Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Gun Control In Australia vs the USA


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
122 replies to this topic

#21 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:16 AM

There are an abundance of violations of liberty in America and the rate at which violations are being generated is increasing. That's why we need MANY MANY MORE guns.

 

The guns don't create or maintain the liberty. They allow a new liberty to be built when the old one spoils.

 

Frankly, it's this type of thinking that makes me wish sometimes that voting and military service were mandatory.


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

Sponsor:

#22 RivieraKid   Members   -  Reputation: 375

Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:23 AM

good grief, I didn't realize there were people in this world who actually think Americas will rise up against their government and attack them with guns in their life time.

 

Yeah... that will end well.

 

 I think some people have been playing too much Deus Ex. 



#23 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 26 April 2013 - 11:09 AM

good grief, I didn't realize there were people in this world who actually think Americas will rise up against their government and attack them with guns in their life time.

You sound like somebody from the early 1700s.

#24 kryotech   Members   -  Reputation: 881

Posted 26 April 2013 - 06:20 PM

The biggest issue with passing a law that bans citizens from owning guns (something which I as an American would wholeheartedly support) is that people like Khattharr here believe that liberty is protected and created by guns. This leads us to a very deeply ingrained gun culture. Many people here love their guns. Taking them away is tantamount to tyranny.

 

One question I would like to pose to people is that if liberty is equal to guns, then isn't that liberty already infringed in many ways? I don't believe that people can buy warplanes, tanks, warships, etc. So is the right to bear armaments not already violated? Why are people not allowed to own these weapons? Think closely....it's a bad idea. Same goes for owning guns, it's a bad idea to let the average person own them.


Kryotech

#25 mhagain   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 7960

Posted 26 April 2013 - 07:18 PM

I'm still having difficulty with the liberty == guns thing.  Surely if you're going to rise up against your government, the presence or absence of gun laws is kinda irrelevant?  You're by definition already an insurrectionist so why should possession of guns previous to that even matter?  You get them through other channels; raiding the local police station, etc.  Being able to carry guns on a daily basis aside from that possibility seems a bit "wild west" to me; this European need a little more than what has been said so far.


It appears that the gentleman thought C++ was extremely difficult and he was overjoyed that the machine was absorbing it; he understood that good C++ is difficult but the best C++ is well-nigh unintelligible.


#26 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8473

Posted 26 April 2013 - 07:39 PM

Same goes for owning guns, it's a bad idea to let the average person own them.

Your turn to think very closely about something, now. No knee-jerk reactions, here, no blindly spouting the party line. Exactly why is it a bad idea for the "average person" to own a firearm? Are average people the ones who do bad things with them? Is it honestly your opinion that a full 50% of the population would use firearms to commit crimes or otherwise behave irresponsibly with a gun if they had one? Really? Yikes. I wonder what kind of people you keep around you, that you have that perception. I hope to God that none of them have a driver's license. Argue what you want about the accessibility of firearms making it easier to commit certain crimes or violent acts at the spur of the moment; I won't deny that. But at least accept that that is the real question at issue here, not whether or not the average person is such a fumbling moron or blood-crazed lunatic that they simply can't be trusted with a firearm. If that ever does become the main issue, if it ever gets to the point that the average citizen really can't be trusted with a firearm, then there really is no hope for us at all.

You do understand that it's not illegal to own a tank, a warship or a warplane, right? You understand it's not "The Law" that keeps those out of the average citizen's hands? It's the expense. Granted, owning the live ordnance is a bit trickier, but you are free to own all the tanks your little heart desires, assuming you can afford them.

What I find interesting is this thinking that "you would stand no chance against the US government if it ever did come to that, so why do you even need guns?" When did rolling over and taking it become the recommended plan for dealing with oppressive regimes? What does that say about someone, as a person, that they think that is the best course?

It's sort of wrong thinking to equate guns with liberty, true. If it came to that, we wouldn't stand a chance. My hunting rifle would mean exactly squat when the drones come. But it's equally wrong to think that the rights of citizens protected under the Constitution, set in law at the founding of the country, should be circumscribed purely due to the actions of the tiny minority who abuse firearms. People throw up their hands in rage and disgust when Electronic Arts encumbers their games with abusive DRM, infringing upon the rights of the majority to enjoy their legally purchased product in the name of protecting the game from copying by the pirates. The amount of righteous fury surrounding the launch of SimCity was astounding. But do the same thing with the right to own a firearm and it's not only no big deal, but it's the right thing to do? And yes, it is a valid comparison here. You have a right that's being infringed upon for the sake of "safety" due to the abuse of a minority. The only difference is one of severity: the right to enjoy a purchased video game is not a Constitutionally protected right; however, the right to bear arms is. Circumscribing an amendment to the Constitution (and one that was once considered vital enough that it came second only to the right to free speech) is just definitely not something that should be taken lightly, or enacted on the basis of knee-jerk reactions and bogus "think about the children" rhetoric coming from the same administration that has the drones and no compunction about using them.

#27 BLM768   Members   -  Reputation: 295

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:02 PM

I'm still having difficulty with the liberty == guns thing.  Surely if you're going to rise up against your government, the presence or absence of gun laws is kinda irrelevant?  You're by definition already an insurrectionist so why should possession of guns previous to that even matter?  You get them through other channels; raiding the local police station, etc.  Being able to carry guns on a daily basis aside from that possibility seems a bit "wild west" to me; this European need a little more than what has been said so far.

 

Not having guns beforehand would make things much harder. How are you going to raid a police station when you don't have guns?

 

I think that this is at least partially a regional issue. In a place like Wyoming, the danger from guns is considerably lower than in more urbanized regions. They should have different restrictions.

 

Guns are definitely a part of American culture, probably because of our frontier roots. It's not just about self-defense; hunting and shooting sports are probably where most gun use occurs.

 

One thing that might make stricter gun control more palatable to Americans would be to provide better options for "non-lethal" self-defense weapons, but it wouldn't convince everyone. Personally, I'd like to have a gun for self-defense, but I'd be extremely reluctant to actually use it unless I really have no other option, which is unlikely. One of the places where a gun could be most useful is at home; if an armed assailant breaks into a home, there will most likely be more than just one person's life at stake, which makes the ability to put up an effective defense far more critical, and if the gun never leaves the home, it's pretty tough to commit a crime with it.

 

Maybe a partial solution would be to impose much harsher penalties on criminal uses of guns. That should at least discourage the less committed criminals, which frees up resources to tackle the hard-core bad guys, who would probably have guns no matter what the law says.



#28 Khaiy   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1342

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:00 PM

Maybe a partial solution would be to impose much harsher penalties on criminal uses of guns. That should at least discourage the less committed criminals, which frees up resources to tackle the hard-core bad guys, who would probably have guns no matter what the law says.

 

NRA says no way. They steadfastly resist any and all laws which would reduce the availability of guns or increase legal penalties for any sort of gun-related action.

 

I have a lot of serious problems with guns being so easily available. They are extremely dangerous: a stray bullet (or even an on-target bullet) can strike a random bystander a significant distance away from the shooter even without the shooter's intent. They are not fool-proof, even for experienced gun handlers (see DailyKos's ongoing series of gun incidents. There are a lot that involve gun instructors and police as well). And they are at least moderately likely to  be used improperly or in error-- a person living in a household with a gun is far more likely to be shot by that gun than an intruder is (though I think that particular point is a little overstretched).

 

Put these together with easy and barely restricted gun availability and you have a ton of devices capable of spraying death and serious injury around in large radii even in the hands of responsible owners. And that doesn't even begin to take into account all of the fools who play around with guns. Not to mention that they're concealable, in many states legally so, and gun owners generally bear very little liability for damage caused by their guns.

 

If you get drunk and kill someone with your car, that's vehicular manslaughter. If you get drunk and accidentally kill someone with your gun, there is not an equivalent charge. You are required (in the US) to carry liability insurance on your car, in recognition of how dangerous it can be even if used properly. With your gun, everyone around you bears nearly all of that risk while your own responsibility is often thin.

 

I'm not opposed to gun rights, in some capacity, but I do wish that more gun owners would recognize that there are valid, competing rights claims of others which often contend with those rights. There are plenty of points between a gun ban and unlimited gun freedom. The people who demand unlimited gun freedom will always seem unreasonable, because that is an unreasonable position. And while I don't think that that view is as widely held as it's sometimes portrayed, legislative pressure is consistently applied to produce that outcome.

 

 

What I find interesting is this thinking that "you would stand no chance against the US government if it ever did come to that, so why do you even need guns?" When did rolling over and taking it become the recommended plan for dealing with oppressive regimes? What does that say about someone, as a person, that they think that is the best course?

 

Revolutionary action against the government is inherently illegal, and it's odd to see such an action given any sort of legal support in this manner.

 

A better version of the argument, to my mind, is the one in which it inherently grants individuals (or groups) the license to decide "That's enough tyranny. Time to start shooting people up." While the idea of armed revolution as a safeguard might sound fine in the abstract, would you consider it valid for some group to start gunning people down at a state capital? A sudden county secession from its parent state, or the US? Under what conditions might you consider such actions to be justified and an honest, defensible application of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment?

 

In US history, plenty of people have taken up arms against the government because they felt the government to be intolerable. Which of these would you like to defend? If none, again, how should we apply the "2nd Amendment option" theory to any particular real-world scenario?



#29 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8473

Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:56 PM

A better version of the argument, to my mind, is the one in which it inherently grants individuals (or groups) the license to decide "That's enough tyranny. Time to start shooting people up." While the idea of armed revolution as a safeguard might sound fine in the abstract, would you consider it valid for some group to start gunning people down at a state capital? A sudden county secession from its parent state, or the US? Under what conditions might you consider such actions to be justified and an honest, defensible application of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment?
 
In US history, plenty of people have taken up arms against the government because they felt the government to be intolerable. Which of these would you like to defend? If none, again, how should we apply the "2nd Amendment option" theory to any particular real-world scenario?

To me, this is the more interesting question. Believe me, I have no desire for there to ever be any kind of armed uprising. I love this country, and for the most part I love the people in it. I don't love the government, but then who does? But it's an interesting question: when would it be valid to take up arms against the government? Was it valid during the West Virginia coal wars in 1920-1921, when the government colluded with coal mining companies to use violence and murder to squelch unionization efforts, even going so far as to drop leftover explosive and gas ordnance from WWI on several towns? When families, innocent wives and children, were caught in the crossfire as agents of the coal operators machine-gunned a tent city? Were the miners justified in taking up arms against the government then? I mean, it's not like the US government has a rich history of benevolence going for it. It has often acted in as sinister and malevolent a fashion as any despotic state. What reasons have they given to inspire trust?

Still, I personally don't think it will ever come to that. For all the rhetoric, this still just isn't a bad place to live. It's getting there, maybe, but I think that the "end" (whatever form it takes, if it ever comes) won't be any kind of insurgency, any kind of armed revolt, or any kind of boot-to-neck thuggery on the part of the government. I think it will be an economic collapse. I think that the illegal manipulations of the banks, the price-fixing scams, the over-emphasis on debt and spending, will eventually trigger a fairly cataclysmic collapse. I think that shortages and hunger and the riots that such would trigger will probably be a more imminent threat than any kind of official government oppression. And in that eventuality, a gun would be a valuable resource for protecting what you have against those who would try to take it.

I, personally, don't draw the connection of guns==liberty. For me, it's guns==sport, protection of the herd against predators, and last-ditch resort for protection against violence perpetrated against me or my family should the worst happen in any way, shape or form. I'm not some kind of gun-packing gunslinger wannabe who wears a handgun on my hip and swaggers around talking about it. There really aren't many like that even around here, where guns are so prevalent. Most everyone I know locks their guns up when they aren't needed, enrolls their children in hunter safety so that they, hopefully, learn to not do anything stupid, and just continues to live their lives aware that guns are just tools that have their use, and not some kind of preternaturally malevolent force that yearns to murder children and must be restrained at all costs by the leash of Law.

#30 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:53 PM

Was it valid during the West Virginia coal wars in 1920-1921, when the government colluded with coal mining companies to use violence and murder to squelch unionization efforts, even going so far as to drop leftover explosive and gas ordnance from WWI on several towns? When families, innocent wives and children, were caught in the crossfire as agents of the coal operators machine-gunned a tent city? Were the miners justified in taking up arms against the government then?

 

But this helps bolster Hodgman's point. The gov't has vast amounts of weaponry and army. Yeah, you have guns. But so what? You're gonna get crushed anyway. The gov't is going to continue anyway. The only way to really stop stuff like that from happening is an informed citizenry that goes to their gov't (with no guns) and demand it to stop. Oddly enough this has stopped more issues in the US than armed uprisings. So if the result is the same with or without guns, then what's the point of having en masse? Why not have gun laws like Australia's (they allowed farmers and ranchers to have guns) and allow reserves where people can sport for game. Or facilities for practice?

 

**Playing Devil's Advocate


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#31 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 26 April 2013 - 11:24 PM

But this helps bolster Hodgman's point. The gov't has vast amounts of weaponry and army. Yeah, you have guns. But so what? You're gonna get crushed anyway. The gov't is going to continue anyway.

This question doesn't really make sense in the frame of a revolution. If one were to start an armed revolt, it wouldn't be so much about being able to defeat the opposing force so much as making the cost high enough that the opposing force wouldn't think it is worth it to engage. Force is as much a political tool as it is a military tool.

I really think the argument that having guns in case of revolution not making sense is really ignorant of American history. You might not have the same frame of reference living somewhere else, but the US was literally founded by a group of armed citizens fighting for something they believed in against a government that had them totally outgunned. I don't understand how you could claim it's absurd when the country owes it's existence to that right.

The only way to really stop stuff like that from happening is an informed citizenry that goes to their gov't (with no guns) and demand it to stop.

What makes you so sure that an informed citizenry demanding the government stop will actually result in the government stopping?

#32 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 30352

Posted 26 April 2013 - 11:42 PM

The birth of democracy in Australia was also born out of a (much smaller) armed rebellion, caused by people being fed up with taxation without representation. There was only one battle, with 27 deaths, but that was enough to bring the issue out in the open, so that laws had to be changed in order to keep the populace calm and stop the insurgency from popping back up.

...but now we have democracy, so we don't need arms any more. The weapons of war against government evils these days are fundraising campaigns for television and newspaper advertising... The whole point of democracy is that the people can effect change through mass dialogue, rather than mass violence.

There's also countless European countries that fought wars in order to secure their modern forms of government.
To me, not really understanding American culture, the idea that the US has to be armed because there's been rebellions how ever many generations ago, seems like something stemming from the wacky "american exceptionalism" school of thought.

Does anyone really think that if you tried to declare independence from the state, and announced that you had arms to defend your independence, you wouldn't just be branded as a terrorist and very soon become the next ruby ridge massacre?

#33 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 26 April 2013 - 11:50 PM

But this helps bolster Hodgman's point. The gov't has vast amounts of weaponry and army. Yeah, you have guns. But so what? You're gonna get crushed anyway. The gov't is going to continue anyway.

This question doesn't really make sense in the frame of a revolution. If one were to start an armed revolt, it wouldn't be so much about being able to defeat the opposing force so much as making the cost high enough that the opposing force wouldn't think it is worth it to engage. Force is as much a political tool as it is a military tool.

 

And that works when you and the government have similar class of weapons. For instance, the Syrian government would have routed the rebels by now, if the UN, NATO, US, and EU didn't intervene and put them on an even playing field. Moreso with the war in Libya.

 

 

I really think the argument that having guns in case of revolution not making sense is really ignorant of American history. You might not have the same frame of reference living somewhere else, but the US was literally founded by a group of armed citizens fighting for something they believed in against a government that had them totally outgunned. I don't understand how you could claim it's absurd when the country owes it's existence to that right.

 

17th century weaponry, help from the French, and guerilla warfare won the day. But like you said, the price of continuing the war made Britain stop. Plus we're comparing 17th century weapons and situation to what would happen in the 21st century. Very very different things.

 

 

The only way to really stop stuff like that from happening is an informed citizenry that goes to their gov't (with no guns) and demand it to stop.

What makes you so sure that an informed citizenry demanding the government stop will actually result in the government stopping?

 

Are we talking about a democracy or a dictatorship? My sentence was in reference to the US.


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#34 slicer4ever   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3884

Posted 27 April 2013 - 12:46 AM

The only way to really stop stuff like that from happening is an informed citizenry that goes to their gov't (with no guns) and demand it to stop.

What makes you so sure that an informed citizenry demanding the government stop will actually result in the government stopping?

Because it's been done on countless occasions in the past, civil rights movement, the amendment and repeal of that amendment against liquor, the right for women to vote, teaching evolution in schools, etc.  their are so many occasions where the US government has changed laws, and policy's for the better.  That saying it doesn't work is absolutely ridiculous.  It's not something that happens overnight, but if you've got the drive to see a change, any person can make that change, you just can't expect it to happen instantly.


Edited by slicer4ever, 27 April 2013 - 12:54 AM.

Check out https://www.facebook.com/LiquidGames for some great games made by me on the Playstation Mobile market.

#35 kryotech   Members   -  Reputation: 881

Posted 27 April 2013 - 06:23 AM

Same goes for owning guns, it's a bad idea to let the average person own them.

Your turn to think very closely about something, now. No knee-jerk reactions, here, no blindly spouting the party line. Exactly why is it a bad idea for the "average person" to own a firearm? Are average people the ones who do bad things with them? Is it honestly your opinion that a full 50% of the population would use firearms to commit crimes or otherwise behave irresponsibly with a gun if they had one? Really? Yikes. I wonder what kind of people you keep around you, that you have that perception. I hope to God that none of them have a driver's license. Argue what you want about the accessibility of firearms making it easier to commit certain crimes or violent acts at the spur of the moment; I won't deny that. But at least accept that that is the real question at issue here, not whether or not the average person is such a fumbling moron or blood-crazed lunatic that they simply can't be trusted with a firearm. If that ever does become the main issue, if it ever gets to the point that the average citizen really can't be trusted with a firearm, then there really is no hope for us at all.

 

Alright, no knee-jerk reaction coming here :) , but the only thing I'd like people to consider is if it really is safe to have so many guns amongst average citizens. Granted, the majority of people are not murderers, but do you really feel comfortable with the easy access to guns in this country? There are more guns in this country than people. The guy in Newtown massacred kids because his mom felt it necessary to own a whole array of weapons. I've heard many arguments claiming various reasons for that massacre, but the fact is that he saw a gun, he decided to use it. Easy access to guns is the cause of plenty of crimes. Removing guns will remove lots of gun crime in the US. There are parts of cities that are free fire zones. They may as well be war zones. What I do not get is how removing guns will not reduce gun crime in the US. There are hurdles to implementing this law, but its not impossible. Given time, it will work. No solution will work overnight.

 

Moreover, you really think that we need guns to defend against the possibility that the government may become oppressive? Really? By that logic, every able bodied person should be trained in guerilla warfare, etc, just "in case" the government all of a sudden decides to become a dictatorship. There are so many more things that people then should do to prepare for this eventuality. Trust me, if the government was going to become a dictatorship soon, we'd see the signs. It's not happening any time soon. By that point, people would find ways to acquire weapons. I don't see how people have this perception that the government might become a dictatorship.


Kryotech

#36 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 27 April 2013 - 07:28 AM

What I do not get is how removing guns will not reduce gun crime in the US.

 

The legitimate argument is: If you remove all the guns from the law-abiding citizens, how will they protect themselves from the law-breaking criminals (who have guns)? How will the gov't ensure that no one has guns? Citizen and criminal alike.


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#37 FLeBlanc   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3101

Posted 27 April 2013 - 08:03 AM

Trust me, if the government was going to become a dictatorship soon, we'd see the signs. It's not happening any time soon. By that point, people would find ways to acquire weapons. I don't see how people have this perception that the government might become a dictatorship.

America isn't turning into a dictatorship. It's actually turning into something worse. Some dictatorships through history have been surprisingly honest and non-corrupt. Pretty nuts when an honest dictatorship is preferable to the soggy shitfest that we have now, where copyright violations can net you more prison time than rape or murder, and if someone has enough money they can do pretty much whatever they want. Besides, obama seems to be trying to turn it into... something, anyway. What do you call it when rampant budget cuts and a sequester proposed by obama himself run wild through the country, when the White house can't even do tours any more because there's no more money, but the president decides that this would be an excellent time to take back to back multi-million dollar vacations and golf trips (on the taxpayer dime), then when people complain he generously pledges to donate 5% of his meager official salary in the name of doing his fair share? If not a dictatorship, then what the fuck, exactly, is that?

People crack me up. You have things like Occupy Wall Street, where a bunch of hippies dress up in their tightest skinny jeans and their horn-rimmy-est glasses and march around screaming about how wall street corruption is ruining this country, but you tell them that the government might (and probably will) someday turn on them and they get all "ban guns, government won't hurt us!" instead. It's funny, I tell ya.

#38 szecs   Members   -  Reputation: 2139

Posted 27 April 2013 - 08:17 AM

-You are drunk again??

-Shut the fuck up you whore

*bam bam bam*

 

-Hey Timmy, I have found my father's gun, ain't it *bam* oh shit!

 

-Honey, I think there's a thief in the house. -There he is *bam bam bam bam*

*light goes up

-Noooooooo Timmy nooooooooooo!!!!!!!

 

 

 

There were plans in Hungary to make getting and owning firearms far more easier. Argument: so that families can protect their belongings and themselves.

In Hungary, most robbers and common criminals have mostly no or fake or riot weapons, they don't need to be afraid. Most robberies end up in no one getting hurt, or only getting beaten up.

Now, if we'd legalize guns, the arms race would begin, and criminals will have the advantage.

 

 

Sorry for the random shit post.



#39 FLeBlanc   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3101

Posted 27 April 2013 - 09:19 AM

Sorry for the random shit post.

Not really a shit post. It's a good point. At this point in the US, though, unless they can somehow magically remove the guns from the possession of assholes, then outlawing them will leave guns only in the hands of assholes. Eventually, as guns break or are lost or confiscated and no more come in, the situation might equalize but in the meantime there would be an awful lot of bad things happening. Although, given people's propensity here for not giving a flying fuck about prohibited things (drugs, anyone? booze, anyone?) and with Mexico right next door, even assuming that no more guns would come in is a pretty risky assumption to make.

I think that a lot of the Europeans here underestimate the awesome power of a very long and horribly insecure land border with Mexico. Hungary has a grand total of 2171km of land borders, and those are with countries that probably don't have any more guns than Hungary does. US has 3169km of border just with fucking Mexico, and most of it's wilderness and desert.

Granted, in recent years it seems like Obama's fast and furious dumbfuckery sent more guns that way than were coming in this way, but still the fact remains that if you're an asshole who wants a gun but the government won't let you buy one, you can bet your ass that somebody down there will be willing to sell you one and launch it over the fence with a drug catapult.

#40 RivieraKid   Members   -  Reputation: 375

Posted 27 April 2013 - 11:50 AM

good grief, I didn't realize there were people in this world who actually think Americas will rise up against their government and attack them with guns in their life time.

You sound like somebody from the early 1700s.

yeah, your going to shoot all the politicians and then take on the army.

 

or you could vote for someone else. If the government becomes a dictatorship no doubt other countries will step in.

 

We live in a different world to that of the 1700's.

 

In the 1700's freedom meant "I wont die because the current regime stinks"

today it means "I can download porn and smoke weed in my bedroom"

 

average Joe won't fight for the latter.






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS