Guest Shingen Posted April 24, 2001 Report Share Posted April 24, 2001 South Park rocks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 Aramike, how can you (among others) say how bad CHINA really is when you are not CHINESE?Here is my answer to your version of that question.The fact that I don't live in the USA means that I don't understand what things are really like inside the country, but it also means that I have a better understanding of what the USA is doing to other nations.My dislike of the USA comes from what it has done outside of its borders. Many other economically powerful countries do the same things, but I prefer to verbally bash the USA because it is the biggest of the bullies.If I wrote all the stuff I knew about how America has screwed other nations to serve their own interests and the interests of their private enterprises, the post would last forever.I have already admitted that I was wrong about the spyplane issue, but that doesn't mean that everything I say is false, and I am offended by your statement that my opinions are of less value simply because: a) I'm not American, I dislike America, and c) I disagree with your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baloogan Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 I live in canada (To attend univercity) but i am,,, born in the US of A (Any of you know the song?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 "Born In THE USA" : Bruce Springsteen. (nitpick: The word "of" is not in the lyric "USA")Wait a minute Tac: I found another bag of marshallows! (passes bag to Tac) Least the conversation is quieter over here by the fire. How about a round of Kumbaya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Remo Williams Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 Whoohoo!! Marshmellows and Kumbaya! (takes a seat by the fire.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 quote:Aramike, how can you (among others) say how bad CHINA really is when you are not CHINESE?Because the Chinese is in the habit of violating human rights (including that of their OWN citizens), taking American hostages, attempting the diplomatic SEIZURE of democratic lands (while THREATENING military action), manipulation to acheive their goals, and so on. quote:The fact that I don't live in the USA means that I don't understand what things are really like inside the country, but it also means that I have a better understanding of what the USA is doing to other nations.My dislike of the USA comes from what it has done outside of its borders. Many other economically powerful countries do the same things, but I prefer to verbally bash the USA because it is the biggest of the bullies.Then, by all means, share some facts and instances in which the US as "bullied" another country, economically for that matter. From what I've seen, Japan has been economically THRIVING off of America, as does China for that matter. Is America SO "terrible" for allowing OTHER economies a chance to prosper from within OUR STRONGER economy?Don't get angry at America for its economic success. quote:If I wrote all the stuff I knew about how America has screwed other nations to serve their own interests and the interests of their private enterprises, the post would last forever.So far, you haven't listed a SINGLE thing about how America has "screwed" another nation. To then imply that the post would go on forever, well, try me. quote:I have already admitted that I was wrong about the spyplane issue, but that doesn't mean that everything I say is false, and I am offended by your statement that my opinions are of less value simply because: a) I'm not American, I dislike America, and c) I disagree with your opinions.My apologies on offending you, although my point remains: you have YET to show ANY reason why America is "bullying" other nations. So far, the ONLY thing about the US that you've shown reason for distaste is the recon plane incident, and those facts were untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Tac: Since I dont give a dang about serious stuff, here's a collection of spoofs/reactions and stuff that I've seen on other forums about all this:Do you guys get the idea? this thread isn't supposed to be serious, if you guys want to have a serious debate, you should take it to the other thread, ok?Now that's outta the way: Hey Tac! do you have any marshmellows left?? Wing one my way if you do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2001 Report Share Posted April 25, 2001 *concerned stare* This dont look like marhmellows. what the heck did you hand me bud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 OK, been busy for the last 2 days, so wanted to comment on one thing, because again, as in another thread, Aramike chewed up your argument and spit it out, so whybeat on a dead horse, and excellent points by the way Aramike. This is what I wanted to comment on. quote: Technically, Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy, but that is just a formality. The extent of Australian freedom is basically the same as it is in the USA, despite our lack of a Bill of Rights. The only big difference is that Australia has very strict gun laws (that is why we don't have high school massacres). First off, you are a subject due to those gun laws, if the government can't trust you with a gun, then you are a subject, not a citizen!!2nd, no, you may not have many high school shootings, but all other crime has skyrocketed in your country, home invasions have increased 60%, murders 40%, rapes 20%, all across the board, and guess what, in each of those increases, the criminal has a gun, the victim does not. You are not allowed to protect yourself, the police can break down your door in the middle of the night if, IF, they suspect you have an illegal weapon.This is a police state, not a democracy, or whatever. The rights of the individual ARE important, and when the "Safety" of society becomes more important then the individuals rights, that country is slipping into Socialism/Communism.In Short, YOU ARE A SUBJECT, not a FREE CITIZEN!!!Sorry, but the US is still the land of the free and home of the brave, and I am still allowed to carry a weapon anywhere I want, if I am certified, which I am, and therefore I am allowed to protect myself anywhere a criminal might try and rob me of my rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you CANNOT, I can protect my home from an intruder by shooting and killing him, YOU CANNOT, you are a subject, end of story!!See Ya All Later!! Edit: Also, it would not matter if you DID have a Bill of Rights, because without guns to defend yourself and your rights against a tyrannical government, they would be a moot point anyway!![ 04-25-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 "In Short, YOU ARE A SUBJECT, not a FREE CITIZEN"Nope, id say you would be a citizen that has willfully given up a certain right to live in a peaceful and safe nation.Look at how many "rights" you, as a US citizen, give up in your daily life.Its a matter of perspective."yourself and your rights against a tyrannical government"You really think a bunch of gun totting dissidents can stand up to a military? That concept became outdated after WW1. Puh-lease. "The rights of the individual ARE important, and when the "Safety" of society becomes more important then the individuals rights, that country is slipping into Socialism/Communism"back to my first point. Drive down a residential neighborhood @ 120 mph and see a prime example of "safety of society becomes more important than individual rights". I mean, who the f** does that cop think he is stomping over my individual rights to drive as fast as I please on the road I please on the lane I please? Walk through downtown during lunch time naked. Is your right to express yourself being bashed when the local authority shoves you into a patrol car because you were naked?Imo, guns are no different matter. Its the people that want to keep them that are. Make a new thread about this so I can melt these marshmellows over your flaming body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 They are Marshmallows I swear it! They just the colored ones is all. Don't go real good on Sweet Potatoes but they fire up ok at camp. I can picture it now. All of us sitting by a fire. RM and Remo busily roasting marshmallows, I'm stoking the fire, Akuma is sitting on a log quietly sketching everyone, and every so often reaches beside her and pats a goldfish bowl she has propped up on the log next to her. *Ducks and runs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 Since this thread was originally intended to be one of light fun, I'm going to make future posts in the "Summit of the Americas" thread from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 AAAUGGH Ive been stuck in the fishbowl again. Heeeeeelllppppp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 Sorry Tac, but those flaming marshmellows would be all over you, not me.Why do you think that there is a 2nd amendment to the constitution? to make sure that the US government would not get to point where it could take away those rights, because we the citizens have the power to defend ourselves against that same government and make sure our rights are protected.You have been pulled in by the liberal establishment that wants to take our rights away, so they may, "get our Social programs in place", but they must get rid of our guns so that we cannot fight them.We have guns for a reason, and if you think that the military of any country could go against 80 million armed citizens without killing with mass weapons your nuts, and the fact of the matter is, our military is NOT allowed to go against the citizens of this country.Poor, poor Tac, when you decide that too many of your rights are gone, don't run to me to defend you, you must take responsibility for your own freedoms, I will take responsibility for mine.Also, speed limits in neigborhoods are necessary for the safety of the populace, and driving IS NOT A RIGHT, it is a privilege, whereas, owning guns are a right!!! Read the bill of rights and tell me I'm wrong, and where in there does it say that driving is a right? it does not, you better come up with something better. The 2 have nothing to do with each other.The fact is, I have a right to defend myslef against the aggression of a criminal, guns are used by private citizens over 2 million times a year to stop a crime, without guns those 2 million become victims. You don't have to own guns Tac, but don't think that taking away my guns will somehow protect you, because you are much more likely to become a victim without me having a gun, then if I do. Because the fact is an armed citizen to protect you in the streets is much more likely then a cop being there to help you.Oh, and Tac, feel free to put up a big old sign in your front yard, this household believes in gun control and therefore does not own any guns and will never have them on the premises. See what happens when you do, you would be putting a big old VICTIM on your forehead and become a target for every lowlife that sees it. I have a RIGHT to protect myself against a criminal, and a gun is the best tool for such a thing, fact is 99.99% of all guns are NOT involved in crime each year. When I lose my 2nd amendment rights, your 1st amendment rights will be next, then the 3rd, then the 4th, you might as well write off the entire constitution, because you have no way to defend that same document. That is what would happen if your ideas on gun control came to see the light of day!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aramike Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 quote:You really think a bunch of gun totting dissidents can stand up to a military? That concept became outdated after WW1. Puh-lease.Yes, actually I do. Why? Because the US military is made up of the families of those dissidents and pledge oath to the Constitution - they are ALL volunteers for that cause. Plus, with the US infrastructure, the military would be at a STEEP disadvantage because it would be impossible to wage open conflict without harming non-combatants. Also, with the citizenary being responsible for government, such a conflict would be impossible to sustain for the US military, and as such, freedoms lost would be re-established in short order. Prohibition comes to mind, although the circumstances were a bit different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 WOW, quote: Yes, actually I do. Why? Because the US military is made up of the families of those dissidents and pledge oath to the Constitution - they are ALL volunteers for that cause. Plus, with the US infrastructure, the military would be at a STEEP disadvantage because it would be impossible to wage open conflict without harming non-combatants. Also, with the citizenary being responsible for government, such a conflict would be impossible to sustain for the US military, and as such, freedoms lost would be re-established in short order. Prohibition comes to mind, although the circumstances were a bit different. You say it so well Aramike, I wish I had the gift for words that you do. I say it as I see it, but am Blunt and it doesn't flow like yours do.Nice Aramike, VERY NICE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted April 26, 2001 Report Share Posted April 26, 2001 quote:Prohibition comes to mind More to the point is Kent State. quote:You really think a bunch of gun totting dissidents can stand up to a military? On an individual basis, no. You just have to look at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Elian to see that. In the first two, the presence of guns was the justification for the government action. In the third case, the "fear" of presence of guns was cited. In all cases, one can debate whether the government violated people's fourth amendment protections while people were exercising their second amendment protections.But the second amendment protection against an overbearing government was meant to be on an overwhelming scale (then and now). An entire populace has to rise up to throw out an illegal government. If that government then tries to use modern military weaponry of mass destruction to subjugate the populace, this country would effectively be over as we know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2001 Report Share Posted April 27, 2001 "we the citizens have the power to defend ourselves against that same government and make sure our rights are protected"A militia will never beat or challenge the military (especially that of a superpower). 80 million pistol/shotgun totting dissidents, disorganized, untrained, without air support or armour or military grade tech. It takes very little effort from the military to subdue or eliminate such trouble. "and the fact of the matter is, our military is NOT allowed to go against the citizens of this country"Again, then why "defend" yourselves against a military that is not allowed to go against their citizens? First thing any tyranny does IS secure the military. And again, read above for the results.Aramike is correct though, any act of violence BY the military to the citizenship would be me hard to do."Also, with the citizenary being responsible for government, such a conflict would be impossible to sustain for the US military, and as such, freedoms lost would be re-established in short order""Because the US military is made up of the families of those dissidents and pledge oath to the Constitution - they are ALL volunteers for that cause" exactly, soldiers are in essence armed citizens. Organized and trained. In this example the citizens defend themselves from the gov, WITHOUT the use of guns. In modern society guns are IRRELEVANT to bring social change or to oppose a government. If people dont want it, it wont happen. Soldiers do not follow orders to shoot their own citizens..because THEY ARE citizens too.So that basically throws any reason to own guns for the purpose of resisting the gov. "tyranny" to the trash can.And were left with guns to defend yourself against criminals.In this last problem I can tell you from personal experience, that doesnt work. I come from a country where almost EVERYONE had a weapon, in the great majority of cases, a military grade assault weapon (galil rifle, m16's, 9mm automatics, etc). Crime has become even worse. Criminals now know the other person is armed and thus prepares for that. Its a vicious cycle. And the problem remains.Guns just make you feel safe, but they endanger you even more. If you own guns, please keep them away from your kids, they love to play with daddy's cool gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2001 Report Share Posted April 27, 2001 I am SO disapointed, I thought for sure that you would actually get it Tac. But, I am wrong, oh well, you can take the horse to water, but you can't make him drink.A tyrannical government is the real reason that the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment, the fact that we have a huge military is NO reason to take away a persons right to own a gun, ANY TYPE of gun, up to and including fully automatic ASSAULT rifles, Which I also own, having paid the $200 tax. You will not see me out shooting my neighbors, protecting them, yes, hurting them, absolutely NOT.I will buy my daughters a single shot .22 when I feel they are old enough to learn, and my 5 year old is almost ready to learn, once taught, a child is much LESS likely to go play rambo in a schoolyard. And THAT is a documented FACT, not some fiction by gun control inc.My wife and daughters know where my guns are, and my wife has a key to the safe if needed, but my weapons are locked up at all times, not to keep them from my children, but to keep them out of the hands of a criminal who might break into my house for my weapons. Let's see him take a 500 lb safe that is anchored to a main support of my house!! The fact is that the large majority of gun owners are responsible with their firearms,99% of us, taking away our guns would be like us taking away your car and everyone elses, because too many people got DUI's and makes as much sense.There, that's the end of that, obviously Tac has been brainwashed into thinking this way and there is no way of convincing him otherwise.last statement on this, there are no REAL reasons for taking away a persons right to own a firearm, it does not create a safer society, it actually creates a more dangerous one. THAT is also a documented FACT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2001 Report Share Posted April 27, 2001 "There, that's the end of that, obviously Tac has been brainwashed into thinking this way and there is no way of convincing him otherwise"Lol, brainwash is the new term for experience? You may see things your way living a protected life (yes, protected) here in the US. Go live in Colombia for a few years, you'll see what happens when everyone has guns Glad to hear your weapons are in a safe. I pray you will never have a problem with them being in your home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted April 27, 2001 Report Share Posted April 27, 2001 Why not go straight to the source and include a Founding Father in the debate. In The Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton states the fear of having a standing army. quote:The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority. The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard. A militia of the people, or Posse Comitatus would be a counter-balance to a standing army. In The Federalist #29, Hamilton states the need for a militia to be regulated by the States, not the Federal government: quote:THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert; an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."Hamilton then argues that the formation of the militia by itself should be enough to prevent a standing army from forming. quote:Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. Hamilton now argues that it is impractical to expect a militia to act as a standing army. quote:``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. Hamilton then reasons that if there should be a need for a standing army, there should at least also be a disciplined militia to offset the power of the army. quote:"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." Finally, Hamilton supposes that a militia under the control of the States would resist the temptation of a Federal authority using it for it's own purposes. quote:There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths? If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.Here is a link to the entire set of Federalist Papers. Even though these were written in 1788, the principles still hold true today.[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Gridley Posted April 27, 2001 Report Share Posted April 27, 2001 The male memembers of my family have no need for guns.[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: aramike ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2001 Report Share Posted April 27, 2001 For the above statement,WHATEVER!!!Another one of the liberal brainwashed masses, I'd love to see you fight off a criminal with it!!Geez, some people just do not have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted April 28, 2001 Report Share Posted April 28, 2001 Since this thread is becoming a debate again, I have returned to give a brief opinion on the subject of guns deterring crime.If a robber enters your home with a gun, there is a good chance that he or she will not shoot you if you stay calm and follow his or her instructions.If both you and the robber have guns, someone is going to get killed for sure, and there is a good chance that it won't be the intruder.At least in the first scenario, you are less likely to end up with a bullet in you, and with those good odds, you can call the police afterwards. It also means one less murder in the record books, even if it is in the defense of property and family.[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted April 28, 2001 Report Share Posted April 28, 2001 quote:If a robber enters your home with a gun, there is a good chance that he or she will not shoot you The problem with this argument is that it puts all control of the situation in the hands of the robber who has already shown no regard for the law.I don't own a gun, but this does not seem like a desirable situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now