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
Lafiel said:
sc94597 said:

Sure, we can all dream of such a utopia, but nature allows for human beings to kill eachother, and even without guns, at more than arms length. I'm sure whichever country you live in the government has guns, weapons, bombs, chemical weapons, etc stockpiled. It's better for people to have a more equal capability of killing than for one group to have more capability of killing than the rest. 

communist :)

Egalitarianism =/= communism. Having the same end-goal and having the same means of achieving it are two entirely different things. But yeah, if it was in jest it is a funny joke. :) 



Around the Network
NobleTeam360 on 07 March 2015
OfficerRaichu15 said:
SandyVGina said:


Banning abortion would be a better way to keep american children from dying.... not guns....

This is actually sort of true

more kids would be alive through this

like I heard like 60 million more would have been alive if there wasn't abortion

Killing a baby is legal in these parts, and you'll like it! /s 



NobleTeam360 on 07 March 2015
o_O.Q said:
Lafiel said:

Nah, call me niggardly, but I wouldn't grant anybody the power to kill, especially at more than arms length.


you forgot about stones ;)

Yeah maybe we should go back to swords and bows. Maybe people will be less afraid of those. 



Lafiel on 07 March 2015
o_O.Q said:
Lafiel said:

Nah, call me niggardly, but I wouldn't grant anybody the power to kill, especially at more than arms length.


you forgot about stones ;)

2000 years back some tribes had amazing skill with that - can't say I'm too concerned about the regular contemporary european throwing a stone at me :).



thismeintiel on 07 March 2015
mornelithe said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Self defense maybe? 

From what?  Is your avg citizen running into allot of situations with criminals wearing body armor?

What a shock, you didn't even read the OP.  They can't pierce body armor.  Nice try, though.

@ OP

Getting people to buy more dangerous ammo is EXACTLY the goal here.  You ban the less harmful ammo, first.  Of course, you have to do it with lies so those who don't do any research just hear the words "armor piercing" from the always right government, and they are on board.  Then, when the more harmful ammo is more prevalent, you can con the scaredy cats who are against civilians having guns into banning it all.  Then, it's just so much easier to control a country when they can't defend themselves.



 

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

Nah, call me niggardly, but I wouldn't grant anybody the power to kill, especially at more than arms length.


you forgot about stones ;)

2000 years back some tribes had amazing skill with that - can't say I'm too concerned about the regular contemporary european throwing a stone at me :).


lol good point



Goatseye on 07 March 2015

I would be more for the guns right, if the US wasn't a country with the most psychologically unstable individuals I have ever seen.
Going postal is a normal thing in the US. It takes so little to tip the psychological balance of people in this country.



binary solo on 07 March 2015
o_O.Q said:
binary solo said:

It is the democratic provisions of the constitution that protects against a tyrannical govt, not the gun rights rubbish. You will overthrow a tyrannical government at the ballot box faster than a guerilla war. And if you are absolutely confident that the military, and police, won't turn on the people, then why do the people need guns to protect themselves from something that will never come to pass? It's not like any hypothetical tyrant will be capable of withstanding a simple unarmed take over of the Whitehouse and congress if the branches of govt with all the guns refuse to take up arms against the people.

The main reason the US military couldn't defeat terrorists in Afghanistan is because of needing to appear to have concern for human rights, and public image among allies and the US public. A tyrannical govt has none of those concerns, if the military is fully on board with protecting those in power.

nazi germany was brought about through democracy

oh and america was founded as a constitutional republic and not a democracy for that very reason

because the masses can be lead to destroy themselves with deception

A country that just 15 years prior had been ruled by a monarch as an Empire, and a country who's boundaries had been fixed for only about 50 years. Democracy was hardly well developed and the country had never formed a politically and economically stable republic. Nazi Germany isn't remotely relevant as an example of a well established democracy bringing about tyrannical rule that can only be overthrown by armed struggle by the people. 



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

thismeintiel on 07 March 2015
NobleTeam360 said:
mornelithe said:

See, this is where the argument falls apart.  I can see the argument from self-defense from criminal aspects, and I most certainly agree that targeting a weapon (assault rifles) that aren't the main culprit (hand guns) makes zero sense to me.  But, a tyrranical Government?  Really?  That's your fallback?  In what world do you live in where a supposed 'tyrranical US Government' intent on killing you, would be stopped by armor piercing bullets fired from a gun of that caliber and range?  Nevermind helicopters, nevermind jets, nevermind a 50 caliber that could punch a hole through your house and still tear you to pieces, a single drone, or hell if they're 'tyrranical' a cruise missile taking out your entire block is a mere pittance to them.  Hell, they could just send in a few of the SWORD prototypes in, and lay waste.  Why would they care?  They're tyrranical.

Again, I do like guns...but that whole self defense thing against the Government mattered when black powder was cutting edge tech.  A group of citizens stands no chance against a US Gov't willing to forgo rules of engagement and constitutional law (no armed forces in US cities).  That's just how it is, unless we relax things even further and allow private citizens to purchase heavy weaponry en-masse.

Well the military and all of it's high tech weapons couldn't stop terrorists in Afghanistan, so I don't see a scenario where our beloved military could take on Americans. 

@ bolded, well they may be tyrannical, I don't think their goal would be to destroy the country. 

There's also the fact that many of that same military would defect, and most likely join in the rebellion, if the cause was just.



 

NobleTeam360 on 07 March 2015
Goatseye said:
I would be more for the guns right, if the US wasn't a country with the most psychologically unstable individuals I have ever seen.
Going postal is a normal thing in the US. It takes so little to tip the psychological balance of people in this country.

Maybe it's all the drugs people take these days.