Reason #148591852852 why the USA is more awesome than your country.

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
This reminded me to start the process of getting myself a license. Be fun to own a M1911 someday for the historical value. :)
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,587
2
81
So what is your position on the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you don't think that people should be allowed to and that the 2nd Amendment is stupid :confused:
Honestly i'm a little torn... On one side i don't agree with the whole i need a gun to protect myself.
On the other side, guns for sporting purposes and hunting is fine... Plus America is beyond repair on the subject of firearms.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
... yet another american who can't tell the difference between a civilian and a soldier...

as stupid as your post is, yes I did infact do that once, with a knife (it gets real up close and personal in the fields of the greenzone in Helman) but that's beside the point.

I was a soldier in Afghanistan it was my job to use a weapon, as a civilian I don't need a weapon.

A civilian without a weapon is ultimately at the mercy of the soldier who has one.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Just as you were by suggesting your opponent had little to no regard for the struggles of men in armed combat?

Touché. :D

If you understand and respect the struggle of those who were forced to take up arms in defense of freedom, then why advocate taking guns away from the law-abiding so they will be unable to do the same should it once again become necessary? Let alone protect their own homes from crime?
 

SlitheryDee

Lifer
Feb 2, 2005
17,252
19
81
How does a lethal weapon symbolize freedom and empowerment? People never learn...

The only people who are assured freedom are those who are capable of defending it from those who would take it away. That feels like a played out conservative cliche to me even as I type it, but I came up with it before I considered the politics, so it must be what I believe. I only have to look at myself to know that it's true. As mild mannered and unoffensive a person as I am, I still apply pressure to those around me in an attempt to make them do what I want them to do. If they didn't apply pressure in response, then I'd effectively rob them of their freedom. I believe that dynamic scales quite well past the individual level to the level of international relations and the relationship between people and their governments. Only on that level the pressure everyone is willing to apply is much higher. Governments don't abstain from brutal measures against their own people out of wisdom, kindness, and empathy, but because the people are still very powerful and will not sit back and take it.

To me it's very clear why a lethal weapon could be seen as a symbol of freedom and empowerment. Not seeing that is not seeing an integral part of human interaction. We are not and have never been content to leave each other to our own devices. We are constantly meddling in each other's affairs, constantly applying as much pressure as we can get away with to make others conform to our desires. We do it without even realizing it at times, seeing our actions as "doing what's right" or some such rather than the oppression that it is. Sometimes the understanding that what we are doing is wrong is not forthcoming and the only way to turn us aside from that is fear of consequences.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
We understand perfectly well that guns were primarily designed to take life, human or animal. Just stop insulting us by acting like you are here to educating us dumb Americans with your enlightened views on how the world works.

We refute your dehumanizing belief that owning a gun means you are automatically a homicidal maniac, drooling to spill innocent blood.[This isn't my belief] A gun is a tool, yes, used primarily to kill, but it can be used for good or evil according to the intent of the HAND THAT WIELDS IT! What don't you under stand about that?[What I don't understand about that is how killing can be good. It isn't it is bad. Always. No matter if it's Ghandi holding the gun, or Hitler, killing is bad.

And don't start in with that shit about how violence/war is never the answer. Where would your butt be if we had said that when Hitler was kicking the shit out of your little island, huh?I have no idea, and neither do you...

Criminals and evil people have guns, and they will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever give them up.False, In America Criminals and Evil people have guns, in the UK it is rare. To do so would be relinquishing their power. So why are you against decent people having guns too? Do you really think a world where the law abiding citizens of the world are disarmed would be a safe place to live?Yes, because in said world criminals would have less guns aswell.

I would rather die fighting than be slave to the evil that you and other anti-gunners work so hard to empower.We aren't trying to empower evil, we are trying to remove the evil tools that people, law abiding or othersie have. Killing is WRONG

..I'm in bold.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Just speaking hypothetically, let's say a strong nation like the United States decided that we wanted a little island summer home and invaded the UK. I'm sure you would quickly change your tune and pray to whatever god you worship for an AK47 in every English home. And a fighter jet or bomber parked in the garage, complimented by a AA missile battery on the front lawn.No I wouldn't.

Power goes to the boys with the biggest boom, boom toys Ghandi would disagree... If you want to put yourself in the place where all you can do is beg for mercy, well, you go their alone my little defenseless friend.Actually I go there as part of my nation.

HAL9000, you are from England, right? You don’t need to look far back in your own history to see what the English did to the Scotts/Gaels or Irish. England had been fighting Ireland and Scotland for centuries. With the treaty of Limerick in 1691, the Irish were promised all full civil, religious, and property rights. In return, Irish troops were to leave Ireland for the continent.

With the Irish troops away, England began to institute the Penal Laws. Guess what was one of the first Penal Laws declared? For public safety, no Irish catholic could keep and bear arms.

Next, England would start stripping Ireland of all those guaranteed rights from the treaty: Irish catholics were denied the right to an education, to enter a profession, to hold public office, to engage in trade or commerce, to own or lease land, to vote, and the list goes on. The Irish had even fewer rights than the slaves in America.

The same Penal Laws were passed on to the Gaels after the battle of Culloden in 1746. Gaels, who were original Irish, were denied the right to keep and bear arms, to pay bagpipe, to wear kilt. Gaels found with any kind of arms were put to death. Without arms, the Gaels were helpless.

With the majority of colonists being Irish or Scottish, it was no surprise that they reacted violently when England tried to disarm them under the pretext of preserving public safety. What’s more, the reason why English troops marched to Concord and Lexington was to confiscate arms from local citizenries.Excellent, we've established how barbaric countries were in the 17th/ 18th centuries, and how America is still operating like it's 1776.

It is not without reason that the 2nd amendment ensured that the government could not infringe on “the right of the people to people to keep and bear arms”. With the way the 2nd amendment is worded, it is important to notice that the 2nd amendment grants NO right to the people to keep and bear arms. It says “the right of the people to people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.I know what it says.... What's your point?

During the very short span of your very young life. Heck, maybe not even that long.

But what the heck would you do about it anyway if they did decided to declare martial law and take away your coveted democracy? Complain loudly? Ask them to play nice? Revolt? Yeah, didn't think so.I have the security in my country that it wouldn't happen.

Again, my replies in bold.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
I'm totally fine with firearms myself but I've lived in Canton, Detroit and now in Denver. Never needed a gun in any of the 3 locations. What suburb do you people live in that there are all these "bad guys" out to "get cha"?

Reading through these 7 pages of posts there are a lot of scared people here.

One of my friend's neighbor's houses just got robbed in front of his face, suspected drugs were involved. Suburb of Wilmington DE.

I also go on a lot of road trips (or I did before gas got above $3.15). I've gotten lost/had to change tires/had to get gas in more than a few less than desirable areas (a mile down the road from a state prison, South-East DC, etc) .

Also once, while getting take-out, I had a confrontation with a hispanic gangbanger whom I found checking out my car. By confrontation I mean I got a wide-eyed death glare and was lucky it was broad daylight with people around. Specifically at the Chiopotle off of Sunset Hills Road in Fairfax County VA, just outside Reston Town Center.

I also once got two guys to back down when walking back from the library late at night (University of Delaware) with simply the illusion that I was armed. I actually was, with a small knife and pepperblaster (the max we're allowed to carry on campus), but they obviously thought I had something bigger. This is in Newark, DE.

I've got more stories but I've also got classes in a few minutes. I'm happy you've never felt the need or want to use a gun for protective purposes, reality is even in the good, expensive areas situations can arise where one is needed and/or wanted. Even if you're doing everything right. In all of the above I was made safe by luck as much as good judgement. If that luck had gone sour, a gun would have been a much-needed fallback.
 
Last edited:

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
But protesting didn't work either. So words clearly weren't the answer. Guns have a better track record then simply protesting, statistically speaking anyway.

You say that, but clearly it did, as a result of that protest and others like it, it is very unlikely that the Liberal Democrats will be re-elected, thus forcing a change in government, but aside from that you seem to be implying that the students would have been more successful at lowering tuition fees if they had laid siege to the houses of parliament with assault rifles?! They'd have been massacred! It would be an insane!
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Happy 100th Anniversary of being selected as US military sidearm. As classic a design now as it was then over 100 years ago.

Following its success in trials, the Colt pistol was formally adopted by the Army on March 29, 1911, thus gaining its designation, M1911 (Model 1911). It was adopted by the Navy and Marine Corps in 1913. Originally manufactured only by Colt, demand for the firearm in World War I saw the expansion of manufacture to the government-owned Springfield Armory.
 

DestinyKnight

Senior member
Jul 1, 2003
269
0
0
As a proud resident of Utah, I'm happy my legislators passed this. Now if they could do something about the 2 million acre theft of Utah land called the Escalate-Grand Staircase National Park, I'd be a happy camper.

I'll have to get one of those 1911 models next time the gun show comes through town, It would sit pretty next to my Rutger Vaquero .45
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
As a proud resident of Utah, I'm happy my legislators passed this. Now if they could do something about the 2 million acre theft of Utah land called the Escalate-Grand Staircase National Park, I'd be a happy camper.

I'll have to get one of those 1911 models next time the gun show comes through town, It would sit pretty next to my Rutger Vaquero .45

God Bless you for helping keep America free.
 

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
Didn't realize John Browning was from Utah.
Wikipedia says he was a Mormon.

Now you know.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Didn't realize John Browning was from Utah.
Wikipedia says he was a Mormon.

Now you know.

the_more_you_know.jpg
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
I'm totally fine with firearms myself but I've lived in Canton, Detroit and now in Denver. Never needed a gun in any of the 3 locations. What suburb do you people live in that there are all these "bad guys" out to "get cha"?

Reading through these 7 pages of posts there are a lot of scared people here.

Gun ownership and paranoia go hand and hand. Doubly so with most ATOT gun owners.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Gun ownership and paranoia go hand and hand. Doubly so with most ATOT gun owners.

I answered his question with actual experiences, and I know other people who can do the same with far worse stories than me. Care to comment on our paranoia?
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
That they can, the amount of gun owners I've spoken to however can't.

Internet forums != real life. The gun owners I know are perfectly stable mentally. Yes there are paranoid types (especially on internet forums), but the same can be said of the opposition too. For example, people who feel threatened by my guns just by the knowledge that I own them. There is no evidence that I'm any threat to them, the worst crime I've ever committed is mild speeding. My guns have never so much as pointed at another individual. Yet for some reason these gun-control supporters see an instant, personal threat in my guns. Now tell me how that doesn't line up with paranoia?
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Internet forums != real life. The gun owners I know are perfectly stable mentally. Yes there are paranoid types (especially on internet forums), but the same can be said of the opposition too. For example, people who feel threatened by my guns just by the knowledge that I own them. There is no evidence that I'm any threat to them, the worst crime I've ever committed is mild speeding. My guns have never so much as pointed at another individual. Yet for some reason these gun-control supporters see an instant, personal threat in my guns. Now tell me how that doesn't line up with paranoia?

Hmm... Did I mention Internet forums. Let's check:

That they can, the amount of gun owners I've spoken to however can't.

No.