Again, I was speaking from an American standpoint. The army is disallowed to fire on it's citizens and pretty much all of us own guns of some sort, in order to prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship. It's in the Second Amendment, "Right to Bear Arms"
Again, I was speaking from an American standpoint. The army is disallowed to fire on it's citizens and pretty much all of us own guns of some sort, in order to prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship. It's in the Second Amendment, "Right to Bear Arms"
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
yes people kill people, and guns just maximize the abililty to kill people.
I could find any object in my house and use it to kill you just as easily as I could with a gun.
Again, I was speaking from an American standpoint. The army is disallowed to fire on it's citizens and pretty much all of us own guns of some sort, in order to prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship. It's in the Second Amendment, "Right to Bear Arms"
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
yes people kill people, and guns just maximize the abililty to kill people.
I could find any object in my house and use it to kill you just as easily as I could with a gun.
Not as easily. With a gun you only have to pull the trigger.
I really just don't understand the mentality here. If violence is undesirable, and guns are unwanted, then the government must be included. Surely there is a greater potential for violence when a single monopolistic entity has total power, than when there is a competition for power. Speaking in support of the use of violent deadly force to prevent peaceful people from owning an object just makes leftists, and some on the right, sound backwards and thuggish.
Also, SkyPiercers!?, in the fantastical situation that the government would use the army to dominate the country, surely the government will have rectified the rule that says that the military cannot shoot upon civilians...
Although, I'm pretty sure you made that up, anyway. I've certainly heard of cases were the US military has opened fire on US citizens in the past.
But, the thing about being a democratic republic is, in order for an amendment to be rectified, it requires a majority vote from the other 2 branches of the government. If one were trying to seize complete control, I don't know what idiot would vote for that to be repealed.
And I've always learned that they aren't allowed to shoot civilians.
Also, SkyPiercers!?, in the fantastical situation that the government would use the army to dominate the country, surely the government will have rectified the rule that says that the military cannot shoot upon civilians...
Although, I'm pretty sure you made that up, anyway. I've certainly heard of cases were the US military has opened fire on US citizens in the past.
But, the thing about being a democratic republic is, in order for an amendment to be rectified, it requires a majority vote from the other 2 branches of the government. If one were trying to seize complete control, I don't know what idiot would vote for that to be repealed.
And I've always learned that they aren't allowed to shoot civilians.
You know that police and federal agents routinely murder innocent civilians right? Democide is the second largest killer of the twentieth century.
I'd rather everyone have guns than only the criminals.
Criminals will always have guns, thats why law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry weapons.
it makes u feel warm when someone gets stabbed, another person gets cut in the neck (atleast, thats what it looks like in the video) and the last dude gets shot twice? thank god i dont live in america...
Neither do I, so if that was meant as an insult it failed since I'm not American.
And I mean the fact that a scumbag lost his life while the inoccent people survived...all thanks to the clerks gun.
If guns were illegal for civilians those people would be dead and the criminal would've survived.
look at nazi-germany. hitler got to power completely legal. although i dont like getting World wars into this kind of stuff, its the perfect example.
Nazi-Germany was a dictatorship, and Hitler was voted into power. Before Nazi Germany, Ger. wasn't a democracy.
it was.... before hitler came to power there was something called the weimar republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic. it was lacking in lots of ways, but it was there. not to mention that after WW1 the german empire stopped to exist, the weimar republic was inneffective, and had issues thanks to the crash of new york in 1929. that plus versailles made germany go almost bankrupt..
You are going off topic. We aren't talking about money, we are talking about government systems.
Again, I was speaking from an American standpoint. The army is disallowed to fire on it's citizens and pretty much all of us own guns of some sort, in order to prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship. It's in the Second Amendment, "Right to Bear Arms"
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Once again, a revolt against the US government would likely be because they were already breaking the Constitution. You think the government could become a dictatorship and take over, but you also think that they will bother following one silly little rule in the Constitution that says "dont shoot civilians?" Thats not how a dictatorship works.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
it makes u feel warm when someone gets stabbed, another person gets cut in the neck (atleast, thats what it looks like in the video) and the last dude gets shot twice? thank god i dont live in america...
Neither do I, so if that was meant as an insult it failed since I'm not American.
And I mean the fact that a scumbag lost his life while the inoccent people survived...all thanks to the clerks gun.
If guns were illegal for civilians those people would be dead and the criminal would've survived.
There is a difference between all civilians owning firearms and people who run stores and such that get robbed frequently/are easy targets. Most home invasions arn't even done with firearms. I have plenty of friends that have broken into people's houses to steal; never have they had a gun or any sort of weapon on them. They know the penalties for killing/attack homeowners inside their own homes while you had an intent to rob them; versus just simply being arrested for breaking & entering. Stores get robbed frequently, and to rob a store you basically NEED a weapon. Unlike breaking into homes. So yes, clerks should be able to pack some heat while they work, seeing as they cant/dont always have a security guard/policeman inside.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
u want to fight against a proffesionally trained army? go ahead.....
And as I have said before, the US Army is not allowed to shoot its own people. And honestly, at least 75% of us own some sort of firearm and know how to use them. We outweigh our army by A LOT.
Also, who honestly believes that everyone in the army would kill civilians of their own country, because they were ordered to?
Another thing, guns don't create crime. Nobody picks up a gun and suddenly gets the urge to commit crimes. The overwhelming majority of gun owners aren't criminals.
Finally, the original intent of a device is irrelevant. You know what else was invented to kill people? Nuclear fission. Are you against nuclear power too?
There is a difference between all civilians owning firearms and people who run stores and such that get robbed frequently/are easy targets. Most home invasions arn't even done with firearms. I have plenty of friends that have broken into people's houses to steal; never have they had a gun or any sort of weapon on them. They know the penalties for killing/attack homeowners inside their own homes while you had an intent to rob them; versus just simply being arrested for breaking & entering. Stores get robbed frequently, and to rob a store you basically NEED a weapon. Unlike breaking into homes. So yes, clerks should be able to pack some heat while they work, seeing as they cant/dont always have a security guard/policeman inside.
And I want to be able to shoot your dumbass friends if I catch them breaking into my house...
Plus, I have no way of knowing if a robber has a gun or not, and I'd rather not take that chance.
The positives outweigh the negatives, guns should be legal.
You just admitted that you would rather take someone's life rather than restrain them. Bloodthirst and mental conditions are no reason for owning a gun. If you want to get someone bad to stop doing something , you use a taser.
That kind of thinking is exactly why criminals still exist.
Im guessing you are also against the death sentence?
Sorry but I wont tolerate scumbags who cause suffering to other peple.
If it is not necessary of course I wouldn't shoot, but I want to be able to have that option.
You never know what the person is planning to do...
You just admitted that you would rather take someone's life rather than restrain them. Bloodthirst and mental conditions are no reason for owning a gun. If you want to get someone bad to stop doing something , you use a taser.
That kind of thinking is exactly why criminals still exist.
Im guessing you are also against the death sentence?
Sorry but I wont tolerate scumbags who cause suffering to other peple.
If it is not necessary of course I wouldn't shoot, but I want to be able to have that option.
You never know what the person is planning to do...
Criminals are humans, too. To murder someone because they broke into your house is a bit extreme for some people, and I have no idea where you pulled the death sentence argument from. If we endorse killing to the level of murderous self defense, then will that not spawn a violent generation?
If you are able to restrain them and bring them to court, they will get their cake, so why bother doing it earlier and possibly risk being overly exaggerative?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
MineScience - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=166560
Dragonator - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=141803
Sand Skiffs - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=233346
I could find any object in my house and use it to kill you just as easily as I could with a gun.
MineScience - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=166560
Dragonator - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=141803
Sand Skiffs - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=233346
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffNot as easily. With a gun you only have to pull the trigger.
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
http://mises.org/
But, the thing about being a democratic republic is, in order for an amendment to be rectified, it requires a majority vote from the other 2 branches of the government. If one were trying to seize complete control, I don't know what idiot would vote for that to be repealed.
And I've always learned that they aren't allowed to shoot civilians.
MineScience - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=166560
Dragonator - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=141803
Sand Skiffs - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=233346
You know that police and federal agents routinely murder innocent civilians right? Democide is the second largest killer of the twentieth century.
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
http://mises.org/
Nazi-Germany was a dictatorship, and Hitler was voted into power. Before Nazi Germany, Ger. wasn't a democracy.
MineScience - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=166560
Dragonator - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=141803
Sand Skiffs - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=233346
I'd rather everyone have guns than only the criminals.
Criminals will always have guns, thats why law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry weapons.
Stories like this make me feel warm inside.
Neither do I, so if that was meant as an insult it failed since I'm not American.
And I mean the fact that a scumbag lost his life while the inoccent people survived...all thanks to the clerks gun.
If guns were illegal for civilians those people would be dead and the criminal would've survived.
You are going off topic. We aren't talking about money, we are talking about government systems.
MineScience - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=166560
Dragonator - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=141803
Sand Skiffs - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=233346
Once again, a revolt against the US government would likely be because they were already breaking the Constitution. You think the government could become a dictatorship and take over, but you also think that they will bother following one silly little rule in the Constitution that says "dont shoot civilians?" Thats not how a dictatorship works.
There is a difference between all civilians owning firearms and people who run stores and such that get robbed frequently/are easy targets. Most home invasions arn't even done with firearms. I have plenty of friends that have broken into people's houses to steal; never have they had a gun or any sort of weapon on them. They know the penalties for killing/attack homeowners inside their own homes while you had an intent to rob them; versus just simply being arrested for breaking & entering. Stores get robbed frequently, and to rob a store you basically NEED a weapon. Unlike breaking into homes. So yes, clerks should be able to pack some heat while they work, seeing as they cant/dont always have a security guard/policeman inside.
Also, who honestly believes that everyone in the army would kill civilians of their own country, because they were ordered to?
Another thing, guns don't create crime. Nobody picks up a gun and suddenly gets the urge to commit crimes. The overwhelming majority of gun owners aren't criminals.
Finally, the original intent of a device is irrelevant. You know what else was invented to kill people? Nuclear fission. Are you against nuclear power too?
And you know this how?
And I want to be able to shoot your dumbass friends if I catch them breaking into my house...
Plus, I have no way of knowing if a robber has a gun or not, and I'd rather not take that chance.
The positives outweigh the negatives, guns should be legal.
That kind of thinking is exactly why criminals still exist.
Im guessing you are also against the death sentence?
Sorry but I wont tolerate scumbags who cause suffering to other peple.
If it is not necessary of course I wouldn't shoot, but I want to be able to have that option.
You never know what the person is planning to do...
It's super effective!
Pointless thread has fainted!
This is why i love MC fourm's moderators
Criminals are humans, too. To murder someone because they broke into your house is a bit extreme for some people, and I have no idea where you pulled the death sentence argument from. If we endorse killing to the level of murderous self defense, then will that not spawn a violent generation?
If you are able to restrain them and bring them to court, they will get their cake, so why bother doing it earlier and possibly risk being overly exaggerative?