For those who are afraid of guns - Page 5

TacticalEvilDan · 02-17-08, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

I've never really understood the whole need for having guns to defend against the government.

1) Modern firepower is mostly located in things that people can't logistically support. Tanks, planes or artillery is something that nobody would have even if it were legal. Using small arms isn't going to get you very far.

2) By rising against the government, you are going to be committing treason. (thats the legal definition kind of treason. There are perfectly acceptable times when revolution is needed.) Why would you even care about arms control laws? If you win the revolution you can't be punished, and if you lose, its not like you can punish someone more after you execute them for treason. Many good laws we have today would be a problem if the government suddenly became evil. That doesn't mean that the laws are inherently bad.

THIS, boys and girls, is why it's a crying damn shame that the government-run school system is doing everything in its power to bury the truth of the Declaration of Independence.

I swear, if someone hands me a multi-million-dollar lotto jackpot check, just walks up to me and hands it over, I'm not going to pay off my loans or see to my child's education or ensure the comfort of my retirement.

I'm going to buy a damn delivery truck, fill it up with history books, and drive all over the United States making people like YOU read them.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-17-08, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan

THIS, boys and girls, is why it's a crying damn shame that the government-run school system is doing everything in its power to bury the truth of the Declaration of Independence.

I swear, if someone hands me a multi-million-dollar lotto jackpot check, just walks up to me and hands it over, I'm not going to pay off my loans or see to my child's education or ensure the comfort of my retirement.

I'm going to buy a damn delivery truck, fill it up with history books, and drive all over the United States making people like YOU read them.

You are expecting public school graduated to read your books?

You need to make a tv show in the mold of "Who wants to be a millionare" if you want them to pay attention,.

TacticalEvilDan · 02-17-08, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

You are expecting public school graduated to read your books?

OH MY GOD! STOPPIT! STOPPIT!

::slaps hands over ears and sing-songss loudly::

I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Arcana XV · 02-17-08, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

I've never really understood the whole need for having guns to defend against the government.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no better reason to own a gun. I don't know about you, but government scares me a hell of a lot more than your average thug or burglar out there.

Quote:

1) Modern firepower is mostly located in things that people can't logistically support. Tanks, planes or artillery is something that nobody would have even if it were legal. Using small arms isn't going to get you very far.

Please to Google "guerrilla warfare".

Quote:

2) By rising against the government, you are going to be committing treason.

Whoa.

I'm not even American and I can hear your founding fathers spinning in their graves.

Are you aware that even your soldiers, if given an unlawful order, have the obligation to refuse to carry it out?

Sometimes the enemy comes from within and, when that happens, 9 times out of 10 it comes from the government. It is absolutely NOT treason to fight against a corrupt government that has turned against the citizens.

jfuh · 02-17-08, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Need has nothing to do with rights.

You don't need a car, there is mass transit.

Not every city has mass transit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

You don't need a toaster.

You don't need a microwave.

You don't need 2 televisions.

You don't need a car that breaks the speed limit.

AK-47 isn't about rights, please try reading again that sentence.

jfuh · 02-17-08, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaMidRighter

Yup. That's what we have been trying to get across as second amendment advocates for years.

I didn't mention it simply because I consider it (and would assume most people would) a common sense point. I am a firm believer in expanding police presence when the situation (i.e. population, crime increases) warrants it. I just assumed most sane people would feel that way already.

I agree.

And that's the thing, it is common sense and yet when we have shootings in highschools, college campuses, it seems no one talks about this fundamental common sense, what does seem to be the talk of everyone is gun control or more guns

I would argue that the simplest common sense approach that actually has stats that confirm it's workability would be something we should talk about.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-17-08, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Not every city has mass transit.

AK-47 isn't about rights, please try reading again that sentence.

Sure it is. Miller Vs. decided that I could own military style weapons since miller's shotgun (paraphrasing) had no practicle military purpose.....

If I misconstued your point by all means please clarify,

rathi · 02-17-08, 05:14 PM

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned, there is no better reason to own a gun. I don't know about you, but government scares me a hell of a lot more than your average thug or burglar out there.

I'd agree that the government is often the more relevant threat, but I find words much more effective weapons than guns in that scenario.

Quote:

Please to Google "guerrilla warfare".

Please refer to ww2 occupation by the Japanese and Germans. A modern mechanized force without moral constraints will dominate.

Quote:

Whoa.

I'm not even American and I can hear your founding fathers spinning in their graves.

Why? All of the founding fathers committed treason.

Quote:

Are you aware that even your soldiers, if given an unlawful order, have the obligation to refuse to carry it out?

Yes. That fact is much greater protection against a corrupt government than small arms in the hand of the public.

Quote:

Sometimes the enemy comes from within and, when that happens, 9 times out of 10 it comes from the government. It is absolutely NOT treason to fight against a corrupt government that has turned against the citizens.

Treason is a legal term. Fighting against the government is certainly treason. However, that doesn't mean that treason isn't the morally proper choice to make. Assassinating Hitler would have been murder if committed by a German citizen, but many would have considered it a positive action. A corrupt government is the ultimate example of where law and morality are separate.

Arcana XV · 02-17-08, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

I'd agree that the government is often the more relevant threat, but I find words much more effective weapons than guns in that scenario.

Yes, freedom of speech is important, but what happens when government takes that fundamental right away? Without guns and without the right to openly voice dissent, what do you have left to defend yourself?

Quote:

Please refer to ww2 occupation by the Japanese and Germans. A modern mechanized force without moral constraints will dominate.

Didn't stop the Resistance movements from messing with things as best they could. Some believe that D-day would have not happened had it not been for the crucial role the Resistance played in obtaining intelligence. The little people should never be underestimated.

Quote:

Why? All of the founding fathers committed treason.

Yes, I know. In today's world they'd be labeled terrorists and sent to Guantanamo.

Quote:

Yes. That fact is much greater protection against a corrupt government than small arms in the hand of the public.

Treason is a legal term. Fighting against the government is certainly treason. However, that doesn't mean that treason isn't the morally proper choice to make. Assassinating Hitler would have been murder if committed by a German citizen, but many would have considered it a positive action. A corrupt government is the ultimate example of where law and morality are separate.

I think we have different definitions of treason. I don't call it treason when the people fight against an oppressive, unfair, totalitarian government. I call it fighting for freedom.

TacticalEvilDan · 02-17-08, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

Please refer to ww2 occupation by the Japanese and Germans. A modern mechanized force without moral constraints will dominate.

Oh, right.

That would be why the Soviets left Afghanistan -- because they were dominating, so they got bored and went home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

Yes. That fact is much greater protection against a corrupt government than small arms in the hand of the public.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

I guess you've been missing the incidents of prisoner torture and the execution of unarmed civilians in Iraq by US troops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

Treason is a legal term. Fighting against the government is certainly treason. However, that doesn't mean that treason isn't the morally proper choice to make. Assassinating Hitler would have been murder if committed by a German citizen, but many would have considered it a positive action. A corrupt government is the ultimate example of where law and morality are separate.

When the government itself is operating illegally, stripping the populace of their civil rights, lying to the people and so on, words like "treason" and "legal" cease to have meaning in that context.

The "legal" definition only matters in an environment where the law is actually respected, much less upheld, but the authorities.