Gun Appreciation Day "Backfires"

[Shaun__]

LMFAO here... :lol:

I'm genuinely not trying to be funny. I mean, what kind of a man not only refuses to arm himself in defense of himself, his family, his country or his property, but rallies against it? The ancient Spartans had a word for such a person. They called them "women".

So if he caves to your peer pressure would he be a man? Several people have told me how dangerous and full of violent criminals Australia is and he is brave enough to face it unarmed and that impresses me.

 

[LadyLuna]

CarolinaCutie,

I applaud a lot of the things you said, but as a female member of the species I take offense to you calling Jupiter a woman just because of his views. Statements like that take things back to the 1940's... no thank you.

You are a woman, and a very beautiful fiery representative of the "fairer" sex you are! It's only fair, that if women get to have some women be all "manly" without being called gay or dyke, that men can have some men be not-so-"manly" without having their gender or sexual orientation called into question.

Translation: I like my men to have a bit of female in them. It balances out that little bit of maleness in me.

 

[Vicky_D]

Sounds like a compliment. Aristotle famously claimed that Spartan men were "ruled by their wives."

It's not. My grandfather catches Hell every Thanksgiving for being "ruled" by my grandmother, but guess what? His supper is cooked every night, his slacks stay clean and pressed and if they hear a bump in the night, she's not the one to go downstairs with a giant .357 magnum Blackhawk to check it out. I don't recall the the version of the Battle at Thermopylae where 300 Spartans defended Greece "to the last woman", either.

Not to kick the hornet's nest or anything, but all the things you listed above happened while Americans had legal, easy access to guns, did they not?. Easy access to guns didn't prevent those things from happening.

You're not kicking the hornet's nest, that's a completely valid question. The answer is yes, Americans did have pretty easy access to guns. The problem arises when you realize that the people persecuted in those examples either did use them to fight the government, as is the case in the 1860s, or the people persecuted in those examples didn't have easy access to them. In the 40s, Japanese interns were disarmed before they were taken to camps. Blacks in the 60s were kept from easy access to arms and ammunition by Jim Crow laws that allowed states and counties to discriminate using tests, background checks and permit schemes. Their countrymen didn't use their guns to defend them, it's true (and sad), but like I already pointed out, this isn't justification to disarm us now so that we may not defend ourselves in the future. It's important we not only be armed, but use these guns to defend the lives and liberties of others. Martin Niemoller taught us why this is important:

First they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

So if he caves to your peer pressure would he be a man? Several people have told me how dangerous and full of violent criminals Australia is and he is brave enough to face it unarmed and that impresses me.

So, your question is basically "If he caves to your peer pressure [to be a man] would he be a man?" lol, yeah. That's the gist of it. The latter part of your statement is a complete perversion of reality. Is Australia dangerous? According to their government, yeah. You're getting into subjective concepts like which scenario he chooses to live with: one where Australia is dangerous and he relies on other men to protect him or one where Australia is dangerous and he must use a scary, scary gun to do his part, personally, to make it a safer place. You can't quantify that reasoning and therefore it can't be debated.

Now that you've jumped in and defended him, which he seems to prefer, anyways, do you have something you want to say about gun control?

CarolinaCutie, I applaud a lot of the things you said, but as a female member of the species I take offense to you calling Jupiter a woman just because of his views. Statements like that take things back to the 1940's... no thank you.

Haha, I guess it is a bit offensive to women to lump him in with us, isn't it? I don't think doing it will do something so dramatic as taking us back to the 40s, though. I'm not a feminist, and believe the feminist agenda of destroying historical gender roles has actually hurt us as a species (for instance, cultures who embrace feminism have declining birth rates and a lower life expectancy). This is not to say that women shouldn't have the same individual liberties as men because we're still human beings. This is a totally different debate, though.

You are a woman, and a very beautiful fiery representative of the "fairer" sex you are! It's only fair, that if women get to have some women be all "manly" without being called gay or dyke, that men can have some men be not-so-"manly" without having their gender or sexual orientation called into question.

You're so sweet. You pass out compliments all day and, bless your heart, don't want to see anybody offended. I don't think women "get" to be immune from being called gay or dyke, though. Is it insensitive? Yeah, it is. People still have a right to say it, though. I also think men have the personal liberty to choose to be feminine but that comes with the risk that somebody might call them feminine.

Translation: I like my men to have a bit of female in them. It balances out that little bit of maleness in me.

Do you want a man with so much woman in him that he refuses to defend you? If so, I think we have a cultural disconnect that I'm not sure can be reconciled.

 

[Shaun__]

So if he caves to your peer pressure would he be a man? Several people have told me how dangerous and full of violent criminals Australia is and he is brave enough to face it unarmed and that impresses me.

So, your question is basically "If he caves to your peer pressure [to be a man] would he be a man?" lol, yeah. That's the gist of it. The latter part of your statement is a complete perversion of reality. Is Australia dangerous? According to their government, yeah. You're getting into subjective concepts like which scenario he chooses to live with: one where Australia is dangerous and he relies on other men to protect him or one where Australia is dangerous and he must use a scary, scary gun to do his part, personally, to make it a safer place. You can't quantify that reasoning and therefore it can't be debated.

Now that you've jumped in and defended him, which he seems to prefer, anyways, do you have something you want to say about gun control?

I saw people in this thread posting links to articles showing violent crime increasing after they had their guns seized. Jup has however faces this unarmed, and that still seems impressive to me. He is not huddled in a corner clutching a gun to defend himself, he is walking around in the sunlight instead. There is nothing cowardly about that.

My view on gun ownership is that it is over priced, because of people who live in fear that the mean liberal president will use his unlimited powers to take them all away. Those people living in fear have tripled the prices on guns, bought out the ammo supplies of some stores, and made reloading increasingly expensive. They basically did more to ruin gun ownership than the gun loving government ever will.

 

[Vicky_D]

I saw people in this thread posting links to articles showing violent crime increasing after they had their guns seized. Jup has however faces this unarmed, and that still seems impressive to me. He is not huddled in a corner clutching a gun to defend himself, he is walking around in the sunlight instead. There is nothing cowardly about that.

My view on gun ownership is that it is over priced, because of people who live in fear that the mean liberal president will use his unlimited powers to take them all away. Those people living in fear have tripled the prices on guns, bought out the ammo supplies of some stores, and made reloading increasingly expensive. They basically did more to ruin gun ownership than the gun loving government ever will.

:lol: You think gun owners are huddled in corners, clutching guns, afraid to go out? Haha. To the contrary, in cities with tight gun control, residents lock their houses up tight and sleep against the back walls. I'm a 120lb girl and I can go anywhere I like, at any time of day or night, without fear. I'm not afraid at night, home alone. Staying home, huddled in a corner is just as dangerous as going out in Australia since the percentage of home invasions that occur when the house is occupied averages over 20% all reported break-ins. Contrast that to the United States' 2.5%.

Gun prices are like anything else that becomes scarce due to limited availability or increased demand. It's no less reasonable for gun or ammo prices to rise, or supply to decrease, in the face of a ban than it is for gas prices to rise or oil supply to dwindle after instability in an oil-producing region. The same goes for any commodity, be it precious metals vs. monetary policy or corn vs. weather and climate conditions. This isn't fear, this is basic economic law. Supply and demand. Also, in the face of decreased supply and increased demand, prices fluctuate rapidly at first. Gun prices haven't even begun to stabilize, and while few might pay upwards of $2000 for a $700 AR15 (hardly triple, as you claim), most guns selling retail, nationally, haven't risen past normal MSRP. So far, only private sales are experiencing price markups.

Now, how do you think black market gun values in Australia compare? I guarantee that the same AR15 that I can go buy legally right now in a shop will be a fraction of the price as the one I have to buy behind the Australian government's back.

 

[Vicky_D]

I think it's interesting that nobody has been able to produce one stitch of factual rebuttal to anything gun-related (the bulk of my original post), instead focusing more on an abstract like how afraid Jupiter may or may not be. That's very telling.

It's also interesting that one of the most mouthy proponents of gun control is mum after one concise presentation of the facts.

 

[Red7227]

You're not kicking the hornet's nest, that's a completely valid question. The answer is yes, Americans did have pretty easy access to guns. The problem arises when you realize that the people persecuted in those examples either did use them to fight the government, as is the case in the 1860s, or the people persecuted in those examples didn't have easy access to them. In the 40s, Japanese interns were disarmed before they were taken to camps. Blacks in the 60s were kept from easy access to arms and ammunition by Jim Crow laws that allowed states and counties to discriminate using tests, background checks and permit schemes. Their countrymen didn't use their guns to defend them, it's true (and sad), but like I already pointed out, this isn't justification to disarm us now so that we may not defend ourselves in the future. It's important we not only be armed, but use these guns to defend the lives and liberties of others. Martin Niemoller taught us why this is important:

Guns don't matter. The Romanians overthrew one of the most vile depots in history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu

The Blacks and Japanese were oppressed successfully because the greater population allowed it to happen. Resistance to the Vietnam war was vocal and unified, and it worked. Since then governments have gotten their lies organised and the media on a leash so that the stories published match the reality they have create rather than the truth. Guns don't matter, people matter.

Jup and I live in a country with an atheist female prime minister, a totally independent judiciary, and free healthcare for everyone. Australia is a safe place to live and the government mostly irrelevant to our day to day lives. We have no metal detectors or armed guards in schools or shopping centres, and our police are mostly respected and trusted.

Yes we have opinionated bigots that espouse all kinds of filth, but we don't have your constitution, so we can just tell them to shut the fuck up. Gun ownership is seen as a privilege not a right, so when the government chose to eliminate most gun ownership after a couple mass shootings , nobody cared. Did it make a difference? not really, the impact on crime rates was negligible.

We live in a safe happy country where the sort of fear and bigotry that makes you think that owning a gun is important just doesn't exist.

 

[Jupiter551]

3 accidental gun show injuries aren't even a shadow of the abysmal failure that is Chicago gun legislation. Among the toughest gun laws in the country, murder capital of the United States. 'Nuff said.

Agreed, absolutely, the failure to recognise that the United States are in fact united, ie working with one another so society improves is the actual issue because gun control is never really going to work without actual enforcement. When I can drive from Indiana into Illinois with a carload of handguns to sell, gun control IS kind of a joke I totally agree.

Thing is, you're a 'nation', and have been for more than twice as long as my nation, and yet your political system allows, hell ENCOURAGES, politicians to protect special interest groups. Lobbying, btw, is nothing more than legalised and systematic bribery. Worse than bribery in fact because it usurps the democratic right of the people of your nation to collectively choose your nation's course.

Isn't that a freedom too?

Gun control hasn't worked in America because it hasn't been done properly, your idiotic political system drafts laws that are so picked-apart by 'special interest groups' that by the time they're passed they do little or nothing they were intended to do and a bunch of other invasive shit besides. And it's not Obama either, so you can stop fantasising about staging an armed revolt. It's the way money has crept into your politics bit by bit by bit.

You want freedom sister? Isn't that what the USA is about? Liberty? Individualism? Competition? Show me where the liberty is after you fall asleep at the wheel and allow yourselves to have a government subserviant to the corporate machinery and their lobbyist lapdogs? Individualism and freedom dies under a corrupt political system, your work, your life, your media is spoonfed to you by institutions with enough money and power and legal fiscal influence over elected officials to ensure that they NEVER lose, how much more uncompetitive can you get than paying the government to rig the system in your favour?

I'm having a good laugh at the hypocrisy of gun ban enforcement, too. You're actually advocating that our guns be banned and that this be enforced by men with guns. Really?

So, I take it you don't trust cops and soldiers to be reasonable, normal people with brains and, I might add, courage to risk their lives in service to their country - to you? That doesn't seem particularly patriotic. Wait, but you DO trust people who don't professionally risk their lives (your fellow citizens) to walk around with guns they have no actual professional need for? Oooook then. Logic and patriotism seem to have passed you by.

I guess that 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' was just leftist commie bullshit too, serving in law enforcement or the military isn't something to be admired in your belief system. Though I do notice you pay lip service to celebrating the bravery of the men with guns you actually don't trust.

The militia isn't a standing army, it's the whole of the people. “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” -George Mason. If you understood American history, this would already be clear.

Haha really? Because in American history the militia weren't the whole of the people, they were small locally raised volunteers with a reputation of breaking off from combat prematurely and generally being unreliable amateurs. Funnily enough that's exactly what they were - farmers and trappers and shopkeepers - amateurs. They played a role both from a political standpoint to help the 13 colonies trust one another, and a practical one of engaging in local skirmishes, supporting the bulk of the Continental Army when possible but generally had a poor reputation among regular troops. Most of the command structure of the Continental Army was comprised of former British forces and their colonial auxilleries lol, the idea that the average citizens who were in mostly disorganised local militias acting without efficient chain of command were responsible for securing independence is a ridiculous romantic fiction.

Civilians have no use for high capacity magazines or military-style rifles with military-grade accessories? The whole spirit of the Second Amendment is to keep the people abreast of a standing army so that we may adequately defend ourselves from said Army. So why did we allow ourselves to be barred the use of automatic weapons or large artillery? We shouldn't have and the generation that did should be ashamed because now we're weaker for it

.
Hey, do you know what your country calls people who decide to take up arms and use guerilla tactics and throw out a democratic government? If they're being charitable they're called 'insurgents', most of the time they just call them 'terrorists'.

It's an irrational fear and a conspiracy theory that our government would usurp its people? Yeah, that's what the Germans thought. That's what the Russians thought. That's what the Cambodians thought. That's what the Chinese thought. The U.S government is somehow above this? They weren't above it in the 60s when they turned guns and dogs on black citizens. They weren't above it in the 40s when they interned Japanese Americans in concentration camps simply for being ethnically Japanese. They weren't above it in the 1860s when posse comitatus was suspended and tens of thousands of Americans were murdered by federal troops. They don't seem to be above it now, seeing how American citizens and their children are being murdered in drone strikes or indefinitely detained without due process or so much as a warrant.

No argument from me that those in power, whoever they are, end up being immoral, self-serving assholes who feather their own nests. What you fail to realise though is that times have changed. Modern, wealthy governments no longer need to subjugate their people by force. They do it through allowing corporate interests to screw us, they do it with debt and consumerism and coercion and media conglomerate pressure and propaganda. You're already subjugated, but instead of using force they just use more subtle and insidious methods of market and media and government manipulation.

If you're thinking to overthrow the government by force you missed that boat. If you want to change things play their own game against them, get money OUT of politics and make it clear to your elected representatives that you will not abide corruption - legal or otherwise.

Why haven't you risen up against your government already, one idiot asked. I can't answer that, but I can say that's not justification for disarming Americans and preventing us from doing it in the future.

Well I kind of just answered that one for you - you can't rise up against them because they control you. They own most of you. You think 90% of the american people give a flying fuck about overthrowing the government? They're too busy wondering what they're going to have for dinner or why there's no mention of dinosaurs in the bible if the world's only 3000 years old or wtf ever.

The same idiot suggests that if such a thing did happen, we'd have to run away and fight a small-scale guerrilla war with little chance of success. Oh, yeah? You mean like George Washington did? You mean the same type of guerrilla war that has toppled empire after empire in Afghanistan? The same type of guerrilla war that sent the mighty American military home, beaten and demoralized, from South East Asia in 1975? Samuel Adams said, quite correctly, that "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

Specifically NOT however, the same kind of guerilla war where the bulk of the enemy army is on the other side of the atlantic and takes several months to arrive. Or can call in an airstrike in a matter of minutes.
All those conflicts you mentioned had at least one of two preconditions: home ground advantage, or popular support against the government in power. The first case is obviously a moot point since both sides know the terrain. Government probably knows it a tad better than you though and also has sattelites, etc. In the second case you actually wouldn't need a to stage a civil war because if the government became absolutely unbearable to the majority of the people do you really have such suspicion toward your own cops and military that you think they'd not fight for you? Let's be realistic, if there's a civil war the people you'll be turning your guns on are your law enforcement, your military. Think about that for a minute.

The very same idiot, who is just on a roll right now, said it's immoral to let people die.

Hahah :-D sorry...I got through the first half of that sentence before I realised you weren't referring to yourself.

One person suggested, quite reasonably, I might add, that guns should be treated like cars as far as registration goes. The problem with that is this: The purpose of motor vehicle registration isn't primarily safety. It's revenue. Registration fees are collected to cover (some of) the costs of public highway maintenance, not to make sure someone can get your plate number if you commit a crime.

Revenue may have become the motivating factor, and as I've already explained it's a pervasive one in your society, but in a democratic society that's your collective responsibility to fix, unless of course you just don't really believe in democracy at all? I would urge you to take an active role in trying to ensure that reasonable laws are passed that both increase safety and are not influenced by monetary concerns. I've always thought this was fairly obvious but your elected government officials are there because either you put them there, or you and your fellow citizens collectively failed to take a responsible role in keeping them out of office. The only thing that scares politicians is the thought they might actually lose re-election.

The only thing that separates a democracy from violent anarchy is the understanding that when there's a problem you engage in the democratic process not just pick up the nearest rifle and start shooting cops because you don't like the laws the democratically elected government is enacting.

By your logic, only police and military should have to register their guns since they're the only guns used specifically for the public by men acting in a public capacity.

If you're referring to firearms used in their professional capacity...lol I don't know what to say to this. Service weapons are far more highly regulated and controlled during off-duty hours than any civilian weapons. Soldiers don't get to like, take their assault rifle out clubbing and stuff.

What about tests, you say? Background checks? These things were done before here in America. We refer to them now as Jim Crow Laws.

If you can't peacefully negotiate a system that helps to stop firearms ending up in the wrong hands without letting your govt slip into some potential tyrannical regime, then I dunno what to tell you. Just start shooting I guess, I wonder who the next superpower will be? Cos after the dust settles what's left of your country would be in ruins. :dontknow:

I'm neck deep in freedom-hating, Commie bullshit at the moment, so if you have any more completely ridiculous logical fallacies you'd like me to utterly destroy. run 'em by me.

lol Commie bullshit, I just pointed out over and over that you should be using the democratic process to effect change, rather than sitting on your collective asses waiting for the shit to hit the fan so you can kill each other. Yeah that's so communist, suggesting you actually USE the democratic rights and responsibilities your founding fathers gave you. Also clearly I hate freedom because I'm suggesting you actually do something proactive to get money and corporate interest out of politics. Being slaves to big business! Yes that's capitalism in America right now and that's freedom! (not).

One other thing, Australian soldiers have paid in BLOOD to fight in every single one of your wars for the last 60 odd years and will no doubt continue to fight and die in the next pointless wars you start too, because we believe in democracy, freedom, and perhaps most of all mateship. Our boys have fought and died for you in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq both times and Afghanistan, as well as a few other conflicts you didn't bother to support us in. I'm proud to be an Australian, and while I don't consider 'commie' an insult, Aussies mostly think gun control measures are sensible and if you think that makes us freedom-haters then I think you should show some fucking respect.

Oh, and for the record, any new gun laws don't mean shit to me. I have no intention of obeying them. I'll happily go shopping at that black market everyone keeps telling me so much about; I just hope they sell Coach bags big enough to fit my 30-round AR mags. If you don't like it, back that tough talk up and come take 'em from me. Better bring some guns, though.

You're suggesting you'll shoot anyone who attempts to do their job by enforcing what would be an entirely appropriately passed legislation, accuse others of tough talk?

Hey Amber, any chance of getting a :crazy: emote put on the board?

 

[Vicky_D]

Guns don't matter. The Romanians overthrew one of the most vile depots in history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu

Did you really just use Wikipedia as a citation? If you're going to use something, at least read it first. If you had you'd have seen this: "The unarmed rioters were no match for the military apparatus concentrated in Bucharest, which cleared the streets by midnight and arrested hundreds of people in the process." and "During the course of the revolution, the western press published estimates of the number of people killed by the Securitate in attempting to support Ceaușescu and quell the rebellion. The count increased rapidly until an estimated 64,000 fatalities were widely reported across front pages." 64,000 people in two days!? This is your argument that guns aren't necessary? :lol:
Even if this particular regime was overthrown without the use of arms, it's the exception. For every unarmed revolution (not failure of a government because of invasion or financial collapse) you can name, I can name a dozen successful armed revolutions.

The Blacks and Japanese were oppressed successfully because the greater population allowed it to happen. Resistance to the Vietnam war was vocal and unified, and it worked. Since then governments have gotten their lies organised and the media on a leash so that the stories published match the reality they have create rather than the truth. Guns don't matter, people matter.

That's exactly right. The greater population supported the disarmament and oppression of these relatively small groups. Exactly the reason every man should be armed and take responsibility for his own liberties. You just made my point for me, guy.

Jup and I live in a country with an atheist female prime minister, a totally independent judiciary, and free healthcare for everyone. Australia is a safe place to live and the government mostly irrelevant to our day to day lives. We have no metal detectors or armed guards in schools or shopping centres, and our police are mostly respected and trusted.

One, your prime minister's religious ideology and gender are irrelevant. Two, your healthcare isn't free. Your government pays 9% of Australia's GDP for public healthcare and still requires you to pay an average of 39% of your total bill. This, too, is irrelevant to the conversation, though. Three, the only schools here with metal detectors are generally those in high-crime districts with strict gun laws. I've never been to a mall with metal detectors. Our police are largely respected and trusted, but more importantly, our arms remind them who they work for, so they respect and trust us.

Yes we have opinionated bigots that espouse all kinds of filth, but we don't have your constitution, so we can just tell them to shut the fuck up. Gun ownership is seen as a privilege not a right, so when the government chose to eliminate most gun ownership after a couple mass shootings , nobody cared. Did it make a difference? not really, the impact on crime rates was negligible.

Your first sentence is irrelevant, even though I don't think it's something to brag about that you can't have constitutionally protected public opinions without fear of arrest. We can also tell someone to "shut the fuck up". What's your point? Gun ownership is a right. Just because Australians don't have a sense of liberty and let a gun ban pass without a fight doesn't mean we have to. It didn't really make a difference!? HA! The impact on crime rates was negligible!? Dude, this shows exactly how little you know about the effect of your own government's policies. Do I need to cite the crime stats from your own Australian Institute of Criminology to prove you wrong? I will if you want.

We live in a safe happy country where the sort of fear and bigotry that makes you think that owning a gun is important just doesn't exist.

Eh, safety and happiness is a relative concept. This is like one slave telling another slave how safe and happy he is that his master doesn't beat him.

 

[Mirra]

I think it's interesting that nobody has been able to produce one stitch of factual rebuttal to anything gun-related (the bulk of my original post), instead focusing more on an abstract like how afraid Jupiter may or may not be. That's very telling.

I honestly didn't feel like reading your entire post when I started getting the "angry bully" vibe... but fine. I'll give a crack at it.

I don't know if I've ever read so much liberal horseshit in one place in my life. I think I've seen it all here.

3 accidental gun show injuries aren't even a shadow of the abysmal failure that is Chicago gun legislation. Among the toughest gun laws in the country, murder capital of the United States. 'Nuff said.

I'd like to see where you get your figures on Chicago being the top. It varies a bit by year but typically I hear about Detroit being on top. Also an effective argument can be made that Chicago's gun legislation would be more effective if it was state wide or if its borders were policed like it was a separate country. Not sure I'd call this a fact.

I'm having a good laugh at the hypocrisy of gun ban enforcement, too. You're actually advocating that our guns be banned and that this be enforced by men with guns. Really?

The militia isn't a standing army, it's the whole of the people. “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” -George Mason. If you understood American history, this would already be clear.

Civilians have no use for high capacity magazines or military-style rifles with military-grade accessories? The whole spirit of the Second Amendment is to keep the people abreast of a standing army so that we may adequately defend ourselves from said Army. So why did we allow ourselves to be barred the use of automatic weapons or large artillery? We shouldn't have and the generation that did should be ashamed because now we're weaker for it.

It's a little ironic that a gun ban would be enforced by people with guns, but I don't see it as hypocrisy. The whole idea is that military and law enforcement would be the ones with the most fire power... a fact that you concede and then go on to point out the possible dangers in. As for your definition of a militia, I guess that's fair enough. A militia can be many things and a group of ordinary citizens with their weapons very well could comprise such a thing. Fretting over automatic weapons and artillery is so 20th century though. We're OBVIOUSLY going to need our own UAVs (drones) if we're going to keep up with the professional military at this point.

It's an irrational fear and a conspiracy theory that our government would usurp its people? Yeah, that's what the Germans thought. That's what the Russians thought. That's what the Cambodians thought. That's what the Chinese thought. The U.S government is somehow above this? They weren't above it in the 60s when they turned guns and dogs on black citizens. They weren't above it in the 40s when they interned Japanese Americans in concentration camps simply for being ethnically Japanese. They weren't above it in the 1860s when posse comitatus was suspended and tens of thousands of Americans were murdered by federal troops. They don't seem to be above it now, seeing how American citizens and their children are being murdered in drone strikes or indefinitely detained without due process or so much as a warrant.

Most of this reeks of fear mongering to me. I will, however, concede that the country has made many mistakes in its past and that our rights as citizens have been eroded drastically in the name of safety over the past 12 years.

Why haven't you risen up against your government already, one idiot asked. I can't answer that, but I can say that's not justification for disarming Americans and preventing us from doing it in the future.

The same idiot suggests that if such a thing did happen, we'd have to run away and fight a small-scale guerrilla war with little chance of success. Oh, yeah? You mean like George Washington did? You mean the same type of guerrilla war that has toppled empire after empire in Afghanistan? The same type of guerrilla war that sent the mighty American military home, beaten and demoralized, from South East Asia in 1975? Samuel Adams said, quite correctly, that "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

See, this is where I want to stop reading. There's no need to be a bitch here. If such a thing were to happen it would likely be after massive casualties in an initial wave followed by holdouts fighting over the course of years and years. It would not be pleasant and it would probably lead to the end of the country as we weakened ourselves in a civil war leaving us weak against one of the many countries who don't care for us too much.

The very same idiot, who is just on a roll right now, said it's immoral to let people die. Peaceful gun owners didn't let anybody die, you twit. 80 million American gun owners killed no one last year. The government let them die by disarming them and allowing people who have no regard for the law single them out as victims.

Right. Those victims weren't voluntarily unarmed. They were disarmed. That's not at all skewed. I can do that too and actually be more accurate. Of the nearly 8600 murders with a firearm in 2011 a majority owned (though not necessarily legally) the weapon used in the crime! Oh snap.

One person suggested, quite reasonably, I might add, that guns should be treated like cars as far as registration goes. The problem with that is this: The purpose of motor vehicle registration isn't primarily safety. It's revenue. Registration fees are collected to cover (some of) the costs of public highway maintenance, not to make sure someone can get your plate number if you commit a crime. Cars can be owned and operated on private property without a license or registration. Firearms aren't generally operated in the public domain, rather the private one. Before the argument is made that people take their guns in public all the time (this seems like something a liberal would suggest), remember that your person and the property you keep on your person is private and not considered public domain. Registration of guns is a 4th Amendment issue. By your logic, only police and military should have to register their guns since they're the only guns used specifically for the public by men acting in a public capacity.

What about tests, you say? Background checks? These things were done before here in America. We refer to them now as Jim Crow Laws.

So because you suggest that registration of vehicles is primarily for revenue that means it shouldn't be used for tracking of firearms? Just because that's not why such a thing exists for vehicles doesn't mean it wouldn't work well for it. As for it being a violation of your 4th Amendment rights, I disagree. Especially if the gun registration database isn't a part of public domain. I'd argue the issue further, but neither of us will convince each other so let's just agree to disagree on this part.

I'm neck deep in freedom-hating, Commie bullshit at the moment, so if you have any more completely ridiculous logical fallacies you'd like me to utterly destroy. run 'em by me.

Oh, and for the record, any new gun laws don't mean shit to me. I have no intention of obeying them. I'll happily go shopping at that black market everyone keeps telling me so much about; I just hope they sell Coach bags big enough to fit my 30-round AR mags. If you don't like it, back that tough talk up and come take 'em from me. Better bring some guns, though.

You committed a few logical fallacies yourself. Good luck finding all of those firearms you'll be buying on the black market. Hopefully they have some that will go well with your shoes. If it comes to a point where I am ordered to come take your gun from you, I'll make sure I bring a properly registered weapon of my own. :thumbleft:

Did you really just use Wikipedia as a citation?

Better than no citations at all.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Now, how do you think black market gun values in Australia compare? I guarantee that the same AR15 that I can go buy legally right now in a shop will be a fraction of the price as the one I have to buy behind the Australian government's back.

But that's part of the point, isn't it? In a country where guns are not legal, you wouldn't want them to be available to criminals at low cost. You would want them to come at a premium, thus making them harder to obtain. The harder they are to obtain, the better.

 

[Red7227]

Guns don't matter. The Romanians overthrew one of the most vile depots in history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu

Did you really just use Wikipedia as a citation? If you're going to use something, at least read it first. If you had you'd have seen this: "The unarmed rioters were no match for the military apparatus concentrated in Bucharest, which cleared the streets by midnight and arrested hundreds of people in the process." and "During the course of the revolution, the western press published estimates of the number of people killed by the Securitate in attempting to support Ceaușescu and quell the rebellion. The count increased rapidly until an estimated 64,000 fatalities were widely reported across front pages." 64,000 people in two days!? This is your argument that guns aren't necessary? :lol:
Even if this particular regime was overthrown without the use of arms, it's the exception. For every unarmed revolution (not failure of a government because of invasion or financial collapse) you can name, I can name a dozen successful armed revolutions.

Sweetie, i'm not actually going to waste my time trying to prove anything to you, but other people might need reminders on how you are wrong. Nice tits by the way.

I can name a dozen successful armed revolutions.

Off you go then...

 

[LailaBaise]

Sweetie, i'm not actually going to waste my time trying to prove anything to you, but other people might need reminders on how you are wrong. Nice tits by the way.

Someone feels emasculated. :roll:

 

[Vicky_D]

Agreed, absolutely, the failure to recognise that the United States are in fact united, ie working with one another so society improves is the actual issue because gun control is never really going to work without actual enforcement. When I can drive from Indiana into Illinois with a carload of handguns to sell, gun control IS kind of a joke I totally agree.

As it should be.

Thing is, you're a 'nation', and have been for more than twice as long as my nation, and yet your political system allows, hell ENCOURAGES, politicians to protect special interest groups. Lobbying, btw, is nothing more than legalised and systematic bribery. Worse than bribery in fact because it usurps the democratic right of the people of your nation to collectively choose your nation's course.

Isn't that a freedom too?

Nobody's arguing that our politicians aren't largely disconnected from the people. Nobody's made the argument that special interests are moral. Where you seem to get confused is that you think the rights of the individual can be taken in a democratic process. This is exactly why our founders didn't make the United States a democracy, but a republic, and why our constitution and the Bill of Rights exists. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. So, no, it's not freedom to allow 51% of a population to choose certain laws for the other 49%.

Gun control hasn't worked in America because it hasn't been done properly, your idiotic political system drafts laws that are so picked-apart by 'special interest groups' that by the time they're passed they do little or nothing they were intended to do and a bunch of other invasive shit besides. And it's not Obama either, so you can stop fantasising about staging an armed revolt. It's the way money has crept into your politics bit by bit by bit.

Political gridlock is a wonderful thing. There is a surplus of invasive legislation, already. No sense in adding any more. Maybe you want a well oiled and efficient oppression machine in your country, but not here. It's not entirely Obama's fault, but I don't think you have the first damned clue how much the executive has overstepped it's bounds over that last several decades.

You want freedom sister? Isn't that what the USA is about? Liberty? Individualism? Competition? Show me where the liberty is after you fall asleep at the wheel and allow yourselves to have a government subserviant to the corporate machinery and their lobbyist lapdogs? Individualism and freedom dies under a corrupt political system, your work, your life, your media is spoonfed to you by institutions with enough money and power and legal fiscal influence over elected officials to ensure that they NEVER lose, how much more uncompetitive can you get than paying the government to rig the system in your favour?

I agree. This is why those of us who don't condone the loss of liberty are a breath away from actually needing the guns we have. Also, I'm not your fucking sister, dickhead.

So, I take it you don't trust cops and soldiers to be reasonable, normal people with brains and, I might add, courage to risk their lives in service to their country - to you? That doesn't seem particularly patriotic. Wait, but you DO trust people who don't professionally risk their lives (your fellow citizens) to walk around with guns they have no actual professional need for? Oooook then. Logic and patriotism seem to have passed you by.

First, that bullshit "you're not patriotic" accusation doesn't work on me, so save it. Maybe you'll follow a flag anywhere, but I think for myself and while I appreciate the sacrifices made by those men who fought and died fighting for liberty, I don't consider an American service member or police officer infallible simply because he happens to wear a uniform. That's how fiascoes like the rise of the Nazi party take place. Do I trust a cop to have a gun? No less than I trust anybody else to have one. Do I trust that a cop will be there, on the spot, if I need to be protected? Fuck no. Do I trust a cop not to take advantage of his authority without some sort of check? Fuck no. He's a man, just like anybody else and susceptible to the evils of corruption. Crab fishermen professionally risk their lives. So do construction workers. So do race car drivers. You seem to think cops do that dangerous job for free, without compensation. It's a career and they get paid to put themselves in dangerous positions, so they don't get any special gratitude from me beyond the taxes I pay.

I guess that 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' was just leftist commie bullshit too, serving in law enforcement or the military isn't something to be admired in your belief system. Though I do notice you pay lip service to celebrating the bravery of the men with guns you actually don't trust.

:lol: I have more respect for a man who arms himself and protects his community simply because it's the right thing to do more than a man who does it for money.

Haha really? Because in American history the militia weren't the whole of the people, they were small locally raised volunteers with a reputation of breaking off from combat prematurely and generally being unreliable amateurs. Funnily enough that's exactly what they were - farmers and trappers and shopkeepers - amateurs. They played a role both from a political standpoint to help the 13 colonies trust one another, and a practical one of engaging in local skirmishes, supporting the bulk of the Continental Army when possible but generally had a poor reputation among regular troops. Most of the command structure of the Continental Army was comprised of former British forces and their colonial auxilleries lol, the idea that the average citizens who were in mostly disorganised local militias acting without efficient chain of command were responsible for securing independence is a ridiculous romantic fiction.

The Continental Army was made up of citizens, not former British regulars, who largely supplied and fought with their own guns. They were trained by American officers who had, at one time, fought for the crown and French liaisons, not the British. What a stupid thing to say. The Japanese didn't invade the mainland United States in WWII because they knew the people were armed. I can quote several of the founders of this country who said their intention was an armed populace, not a small group of armed men. Standing armies were intended to be raised in time of national crisis, not maintained like they are. I think they'd know their intentions a Hell of a lot better than you would, smart guy. You should brush up on your American history and stop omitting important details if you want to have this conversation, because you just made yourself look awfully dumb.

Hey, do you know what your country calls people who decide to take up arms and use guerilla tactics and throw out a democratic government? If they're being charitable they're called 'insurgents', most of the time they just call them 'terrorists'.

And? The Founders were called traitors and rebels by the British. What do I care what the government calls anything? You can call them unicorns, for all I give a shit.

No argument from me that those in power, whoever they are, end up being immoral, self-serving assholes who feather their own nests. What you fail to realise though is that times have changed. Modern, wealthy governments no longer need to subjugate their people by force. They do it through allowing corporate interests to screw us, they do it with debt and consumerism and coercion and media conglomerate pressure and propaganda. You're already subjugated, but instead of using force they just use more subtle and insidious methods of market and media and government manipulation.

Modern governments don't need to subjugate by force, huh? Tell that to DHS, who just ordered 40 million more .40 hp rounds than they budgeted for, Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the ATF, local police departments and their SWAT divisions. Tell that to the Egyptians and the Palestinians. That was just another ridiculous statement founded on a stupid premise.

If you're thinking to overthrow the government by force you missed that boat. If you want to change things play their own game against them, get money OUT of politics and make it clear to your elected representatives that you will not abide corruption - legal or otherwise.

That boat is never missed as long as the people are armed.

...you can't rise up against them because they control you. They own most of you. You think 90% of the american people give a flying fuck about overthrowing the government? They're too busy wondering what they're going to have for dinner or why there's no mention of dinosaurs in the bible if the world's only 3000 years old or wtf ever.

Again, you ignore our history. A majority of colonist didn't favor armed insurrection against the crown until it was underway.

Specifically NOT however, the same kind of guerilla war where the bulk of the enemy army is on the other side of the atlantic and takes several months to arrive. Or can call in an airstrike in a matter of minutes.
All those conflicts you mentioned had at least one of two preconditions: home ground advantage, or popular support against the government in power. The first case is obviously a moot point since both sides know the terrain. Government probably knows it a tad better than you though and also has sattelites, etc. In the second case you actually wouldn't need a to stage a civil war because if the government became absolutely unbearable to the majority of the people do you really have such suspicion toward your own cops and military that you think they'd not fight for you? Let's be realistic, if there's a civil war the people you'll be turning your guns on are your law enforcement, your military. Think about that for a minute.

Popular Support didn't evaporate until the monetary and death tolls were high, in the cases I mentioned. Also, it's U.S. military policy not to deploy troops into the areas around their own homes. An infantry unit from New York isn't going to fare well against a militia in Florida. Either way, these are hypotheticals that in no way, shape or form justify disarming people and taking away their ability to combat an oppressive government.

:-D sorry...I got through the first half of that sentence before I realised you weren't referring to yourself.

Yeah, you've got nothing.

Revenue may have become the motivating factor, and as I've already explained it's a pervasive one in your society, but in a democratic society that's your collective responsibility to fix, unless of course you just don't really believe in democracy at all? I would urge you to take an active role in trying to ensure that reasonable laws are passed that both increase safety and are not influenced by monetary concerns. I've always thought this was fairly obvious but your elected government officials are there because either you put them there, or you and your fellow citizens collectively failed to take a responsible role in keeping them out of office. The only thing that scares politicians is the thought they might actually lose re-election.

You mean the same reasonable laws that have proven to be an abysmal failure in your country? I've seen how your government has fucked its citizens with gun control. No, thank you.

If you're referring to firearms used in their professional capacity...lol I don't know what to say to this. Service weapons are far more highly regulated and controlled during off-duty hours than any civilian weapons. Soldiers don't get to like, take their assault rifle out clubbing and stuff.

This still doesn't make a case for registration of private guns. You are king of the Red Herring.

If you can't peacefully negotiate a system that helps to stop firearms ending up in the wrong hands without letting your govt slip into some potential tyrannical regime, then I dunno what to tell you. Just start shooting I guess, I wonder who the next superpower will be? Cos after the dust settles what's left of your country would be in ruins. :dontknow:

Now you're a fortune teller, too. The same thing was said about our revolution in the 18th century. Being a world power isn't the goal, either.

lol Commie bullshit, I just pointed out over and over that you should be using the democratic process to effect change, rather than sitting on your collective asses waiting for the shit to hit the fan so you can kill each other. Yeah that's so communist, suggesting you actually USE the democratic rights and responsibilities your founding fathers gave you. Also clearly I hate freedom because I'm suggesting you actually do something proactive to get money and corporate interest out of politics. Being slaves to big business! Yes that's capitalism in America right now and that's freedom! (not).

Who's sitting around waiting for shit to hit the fan? Millions of Americans are working right now to preserve our rights, yet morons like you have an invincible ignorance and refuse to deal with facts or logic, intead opting to run with emotions and hypothetical "if we only"s. You keep talking and talking and talking about money and big business. What the flying fuck does that have to do with me giving up my guns? Stay on topic.

One other thing, Australian soldiers have paid in BLOOD to fight in every single one of your wars for the last 60 odd years and will no doubt continue to fight and die in the next pointless wars you start too, because we believe in democracy, freedom, and perhaps most of all mateship. Our boys have fought and died for you in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq both times and Afghanistan, as well as a few other conflicts you didn't bother to support us in. I'm proud to be an Australian, and while I don't consider 'commie' an insult, Aussies mostly think gun control measures are sensible and if you think that makes us freedom-haters then I think you should show some fucking respect.

Have some fucking respect? How about this: Fuck you and your faggoty Australian soldiers. You sit here and pound your keyboard with those sissy little dick-skinners of yours about fighting unjust wars and then get all misty-eyed and supportive of Australian soldiers who helped fight them? You fucking hypocrite. Go fuck yourself. A piece of shit like you wouldn't consider "Commie" an insult, either, you Bolshevik fuck.

You're suggesting you'll shoot anyone who attempts to do their job by enforcing what would be an entirely appropriately passed legislation, accuse others of tough talk?

Hey Amber, any chance of getting a :crazy: emote put on the board?

I'm not suggesting anything. I said it quite plainly. Pass the legislation and try to enforce a confiscation. Watch the fireworks start. We won't roll over and turn our personal property in like you subservient little twats did.

Hey Amber, any chance of getting a ussy: emote put on the board?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

My is this getting good

Hawaii is about halfway between Oz and the Carolinas. If you'll want to settle this survivor style we got plenty of cool jungles. :mrgreen:

My money is on CarolinaCutie though

 

[Red7227]

Sweetie, i'm not actually going to waste my time trying to prove anything to you, but other people might need reminders on how you are wrong. Nice tits by the way.

Someone feels emasculated. :roll:

Oh yes. Trying to argue with someone who only feels safe holding a gun and believes anyone without a gun is a slave to their government is going to work. Delusions need medication and psychiatric help (free in both Australia and the UK) not debates on porn forums.

 

[Just Me]

I think it's interesting that nobody has been able to produce one stitch of factual rebuttal to anything gun-related (the bulk of my original post), instead focusing more on an abstract like how afraid Jupiter may or may not be. That's very telling.

It's also interesting that one of the most mouthy proponents of gun control is mum after one concise presentation of the facts.

When you actually post some facts and not just your opinion, then maybe you will get some debate. For the record, I am not for or against new gun control laws.

 

[Vicky_D]

I'd like to see where you get your figures on Chicago being the top.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... 8.xls/view

These numbers put Chicago second behind New York City. So far this year, Chicago is on par to beat New York for first.

Also an effective argument can be made that Chicago's gun legislation would be more effective if it was state wide or if its borders were policed like it was a separate country. Not sure I'd call this a fact.

I think it qualifies as a fact. New York's laws are even more strict and they're just now being surpassed by Chicago in violent crime. Washington DC is in the same boat. Add Detroit to the list. If not absolute fact, the trends definitely correlate. I don't think banning guns state-wide is the answer, considering what it's doing to these cities. The cities that have strong gun laws are dangerous. The cities that don't, aren't. Seems kind of backwards to suggest implementing the same failing laws in the safe cities and disarming peaceful people. Wouldn't it make more sense to make the dangerous cities more like the safe ones and not the other way around? Is this not obvious?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein

It's a little ironic that a gun ban would be enforced by people with guns, but I don't see it as hypocrisy. The whole idea is that military and law enforcement would be the ones with the most fire power... a fact that you concede and then go on to point out the possible dangers in. As for your definition of a militia, I guess that's fair enough. A militia can be many things and a group of ordinary citizens with their weapons very well could comprise such a thing. Fretting over automatic weapons and artillery is so 20th century though. We're OBVIOUSLY going to need our own UAVs (drones) if we're going to keep up with the professional military at this point.

Perpetuation of the Industrial Military Complex is just as damaging as the disarmament of the people, so I don't know if you're being sardonic to make a point or just because.

Most of this reeks of fear mongering to me. I will, however, concede that the country has made many mistakes in its past and that our rights as citizens have been eroded drastically in the name of safety over the past 12 years.

Fear? Maybe, but fear keeps the Gazelle away from the jackal. Irrational fear is something different. It's not as if I'm weary of such things without a precedent.

See, this is where I want to stop reading. There's no need to be a bitch here. If such a thing were to happen it would likely be after massive casualties in an initial wave followed by holdouts fighting over the course of years and years. It would not be pleasant and it would probably lead to the end of the country as we weakened ourselves in a civil war leaving us weak against one of the many countries who don't care for us too much.

Being a bitch doesn't make me wrong. Calling a spade a spade might be a turnoff, but it doesn't make the point any less valid. Are you arguing that the potential failures make the risk of fighting for liberty less worth it? Every armed revolution faces the risk of failure but that doesn't mean people shouldn't try to fight tyranny.

Right. Those victims weren't voluntarily unarmed. They were disarmed. That's not at all skewed. I can do that too and actually be more accurate. Of the nearly 8600 murders with a firearm in 2011 a majority owned (though not necessarily legally) the weapon used in the crime! Oh snap.

Right. They aren't given the choice to be defenseless, they're forced to be, which makes it that much worse. 8600 murders isn't much considering the 300 million that weren't murdered. That's one out of every 375,000. Cars are much more dangerous and I have to wonder how many people killed by automobiles own the one that killed them. Oh, snap!

So because you suggest that registration of vehicles is primarily for revenue that means it shouldn't be used for tracking of firearms? Just because that's not why such a thing exists for vehicles doesn't mean it wouldn't work well for it. As for it being a violation of your 4th Amendment rights, I disagree. Especially if the gun registration database isn't a part of public domain. I'd argue the issue further, but neither of us will convince each other so let's just agree to disagree on this part.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. It's not ok to make people register their private property with the government, which is why vehicles don't have to be registered if they're not operated on public roads. It's absolutely a 4th Amendment issue, whether the records are public or not. The purpose of the 4th Amendment isn't to protect privacy from the public, it's to protect the privacy of the people from the government.

You committed a few logical fallacies yourself. Good luck finding all of those firearms you'll be buying on the black market. Hopefully they have some that will go well with your shoes.

Please elaborate. I don't see why I'd have a hard time finding guns on the black market. I have a family member who regularly buys pistols privately and without North Carolina's required purchase permit, which qualifies as a black market. People buy all sorts of illegal drugs on the black market quite easily. I don't know why this seems like it would be a difficult thing to you.

If it comes to a point where I am ordered to come take your gun from you, I'll make sure I bring a properly registered weapon of my own. :thumbleft:

And I'll happily put you in a pine box. Come and get them, but know this: you can have the guns, but you're going to get the bullets first.

Better than no citations at all.

Just ask. I already made this clear.

 

[Vicky_D]

But that's part of the point, isn't it? In a country where guns are not legal, you wouldn't want them to be available to criminals at low cost. You would want them to come at a premium, thus making them harder to obtain. The harder they are to obtain, the better.

I see the point you're making and it's a logical course to take if you're for gun control. The fact is that criminals will still obtain them. The London police are seizing upwards of 400 illegal handguns every month, all bought on the black market. These are used in crimes against people people who don't have them. It seems more reasonable to me to make them easier to get so everyone can have one. A criminal will be much less inclined to attack someone who they have reason to believe has the means kill them. Think about how knife-related crimes will plummet, too.

In many cases, the mere sight of a gun will deter violence. Some asshole talking shit and threatening to do you harm? Pull your coat aside and show him that heel, then smile as you watch the wind quickly leave his sails.

How many situations diffused by guns are reported and included in crime statistics? None. Guns get a bad rap (although not as bad as automobiles or hammers or knives, which proponents of gun control love to ignore), but no news station runs a story about a violent crime almost being committed. No police report is ever filed for that situation.

 

[Vicky_D]

Oh yes. Trying to argue with someone who only feels safe holding a gun and believes anyone without a gun is a slave to their government is going to work. Delusions need medication and psychiatric help (free in both Australia and the UK) not debates on porn forums.

Like some asshole who's so delusional he thinks a gun ban has made him safer despite the fact that assault rates have increased 200% in his country, robbery and armed robbery rates have increased 20% from the pre-97 ban rate and accidental gun deaths have increased 300% since 1997? Or that healthcare in Australia is free?

So you know, according to the British MHF, 25% of their citizens suffer from some form of mental illness. It's 20% in Australia, according to the Australian Government's own AIHW. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Americans only suffer from a form of mental illness at a rate of a bit over 15%

So, I ask: Who needs the medication and psychiatric help more, motherfucker?

When you actually post some facts and not just your opinion, then maybe you will get some debate. For the record, I am not for or against new gun control laws.

That's it? Did you have a specific number or historical event you want to challenge or are you fine to chime in with passive aggressive condescension?

 

[Red7227]

So you know, according to the British MHF, 25% of their citizens suffer from some form of mental illness. It's 20% in Australia, according to the Australian Government's own AIHW. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Americans only suffer from a form of mental illness at a rate of a bit over 15%

So, I ask: Who needs the medication and psychiatric help more, motherfucker?

Is that 15% is just the middle class white bit, or does it include trailer trash, illegals and minorities? You will have to include a link to your special special statistics too as I only have the ones that say nothing much has changed in the last 20 years.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/% ... acts11.pdf

 

[Nard99]

How many situations diffused by guns are reported and included in crime statistics? None. Guns get a bad rap (although not as bad as automobiles or hammers or knives, which proponents of gun control love to ignore), but no news station runs a story about a violent crime almost being committed. No police report is ever filed for that situation.

On a local level violent crimes almost happening do get reported by the local media but it doesn't reach a national level because the media needs tragedy and horrible shit to sell to the public. They don't want someone stopping a violent crime, they want the actual violent crime itself to take place because it makes for a better headline. Someone with a gun stopping a scumbag from hurting people is too boring for them to cover.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Like some asshole who's so delusional he thinks a gun ban has made him safer despite the fact that assault rates have increased 200% in his country, robbery and armed robbery rates have increased 20% from the pre-97 ban rate and accidental gun deaths have increased 300% since 1997? Or that healthcare in Australia is free?

So you know, according to the British MHF, 25% of their citizens suffer from some form of mental illness. It's 20% in Australia, according to the Australian Government's own AIHW. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Americans only suffer from a form of mental illness at a rate of a bit over 15%

So, I ask: Who needs the medication and psychiatric help more, motherfucker?

Carolina, I am generally on your side on this discussion. In fact, I have virtually same view as you on importance of our Constitution and bill of rights, and the role it plays in keeping the government from abusing its power. I think we are freer society almost entirely due to our written bill of rights, and the power of our courts.
As I have said numerous times I find the entire discussion of assault weapon ban, magazine size restriction etc. to be a completely pointless exercise in feel good law making, that will at
best inconvenience millions of law abiding citizen, and worse endanger many trying to defend themselves from criminasl. The tiny number of deaths that maybe reduced (but likely we will see no reduction) is hardly worth weakening our constitutional rights.

However, when you go attack two of America's closest allies and attack everything about their system, education, health care etc. you are weakening your arguments and introducing several red herrings. In the case of mental health issues I think you are factually wrong. Definitions of what is mental illness vary widely by state, much less country. While I don't know what these are exactly in the US, UK, and Australia I'd be shocked if those percentages you site our an apple to apples comparison. For example US infant mortality rates look higher than European rates because child born prematurely sometime in second trimester in counted as infant her for statistical purposes, where most of Europe says that if they are not born in third trimester the don't count as infant.

The real important measurement of mental health is how many killed themselves or kill others. Sadly the US leads both country in this department suicides per 100,000 US 11.1
Australia 10.5, and the UK 6.45. (In a previous post I switched the UK and Australia suicide rate.) .http://chartsbin.com/view/prm We also lead in the homicide rate
America has lots of great qualities, but having a lower proportion of crazies than the UK or Australia is not one of them.

You are much too well informed, and make a very strong case to need to be reduced to tossing out ad hominem attacks. If you want to poke fun at Jupiter manhood go ahead. But calling somebody Motherfucker and Asshole, what possible benefit is there the hurling these insults on a camgirl discussion forum? It does no good in the long term war to make the opposition think that gun owners are crazy fanatics. This is an obscure discussion forum, the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but the insults; they won't be easily forgotten by the participants.

I admire your passion, but you may want to tone down your rhetoric. :twocents-02cents:

 

[Red7227]

Carolina, I am generally on your side on this discussion. In fact, I have virtually same view as you on importance of our Constitution and bill of rights, and the role it plays in keeping the government from abusing its power. I think we are freer society almost entirely due to our written bill of rights, and the power of our courts.
As I have said numerous times I find the entire discussion of assault weapon ban, magazine size restriction etc. to be a completely pointless exercise in feel good law making, that will at
best inconvenience millions of law abiding citizen, and worse endanger many trying to defend themselves from criminasl. The tiny number of deaths that maybe reduced (but likely we will see no reduction) is hardly worth weakening our constitutional rights.

The really funny thing is so am I. As i have said elsewhere in this thread that anything that effects the second amendment or tries to get around it is ridiculous. Too many people in the US are too wedded to their guns for that to ever happen. Improved health care, vetting for licences and education of firearms owners are the only thing i would suggest. You or someone else made the point that a lot of the homicides were lawful people defending themselves, so in practice the higher homicide rate might be entirely acceptable under those circumstances.

My only exception is to the view that a population needs guns. We don't need them to get rid of a government we don't like and we don't need them for personal defence. People being called cowards and slaves for not sharing her views I also take exception to.

 

[LadyLuna]

Do you want a man with so much woman in him that he refuses to defend you? If so, I think we have a cultural disconnect that I'm not sure can be reconciled.

I love a man that can handle a Katana Or a longsword. Or a rapier.... mmm blades...

-----

Before I really wade into it, I would like to say that I've thanked some of CC's posts because I feel that she made a few good points in them, but I do not agree with her name calling and aggressive tone.

-----

Thing is, you're a 'nation', and have been for more than twice as long as my nation, and yet your political system allows, hell ENCOURAGES, politicians to protect special interest groups. Lobbying, btw, is nothing more than legalised and systematic bribery. Worse than bribery in fact because it usurps the democratic right of the people of your nation to collectively choose your nation's course.

Isn't that a freedom too?

(...paragraph about gun control cut, cause it's not what I'm responding to...)

You want freedom sister? Isn't that what the USA is about? Liberty? Individualism? Competition? Show me where the liberty is after you fall asleep at the wheel and allow yourselves to have a government subserviant to the corporate machinery and their lobbyist lapdogs? Individualism and freedom dies under a corrupt political system, your work, your life, your media is spoonfed to you by institutions with enough money and power and legal fiscal influence over elected officials to ensure that they NEVER lose, how much more uncompetitive can you get than paying the government to rig the system in your favour?

Jupiter, right there, you've hit the nail on the head with why I'm not so sure there's hope for this country. And the fact that I'm not so sure that there's hope for this country is why I really want the citizens to keep guns right now.

So, I take it you don't trust cops and soldiers to be reasonable, normal people with brains and, I might add, courage to risk their lives in service to their country - to you?

No sir, I don't. Not completely anyway. Oh, yeah, I trust them to protect me, but I'm a young white woman. Of course I'll be protected. But what about the rest of the population? Nope... a good half of the cops in this country are racist. And at least a third of cops are bullies. And like any good grown bully, they don't show their mean side to the ladies.

Sides, in about a decade, I won't be so sure that I'll be protected by them anymore... kinda hard to play the scared young white chick when you're over 35 after all.

And the military... oh lord... most of the people who go to the military go there because they have no other way to earn a living. Truly. That's where our soldiers usually come from. I don't respect them any less for that, but I don't hold any illusions about it either.

I guess that 'ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' was just leftist commie bullshit too

No sir, it's not bullshit, but the fact is that there are two types of people who gravitate towards that sort of work. The one is the type we want, those that want to protect the innocent. The other is the type we're afraid of, the type that want to push people around, maybe even hurt them a little.

If you're thinking to overthrow the government by force you missed that boat. If you want to change things play their own game against them, get money OUT of politics and make it clear to your elected representatives that you will not abide corruption - legal or otherwise.

I wish we could, but... well shit, Jupiter, surely you heard that they've got dead people voting, right? How the fuck are we supposed to do it when they've got the elections so damn rigged? I wouldn't be surprised if they put Obama in office just so the democrats could shoot themselves in the feet with all the stonewalling the republicans have been doing.

Anyway, both sides are fucked. How the fuck do you get into politics when you've got no one backing you? But the corportations back the big parties. The reason they've got the politicians in their pockets is because people only know about the politicians the media focuses on, and the media is paid by the corportations to air the politicians they want. I wouldn't be surprised if the media is either bribed or blackmailed to keep them from letting anyone know about the politicians that would really do some good.

No, we haven't missed the boat. We have to bide our time. They will overstep their bounds. Their greed will bring that final straw, and the masses will rise up. And we will discover that being part of the 99% means that we outnumber them 99 to 1.

I've always thought this was fairly obvious but your elected government officials are there because either you put them there, or you and your fellow citizens collectively failed to take a responsible role in keeping them out of office. The only thing that scares politicians is the thought they might actually lose re-election.

The only thing that separates a democracy from violent anarchy is the understanding that when there's a problem you engage in the democratic process not just pick up the nearest rifle and start shooting cops because you don't like the laws the democratically elected government is enacting.

The media controls the elections, and the corporations control the media. Thus, the media controls the elections. The only way to get control over the elections again is to get control over the corporations, but that won't happen as long as the corporations continue to control the government. Thus, we will have to revolt eventually.

I'm neck deep in freedom-hating, Commie bullshit at the moment, so if you have any more completely ridiculous logical fallacies you'd like me to utterly destroy. run 'em by me.

lol Commie bullshit, I just pointed out over and over that you should be using the democratic process to effect change, rather than sitting on your collective asses waiting for the shit to hit the fan so you can kill each other. Yeah that's so communist, suggesting you actually USE the democratic rights and responsibilities your founding fathers gave you. Also clearly I hate freedom because I'm suggesting you actually do something proactive to get money and corporate interest out of politics. Being slaves to big business! Yes that's capitalism in America right now and that's freedom! (not).

It would be nice if both parties could stop politicing long enough to get rid of the corporations, but again, the problem is the corporations are in control over the government. We have no way to get them out of it.

Though I cringe at the ignorance displayed by people who call the democrats communists.

For the record: communism is an economic structure. The only political thing about communism was the whole "everybody does the job the government tells them to" and "the government takes it all and distributes it evenly". Nobody's suggesting that. Even those who want welfare aren't suggesting taking everything a person earns. Take a million dollars from the 200 people at the top, and split it among the 20 million at the bottom? Sure, but $10 isn't going to do a whole lot to bring them up to the people who still have five billion dollars left at the end of taxes.

It's not entirely Obama's fault, but I don't think you have the first damned clue how much the executive has overstepped it's bounds over that last several decades.

Must I remind you how much of that was the Republicans pushing for it? All Obama did was use laws that Bush enacted.

 

[Vicky_D]

Carolina, I am generally on your side on this discussion. In fact, I have virtually same view as you on importance of our Constitution and bill of rights, and the role it plays in keeping the government from abusing its power. I think we are freer society almost entirely due to our written bill of rights, and the power of our courts.
As I have said numerous times I find the entire discussion of assault weapon ban, magazine size restriction etc. to be a completely pointless exercise in feel good law making, that will at
best inconvenience millions of law abiding citizen, and worse endanger many trying to defend themselves from criminasl. The tiny number of deaths that maybe reduced (but likely we will see no reduction) is hardly worth weakening our constitutional rights.

However...

There is no "however". When talking about my liberties, and yours, there's no room for compromise. Compromise is why we're in the position we're in right now.

when you go attack two of America's closest allies...

Allies, schmallies. The same allies who think we should be disarmed because it's working out so well for them? :roll: The same allies that aid our government in unjust and preemptive wars? With friends like that, who needs enemies?

...and attack everything about their system, education, health care etc. you are weakening your arguments...

I'm not weakening my arguments. Nothing I've said is any less correct because I've offended the sensibilities of people who live under laws that allow for people to be forcibly thrown in cages for speech because they find it objectionable. Let's not kid ourselves; there's nothing I can say and no way I can say it, no amount of reason or ass-kissing that's going to make these people understand that their irrational fear of guns is not an excuse to disarm us. I'm now realizing that this entire conversation is a complete waste of time, especially since they've got no say in the matter, anyway.

and introducing several red herrings.

Maybe you should go back and re-read the thread. I didn't introduce any of those topics. I only responded to those that did introduce them.

In the case of mental health issues I think you are factually wong. Definitions of what is mental illness vary widely by state...

No, they don't. That's not even close to true.

...much less country. While I don't know what these are exactly in the US, UK, and Australia I'd be shocked if those percentages you site our an apple to apples comparison. For example US infant mortality rates look higher than European rates because child born prematurely sometime in second trimester in counted as infant her for statistical purposes, where most of Europe says that if they are not born in third trimester the don't count as infant.

Get ready to be shocked. That was a valid point, so I decided it would only be fair to get your "apples to apples" comparison and retract the statement if I were wrong. Turns out, it's already a comparison with a remarkable amount of continuity. As it would turn out, all three countries (among others) go by the same guidelines set forth by the United Nations' World Health Organization when documenting instances of mental illness for the sake of statistical analysis. The legal definitions are a bit different, but still surprisingly similar, at least within the limitations of the legal languages of three different judicial systems:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... 012_en.pdf

http://www.health.wa.gov.au/mhareview/r ... t_1996.pdf

The United States legal system only deals with instances of mental illness insofar as it pertains to case law or civil litigation, so the legal definitions are quite extreme as opposed to the UK and Australia's much more broad legal definitions, I assume because of their socialized healthcare systems. It's a moot point, though, since neither country uses these for stat gathering.

You are much too well informed, and make a very strong case to need to be reduced to tossing out ad hominem attacks. If you want to poke fun at Jupiter manhood go ahead. But calling somebody Motherfucker and Asshole, what possible benefit is there the hurling these insults on a camgirl discussion forum? It does no good in the long term war to make the opposition think that gun owners are crazy fanatics. This is an obscure discussion forum, the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but the insults; they won't be easily forgotten by the participants.

I admire your passion, but you may want to tone down your rhetoric. :twocents-02cents:

I find their ignoratio elenchi as offensive as they might find being called "asshole" or "motherfucker", so I'll agree to stop using these terms if they'll agree to admit what the facts clearly prove. Deal? If not, I'll continue to restrain the language I'm using (because I want to call them much worse things) against those that advocate the usurpation of my liberties which is a much worse offense than calling an asshole an asshole.

 

[Vicky_D]

Must I remind you how much of that was the Republicans pushing for it? All Obama did was use laws that Bush enacted.

No, I don't need to be reminded. That's not all Obama did. Bush had nothing to do with the NDAA or drone strikes on American citizens without due process. Don't take that as a defense of King George W., though, because it's not. That's why I said "...past several decades", which includes Bush, Clinton, Bush H.W. and yes, even the Republican golden boy, Ronald Reagan.

 

[Vicky_D]

For those that think I'm being combative, aggressive and just plain ol' mean, you're right. I'll be the first to admit it.

I see people arguing the case for the immoral invasion of my personal liberty and the theft of my property. I see people who advocate that the state, a violent and coercive institution by nature, intrude on my privacy because they don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling inside when they see a gun. I see people who ignore the total failure of the very tyrannical laws they support and presume to demand that I ask permission to have the tools to protect myself, that I give men in suits with a pretense of knowledge a running list of those tools, that I pass their tests and jump through their hoops like a trained animal. Am I being aggressive? You're Goddamned right I am.

Every time their efforts expand, so will the amount of aggression they'll draw from me. Heed the rattle of our tails, gentlemen, because once it falls silent, you're already dying.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I could have saved myself hours if I had only found the piece earlier. It is written by a liberal for the Daily Kos (aka the house organ for the progressive wing of the Democratic party)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment#
It is long but I really think it is worth reading..

Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."..
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms....
So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.

And this is why:

The author 4 main points why liberals should love the 2nd Amendment.
the TLR
No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.
No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.
No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.
No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.

Then she goes on to her main point and one which Carolina is talking about also.

No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.

To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.

The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.

We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.

And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.

The 1st Amendment gives us the right scream loudly at how fucked up our government, and " petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The 2nd Amendment puts our leaders on notice that ignoring our grievances -- will have potentially deadly consequences.

 

[SoTxBob]

:-D I learned some Latin today !!!!
:thumbleft: "ignoratio elenchi" :dance: :dance: