100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why Good People Should Be Armed | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Some people are obsessed with the right to bear arms, and ... 
"What did you say?" No, no. Not those arms. The right to be in possession of fire arms.
"That's better." Now where was I? Oh, yeah. Some people are obsessed with the right of law-abiding people to possess fire arms. Some people are obsessed with wanting law-abiding people not to possess fire arms. Now, which obsession is favored by criminals and dictators? depends upon the people and the crime some killers of higher status are all too happy to see the lower classes having guns as long as they only kill themselves off unfortunately, in politics, it is often really only a problem when it affects the ruling and mainstream classe,,,,,,,,, otherwise, in many cases, human life is just an asset that lines their pockets,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adju, cheers to you my friend. Love that post.
Dodo, great point. Furthermore, what some don't seem to understand, is that a successful push to regulate firearms in an extreme way (like requiring permits) will be met with resistance. If masses are being disarmed at any point, you may have a fight on your hands. So much for gun control "saving lives" in that instance. Just sayin... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 13 minute crock of Chit!
-The Gov doesn't want assault weapons... true, not because they're afraid of them being used on the establishment and not because criminal elements use them... No, because mentally deranged mass murderers are killing your children! Simple. -The fact that weapon carriers haven't stopped armed aggressions... and they're getting more frequent as economic hard times are getting harder... law enforcement wouldn't know who was who during an armed assault... This should wake up the pro-gun lobby... but nooo You guys don't have the balls to start an armed rebellion against your gov... Soft targets, Now that's the American way! 
woohooo! the gun hating Canadians are chiming in! there is already a law stating that mentally deranged people may not own a firearm of any kind they have enough laws now all they have to do is enforce them not far enough, imho I know from observation and living that plenty of mentally unstable people have never bothered to get help or feel like they need it,,,,so they wouldn't be documented anywhere as being as unstable as they are perhaps a psych eval, like that given to police, should be required to own a gun and ANYONE caught with a weapon without that permit should face stiff penalties in worst case and have guns ceased in best case 3 issues: #1 Police aren't any less trigger happy than the general populace. They often "accidentally" kill many civilians #2 Who would prevent the government from denying stable people weapons? Veterans return home. Many receive counseling for a few months. Veterans are labeled as potential threats by many... Who is going to prevent this demographic from permit denial? Stats show hispanics or blacks are more likely to crimes. Who is to prevent uncle sam from denying them permits based on these statistics? #3 Who is going to pay for the increase in police force to uphold these regulations? You are now turning average people into criminals and therefore taking effort away from tracking down crime lords and putting it into a search for anyone with a firearm. no sane person would advocate using statistics to profile whole groups of people based upon BIOLOGIC realities they have nothing to do with,,(like their ancestry or their gender,,etc) I advocate a search for the INDIVIDUALS Based upon that INDIVIDUALS mental and emotional health,, period there would need to be no more increase in police force to check for gun permit in those instances when a gun is found than there is to check for a drivers license when someone is driving or to check for immigration papers when one is 'suspected of being illegal' in many places or checking for a permit when one is on the side of the road selling fruit,,,, etc. its not actively seeking out anyone, its checking on those already observed engaging in an activity,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adju, cheers to you my friend. Love that post.
Dodo, great point. Furthermore, what some don't seem to understand, is that a successful push to regulate firearms in an extreme way (like requiring permits) will be met with resistance. If masses are being disarmed at any point, you may have a fight on your hands. So much for gun control "saving lives" in that instance. Just sayin... disrarming is no more a reality than sending back the millions of children who grew up here as illegals but are now adults,,, and right now there is an OVERWHELMING number of firearms in the hands of citizens, because the right to arms is VERY Alive AND WELL And always will be that's a far cry though, from enforcing common sense regulation and paying more attention from here FORWARD,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh Finally... a voice of reason, able to communicate with words instead of closed fists. Economics... Why must the safety of your school children depend on economics? I mean, it's inevitable, the economy goes up... the economy goes down... Chisel that in stone! George W... planned this economic disaster in order to thrive economically post war. Your present administration is picking up the pieces of a failed war on terror by negotiating with axis of evil nations. About time too (can't be fighting forever yes?) Only when your troops come home can your nation prosper by supplying logistics and building supplies abroad... There's a catch... China is gaining on your historical strategy of post war prospering. America is imploding with hate, racial divide and anarchy. Your bill of rights to bear arms is dated and must be reviewed... Owning a weapon to defend your family is much different from carrying a Glock to the supermarket? Even us "unarmed Canadians" will punch a few holes in you if you puck with our families...  The point I'm trying to make is if your bill of rights allows to carry a loaded weapon in public... when there's so many hotheads, crackheads and puckheads... that have no problem unloading their clips in public. There's a major problem yes?
I'll call that right flawed! Defend your home all you want... Don't think for a second I need you to defend me in Wallmart. I call a total ban on weapons possession in public... If you're caught with a weapon, you're either a dead man or you're doing 25yrs in the gulag with special training to be deployed in the most dangerous situations abroad... They become expendable! There ya go, the right to defend yourself and your family without risking public safety. We'll keep our military pros here at home to defend our borders.
I agree on extremism being an issue. Sometimes people get trigger happy. Can't justify spreading broad legislation that will hurt normal folk though. Not sure where you came up with G.W. planning the economic disaster, but you, yourself said the economy was an issue. What if that were the focus instead of laws that attack average people? I feel it necessary to point out a hipocracy in your statement... If you're caught with a weapon, you're either a dead man or you're doing 25yrs in the gulag with special training to be deployed in the most dangerous situations abroad... They become expendable! and "America is imploding with hate" Is that anything like hating people who want to maintain independence, enough to wish them death? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not gun control, bullet control... they are taking a different approach now...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/instead-of-gun-control-try-bullet-control.html?_r=0 after December, we may not be able to get bullets... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adju, cheers to you my friend. Love that post.
Dodo, great point. Furthermore, what some don't seem to understand, is that a successful push to regulate firearms in an extreme way (like requiring permits) will be met with resistance. If masses are being disarmed at any point, you may have a fight on your hands. So much for gun control "saving lives" in that instance. Just sayin... disrarming is no more a reality than sending back the millions of children who grew up here as illegals but are now adults,,, and right now there is an OVERWHELMING number of firearms in the hands of citizens, because the right to arms is VERY Alive AND WELL And always will be that's a far cry though, from enforcing common sense regulation and paying more attention from here FORWARD,,, Your common sense and my common sense seem to differ. Your reaction is attempt to gain control. Mine is to help. Meaning; an increase of funding to mental healthcare would go far in this issue. Would also help weed out those who are unstable. Those identified as unstable are not allowed to purchase or possess firearms already. We have all the laws we need. As Adju pointed out, we just need help enforcing them. Again, any legislation that would disarm a mass number of people may be met with a lot of angry, armed people. In the interest of human life, perhaps we should not push the issue to that point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 13 minute crock of Chit!
-The Gov doesn't want assault weapons... true, not because they're afraid of them being used on the establishment and not because criminal elements use them... No, because mentally deranged mass murderers are killing your children! Simple. -The fact that weapon carriers haven't stopped armed aggressions... and they're getting more frequent as economic hard times are getting harder... law enforcement wouldn't know who was who during an armed assault... This should wake up the pro-gun lobby... but nooo You guys don't have the balls to start an armed rebellion against your gov... Soft targets, Now that's the American way!
woohooo! the gun hating Canadians are chiming in! there is already a law stating that mentally deranged people may not own a firearm of any kind they have enough laws now all they have to do is enforce them not far enough, imho I know from observation and living that plenty of mentally unstable people have never bothered to get help or feel like they need it,,,,so they wouldn't be documented anywhere as being as unstable as they are perhaps a psych eval, like that given to police, should be required to own a gun and ANYONE caught with a weapon without that permit should face stiff penalties in worst case and have guns ceased in best case 3 issues: #1 Police aren't any less trigger happy than the general populace. They often "accidentally" kill many civilians #2 Who would prevent the government from denying stable people weapons? Veterans return home. Many receive counseling for a few months. Veterans are labeled as potential threats by many... Who is going to prevent this demographic from permit denial? Stats show hispanics or blacks are more likely to crimes. Who is to prevent uncle sam from denying them permits based on these statistics? #3 Who is going to pay for the increase in police force to uphold these regulations? You are now turning average people into criminals and therefore taking effort away from tracking down crime lords and putting it into a search for anyone with a firearm. no sane person would advocate using statistics to profile whole groups of people based upon BIOLOGIC realities they have nothing to do with,,(like their ancestry or their gender,,etc) I advocate a search for the INDIVIDUALS Based upon that INDIVIDUALS mental and emotional health,, period there would need to be no more increase in police force to check for gun permit in those instances when a gun is found than there is to check for a drivers license when someone is driving or to check for immigration papers when one is 'suspected of being illegal' in many places or checking for a permit when one is on the side of the road selling fruit,,,, etc. its not actively seeking out anyone, its checking on those already observed engaging in an activity,, Takes a few minutes to check for a permit and do searches. These minutes add up. Also backs up our prisons with people who have committed victim-less crimes. (Like pot smokers) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not gun control, bullet control... they are taking a different approach now... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/instead-of-gun-control-try-bullet-control.html?_r=0 after December, we may not be able to get bullets... This is smart  (sarcasm) Now the responsible folk will have a hard time maintaining proficiency in accuracy as practice ammo will become more expensive. Another law endangering the lives of many... Beginning to think anti-gun activists don't care who they hurt as long as they get their way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adju, cheers to you my friend. Love that post.
Dodo, great point. Furthermore, what some don't seem to understand, is that a successful push to regulate firearms in an extreme way (like requiring permits) will be met with resistance. If masses are being disarmed at any point, you may have a fight on your hands. So much for gun control "saving lives" in that instance. Just sayin... disrarming is no more a reality than sending back the millions of children who grew up here as illegals but are now adults,,, and right now there is an OVERWHELMING number of firearms in the hands of citizens, because the right to arms is VERY Alive AND WELL And always will be that's a far cry though, from enforcing common sense regulation and paying more attention from here FORWARD,,, Your common sense and my common sense seem to differ. Your reaction is attempt to gain control. Mine is to help. Meaning; an increase of funding to mental healthcare would go far in this issue. Would also help weed out those who are unstable. Those identified as unstable are not allowed to purchase or possess firearms already. We have all the laws we need. As Adju pointed out, we just need help enforcing them. Again, any legislation that would disarm a mass number of people may be met with a lot of angry, armed people. In the interest of human life, perhaps we should not push the issue to that point. there is no difference, my reaction is a BALANCE< where we address both underlying issues like healthcare, AND the end result like keeping weapons out of the hands of the unstable and paranoid amonst us you cant disarm without having arms in the first place, cant take away what someone doesn't have I am not advocating an attempt to 'disarm' or TAKE AWAY The guns people have, IM advocating more care in assessing who WILL BE ARMED that isn't already there is a substantial difference kind of like advocating for revoking the license of anyone who drove without insurance before insurance laws were passed,,, or advocating for enforcing the requirement for insurance on those SEEKING licenses AFTER The law passed,, Im not a fan of retroactive actions,,,Im more into progressve |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 13 minute crock of Chit!
-The Gov doesn't want assault weapons... true, not because they're afraid of them being used on the establishment and not because criminal elements use them... No, because mentally deranged mass murderers are killing your children! Simple. -The fact that weapon carriers haven't stopped armed aggressions... and they're getting more frequent as economic hard times are getting harder... law enforcement wouldn't know who was who during an armed assault... This should wake up the pro-gun lobby... but nooo You guys don't have the balls to start an armed rebellion against your gov... Soft targets, Now that's the American way!
woohooo! the gun hating Canadians are chiming in! there is already a law stating that mentally deranged people may not own a firearm of any kind they have enough laws now all they have to do is enforce them not far enough, imho I know from observation and living that plenty of mentally unstable people have never bothered to get help or feel like they need it,,,,so they wouldn't be documented anywhere as being as unstable as they are perhaps a psych eval, like that given to police, should be required to own a gun and ANYONE caught with a weapon without that permit should face stiff penalties in worst case and have guns ceased in best case 3 issues: #1 Police aren't any less trigger happy than the general populace. They often "accidentally" kill many civilians #2 Who would prevent the government from denying stable people weapons? Veterans return home. Many receive counseling for a few months. Veterans are labeled as potential threats by many... Who is going to prevent this demographic from permit denial? Stats show hispanics or blacks are more likely to crimes. Who is to prevent uncle sam from denying them permits based on these statistics? #3 Who is going to pay for the increase in police force to uphold these regulations? You are now turning average people into criminals and therefore taking effort away from tracking down crime lords and putting it into a search for anyone with a firearm. no sane person would advocate using statistics to profile whole groups of people based upon BIOLOGIC realities they have nothing to do with,,(like their ancestry or their gender,,etc) I advocate a search for the INDIVIDUALS Based upon that INDIVIDUALS mental and emotional health,, period there would need to be no more increase in police force to check for gun permit in those instances when a gun is found than there is to check for a drivers license when someone is driving or to check for immigration papers when one is 'suspected of being illegal' in many places or checking for a permit when one is on the side of the road selling fruit,,,, etc. its not actively seeking out anyone, its checking on those already observed engaging in an activity,, Takes a few minutes to check for a permit and do searches. These minutes add up. Also backs up our prisons with people who have committed victim-less crimes. (Like pot smokers) so, they take a few minutes to do what is their JOB TO DO,,, and? they are being paid for it, because its their JOB in the real world, job requirements are constantly being changed and updated, I haven't had one job in probably twenty years where it wasn't stated 'job duties as needed',,, its part of grown up life in the real world |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you know,there are some real queer Folk around who want to disarm Lawabiding Citizens in order lessen Guncrime!
To take away their Firearms because the Criminals use theirs for Unlawful Purposes! Queer I say! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 12/05/13 12:24 PM
|
|
Stefan Molyneux
If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. You mean no good to anyone! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
absolutely, pro gun regulation doesn't mean anti gun
EXACTLY Right! and pro gun regulation isn't pro TAKING AWAY PEOPLES GUNS,,,either anymore than expecting a doctor to have a license is wanting to stop doctors from practicing, its wanting to have some attempt to ensure that UNQUALIFEID persons are not practicing (legally and with consent) as doctors just like wanting to have some attempt to assure that UNSTABLE or paranoid people aren't walking around with the ability to take others lives in one impulsive second,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Molyneux If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. You mean no good to anyone! Yep,anti-gunners are queer Folk indeed,punishing lawabiding Citizens for Crimes they haven't committed! And strangely,with every antigun-Measure things get more out of hand,as if the Criminals just didn't give a damn about the Law! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Molyneux If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. You mean no good to anyone! Yep,anti-gunners are queer Folk indeed,punishing lawabiding Citizens for Crimes they haven't committed! And strangely,with every antigun-Measure things get more out of hand,as if the Criminals just didn't give a damn about the Law!
what 'punishment' ? are we PUNISHING the blind by not giving them drivers licenses,,lol or are we using common sense and responsibility? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 12/05/13 01:31 PM
|
|
Stefan Molyneux If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. You mean no good to anyone! Yep,anti-gunners are queer Folk indeed,punishing lawabiding Citizens for Crimes they haven't committed! And strangely,with every antigun-Measure things get more out of hand,as if the Criminals just didn't give a damn about the Law!
what 'punishment' ? are we PUNISHING the blind by not giving them drivers licenses,,lol or are we using common sense and responsibility? Cause everytime some Hoodlum commits a Crime with a Firearm you smart Cookies want to take away the Guns from the Lawabiding Citizens,that,in any civilized Country is Collective Punishment and not allowed! But it seems you all aren't too concerned about Civilrights when it is about the Rights of Gunowners! Feast your Eyes on what the Dalai Lama had to say! http://i.imgur.com/g3SzbLp.jpg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Molyneux If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. You mean no good to anyone! Yep,anti-gunners are queer Folk indeed,punishing lawabiding Citizens for Crimes they haven't committed! And strangely,with every antigun-Measure things get more out of hand,as if the Criminals just didn't give a damn about the Law!
what 'punishment' ? are we PUNISHING the blind by not giving them drivers licenses,,lol or are we using common sense and responsibility? So,if someone who is Legally Blind sits into a Car,drives off and kills someone you propose to take all the Cars from all the other Drivers! Some Logic indeed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Molyneux
If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. You mean no good to anyone! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hoodlums commit crimes everyday, correction
as long as hoodlums commit crimes in hoodlum communities, not much is said every time some HOODLUM commits MASS MURDER of 'non hoodlum' people in non hoodlum surroundings,, we try to talk about ways to address it I have yet to hear anyone preach about 'taking guns away',, but I guess it will continue to be represented that way in this thread whatever the case, regulation of ANY material or item that has the potential to instantly end a life makes sense to me,,,,,if people are truly 'law abiding', they should have no issue meeting the regulation,, |
|
|
|
|
