Why the general populace should not be allowed to own a gun.

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the point of having guns is not safety from other people, it is for safety from government. if necessary, armed revolution/resistance can happen. as we should have all learned last century, the greatest threat to a society is not foreign governments invading, it is their own government.

sorry, but a couple million wackos with pea shooters aren't going to put the fear into the U.S. Military.

I for one would hope the US military personel aren't so blind that they would follow orders to kill their own Fathers, Mothers, Brothers and Sisters.

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: K1052
I'm more afraid of idiots with cars than idiots with guns.

Me too!! They are far more common and kill about 3x as many people has people doing stupid things with firearms.

It is way higher than 3x.

Oh I'm sure it is. But I was being conservative in my guess.

 

[MommysLittleMonster]

Civilian gun ownership=:thumbsdown:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: MommysLittleMonster
Civilian gun ownership=:thumbsdown:

Wow, real compelling argument there...:roll:

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the point of having guns is not safety from other people, it is for safety from government. if necessary, armed revolution/resistance can happen. as we should have all learned last century, the greatest threat to a society is not foreign governments invading, it is their own government.

sorry, but a couple million wackos with pea shooters aren't going to put the fear into the U.S. Military.

A lot of those "wackos" are members of that military and I doubt they could be ordered enmasse to war against the American population.

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the point of having guns is not safety from other people, it is for safety from government. if necessary, armed revolution/resistance can happen. as we should have all learned last century, the greatest threat to a society is not foreign governments invading, it is their own government.

sorry, but a couple million wackos with pea shooters aren't going to put the fear into the U.S. Military.

I for one would hope the US military personel aren't so blind that they would follow orders to kill their own Fathers, Mothers, Brothers and Sisters.

so why does anyone need a gun in order to form a militia in case the government turns on the public?

100% implausible situation? I'd say.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the point of having guns is not safety from other people, it is for safety from government. if necessary, armed revolution/resistance can happen. as we should have all learned last century, the greatest threat to a society is not foreign governments invading, it is their own government.

sorry, but a couple million wackos with pea shooters aren't going to put the fear into the U.S. Military.

I for one would hope the US military personel aren't so blind that they would follow orders to kill their own Fathers, Mothers, Brothers and Sisters.

so why does anyone need a gun in order to form a militia in case the government turns on the public?

100% implausible situation? I'd say.

There is really no need to justify owning a gun, it is a right that pre-existed the US Constitution and important enough to be protected in there along with the other fundamental rights enumerated in the 1st 10 ammendments. Also included in the document is a way to modify that right but you will need to convince an overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens to do so.

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the point of having guns is not safety from other people, it is for safety from government. if necessary, armed revolution/resistance can happen. as we should have all learned last century, the greatest threat to a society is not foreign governments invading, it is their own government.

sorry, but a couple million wackos with pea shooters aren't going to put the fear into the U.S. Military.

you fail to realize that at the basic level it's always going to involve infantry, and infantry can be injured and killed by firearms

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the point of having guns is not safety from other people, it is for safety from government. if necessary, armed revolution/resistance can happen. as we should have all learned last century, the greatest threat to a society is not foreign governments invading, it is their own government.

sorry, but a couple million wackos with pea shooters aren't going to put the fear into the U.S. Military.

I for one would hope the US military personel aren't so blind that they would follow orders to kill their own Fathers, Mothers, Brothers and Sisters.

I usually agree with you, but I must say, did you EVER take a history class? It has happened MANY MANY MANY times.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: NL5
I usually agree with you, but I must say, did you EVER take a history class? It has happened MANY MANY MANY times.

Yes, I'm aware of that. It has only happened once though on the scale we're talking about here. Hopefully, we wouldn't be so stupid as to make that mistake again...

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the point of having guns is not safety from other people, it is for safety from government. if necessary, armed revolution/resistance can happen. as we should have all learned last century, the greatest threat to a society is not foreign governments invading, it is their own government.

sorry, but a couple million wackos with pea shooters aren't going to put the fear into the U.S. Military.

I for one would hope the US military personel aren't so blind that they would follow orders to kill their own Fathers, Mothers, Brothers and Sisters.

so why does anyone need a gun in order to form a militia in case the government turns on the public?

100% implausible situation? I'd say.

There is really no need to justify owning a gun, it is a right that pre-existed the US Constitution and important enough to be protected in there along with the other fundamental rights enumerated in the 1st 10 ammendments. Also included in the document is a way to modify that right but you will need to convince an overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens to do so.

Whilst I agree that nothing will change (eg "you'll pry my gun from cold dead fingers"), I do feel it's important to note that the consitution was created in an age where life was very different to how it is today. It was a good idea then, but I have my doubts as to whether is is still relevant nowadays.

you fail to realize that at the basic level it's always going to involve infantry, and infantry can be injured and killed by firearms

See above. In the 1700s the government had roughly the same weaponry as the populace. These days the army has access to tanks and all sorts of fun toys of that nature that would make an armed militia with glocks somewhat less fearsome than they might have desired.

'Swings and roundabouts', however. This debate is destined to reach few (read:no) conclusions.

 

[GasX]

I am late to the party, but the OP is a reflection of everything wrong with society today.

MWilding's 3 principal tenets for a modern society

1. Nothing is the fault of an individual. If it ever looks like someone
is going to receive personal blame for something bad that happened
to them, then make a law that absolves them of responsibility

2. If someone does something stupid and gets hurt while participating
in an activity, we must pass a law that makes it impossible for smart
and/or careful people to ever participate in that activity again.

3. If a tragedy occurs that is commonly accepted to be nothing more
than a horrible accident, assign blame to a straw man and pass laws
to protect future innocent victims from the culprit.

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the point of having guns is not safety from other people, it is for safety from government. if necessary, armed revolution/resistance can happen. as we should have all learned last century, the greatest threat to a society is not foreign governments invading, it is their own government.

sorry, but a couple million wackos with pea shooters aren't going to put the fear into the U.S. Military.

I for one would hope the US military personel aren't so blind that they would follow orders to kill their own Fathers, Mothers, Brothers and Sisters.

so why does anyone need a gun in order to form a militia in case the government turns on the public?

100% implausible situation? I'd say.

There is really no need to justify owning a gun, it is a right that pre-existed the US Constitution and important enough to be protected in there along with the other fundamental rights enumerated in the 1st 10 ammendments. Also included in the document is a way to modify that right but you will need to convince an overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens to do so.

Whilst I agree that nothing will change (eg "you'll pry my gun from cold dead fingers"), I do feel it's important to note that the consitution was created in an age where life was very different to how it is today. It was a good idea then, but I have my doubts as to whether is is still relevant nowadays.

you fail to realize that at the basic level it's always going to involve infantry, and infantry can be injured and killed by firearms

See above. In the 1700s the government had roughly the same weaponry as the populace. These days the army has access to tanks and all sorts of fun toys of that nature that would make an armed militia with glocks somewhat less fearsome than they might have desired.

'Swings and roundabouts', however. This debate is destined to reach few (read:no) conclusions.

No, you really don't get it. The military will always need to rely on people on the ground to maintain control. A tank is a fearsome weapon, but it can't go inside a house and search the inhabitants.

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: NL5
I usually agree with you, but I must say, did you EVER take a history class? It has happened MANY MANY MANY times.

Yes, I'm aware of that. It has only happened once though on the scale we're talking about here. Hopefully, we wouldn't be so stupid as to make that mistake again...

Once? I assume your talking about Germany in the first half of the last century - I'm afraid goverments have been taking over thier own countries by force throughout history - MANY MANY MANY times.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the point of having guns is not safety from other people, it is for safety from government. if necessary, armed revolution/resistance can happen. as we should have all learned last century, the greatest threat to a society is not foreign governments invading, it is their own government.

sorry, but a couple million wackos with pea shooters aren't going to put the fear into the U.S. Military.

What do you think has been happening in Iraq for the last two years?

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: M00T
Guns are like e-penises. Everyone who gets one, can't wait for a chance to use it.

You're totally right. I'm always looking for a way to shoot me some people. You can't imagine how many guns I've had to plant on corpses after the fact.

 

[yellowg555]

I just bought a handgun and the reason why I bought it is for shooting at the range for fun. A small part of me, however, bought it for home defense.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: loic2003
Whilst I agree that nothing will change (eg "you'll pry my gun from cold dead fingers"), I do feel it's important to note that the consitution was created in an age where life was very different to how it is today. It was a good idea then, but I have my doubts as to whether is is still relevant nowadays.

The rights and liberties in the Bill of Rights were put there not for purely practical reasons, but for reasons of principle. Those reasons of principle are the same today as they have ever been. There is no justifiably reason for a government to take away its citizens ability to defend themselves other then to repress their freedoms.

See above. In the 1700s the government had roughly the same weaponry as the populace. These days the army has access to tanks and all sorts of fun toys of that nature that would make an armed militia with glocks somewhat less fearsome than they might have desired.

Even if the military can defeat the armed populace would they care to? It is much easier order the military to repress the people if the solders only have to stand there and display their weapons. As long as the population is armed it is much harder to use the military as a bully force to intimidate the population.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: M00T
Guns are like e-penises. Everyone who gets one, can't wait for a chance to use it.

You're totally right. I'm always looking for a way to shoot me some people. You can't imagine how many guns I've had to plant on corpses after the fact.

I nominate this as the best reply.
It was close, as K1052 had an excellent reply as well as several others. But this one's the best. Hoorah!

 

[shilala]

Some people are too stupid to walk across the street.
Should we get rid of streets or stupid people?

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: M00T
Guns are like e-penises. Everyone who gets one, can't wait for a chance to use it.

You're totally right. I'm always looking for a way to shoot me some people. You can't imagine how many guns I've had to plant on corpses after the fact.

I nominate this as the best reply.
It was close, as K1052 had an excellent reply as well as several others. But this one's the best. Hoorah!

Woohoo! The only prize I want for winning is being allowed to fire wildly into a crowd of people...because I'm compelled to...because I have a gun. Mmm...flawless logic.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: M00T
Guns are like e-penises. Everyone who gets one, can't wait for a chance to use it.

You're totally right. I'm always looking for a way to shoot me some people. You can't imagine how many guns I've had to plant on corpses after the fact.

I nominate this as the best reply.
It was close, as K1052 had an excellent reply as well as several others. But this one's the best. Hoorah!

Woohoo! The only prize I want for winning is being allowed to fire wildly into a crowd of people...because I'm compelled to...because I have a gun. Mmm...flawless logic.

Hmm ... would these be random people, people of your choosing, or what ??
perhaps we could have a big duel of "pro gun people" vs "anti gun people" ..... and see who wins???

I'm betting the "pro gun people" will all survive and the "anti gun people" will all die.

 

[Gulzakar]

number of people killed by cars each year? A lot more than gun violence.

how many idiot drivers are given a license? A lot more than people given a gun.

Conclusion? nothing is idiot proof.

 

[Ulfwald]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, what part of this do you gun grabbers not understand?

This was guarenteed to us by our founding fathers, and rightly so. I had much rather have a gun in my hand that the police on the phone when someone is breaking into my house.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: loic2003
See above. In the 1700s the government had roughly the same weaponry as the populace. These days the army has access to tanks and all sorts of fun toys of that nature that would make an armed militia with glocks somewhat less fearsome than they might have desired.

'Swings and roundabouts', however. This debate is destined to reach few (read:no) conclusions.

Well isn't that very telling? The fact that the founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have arms equal to that of the military is a profound notion. It doesn't matter what the rounds per minute or range of a rifle was, they could have been fighting with pea shooters, but the intent is the same, and very clear. The intent was a balance of power.

I know what the counterargument is. "Well then shouldn't the population be allowed to have tanks and fighter jets and nukes?" Well, obviously those didn't exist in that day and age, but what did exist was canons and the like. More powerful weapons than rifles and pistols. These items were classified as ordnance. But the 2nd amendment makes no mention of the right to keep and bear ordnance.