USA Vs PRC Part Deux: The Aftermath

[Guest]

quote:

---

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.

---

The fact is that with gun control laws, the likelyhood of this happening go up about 100 times. The criminal KNOWS that you do not have a gun, and will therefore break in and do exactly what you just said, BUT if the criminal is not sure whether you have a gun or not he is much less likely to even try it.

But that is indeed good advice, if you do not have a gun!!!

I have guns, if someone tries to break into my house, I will hear him first, Why, because I have been trained to, I will then either A: tell him to stop and get away or I WILL SHOOT him, or B: let him get into the house and blow him away as soon as he is in. This by the way is not murder, it is self defense and reported as such.

I have the cahuna's to shoot someone in self defense, if you do not, then you should NOT own a gun. I know I have the cahuna's, because I have shot someone, and I don't feel guilty at all. Him or me, I choose me!!! Yes, and he died!! you don't survive a head shot from a 7.62!!!

I may seem very nonchalant about the fact that I have killed another human being, but the fact is, if you try to infringe on my rights, you give up your own rights, end of story. If you feel that your rights aren't important enough to kill for, then you deserve what you get!! I was protecting my life and therefore had every provocation and reason to do what I did.

As far as I am concerned those who do not own guns have every right not to, but when you become a victim, do not come after my guns, because I am not the one who did it, go after the scumbag criminal low life that made you the victim!!

Guns are a tool, just like a hacksaw, a hammer, a roundsaw, whatever. I have yet to see a dangerous gun, I have seen a dangerous user, but never a dangerous gun.

A gun does NOT pull it's own trigger, and the fact is that DUI's kill more people in a year then all gun deaths put together in all of 1920-2000, 80 years to even come close to the number of deaths caused by DUI's in 1 year, what does that tell you, WE SHOULD OUTLAW ALCHOHOL AND CARS, they are far more dangerous then my gun!!! If we go by your logic anyway!!

Anyway, your logic sucks, the fact is, gun control is brought forward only by socialists who hunger for power, once they disarm you, you are unable to defend your rights and therefore are free to be picked clean of them, after all you are too stupid to have the rights anyway, they know best what is good for you, and now you can't do anything about it.

Hitler did it, Stalin did it, China did it, now Canada has done it and Australia has done it!! I feel very bad for you, your rights are ripe for the picking, and they will be picked away until there are none left. Why, because history repeats itself, because no one listened the first time. I am listening, you are not!!!

[JoeyGuppy]

I was mugged once when I lived in minnapolis I didn't get hurt and the robber must have been new at it because he ran off before he got any money or anything. I also got ruffed up once well living here in California by a drunk gang member, but agian nothing serious and I wasn't hurt except my pride. I think if I would have had a gun in ethier of those situantions or if the robbers would have thought I had a gun and used their weapon on me before I had a chance to know I was being attacked I probaly would not be able to write this right now. Either beacuse I would have shot someone and be in prison or would be dead. Why enlarge a war on crime by encouraging all citizens to be armed. If no or just a few citizens have weapons they will not be the main focus of violence, there will still be inocent bystanderds hurt like the unarmed person shot in cininati or the robbery victims. Think of it as a game of capture the flag, The flag is your money or stuff of value, the crimals are trying to ge the flag, the cops are trying to stop them, and you are the flag pole. If the flag pole is armed the crimanals are going to shoot up the pole before the take the flag. You might take out a few crimanls but they will take out just as many of you.

As for protection against Tyranny some of the above posts give a good argument against that IMO.

[ 04-28-2001: Message edited by: JoeyGuppy ]

[Steve Schacher]

JoeyGuppy,

The difference is that you weren't secure in your home -- you were out on the streets. People have an expectation of being safe in their homes, and a right to protect their homes.

[Guest]

I expect to be safe anywhere I go, that is why, wherever I go, I carry a handgun or other deadly force to protect myself. I have threatened deadly force on the street 3 times, never yet have had to pull my firearm. The threat is enough to calm the situation, get the criminal under control and under arrest, but the fact is, I had the tools necessary to put down the situation before it could get out of hand, and the criminal was arrested without anyone getting hurt. If I had not had a weapon, the criminal would have been able to do what he wanted to do, and innocent people might have been hurt.

The more armed people on the street, the SAFER I feel. WHY? You ask, because the majority of gun owners, 99.99% in the US, are law abiding and responsible with their firearms. I believe that 99.99% of people should not be punished for the behavior of .01%.

You can check my facts all you want, but there is no way you can get around it, THEY ARE FACTS!!!

So, you enjoy losing your rights, I will enjoy keeping mine, thank you very much!!!

This miht sound goofy to you, but this says it all.

quote:

---

An armed society is a polite and safe society

---

[ 04-28-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Menchise]

I never said that you shouldn't have the right to have a gun. I'm just saying that having a gun in your hand makes you a bigger target for an armed suspect. Just the sight of a gun barrel can cause a twitchy finger to pull a trigger in fear. If you think that the risk is worth it, fine.

By the way, Australians ARE allowed to own certain types of guns. The gun laws in Australia prohibit the ownership of semi-automatic and automatic weapons, which are not necessary in defending your home from intruders. In fact, I would be suspicious of anyone who carried a machine gun and claims that it's only for defense, unless he or she was living in Israel.

[Guest]

Menchise, you have already admitted that you are a socialist, the fact is that if a robber robs you, he must need what you have and therefore, according to you, can go ahead and borrow it for a while.

The other fact is, Australias gun laws are completely out of control, and your rights are being and will be trampled upon, but that's right, your rights don't mean anything if it's for the social good. Well, please, you stay in your country, and I'll stay in mine, It is very obvious that we disagree on this and always will.

I beleive in an individuals right to defend himself, your country and you, do not. A fully automatic weapon is designed for killing people, pure and simple, what's wrong with me owning one? Not like I'm gonna walk down the middle of downtown with it.

If the police and military have it, the people should be allowed to have it, whether you agree or not, I really could care less, we are on 2 different sides of the issue, and of course the political spectrum.

I can't believe that anyone could be a socialist or even admit to being one after watching the USSR fall on its face and then watching China, it is being forced into going with a free market economy more and more, why? BECAUSE SOCIALISM HOLDS NO REWARDS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL!!!! And therefore will fail EVERY time!! Until you can make the human race into the Borg, Socialism will ALWAYS fail!!!

[Guest]

"An armed society is a polite and safe society "

I think I can translate that comment with one of my fave song's lyrics:

"It feels like love but it smells like fear"

[Wolferz]

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

If an intruder breaks into my house, I will hurt him with whatever I can find, whether it be a gun, a broomstick, or a baseball bat.

The type of weapon used doesn't really matter. If I die at the hands of an intruder in my home, hey it was my time to go anyway.

It is beyond logic as to why anyone would wish to break into your home, in the dark, and stumble around looking for valuables when the owner of the home knows the layout and can navigate in the dark without much effort. Advantage homeowner.

The streets are a different matter. Your only defense is to use your brains.

I too have pulled a weapon on an unscrupulous

individual. I didn't have to point it at him, just let him see it and let him know that I wasn't afraid to use it if need be.

As for the points made regarding the standing army of the US:

Each state in the US does have a standing militia. The National Guard. They are governed by the same standards as the regular army, but can be called out by the states' Governor during civil emergencies.

It was National Guardsmen who shot the students at Kent State. So one could say that the Federal army didn't go against the citizens, it was a state militia called up by the Governor of Ohio. My point is that that very militia was trained by, governed by, and controlled by the rules and regulations of the Federal military. There were other tools than weapons that could have been used to ease the situation at Kent State, but the government was fighting an unpopular war at the time and for some strange reason they apparently felt that a message had to be sent to the dissident people. That message was, "Chill your jets or we'll shoot every damned one of you!"

In my book, that was an act of a dictatorial government.

One could say that we have a free society in this country. If you look at it from a different angle though, you will see that it is not truly free. The electoral process is flawed in that we vote for only a very few candidates. The majority doesn't rule. It is in fact a very small group of people. A good ol' boys and girls club that dictates from a seat of power that is fueled by the big money of corporate America. The corporate big wigs are also members of this elitist club. What is really sad is the fact that they get to where they are by riding on the backs of the common citizens.

Have you ever wondered why our government doesn't have more proactive educational policies? Because uneducated people are easier to control. Keep them poor and stupid and they will never have a say in what the government is doing. So the fat get fatter while the little people starve.

Boil it all down, no matter where you live, you are only free within the confines of your own thoughts. That is something that noone can take from you.

[Wolferz]

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

If an intruder breaks into my house, I will hurt him with whatever I can find, whether it be a gun, a broomstick, or a baseball bat.

The type of weapon used doesn't really matter. If I die at the hands of an intruder in my home, hey it was my time to go anyway.

It is beyond logic as to why anyone would wish to break into your home, in the dark, and stumble around looking for valuables when the owner of the home knows the layout and can navigate in the dark without much effort. Advantage homeowner.

The streets are a different matter. Your only defense is to use your brains.

I too have pulled a weapon on an unscrupulous

individual. I didn't have to point it at him, just let him see it and let him know that I wasn't afraid to use it if need be.

As for the points made regarding the standing army of the US:

Each state in the US does have a standing militia. The National Guard. They are governed by the same standards as the regular army, but can be called out by the states' Governor during civil emergencies.

It was National Guardsmen who shot the students at Kent State. So one could say that the Federal army didn't go against the citizens, it was a state militia called up by the Governor of Ohio. My point is that that very militia was trained by, governed by, and controlled by the rules and regulations of the Federal military. There were other tools than weapons that could have been used to ease the situation at Kent State, but the government was fighting an unpopular war at the time and for some strange reason they apparently felt that a message had to be sent to the dissident people. That message was, "Chill your jets or we'll shoot every damned one of you!"

In my book, that was an act of a dictatorial government.

One could say that we have a free society in this country. If you look at it from a different angle though, you will see that it is not truly free. The electoral process is flawed in that we vote for only a very few candidates. The majority doesn't rule. It is in fact a very small group of people. A good ol' boys and girls club that dictates from a seat of power that is fueled by the big money of corporate America. The corporate big wigs are also members of this elitist club. What is really sad is the fact that they get to where they are by riding on the backs of the common citizens.

Have you ever wondered why our government doesn't have more proactive educational policies? Because uneducated people are easier to control. Keep them poor and stupid and they will never have a say in what the government is doing. So the fat get fatter while the little people starve.

Boil it all down, no matter where you live, you are only free within the confines of your own thoughts. That is something that noone can take from you.

[Guest]

"An armed society is a polite and safe society "

I think I can translate that comment with one of my fave song's lyrics:

"It feels like love but it smells like fear"

[Guest]

Tac, all actions are based on fears, the fear of reprisal, the fear of jail, etc. People obey laws out of fear, that is the way of society. When the fear of reprisal or punishment go away, you end up with a rude society, see Britain, and a violent society, see Britain again.

People who are armed are some of the politest in the world, why? reprisal is swift, and to the point.

All actions are based on fear, because Morality is no longer chosen as the reason to do something by a majority of the people in this world, fear of reprisal is the only thing keeping such barbarians in check.

[Guest Shingen]

We are the Borg! You will be assimilated! Resistance is futile!

(hey, Tac, if you're outta marshmellows, I brought the beer and pizza!)

[ 04-28-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

I think I can translate that comment with one of my fave song's lyrics:

---

How about The Beatles:

Happiness is a warm gun.

Bang Bang Shoot Shoot

When I hold you in my arms

And I feel my finger 'round your trigger

Then I know that nobody can do me no harm because

Hapiness is a warm gun

Bang Bang Shoot Shoot

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Menchise, you have already admitted that you are a socialist, the fact is that if a robber robs you, he must need what you have and therefore, according to you, can go ahead and borrow it for a while.

---

Not true, because the robber is taking stuff that I may need. Besides, in a Socialist system, everyone receives EVERYTHING that they need in return for their work.

quote:

---

I beleive in an individuals right to defend himself, your country and you, do not. A fully automatic weapon is designed for killing people, pure and simple, what's wrong with me owning one? Not like I'm gonna walk down the middle of downtown with it.

---

Automatic weapons are banned in Australia because someone DID walk into town with one and killed over 30 people in a restaurant! Ever heard of the Port Arthur Massacre?

The government introduced the gun laws at the request of the Australian majority. I still remember the news coverage of the crime scene and the funeral services. The tragedy affected the entire country, and it was all thanks to an individual "right" to own a weapon that can kill three dozen individuals in a matter of seconds.

quote:

---

I can't believe that anyone could be a socialist or even admit to being one after watching the USSR fall on its face and then watching China, it is being forced into going with a free market economy more and more, why? BECAUSE SOCIALISM HOLDS NO REWARDS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL!!!! And therefore will fail EVERY time!! Until you can make the human race into the Borg, Socialism will ALWAYS fail!!!

---

For the last time, THOSE COUNTRIES WERE NOT SOCIALIST!!! They followed a model of Collective Capitalism that was engineered by Stalin. He called it "Socialism in one country" but it wasn't even close. Every Soviet and Chinese leader who calls their country Socialist or Communist is an insult to the real Socialists. The only possible exception is Lenin. I have written this before (in the other thread). Read my posts more carefully.

[ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

[Guest]

I heard some scandinavian countries have a system where each citizen gets state medical (all of it, dental, vision, drug prescription, etc), insurance (full coverage), life insurance, car insurance..well, in short, all the expenses you have to make in the US... and the state pays for it.

What's the catch? From what I was told (any euro please confirm/deny) their paychecks are really small since most of it goes out to taxes to pay for those services.

Bottom line is, no bills to worry about , you are fully covered and the money in your check is just to spend it.

I wanna live there. I heard the blondes are spectacular there too!

"Automatic weapons are banned in Australia because someone DID walk into town with one and killed over 30 people in a restaurant! Ever heard of the Port Arthur Massacre"

Im sure they have seen the school shooting at columbine. But again, you wont see any action taken against weapons, they love their toys too much to give them up.

Jaguar, go live in my country for a little while. You will see what can happen when such rights backfire on the society and become as necessary to have as it is to have a credit card. You live in fear of strangers..any stranger. Thats no way to live.

[ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

Automatic weapons are banned in Australia because someone DID walk into town

with one and killed over 30 people in a restaurant! Ever heard of the Port Arthur

Massacre?

---

And your point is? I know of an idiot with a drivers license that mowed down 32 people on a New York Sidewalk, that means that we should ban automobiles as well? it was a feel good liberal tactic to ban guns in order to push their socialist political agenda. No majority in ANY country would willingly become socialists, they would revolt, the only way to remove the threat of revolt is to create such a hubbaloo about guns to make a majority want to ban them, again, based on emotion, not facts. Then, you can install your socialist system on the populace without the need to worry of revolt because you have suckered the populace into disarming themselves. And slaughter those who would disagree with you, see USSR, and China for examples of that, or Germany under Hitler, Hitler was able to do the same thing that just happened in Australia, then he started persecuting Gays, then Jews, and you know the outcome of that, it was called WWII. So who in Australia are going to be the first Victims? who is your government going to go after first, it has happened MANY times, and as I have said in another post and has been said by others, "history repeats itself, because no one listened the first time" and again, I am listening, you ARE NOT!!!

This is what is happening in Australia, you as a socialist, of course would be pleased with such actions(not the killing, I don't think that you will condone such actions, though they are going to happen), but a majority of your fellow Australians do NOT share your enthusiasm, and will do what they can to stop the liberals in power, but without guns, you pretty much got them by the short and curlies.

It will NEVER happen in this country, due to 1: the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights and 2: progun activist groups, such as the NRA, and others.

quote:

---

For the last time, THOSE COUNTRIES WERE NOT SOCIALIST!!! They followed a model of Collective Capitalism that was engineered by Stalin. He called it "Socialism in one country" but it wasn't even close. Every Soviet and Chinese leader who calls their country Socialist or Communist is an insult to the real Socialists. The only possible exception is Lenin. I have written this before (in the other thread). Read my

posts more carefully.

---

Each and every country that you have stated above started out as Communist or socialist per your definition, but those who crave power, pervert it for their own ends. Until you can change human nature, socialism will ALWAYS pervert itself into what the USSR and China have become. The ONLY way to keep such people in check is through a capitalist and Republican system, where their hunger for power and glory can benefit the rest of the humanity around them, these people start mega corporations which employ thousands, they run for president, the senate, congress, where the damage they do can be undone after 8 years, see Clinton for such an example. In a republic, or democracy, their power hunger can be put to uses that will serve humanity and the country instead of destroying it, it is called a check and balance system, which of course China does not have, and the USSR did not have. Both have had to turn to a free market to keep their countries going, and the USSR had to give up and become a democracy to fix the mess it was in. It is taking a long time, but they were socialist for 70 years, it won't happen overnight!!

A Socialist system, no matter the definition, will never work, human nature being what it is. You are a Utopian dreamer, and Utopia will never happen on this earth as long as Humans are human.

Capitalism feeds off of human nature, that is what makes it so successful. It is based on the law of nature, survival of the fittest!!

If your not fit and don't make the grade, you will not survive!! I don't feel sorry for those in the least. I feel no pity for a nondriven person who feels that the world owes them a living, that is not real life and never will be.

LIFE IS UNFAIR, AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

quote:

---

Jaguar, go live in my country for a little while. You will see what can happen when such rights backfire on the society and become as necessary to have as it is to

have a credit card. You live in fear of strangers..any stranger. Thats no way to live.

---

This is the USA, not Columbia, or Mexico, or any other pretend to be a republic. Our rights are spelled out in a document called the constitution, but with rights come responsibility and uncertainty. It is the price we pay for freedom, if you wish to be totally protected from every little possibility of danger, build a bomb shelter and lock yourself in it, and hope you don't have a fire.

As long as the government does not infringe on the rights of the populace, and we know our rights, they are spelled out, there will never be a need nor a reason to have a revolution, but when a countries government is totally corrupt and unfair, such as some of those in South America and other places, these things will happen. Get over it, that was there, this is the US, and if you can't handle it, and wish to be coddled, move to Europe, where they take 90% of your pay, and you can cross your fingers and hope the Bureaucrats really do know how to run your life better then you do!!

I have yet to see one of these countries actually be able to compete with the U.S. and the fact is, as long as they continue on the way they are, they never will!!

[ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

[aramike]

OK, gentlemen, let's all calm down here and let cooler heads prevail. I just edited the content of three posts, taking out comments that were either patronizing or downright insulting.

Everyone knows that I enjoy a spirited politcal debate as much as anyone, but we've ALL got to remember that, while we may not agree with each other, we should respect one another's opinions as we'd like ours respected. I know that I've come within violation of this rule myself numerous times, yet I hope that you all (or a CAT team member) corrects me when I do.

Now, let us return to the clash of the ideological titans, shall we?

[Guest Blackwell]

Gentlemen,

I have been gone for a few days and look what happens. I may have to post again... lots of good material to work from.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

And your point is? I know of an idiot with a drivers license that mowed down 32 people on a New York Sidewalk, that means that we should ban automobiles as well?

---

Automatic weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible, automobiles are not. Imagine how many people could have died on that sidewalk of that idiot (or some other idiot) was using a machine gun instead of a car.

quote:

---

it was a feel good liberal tactic to ban guns in order to push their socialist political agenda. No majority in ANY country would willingly become socialists, they would revolt, the only way to remove the threat of revolt is to create such a hubbaloo about guns to make a majority want to ban them, again, based on emotion, not facts. Then, you can install your socialist system on the populace without the need to worry of revolt because you have suckered the populace into disarming themselves.

---

Jaguar, any Australian who read your statement about the Australian Liberal Party having a Socialist agenda would roll on the floor laughing their heads off. Our Liberal Party is the most conservative of the lot, and they were the ones who introduced the gun laws.

In fact, former Liberal Party Prime Minister Robert Menzies tried to ban the Socialist parties in Australia. The High Court wouldn't allowed it because it would violate the Constitution. In that particular case, Australia was more of a Republic than the USA, because the American government was deporting suspected Communists during the MacCarthy Era (1950-1953).

Secondly, thirty people shot to death is not a hubbaloo. It is death. Horrible death.

Thirdly, the populace is not disarmed because handguns are still allowed.

quote:

---

Each and every country that you have stated above started out as Communist or socialist per your definition, but those who crave power, pervert it for their own ends.

---

Germany was a Capitalist Republic before Hitler perverted it for his own ends. Every system is corruptable.

quote:

---

Capitalism feeds off of human nature, that is what makes it so successful. It is based on the law of nature, survival of the fittest!!

If your not fit and don't make the grade, you will not survive!!

---

Read my last post on issues of Capitalism and Socialism in the "Summit of the Americas" thread.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Germany was a Capitalist Republic before Hitler perverted it for his own ends. Every system is corruptable.

---

My statement about Hitler and Germany had NOTHING to do with the TYPE of government and had everything to do with Gun Control. This is what happens when gun control is instated, after that people are somehow stripped of their rights and become slaves.

This is a matter of history, and again, 99% of the gun owning population should not suffer because of some sicko. Yes, automatic weapons are designed to kill people, and yes, they can and do a very horrific job of it, if done correctly. The fact is that after you disarm the population, the only one with weapons is the government. If that does not frighten you, you don't know much about history, or simply don't care.

Whoopee, so you can still have handguns, what good do they do you? first off, you must have a special permit, the weapon is registered, you must Store it in a safe, taken apart, yes in pieces, then store your ammo in another safe, as far from the gun safe as possible. This makes it possible to defend yourself? I don't think so, you might as well not own the handgun. This is stupid and indefensible. Your population is basically disarmed, and you have them so cowed that a Hitler or a Stalin could VERY easily grab power just as Hitler did. The population, once disarmed, are basically the governments to do with as they please. This is the history of gun control!! It is a fact, it has happened EVERY TIME!! not every once in a while, not one out of 2, but EVERY TIME, no exceptions. Once gun control is implemented the slippery slope to government out of control is not far behind.

I will not be like some animal quietly taken to the slaughter, I will fight with every ounce of energy I have, and every round of ammo in my magazines.

[aramike]

Banning guns is ridiculous, as all you are doing is disarming the LAW-ABIDING citizens of the land. Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that a CRIMINAL - someone who'd use a gun for violent activities - is going to actually CARE about gun laws? OF COURSE not.

So what is the result? That criminal knows that all those homes of law-abiding citizens are safe to enter because resistance is essentially outlawed. That's right - banning guns is the government's way of removing your right to fight back.

Further, if anyone thinks that banning guns would make it HARDER for criminals to attain them, be advised that this is not true. Cocaine is illegal, but still can be aquired quite readily.

So what does a gun ban actually do? It makes sure that only the criminals are armed - the people who wouldn't even think of hurting another with a gun are hung out to dry in order to push a liberal vote-winning tactic.

Good government? Heh.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

The fact is that after you disarm the population, the only one with weapons is the government. If that does not frighten you, you don't know much about history, or simply don't care.

---

If you think that the right to own automatic weapons is going to stop a government from oppressing its people, you know even less about history and the power of the military.

In the American war for independence, both the American people and the British troops had muskets, but the fact is that if the Americans did not have the support of the French Navy, the war would have been lost.

In the French Revolution, the people managed to overthrow the corrupt monarchy with guns because the monarchy under Louis XVI was disorganized and weak. The victory boosted their morale to the point that they could defeat the Austrian troops that were sent in to stop them.

If the American government decided to oppress the people, it could do it, whether you have machine guns or not, because they have the SWAT Teams (equipped with tear gas grenades and sniper rifles that can hit targets 500 yards away), the Army (equipped with tanks), the Navy (equipped with missiles), the Air Force (equipped with more missiles and bombs), and the Marine Corps (masters of stealth who can break your neck faster than you can say 'ouch'). If all else fails, they can release Mustard gas bombs from the air to exterminate entire pockets of resistance. If that fails, covert agents could release mosquitos carrying malaria, anthrax, and who knows what else. If that also fails, and the government starts losing the conflict, they'll deploy a few low yield nuclear warheads to finish it. Eventually, the people would lose confidence, if not their lives, and become slaves anyway.

I don't know about you, but I prefer to trust the government not to oppress me (to a certain point) instead of starting a futile arms race with them. If you don't trust governments, leave the country and join an Anarchist community, you'll be a lot happier there.

quote:

---

Banning guns is ridiculous, as all you are doing is disarming the LAW-ABIDING citizens of the land. Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that a CRIMINAL - someone who'd use a gun for violent activities - is going to actually CARE about gun laws? OF COURSE not.

So what is the result? That criminal knows that all those homes of law-abiding citizens are safe to enter because resistance is essentially outlawed. That's right - banning guns is the government's way of removing your right to fight back.

---

The criminals would still have to worry about guard dogs, security alarms and curious neighbors who know how to dial 911 (000 in Australia).

quote:

---

Further, if anyone thinks that banning guns would make it HARDER for criminals to attain them, be advised that this is not true. Cocaine is illegal, but still can be aquired quite readily.

---

If automatic weapons are banned, criminals who are caught in possession of one can be arrested immediately. If they are not banned, the police have to wait for the criminal to use it (as a threat of force or the use of force) before they can arrest the criminal. Which would you prefer?

[Guest]

quote:

---

f you think that the right to own automatic weapons is going to stop a government from oppressing its people, you know even less about history and the power of the military.

In the American war for independence, both the American people and the British troops had muskets, but the fact is that if the Americans did not have the support of the French Navy, the war would have been lost.

In the French Revolution, the people managed to overthrow the corrupt monarchy with guns because the monarchy under Louis XVI was disorganized and weak. The victory boosted their morale to the point that they could defeat the Austrian troops that were sent in to stop them.

If the American government decided to oppress the people, it could do it, whether you have machine guns or not, because they have the SWAT Teams (equipped with tear gas grenades and sniper rifles that can hit targets 500 yards away), the Army (equipped with tanks), the Navy (equipped with missiles), the Air Force (equipped with more missiles and bombs), and the Marine Corps (masters of stealth who can break your neck faster than you can say 'ouch'). If all else fails, they can release Mustard gas bombs from the air to exterminate entire pockets of resistance. If that fails, covert agents could release mosquitos carrying malaria, anthrax, and who

knows what else. If that also fails, and the government starts losing the conflict, they'll deploy a few low yield nuclear warheads to finish it. Eventually, the people

would lose confidence, if not their lives, and become slaves anyway.

---

Oh my God, do you actually believe the above? REALLY, HONESTLY?

The French hardly gave any help during the American revolution, yes, we had a treaty, and yes, they helped somewhat, but not nearly as much as you are giving credit for.

The reason that the Americans won the Revolutionary war was because, 1: everyone had a weapon and therefore the British had to fight a lot of guerillas 2: The American militia had rifles, not muskets, we were better armed and knew the land. The British did not have a chance, they fought in their formations, we fought from the woods, picking them off one by one. We learned well from the Indians and the regular British troops didn't have a clue.

Now the fact of the matter is, there are over 200 million weapons in private hands in the US, that are owned by over 80 million gun owners. The military consists of a little less then 750,000 men and women. It is against Federal law to use the regular military on US territory against it's own citizens. The ones that would be fighting, would be the National Guard, put up by the states. These men and women would not fight against the citizens fighting against a corrupt government that was stepping on the constitution. They take an oath to uphold the constitution and will be punished for following illegal orders, I know, I took that oath. If the American People became enraged and decided to overthrow our government on constitutional grounds, the military and national guard would not fight, on the contrary they would join us. Any civilian government that tried, after trampling the constitution, would find itself a VERY hurting unit.

You do not know us well, we do not trust our government, but will not move against it unless it tries to get rid of the constitution and it's guarantees, and the military, having taken an oath to uphold that same constitution would not move against us. This might happen in Australia, but it will not happen here.

We have checks and balances, and the people having automatic weapons, handguns, long rifles etc, is one of those balances.

You go ahead and live with your higher crime rates, higher murder rates, higher home invasions, higher rapes, etc etc ad nauseum, but we in the United States have freedom, and with freedom comes responsibility and possible problems with crazies having guns, but if you were someone who wanted to go on a rampage, what would you rather have, a roomful of helpless victims, or a possibility that 1 out of 5 will have a gun to shoot you down before you took 2 steps or fired 2 shots? dialing 911 or 000 as in Australia, is too little too late, the crime has been done. the police just come in and clean up the mess.

We are an armed society, at least in my state we are, Our crime rate went down over 35% when we got shall issue laws, if you don't know what that means, it means, after a background check, you shall be issued a Concealed weapons permit, if it shows you are clean, no felonies. guess what, I am clean, I am sitting at my desk right now with a CZ-32 in my fanny pack and a phoenix arms .22 in my desk. I also have a number of others sitting in a safe, loaded and ready, all I have to do is unlock the door. Tell me, would you rather, as a criminal, go into your house, or try and get into my house. That's what I thought, the criminal wouldn't make it out of my house. And as some advertisers say "I guarantee it!!!"

I advertise the fact that I own weapons, forget the dog, worry about the owner, he is armed. Value your life? don't even try to enter this house.

This property protected by Glock etc. etc. I could go on and on, But, I have NEVER, and I mean NEVER been burglarized or broken into.

I wonder why that is?

quote:

---

If automatic weapons are banned, criminals who are caught in possession of one

can be arrested immediately. If they are not banned, the police have to wait for the

criminal to use it (as a threat of force or the use of force) before they can arrest

the criminal. Which would you prefer?

---

The fact of the matter is, If I am as well armed as the criminal, he is that much less likely to try and use that weapon. You expect the police to catch every criminal with an automatic weapon, hope you like living in a police state, because that is what would happen.

If you are willing to give up your rights for the feeling of being safe, be my guest, but as long as you depend on someone else for your safety and security, you are neither safe nor secure.

Like I said above, the police come in after the fact and pick up the pieces. At least I have a chance, being armed, otherwise, I am just a victim waiting to be victimized.

If you are to be truly safe and secure, YOU must take responsibility for that safety and security, otherwise you are just a lamb, waiting to be slaughtered by the wolves, I'd much rather be an armed sheep thank you very much.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

In the American war for independence, both the American people and the British troops had muskets, but the fact is that if the Americans did not have the support of the French Navy, the war would have been lost.

---

This is probably true. However, you are describing the time prior to the United States constitutional government. You have to look at the constitutional government defined by the US Constitution to understand the role that individual rights to bear arms plays in the complex tapestry of checks and balances.

quote:

---

In the French Revolution, the people managed to overthrow the corrupt monarchy with guns because the monarchy under Louis XVI was disorganized and weak. The victory boosted their morale to the point that they could defeat the Austrian troops that were sent in to stop them.

---

And the American revolution and the constitutional government of laws that followed is what inspired them to their own revolution.

quote:

---

If the American government decided to oppress the people, it could do it, whether you have machine guns or not, because they have the SWAT Teams (equipped with tear gas grenades and sniper rifles that can hit targets 500 yards away), the Army (equipped with tanks), the Navy (equipped with missiles), the Air Force (equipped with more missiles and bombs), and the Marine Corps (masters of stealth who can break your neck faster than you can say 'ouch'). If all else fails, they can release Mustard gas bombs from the air to exterminate entire pockets of resistance. If that fails, covert agents could release mosquitos carrying malaria, anthrax, and who knows what else. If that also fails, and the government starts losing the conflict, they'll deploy a few low yield nuclear warheads to finish it. Eventually, the people would lose confidence, if not their lives, and become slaves anyway.

---

As I posted earlier, if this nightmare situation were ever to occur, the country as we know it would be over. First, you would have to have a populace that, for some reason or another, voted into office a madman that would push a conflict to this extreme. Bill Clinton's administration running tanks through the houses in Waco and kicking down Elian Gonzalez's door was bad enough. I would hope that our military would revolt before following orders to nuke our own citizens.

quote:

---

I don't know about you, but I prefer to trust the government not to oppress me (to a certain point) instead of starting a futile arms race with them. If you don't trust governments, leave the country and join an Anarchist community

---

Then you haven't been reading all the history and philosophy that is out there. Our government was designed the way it is precisely because people in power cannot be trusted. Guns, whether we like it or not, provide the last possible defense. Read the writings of Thomas Paine and the Federalist Papers to understand the debate more fully.

Again:

Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Feb 1776

The Federalist Papers, 1788

Thomas Paine's The Rights Of Man, 1792, about the French Revolution

Jaguar:

quote:

---

The French hardly gave any help during the American revolution, yes, we had a treaty, and yes, they helped somewhat, but not nearly as much as you are giving credit for.

---

I think you're wrong here. The French, and La Fayette, were very responsible for our win. It wouldn't have happened without them.

quote:

---

The American militia had rifles, not muskets

---

I'm not sure about this one either. Rifles weren't invented until the Civil War. The difference here is that the barrels were "rifled" with a spiral groove that caused the shot to rotate as it flew, causing the shot to travel straighter. The machinery wasn't around in the 1770's to manufacture this.

Otherwise, I have no quarrel with your other comments.

I strongly urge everyone to read Thomas Paine. Common Sense was written before the Declaration of Independence, and it was Paine's plea to the budding nation that the time is now to declare independence. He even humbly tells the future declaration committe how to write the declaration. The Rights Of Man was written shortly after the French Revolution to rebut a book by an English Parliamantarian who tried to defend the English form of government by discrediting the French Revolution. Paine counters every argument by describing how governments form and how they can only exist by the will of the people. He says that governments can only exist as an extension of individual rights of man.

One should read Paine in chronological order, as The Rights Of Man builds on concepts first introduced in Common Sense. Even though he wrote in the late 1700's, it is very easy to read today. That is why he was such a milestone writer for his time -- he was able to write deep social philosophy in a way that the average 18th century farmer would understand.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

It is against Federal law to use the regular military on US territory against it's own citizens. The ones that would be fighting, would be the National Guard, put up by the states. These men and women would not fight against the citizens fighting against a corrupt government that was stepping on the constitution. They take an oath to uphold the constitution and will be punished for following illegal orders, I know, I took that oath. If the American People became enraged and decided to overthrow our government on constitutional grounds, the military and national guard would not fight, on the contrary they would join us. Any civilian government that tried, after trampling the constitution, would find itself a VERY hurting unit.

---

Are you saying that you can't trust the government, but you can trust the military?

Read about the dismissal of Douglas MacArthur. He could have started a war with China if Truman didn't throw him out.

Also read about the Vietnam War, where the American military was very willing to help the American government trample the rights of the South Vietnamese.

North and South Vietnam never wanted to fight each other. They had just won independence after a bloody fight with the French Empire. The Vietnamese people wanted to unite into one nation, and elections were planned that would decide who the leader of the unified Vietnam would be.

The American government was afraid that Ho Chi Min (a Communist) would win the election, because he was the hero of Vietnam's fight for independence, so they stopped the elections by installing their own puppet state in South Vietnam that proceeded to work against unification. This effectively took away the self-determination that the Vietnamese people had just won in their fight for independence, not to mention the people's chance to vote for their own leader.

Despite the injustice, the military supported the government. When it was becoming clear to the government that they were going to lose the war but continued drafting American citizens anyway, the military didn't stop it. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese were killed in a war that should never have occurred in the first place.

There are only so many things that a Constitution can protect you from. Don't count on the military being on your side.