist it to something I did not say at all. Way to go

Government would likely be in there as well. As for your question, such people WILL get weapons. These weapons have already been manufacturered and produced. If you take the entity that stockpiles it out of the equation, you'll have certain people more able to access those weapons than others. If everyone has weapons, then you'll have a situation in which costs exceed benefits of attacking others, and people remain quite peaceful because they are more afraid of losing what they have (their life and possessions) than they feel they have a chance of winning something by attacking another human being. In the first scenario, where weapons are centralized you'll have one or multiple strong entities oppress and or eliminate another, while in the second scenario everybody has equal access to weapons and is on the same playing field, assuring peace. 

I quote the part of what you say which interests me. The points I quote stand alone, separate from the rest of what you say. If a separate point can not stand by itself, is it really a good point? 



Teeqoz on 07 March 2015
sc94597 said:
Teeqoz said:

Those conflicts would be more like civilians vs civilians than civilians vs tyrranical government. And that's actually another good reason to have restrictions on guns, do you want people to carry weapons during conflicts or cases of political unrest? That's like asking for people to get shot...

Also, I'm not even sure why I'm replying to this, because all you did was only quote part of what I said and then twist it to something I did not say at all. Way to go

Government would likely be in there as well. As for your question, such people WILL get weapons. These weapons have already been manufacturered and produced. If you take the entity that stockpiles it out of the equation, you'll have certain people more able to access those weapons than others. If everyone has weapons, then you'll have a situation in which costs exceed benefits of attacking others, and people remain quite peaceful because they are more afraid of losing what they have (their life and possessions) than they feel they have a chance of winning something by attacking another human being. In the first scenario, where weapons are centralized you'll have one or multiple strong entities oppress and or eliminate another, while in the second scenario everybody has equal access to weapons and is on the same playing field, assuring peace. 

I quote the part of what you say which interests me. The points I quote stand alone, separate from the rest of what you say. If a separate point can stand by itself, is it really a good point? 


Government would be in there, in the form of police. That's an entirely different matter altogether, which we could have another discussion about. What I meant was a tyrranical, oppressing government attacking their own people.

As for the bolded, does it really assure peace? And mind you, I'm not saying you should confiscate guns altogether (with all the guns in circulation in America, that wouldn't be possible regardless). 

Your statement there actually perfectly illustrates my biggest problem with america. Why should the safety of people be based on suspicion and fear?



NobleTeam360 on 07 March 2015
o_O.Q said:
the comments i'm seeing in this thread are starting to fucking scare me honestly

You and me both man. You and me both.



JinxRake on 07 March 2015

Funny how most of us here in Europe don't live with the fear of being shot down in our homes or on the street or in schools by some random crazy lunatic.



Teddy on 07 March 2015

Guns are and should be under control, you cannot take a gun anywhere you want so they are controlled.

I am of the opinion you don't need them. In the UK we do fine without them.

In films and games is fine that isn't reality.