Another Gun Control Thread

Post Reply New Topic

As an American I voted “from my cold dead hands” and what follows applies to the United States.
Other countries are, well, other countries.

You can’t effectively take all the guns away or even a good percentage of them so forget that.

They’re’ already restricted more than some of you think.

The laws as they are do nothing but infringe on yours and my constitutional rights.

I came upon this thread late but I randomly read some of the threads of the past 11 pages.
Nothing I saw is anything new.

There are some that just don’t have the will to take care of themselves and would rather be a victim and hope the government gets big enough to attend to their every need.
“Who needs freedom when we can be taken care of instead?”
We could just bury such people alive since they are already, in effect, dead and move on.

Those Americans (in name only) that think that taking care of themselves and protecting themselves with potentially deadly force is barbaric and outdated, that guns are “gross” or whatever, just don’t belong here and are as much a part of the problem as those who would do us harm.

They should relocate to a country that will tell them what to do in every instance, wipe their asses and blow their noses for them in exchange for their freedom and their money in the form of taxes.
Good riddance!!

Can a guerrilla force defeat or hold back an invading army? There are a lot of factors to take into consideration in each instance to say for sure but it has been done before. The important thing is being able and willing to DIE trying. This means you’d rather die fighting than to lay down and accept what’s being forced upon you and your country.

This will ALWAYS be my firm belief.

What, so now you're pulling the "Americans are dumb" card? I turned down an acceptance from your bloody Oxford University, thank you very much. This is an Aspie site, you're going to find that what you say will usually be taken literally. Get the hell over it, and learn to communicate more clearly.

You would have got murdered at Oxford if you really are that incapable of understanding references. The Churchill "beaches" quote alone is one of the most famous things he ever came out with. Nothing I have said has been that complicated to understand, or that obscure, or even obviously literal.

Given that the Churchill quote was both butchered and incomplete, it's not something I paid much attention to. And quoting a fellow Brit to make fun of what you regard as foolish American attitudes doesn't make much sense either. I can get references quite well, but when you're coming up with your own crap (Wal-Mart ammo? 10-foot-tall Kentuckians?) it's just stupid. You aren't making a reference, you're making your own really lousy sayings. The whole Wal-Mart ammo thing didn't even make sense. And besides that, you probably don't even know where Kentucky is, so why would you be talking about them?

What didn't make sense about it? Wal-mart ammo. Ammunition purchased from a major chain store.. is it really that huge a leap to make? "fight them on the beaches" is word for word. From "We will fight them on the beaches"... And the other part was mockery of your belief in the superiority of the natives of kentucky in combat against the soldiers of various nations. Its roughly paraphrased from a Bill Hicks skit about ten foot tall desert warriors, which was in turn a mockery of the American tendency to overplay the skills and abilities of Saddam's Republican Guard - A military unit that was sold by the American media as being elite death-dealing monsters more than capable of defeating any American unit.

"They went from being the Elite Republican Guard to being the Republican Guard to The republicans are making all this s**t up about their being any guard out here."

The way you described Kentuckians reminded me very much of that whole concept. And I was talking about them because YOU SAID Kentuckians could pwn whole armies. (I am, in case you feel the need to mention it, paraphrasing you.)

Yes, because that has no relevance to anything. It doesn't matter where we get guns (normally at gun shows and the like rather than chain stores anyways) so long as we have them.


But you are mocking an American attitude that you perceive, and the example of this attitude that you give us is from one of your own countrymen... I mean, it would make more sense to give some aggrandized quote from Sam Adams or some other figure of the American Revolution. 'Course, you probably aren't that familiar with our history.


Look over to the left for a second. Do you think I remember a comedy skit that was done before I had learned to talk?

As far as my description of Kentuckians, we interpreted those comments under different assumptions. I was assuming guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare is very, very difficult to defeat, hence my claim that even Kentucky alone would be difficult for most militaries to subjugate. You were assuming an outright battle between Kentucky and another country's military. That, Kentucky would lose. But in a guerrilla defense of their homes, Kentuckians would do at least as well as the Viet Cong. Remember now, I am talking about guerrilla warfare, and have been for some time. Not a straight-up encounter with an opposing army, but guerrilla terrorist tactics to bleed them dry.

From now on, please make sure you actually understand someone's comments before responding.

I'm against gun control for the reasons other people have already mentioned (protection from tyrrany/it only punishes law-abiding citizens).
There's a reason the founding fathers put that in the #2 spot...

Silly Cyanide, getting back to the original topic.

Anyways, even disregarding the legal, moral, and practical (crime-preventative) reasons why gun control is wrong in America, it simply could not be implemented here. The NRA lobby in Congress is too strong, and America is too gun-loving as a whole to surrender our weapons any time in the foreseeable future. Even if banning guns were a good idea (which it isn't) it could not be done, at least not for a quite a while.

All good points, and you aren't even bringing up how impossible it would be to round up all the guns in this country. Take England, for example. They've had a total handgun ban for more than ten years now, yet handguns still turn up quite regularly in the hands of criminals over there. This in a geographically small island nation that never really had a firearms tradition, and that had strict gun control for years before the total ban. Even Japan, where guns have always been a rarity, crooks still manage to arm themselves when they feel the urge to, despite strict laws and no local sources. Now imagine the US, a huge country with a long history of private gun ownership, vast stores of weapons in private hands and a large firearms industry, as well as our well known individualism and resourcefulness when it comes to resisting authority. It would be prohibition all over again with legitimate businesses going under and being replaced by underworld suppliers, a massive black market, and all the violence that entails. If the whole point of gun control is to prevent violence and save lives, shouldn't such a scenario be avoided at all costs?

Following up on my preceding post, what is the true goal of gun control advocates? If it is to save lives, as they often claim, there are many ways they could go about doing that that are both less contentious and more effective, so why this path? It's been pointed out before that gun control is in many ways the perfect authoritarian policy in that it weakens the individual, strengthens the government, and makes everyone more dependent upon the government and thus more likely to support strengthening it, all at the same time. Totalitarian regimes both hard left and hard right alike seem to agree that disarming the citizenry is a priority, so this hypothesis on the true motivation for gun control has more evidence in support of it than the usual reasons given by gun control advocates themselves. I don't actually think that most of the individuals in favor of gun control have sinister motives, I think that in general they are well meaning but misguided and mislead by the propaganda and misinformation put out by the various anti gun organizations and their political allies. They tend to exploit people's ignorance of firearms and firearms laws to create a distorted picture of guns and gun culture that bears no resemblance to reality. Look at how effective they have been at creating this perception of gun owners as rednecks, survivalists and/or generally ignorant, the comments of several members in this threat attest to their success. People like myself who are both educated and gun owners then have an uphill battle changing perceptions and countering spin, since our image has been so successfully distorted in the popular imagination. Even our primary advocacy group, the NRA has become a dirty word to many people, who don't understand why we can't give an inch to the people whom we are fighting.

You're displaying a singular (and intentional?) lack of imagination about what all can be done with a firearm, by your logic I suppose scalpels only cut people open. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Do you blame Ford or Budweiser when a drunk runs someone over? Do you blame Boeing when a pilot crashes a plane?



So we agree that guns do not fire themselves, and that it takes a human being to make one do anything? I'm glad to hear that, for a minute there I thought you were somehow arguing that guns make people do things by their very existence, and are capable of possessing their own morals and values. That would have been a pretty stupid argument to make...

Of course one must agree that a pissed off character with a tube of tooth paste is just as dangerous as one with a gun. Who could argue with that?

Since my time in the army in WWII I have met many intelligent creative decent worthwhile people from both Germany and Japan and the idea that circumstances of government and politics would have put me in the position of killing these people because I had no choice in the matter gives me no delight whatsoever. That a flick of a finger might make me able, without second thought, to turn a fellow human into a bloody mush horrifies me. That it does not horrify you indicates what perverse monsters can be created from potentially decent human beings and I am disgusted.

1: Supply and demand. Its difficult to conduct a war when your supply dries up. Yes, I know some know how to homegrow rounds, but many dont. A standing military has a whole network designed entirely to get bullets to its men. Guerillas lack that luxury, especially ones used to throwing a thousand rounds in a shopping cart at the weekend.

2: I was more mocking YOUR attitude directly rather than Americans as a whole, but meh. "Flag waving".. there.. is that better? Nice non-gender based, non-country based example. The fact that I'm talking about Americans to an (apparently) well educated American immediately invalidates any example not OF America? That's just silly. You claim to be Oxbridge standard material, you should be able to recognise a quote from a famous person that's apt, or if you dont, be willing to learn about it.

3: Your "claims" have become more and more watered down each time you post. Even more so you sound like that Bill Hicks sketch.

"They went from the Elite Kentucky guard who can beat any arny, to the Kentucky guard who could probably beat some armies of mediocre standard, to the Kentuckians are making s**t up about being able to beat anyone, even under certain conditions and provided that no-one shoots back..."

The difference, as has been pointed out, is occupation. Invasion techniques and tactics are far more brutal and efficient than occupation ones, and claiming that Kentucky would beat France but probably not China makes your original statement daft.

And you're 19. Whoopdedoo. Can I only mention events that happened in your life span then, in case you dont get them? Look a little higher. You're named for a writer of FICTION who wrote a book set BEFORE you were born, who DIED in the 50s, who wrote under a nom de plume. By your logic, neither of us should know anything about him.

Next I imagine your going to say that Literature is some how better than some guys standup routine, more important, more historically relevant. Go listen to Bill for a bit.

Sand wrote;

You didn’t mention anything about having served during WWII in your post, just that you were in the army which could have been last year for all we know.
Whether the thought of killing people in war or at home horrifies me or not is irrelevant.
I’ll do what I have to do to protect myself and my way of life as an American. If doing it horrifies me I’m still going to do it out of obvious necessity. That’s the biggest part of it for me for me, having the tools, the ability, and willingness to do what needs doing in this matter.
I really could care less about the otherwise decency or creativity of those that are trying to kill me for the very reason that they are trying to kill me.
If you’ve become soft with old age then that’s fine but it’s a luxury younger people can’t afford in this world.
It is and always will be a dangerous world and it’s not going to change as long as this planet is inhabited by people.

Having been in war I would think you'd know and accept that.
Makes me wonder...........

During a war, as opposed to a burglary say, those on the other side of the lines are just as likely to not really want to be there.

Softness? Or exposure to the harsh realities of warfare? I suggest the second. You do yourself a disservice with your horrendous lack of respect for someone who fought for your rights to be a gun-owning American etc etc.