Why is there so much crime in the USA that everyone thinks he needs a gun to defend himself?

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: KGB

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Evadman
ya never know when we may have to overthrow the government.

That's actually the #1 reason why we have the 2nd amendment. Our forefathers just came from a dictatorship that took away the freedoms people and there was absolutely nothing the people could do about it because they had no means of rising up against the King. They wanted to make sure that if our gov't ever became too corrupt, that we would be able to overthrow it. That's why it's in the bill of rights, and not a law. Because they knew that all the gov't would have to do is make guns illegal and then they could do whatever they wanted because how would the people stop them? Most people nowadays think that's stupid, but if you look back through history, this is the same debate that went on for centuries. People felt secure and wanted peace, so they gave up their guns. They thought that they were living in a new era where they could trust their gov't. After their guns were gone, their gov't walked right over them. It's happened countless times in history.

realistically..let hypothsize this "corrupt" government? Will people with guns walk into capitol hill and overthrow the gov't? Having our very Bastille (as the french did during the 18th century?)

How will that look in front of video camera's. The WHOLE world watching American's going wild on their own politicians and National GuardsMan determined to Follow, Protect, Obey the Constitution by taking down American Citizens whom are outraged.

If that is the "Gun" way to overthrow a gov't... I don't want any part of it.

If it is OPEN debate... OPEN elections...Real Answers to our problems... then I would want to be part of it.
Our system is not perfect..it works quite well but were not always right and correct..but putting a .45 on the forehead of a politician in the State senate will not get us very far.

You are looking at this from a very narrow perspective. Let's assume for a moment that our gov't passes a law outlawing all firearms. Then, 10 years down the road they decide that anyone over the age of 65 is a drain on the country and should be humanely put down (if you know what I mean). This would not fly, of course. Now, let's say that there is a huge riot because of this and the gov't decides to start arresting people who protest this law by putting them in prison. Prisons start becoming too crowded, so they start executing people to clear out the prisons (not everyone, but just enough to keep the prisons with some extra space). People are outraged by this prisoning and executing and protest. There are mass riots and the gov't institutes a curfew and anyone out past curfew will be shot (by the Army or Natl Guard, which can have guns). Our gov't decides to skip elections because there are too many problems and one person should stay in to maintain their current policy.
Suddenly, we realize that we are living in a police state and our rights are no longer being respected. What do you do?
Without guns, it would be pretty tough to do anything. With guns, we could at least force ourselves into the capitol and FORCE a change.

This may sound pretty extreme, but this is in fact what has happened over the centuries. It starts with something small, then escalates slowly. Pretty soon, the gov't is in control and you are a peon. The first step is always to get the guns away from the people because without guns, the people have no way of fighting back. As I said, you are looking at this too narrowly. You are imagining some nuts just walking into the Whitehouse and shooting, hoping to overthrow the gov't. However, that is not the case. Everyone should have the right to overthrow their gov't if it becomes corrupt and guns are pretty much the only way to do it. After all, how many gov'ts do you think would just relinquish control when the people told them to? If there was a vote tomorrow to change our gov't and it passed with 95% approval, do you think our gov't would actually allow it to go through? Heck no! If we tried to forcibly remove them, they would just bring the army in.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: KGB

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Evadman
ya never know when we may have to overthrow the government.

That's actually the #1 reason why we have the 2nd amendment. Our forefathers just came from a dictatorship that took away the freedoms people and there was absolutely nothing the people could do about it because they had no means of rising up against the King. They wanted to make sure that if our gov't ever became too corrupt, that we would be able to overthrow it. That's why it's in the bill of rights, and not a law. Because they knew that all the gov't would have to do is make guns illegal and then they could do whatever they wanted because how would the people stop them? Most people nowadays think that's stupid, but if you look back through history, this is the same debate that went on for centuries. People felt secure and wanted peace, so they gave up their guns. They thought that they were living in a new era where they could trust their gov't. After their guns were gone, their gov't walked right over them. It's happened countless times in history.

realistically..let hypothsize this "corrupt" government? Will people with guns walk into capitol hill and overthrow the gov't? Having our very Bastille (as the french did during the 18th century?)

How will that look in front of video camera's. The WHOLE world watching American's going wild on their own politicians and National GuardsMan determined to Follow, Protect, Obey the Constitution by taking down American Citizens whom are outraged.

If that is the "Gun" way to overthrow a gov't... I don't want any part of it.

If it is OPEN debate... OPEN elections...Real Answers to our problems... then I would want to be part of it.
Our system is not perfect..it works quite well but were not always right and correct..but putting a .45 on the forehead of a politician in the State senate will not get us very far.

You are looking at this from a very narrow perspective. Let's assume for a moment that our gov't passes a law outlawing all firearms. Then, 10 years down the road they decide that anyone over the age of 65 is a drain on the country and should be humanely put down (if you know what I mean). This would not fly, of course. Now, let's say that there is a huge riot because of this and the gov't decides to start arresting people who protest this law by putting them in prison. Prisons start becoming too crowded, so they start executing people to clear out the prisons (not everyone, but just enough to keep the prisons with some extra space). People are outraged by this prisoning and executing and protest. There are mass riots and the gov't institutes a curfew and anyone out past curfew will be shot (by the Army or Natl Guard, which can have guns). Our gov't decides to skip elections because there are too many problems and one person should stay in to maintain their current policy.
Suddenly, we realize that we are living in a police state and our rights are no longer being respected. What do you do?
Without guns, it would be pretty tough to do anything. With guns, we could at least force ourselves into the capitol and FORCE a change.

This may sound pretty extreme, but this is in fact what has happened over the centuries. It starts with something small, then escalates slowly. Pretty soon, the gov't is in control and you are a peon. The first step is always to get the guns away from the people because without guns, the people have no way of fighting back. As I said, you are looking at this too narrowly. You are imagining some nuts just walking into the Whitehouse and shooting, hoping to overthrow the gov't. However, that is not the case. Everyone should have the right to overthrow their gov't if it becomes corrupt and guns are pretty much the only way to do it. After all, how many gov'ts do you think would just relinquish control when the people told them to? If there was a vote tomorrow to change our gov't and it passed with 95% approval, do you think our gov't would actually allow it to go through? Heck no! If we tried to forcibly remove them, they would just bring the army in.

Another thing is, he seems to be woefully ignorant of how this country was founded, and just what was sacrificed to earn him his right to open debate.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: ncircle
not everyone feels they need a gun solely to defend themselves.
some people enjoy hunting(not me) some like to shoot beer cans or rotting pumpkins.

hunting is OK and shooting beer cans for fun also but I read a lot of posts about "defending myself" which I find kinda scary.

Because it is easy to get a get. Everyone can get a gun. The only way you can cope is to also get a gun. Some people think this.

Gun crime in England and other countries which do not allow guns is much less. Obviously some gun related crimes but no where near as much I'm betting. You don't see many school children shoot outs in countries which do not allow guns. Well not in England anyway........

Koing

Yet England's crime rate is higher than the US, including violent crimes. It's a trade off. Personally, I rather have the freedom to defend myself, my rights and my property.

Are you sure? I'g guess gun related crime is less in England then in the States.

I'd rather no one have guns instead and protect myself otherwise without a gun. If a gun comes out then I guess I'm SOL. I'd prefer to take that chance instead of any tom dick and harry carrying guns! Yeah but like you said pesonal preference........

Koing

Crime: Top 100 Total crime victims

Definition: People victimized by crime (as a % of the total population). Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Source: UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin.

 

[KGB1]

-Riiiight. That option worked perfectly well for the Jews in 1940s Germany, right?
Just as long as the prospect for violence exists, debate will always be more of an option. Take away the public's ability to defend itself, and the government has no reason to allow debate, open or not.
Sorry, but a disarmed populace is ripe for tyranny. I want no part of it.

-- Another thing is, he seems to be woefully ignorant of how this country was founded, and just what was sacrificed to earn him his right to open debate.

--- You are looking at this from a very narrow perspective. Let's assume for a moment that our gov't passes a law outlawing all firearms. Then, 10 years down the road they decide that anyone over the age of 65 is a drain on the country and should be humanely put down (if you know what I mean). This would not fly, of course. Now, let's say that there is a huge riot because of this and the gov't decides to start arresting people who protest this law by putting them in prison. Prisons start becoming too crowded, so they start executing people to clear out the prisons (not everyone, but just enough to keep the prisons with some extra space). People are outraged by this prisoning and executing and protest. There are mass riots and the gov't institutes a curfew and anyone out past curfew will be shot (by the Army or Natl Guard, which can have guns). Our gov't decides to skip elections because there are too many problems and one person should stay in to maintain their current policy.
Suddenly, we realize that we are living in a police state and our rights are no longer being respected. What do you do?
Without guns, it would be pretty tough to do anything. With guns, we could at least force ourselves into the capitol and FORCE a change.

This may sound pretty extreme, but this is in fact what has happened over the centuries. It starts with something small, then escalates slowly. Pretty soon, the gov't is in control and you are a peon. The first step is always to get the guns away from the people because without guns, the people have no way of fighting back. As I said, you are looking at this too narrowly. You are imagining some nuts just walking into the Whitehouse and shooting, hoping to overthrow the gov't. However, that is not the case. Everyone should have the right to overthrow their gov't if it becomes corrupt and guns are pretty much the only way to do it. After all, how many gov'ts do you think would just relinquish control when the people told them to? If there was a vote tomorrow to change our gov't and it passed with 95% approval, do you think our gov't would actually allow it to go through? Heck no! If we tried to forcibly remove them, they would just bring the army in.

-WTH do the Jews during the 1940's in GERMANY of all places have anything to do with US laws and Constitutional Rights? (Jews by nature are also very passive, getle people...except Israel. This coming from a Muslim) Jews whom have been persecuted throughout history..until the last 50 years really did not have an army and kill many people much.

-- Yeap BRING in the ARMY and their sacrifice when were talking about debate when it's guaranteed.... We deserve/have the right to debate and argue.. not given to us from how we've been protected so we should shut up and not show disrespect.

--- Are you saying you don't trust the govt without you holding a gun to threaten them if they don't do as we bid them to do?(shotgun gov't?) We already have guns..and have they listened to us? HA!

I guess you guys would rather go back to Direct Democracy if our representatives aren't working.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: KGB

-Riiiight. That option worked perfectly well for the Jews in 1940s Germany, right?
Just as long as the prospect for violence exists, debate will always be more of an option. Take away the public's ability to defend itself, and the government has no reason to allow debate, open or not.
Sorry, but a disarmed populace is ripe for tyranny. I want no part of it.

-- Another thing is, he seems to be woefully ignorant of how this country was founded, and just what was sacrificed to earn him his right to open debate.

--- You are looking at this from a very narrow perspective. Let's assume for a moment that our gov't passes a law outlawing all firearms. Then, 10 years down the road they decide that anyone over the age of 65 is a drain on the country and should be humanely put down (if you know what I mean). This would not fly, of course. Now, let's say that there is a huge riot because of this and the gov't decides to start arresting people who protest this law by putting them in prison. Prisons start becoming too crowded, so they start executing people to clear out the prisons (not everyone, but just enough to keep the prisons with some extra space). People are outraged by this prisoning and executing and protest. There are mass riots and the gov't institutes a curfew and anyone out past curfew will be shot (by the Army or Natl Guard, which can have guns). Our gov't decides to skip elections because there are too many problems and one person should stay in to maintain their current policy.
Suddenly, we realize that we are living in a police state and our rights are no longer being respected. What do you do?
Without guns, it would be pretty tough to do anything. With guns, we could at least force ourselves into the capitol and FORCE a change.

This may sound pretty extreme, but this is in fact what has happened over the centuries. It starts with something small, then escalates slowly. Pretty soon, the gov't is in control and you are a peon. The first step is always to get the guns away from the people because without guns, the people have no way of fighting back. As I said, you are looking at this too narrowly. You are imagining some nuts just walking into the Whitehouse and shooting, hoping to overthrow the gov't. However, that is not the case. Everyone should have the right to overthrow their gov't if it becomes corrupt and guns are pretty much the only way to do it. After all, how many gov'ts do you think would just relinquish control when the people told them to? If there was a vote tomorrow to change our gov't and it passed with 95% approval, do you think our gov't would actually allow it to go through? Heck no! If we tried to forcibly remove them, they would just bring the army in.

-WTH do the Jews during the 1940's in GERMANY of all places have anything to do with US laws and Constitutional Rights? (Jews by nature are also very passive, getle people...except Israel. This coming from a Muslim) Jews whom have been persecuted throughout history..until the last 50 years really did not have an army and kill many people much.

-- Yeap BRING in the ARMY and their sacrifice when were talking about debate when it's guaranteed.... We deserve/have the right to debate and argue.. not given to us from how we've been protected so we should shut up and not show disrespect.

--- Are you saying you don't trust the govt without you holding a gun to threaten them if they don't do as we bid them to do?(shotgun gov't?) We already have guns..and have they listened to us? HA!

I guess you guys would rather go back to Direct Democracy if our representatives aren't working.

It wasn't "the army" that won the rights you enjoy today. It was a citizen militia made up of common everyday folks with guns. Guns the English tried to take away... albeit too late to save them.

The Jews were passive, until after they were disarmed by the Nazis. You will note that Israel is anything BUT passive. THEY learned their lesson.

The government DOES listen to us. Too much, sometimes. They pass knee-jerk reactionary laws based on public panic and opinion, rather than Constitutional law.

No, I don't want a direct democracy. All that is, is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Your arguments are confusing to me. Are you for, or against the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms?

 

[Soybomb]

With guns, we could at least force ourselves into the capitol and FORCE a change.

Lol no you couldn't.
Angry citizen: "I have a pistol I demand salvation from tyrrany!"
senator: "fire the tow missles on them until they leave"

I certainly have no intentions of carrying a pistol around for self defense, I don't feel unsafe.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ndee
Really wondering.

Wonder more. The right to gun ownership has nothing to do with crime or hunting.