Americans & Guns

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Mia, N. Korea isn't invisible.

Err, right now you're fighting terrorism, N. Korea is...just...there in the background incase you run out of enemies.

[Leopard]

LOL! great thread! Go 'Gun-Nuts'!

on the NorthKorea and Nukes bit... you really can't figure out why NK might happen to want a nuke or two? hmmmmm.... when is the last time ANYONE including the US invaded a country which has nukes?

I support the NK getting a nuke or two - it will happen anyways, I bet Iraq wished it had a nuke about 1 year ago... I wish they did too, for the same reason we need to own guns - for protection against our out-of-control government.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is a joke - started with like 4 countries (all that had nukes), and now there is like over 20 countries with nukes. We can't stop it from happening....

michael

Ehh, France, UK, US, Israel (probably), China, India, Pak, and, well, I guess maybe the former Soviet states could add up to 20.

But this figure seems high.

[Samildanach]

It strikes me that Americans need guns in the home because they have a lot more loonies willing to use guns against them. In the UK the British argue against guns precisely because of the opposite reason. Even though great Britans crime rates are still significant, introducing guns for everyone would just exacerbate the problem. I guess US society is pretty fucked up enough for every citizen to need protection. The individual in UK society doesn't generally need a gun for protection on a daily basis.

[Leopard]

Originally posted by Samildanach, It strikes me that Americans need guns in the home because they have a lot more loonies willing to use guns against them. In the UK the British argue against guns precisely because of the opposite reason. Even though great Britans crime rates are still significant, introducing guns for everyone would just exacerbate the problem. I guess US society is pretty fucked up enough for every citizen to need protection. The individual in UK society doesn't generally need a gun for protection on a daily basis.

nice attack on america, unfortunately it just isn't true - we have just as many or as few 'loonies' as any other country.

What being armed DOES indicate is that we will not suffer an authoritarian government for long, on the other hand, the UK will have to wait for the US to come over and liberate them when the time comes... we take responsibility for our actions and lives - you give them up to your lord god.... government... ya gets whats ya earns...

michael

The individual in UK society doesn't generally need a gun for protection on a daily basis.

Nor do we.

[Leopard]

Originally posted by KSoDBartman, Ehh, France, UK, US, Israel (probably), China, India, Pak, and, well, I guess maybe the former Soviet states could add up to 20. But this figure seems high.

it is, google it...

but, that is not the point... it is an undeniable force of economics which guarantees that nukes WILL proliferate, just as alcohol did during prohibition, and drugs during the current drug war. You really think government is more powerful than human desire? I am sure that the leaders in our government understand this, and understood it years ago - the non-proliferation treaty is just an attempt to delay the inevitable... my fear is what is the 'plan' which is being put forth that this 'stall' tactic allows? If there is any reason that I would ever believe in hogwash conspiracy theories it is that the US knows nukes are going to proliferate and in an effort to control... they create a world government. I believe the concept and scope are too vast for our friends in and behind office to actually pull off, but.... what do I know...

michael

[Mia]

I'm all for delaying, though, if that's the best we can do.

I'm all for delaying, though, if that's the best we can do.

Yeah, no shizz. I'd rather my great-great-grandkids die in a nuclear flash than me.

[Mia]

Obvioulsy some of our tactics work - Saddam wasn't able to develop anything that we can find.

[Defender of Liberty]

I have seen tyranny in government on several occasions. Used to be, you could do pretty much whatever you wanted with your land. Now many cities and towns require their residents to get permission to do just about anything on their land. I have a freind who owns a steel building that sits in a sand pit out in the middle of nowhere in Sanbornville, NH. In that steel building he runs a small machine shop. He decided to build an apartment on the second floor of the building so that he and his family could live there. About a year after he started living above his business, the town found out and decided that he was guilty of living in an industrial zone without permission. They ended up fining him $200,000 for not getting a permit before living in his building. They also demanded that he move out of his building by September 1st 2004, or they will send the sheriff out to his property to remove him, and they will take his property. He has already fought the town in the local courthouse, and lost. The judge told him that if they let everyone do what they wanted with their own land, there would be chaos. He wouldn't even consider the fact that there are still many towns that don't have zoning laws, and they are just as tranquil, or moreso than the towns that have zoning ordnances. My freind is trying to sell his building and get financing for property in MT, but he hasn't yet found a buyer for his property, and he hasn't had any luck yet in getting financing for the property that he wants to buy in MT. If he is unable to to move out of his building before the deadline, we will try to reason with the sheriff. I think I will try to throw a BBQ on his land, and invite as many pro-freedom folks as possible. We will try to prevent the town from removing him from his building. If the sheriff decides to take up arms to oppress us, we will take up arms to defend ourselves.
I have another freind who had a small business in Somersworth, NH for about 20 years. The zoning board rejected his application to renew his business license, forcing him to shut down. Also, the zoning board told a woman who's husband was crippled that she couldn't build a duplex on her land so that her husband's brother could live in the same building with his family to help her take care of her husband. Since a lot of people don't even try to exercise their rights, they don't even realise that their rights are being taken away. Unfortunately, a lot of people have the opinion that you can't fight city hall, but unless we start resisting, they will continue to place more and more restrictions on our freedoms. They will use the color of law to oppress us, and they will use government agents to enforce their whims and to try to make us unable to defend ourselves, all with our tax dollars.
The government buys machine guns, suppressors, and destructive devices at discount prices with our tax dollars, while we have to wait about 6 months and pay exhorbitant prices and a $200 tax for anything more than a semiauto rifle. The machinegun that I caried in the army costs well over $100,000 on the civilian market because of their limited supply. Since 1986, only the government can buy machineguns that were made after the date the law took effect. That leaves most civilians outgunned when up against criminal cops who often have no respect for the rights of those they are supposed to serve. I'm not saying all cops are bad. Unfortunately there are too many who are. I have seen cops drinking on duty, lying in court, lying on police reports, breaking into cars, roughing up innocent bystanders, and enforcing nonexistent laws.
The WMD training book that I got when I took a course taught by the Department of Homeland Security lists types of groups that they consider terrorist threats. Some of those groups include those who oppose "gun control", a "New World order", and those who are "anti-government", "anti-taxation", and "anti-abortion". Since I am opposed to gun control, the UN, big government, high taxes, and abortion, I think they may be targeting people like me, even though I don't plan to blow anything up, and will only use firearms in self defense or in defense of those who do not have the means to adaequately defend themselves.

[rmg]

Bless your spirit, noble patriot. You're a dying breed, and you probably will die if the sheriff and his deputy robots resort to arms, but if enough people take a stand such as yours, sooner rather than later the gov't goons will rethink their position or realize that they're running out of numbers. As the quote goes, in so many words, "Every so often the soil of freedom must be fertilized with the blood of patriots." I'll be going down too when they come for me, but they'll get every round in my arsenal first, and at least a couple of them aren't going home.

[dotcoma]

Originally posted by KSoDBartman, Nor do we.

Yeah you're right. FEMA and the White House tell us there are Osama's on every corner so, why would we need to prtect ourselves? I mean, we've got 9-11.

Huh?

[Villin221]

You must realize that the anti-gun lobbyists in this country don’t believe in personal responsibility. That’s why they, including their supporters in the mass media, continue to ignore the fact that gun owners prevent over 2 million violent crimes in America each year. Approximately 10% of these are attempted sexual assaults. These facts come from "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun", in the Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995. Compare those numbers with the fact that about 1,000 accidental gun deaths happen each year. The anti-gun lobby would have you believe that guns are killing children at a catastrophic rate. The only argument they have is an emotional one. That’s why Michael Moore kept showing Charlton Heston a picture of a little girl killed by a gun and accusing him of pulling the trigger. It’s because he has no valid argument otherwise. Using the death of a little girl to garner emotional support helps distract people from actual facts. And every time someone presents a valid self-defense argument, it’s countered with references to Columbine. It’s all emotion and no reality.

Ever since England passed it’s harsh anti-gun laws, their murder rate has almost caught up to America. It should also be noted that less than 20% of violent crimes in America involve guns and only about 8% of crimes prevented by guns actually involved shooting. Just the presence of guns is enough to prevent crimes. Criminals are opportunists, if they know a lot of people in an area own guns, they will avoid that area. It’s a simple fact. But like I said before, the anti-gun lobby doesn’t care about facts. That's why many people, like me, question their real motives. I think they actually want to see more middle-class Americans killed and assaulted because they hate America. They feel so strongly about it that they have taken to suing gun manufacturers in a cynical attempt to circumvent the legislative process. They know they are in the minority but they don’t care. Further evidence of their contempt for America in general.

[G. Adams]

I live in England, and outside of term-time, in a deprived area. Our murder rate has not caught up to yours, nor has gun-crime become prevelant. I am a big supporter of gun ownership but I won't have bullshit spread in order to defend it. There has been an increase in gun crime after the Snowdrop campaign succeeded in banning all handguns and tightening laws to get a license for rifles and shotguns, but this does not mean there is a definitive link. The ban began in '98, and the increase in gun crime didn't start till, I believe, 2000. This date coincides with the increase in drug flow and immigration from Jamaica. If you've been to Kingston since the early 80's or seen the reports, you'll know the drugs trade isn't particularly lax in Jamaica.

And worse, any insinuation that lawful citizens losing guns in the UK has led to an increase in crime is bullshit. Gun ownership before the ban took place was tiny anyway(except N. Ireland), so made little difference to defence.

There need be no reason to maintain gun ownership beyond that of it being a right of any freedom supporting state. Without weapons, we cannot expect to remove a tyrannical government. Although that seems far-fetched now, the more stringents the laws on weapons become, the easier it becomes for a government to become arbitrary.

[Leopard]

G. Adams:
I do not know all the statistics about increase/decrease of violence/crime before/after gun banning laws have been put into place. I try not to advocate for gun ownership rights from the utilitarian arguments because I don't think that utilitarian arguments hold much water when it comes to human rights: it is NOT the place of the government to determine or institute restrictions on liberty for safety's sake. The government is not a babysitter - it is a 'rights' protector. One could justify all manner of laws and regulation from a utilitarian perspective: outlaw automobiles, sugar, knives, caffenine, fast food, etc, etc...
I advocate for gun ownership simply because people have the natural right of self-ownership and that implies the right to defend oneself with whatever means they determine.

michael

[Pooeypants]

I would need bigger guns to take down a possible tyrannical gov't, what limits would you recommend?

[Mia]

I don't buy the tyrannical government argument. I want guns to protect against criminals who enter my home or for use against an occupying foreign force. (I guess they'd label me a terrorist, huh?)

Waco and Ruby Ridge, etc., suggest the government is not, open gun laws or no, going to allow anyone to accumulate enough firepower to threaten the government.

[PatrickHenry]

It's not threatening the government; it's self-defense against government threat.