View Poll Results: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 2.83%
  • Depends

    11 10.38%
  • No

    92 86.79%
Page 10 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 238

Thread: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster?

  1. #91
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai View Post
    I'm not sure you or many of the people who initially responded to the OP actually read it.

    Let's looking at the phrasing in the thread. People declaring that they wouldn't "turn in" or "turn over" their weapons or "submit" to "government confiscation."

    I find that a little odd since the OP had nothing to do with forced action. In fact, the OP was basically a bait to all the ra-ra-ra! gun owners and, lo and behold, you all took it, hook, line, and sinker.

    All he was asking is if you'd accept a fairly basic service from a fairly basic government body. Nobody even bothered with the bit in the OP about the fact that the vast majority were voluntarily given for safe-keeping.

    Most of the time, decent people just say "no, thanks" if they don't trust the service being offered and move on. But no, not the guys in this thread. This isn't an issue of politeness, it's an issue of Rights! We can't let the government offer us services to which we can say "no" and then find a work-around, right!?







    Utter nonsense. Socialists are not members of a sovereign borg; they've just got different ideas about how government ought to operate. "Worship" is, on the very best and brightest of days, a massive exaggeration.

    Before you speak again, know that I'm a capitalist who generally believes that the government is more involved in peoples' lives than it ought to be, but I'm not about to declare all socialists government sycophants or anything silly like that.







    I'm always amused to hear an American say things like "real freedom." Isn't the argument that there's no such thing? I thought you were either fully free or fully a slave? Isn't that how the argument goes?

    You are aware, of course, that there are places in America where it is, in point of fact, illegal to carry many pocketknives, such as in New York City, America's largest city, under any circumstances whatsoever ("legally acceptable" doesn't exist), yes? If you're using London as an example, then shouldn't New York City be an example that yanks also don't know what "real freedom," whatever the vengeance that is, is?

    You mentioned that London's regulation of pocketknives is "astonishing to Americans." In lieu of the fact that you clearly didn't know that certain American cities operate the same way, shall we simply say that you must have been so astonished when you got this information that you still don't believe how socialist your own nation has become?

    (Out of curiosity, what does socialism have to do with pocketknives? I don't know, but I daresay neither does anybody else, so I won't feel bad.)







    I cannot help but enjoy the irony, Sir. Thank you for your post.



    The initial question was whether you'd surrender your firearms to the police voluntarily in a disaster. I answered the question no, explained clearly why and what I would do instead. Where you get all the rest of this is anyone's guess.

    The question was initially asked from a Canadian perspective, where they cannot lawfully transport or store their firearms except under very limited circumstances, which is very different from American issues and concerns about the issue, many of which are tied up in the Katrina/NOLA firearms confiscation, and our different laws regarding storage and transport... far less stringent than Canada.


    London is not Britain, New York City is not America. Ok. As I said, you lot do things your way, we'll do things our way.

    Socialism: explained that too. Socialism is one of the ideologies that tend to put State action above individual liberty, whether it makes sense or not.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #92
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    01-02-14 @ 09:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    21

    Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    The initial question was whether you'd surrender your firearms to the police voluntarily in a disaster. I answered the question no, explained clearly why and what I would do instead. Where you get all the rest of this is anyone's guess.


    You don't have to guess. All you have to do is read what I wrote.

    Yes, some people responded with some very reasonable alternatives. Leave them with a friend. One person even suggested leaving them with someone just up the road during a flood, which I found particularly amusing since it is likely that the family just up the road would also be flooded. Personally, I'd rather not give them to the Police for no other reason than because they have problems with logistics and I'm almost sure that I can handle my guns with more care than anyone else. They're mine, after all.

    But in addition to these alternatives, many people, including yourself, have framed your response within the the context of protecting your rights, which, again, I find interesting, since the OP's question was never about your rights. It was about whether or not you'd accept a service.

    Now, those of us who don't think that the American government would love to get its hands on everybody's guns (since even the most developed assault rifle probably isn't going to do much good against a missile launched from hundreds of miles away by one of America's 10 nuclear-powered supercarriers) didn't see that question as an issue of rights. That's why you didn't understand the cheese analogy. Placing cheese in a context of your rights is silly, which was your point, but your response doesn't make any sense to anybody who correctly perceived this question as a matter of pragmatic response and not as an issue of rights. So of course you couldn't understand that analogy. It caused a brief moment of cognitive dissonance because you are not capable of viewing any issues relating to guns as anything but a civil liberties issue. Responding to floods pragmatically by offering a basic service isn't a civil liberty issue, so why did your response and so many other responses take it that far? Was it a coincidence? An accident?

    Or...

    You were baited by the poster of the OP and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. It was a very basic question--would you respond "yes" or "no" if the Police offered to safeguard your weapons in the event of a flood. The OP didn't even bother asking "why" because he knew that all the ra-ra-ra gun owners were gonna respond with litanies about government intrusion and their rights and all that.

    The purpose of this OP was to make gun-toting conservatives (or libertarian conservatives, or whatever they're calling themselves these days) look bad and that's exactly what it did.



    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    The question was initially asked from a Canadian perspective, where they cannot lawfully transport or store their firearms except under very limited circumstances, which is very different from American issues and concerns about the issue, many of which are tied up in the Katrina/NOLA firearms confiscation, and our different laws regarding storage and transport... far less stringent than Canada.


    I don't really understand what that has to do with anything. Someone from Nigeria could have answered such a basic question. I related to the answers which had to do with logistical considerations, but you, yourself, took it way further than that. If you hadn't, we wouldn't have been discussing whether or not a socialist could form a decent answer to the relevant question.

    So is it a logistics issue or a rights issue? You don't know. Whatever sounds best at the time, right?



    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    London is not Britain, New York City is not America. Ok. As I said, you lot do things your way, we'll do things our way.


    Hold on. First London was a classic British example, wasn't it? You brought it up, not me. Suddenly the tables are turned and it doesn't represent Britain? Somehow, New York City isn't at all relevant to America?

    What kind of insanity is this?

    And what do you mean "you do things your way"? What, the conversation is over, now? We can't talk about it any more? I'm not from Canada or Britain, so phrasing it like you're talking to someone who isn't from the exact same country as you is kinda odd.



    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Socialism: explained that too. Socialism is one of the ideologies that tend to put State action above individual liberty, whether it makes sense or not.


    No, you haven't explained anything about socialism. You threw a couple remarks at it to poison the well by referring to socialists as state-worshippers.

    As I said before, being able to carry pocketknives has nothing to do with socialism. Nothing in this thread has anything to do with socialism, which is government ownership of the means of production.

    How's it feel to have been successfully baited by the "Canadian OP"?

  3. #93
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    You wish a more extensive reply, then you shall have one.

    My initial response was frankly a moment of slack-jawed surprise that you'd express cheerful acceptance to government confiscation of ANYTHING you owned, whether it made any sense or not, simply because government said so.

    Then I saw your lean was socialist, and sighed a bit... that is one of the ideologies where one tends to find state-worship and unthinking compliance with anything the State says, yes.


    Okay, you're Brit... your assertion that all Britons are socialist is patently false, but I'll grant that the bulk of your population leans that way... and that Britain hasn't known real freedom in so long that it is no surprise you'd take that viewpoint. Hell you can't even carry a pocketknife in London without some kind of legally acceptable excuse, which is as astonishing to Americans as requiring a license to possess cheese.


    Suffice it to say that such a blind, unthinking obedience to government commands is anathema to the American mind. Especially where it makes no sense, such as the cheese example.
    I'm not sure what constitutes real freedom in your opinion, but Britain ranks above America in social mobility, freedom of the press, healthcare-related freedom, religious freedom, racism-perception, economic positive-freedom and our right to roam (which you don't have at all).

    In fact, I'm quite certain that when you say you are more 'free' than me, you're probably referencing: 1) Your guns, which is indeed a singular area in which Americans have a right Britons don't. It's something of a sad irony that this one freedom you ARE granted contributes to the death of so many of your countrymen. 2) Your taxes -- and it's true, in some states of the US, taxes are lower than in Britain. Not much I can say to that, but I will say that I'd gladly take the list I've provided above over a bit of extra cash.

    Now, to show I'm not just mindlessly disagreeing with you because I think you're ridiculous, I will say I voted for 'Depends' in the poll. I do think that the government ought to have the power to confiscate dangerous items during a disaster that could contribute to the severity of the disaster, but I don't think it should be universal, nor taken lightly. I value my personal property as much as anyone else, and of course, I do not want the government confiscating anything I own without distinct necessity -- whether that's my cheese, my guns or anything else I own or might own.

    At the same time, I think that the government can sometimes see further than individual citizens, and it can realise that something that seems innocuous can prove harmful in certain situations. Take, if you will, the example of the lights-out in Britain during the Blitz. You might say that was the government refusing me a basic necessity, light, and they had no right to prohibit my use of light -- I should be able to turn on the light and get bombed if I like!

    But surely you don't think that. Surely you can agree that in that situation, the government was right to infringe upon the rights of citizens, to protect the greater whole.

    And that's all I'm saying -- if the government were to provide me with an adequate explanation for why confiscating my guns during a certain crisis was necessary, sure, I'd give them up. I don't see why you wouldn't.


    As a wider point, I'm always somewhat taken aback by how deeply some Americans mistrust their government. Surely you realise that they're fighting FOR you, not against you, right? I promise that the US government is certainly the biggest proponents of US rights that I know! And you can be damned sure that foreign governments aren't looking out for your rights.

    There have been regrettable actions by law enforcement officers in crisis-times, like Hurricane Katrina, and understandably these would make you feel mistrustful of the government. For that reason, I think you ought to push for more oversight of government departments by 3rd party observers. But I don't think these examples are grounds to disavow the government as a whole.

    I'm not sure we actually disagree all that much. What do you think?

  4. #94
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    It sounds like the Canadians don't have as great of a need to carry weapons.
    I don't think we do to a higher degree either, but it's like I say, you don't need a firearm until you need one, and at that point you REALLY need a firearm.

    For instance I have had to produce or declare my firearm three times in my life, never had a to go with a full weapon pull thankfully but they were situations that were on the borderline of being dangerous or getting physical. The first was in defense of another person(bartender I used to know, she was being harassed and stalked by iffy clientele) the other two were a suspicious character when I was getting supplies and a road rage incident that I did not escalate. Those three experiences were not comfortable, and I would put my city's safety rating above that of the largest Canadian cities due to size and incidents.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #95
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai View Post
    You don't have to guess. All you have to do is read what I wrote.

    Yes, some people responded with some very reasonable alternatives. Leave them with a friend. One person even suggested leaving them with someone just up the road during a flood, which I found particularly amusing since it is likely that the family just up the road would also be flooded. Personally, I'd rather not give them to the Police for no other reason than because they have problems with logistics and I'm almost sure that I can handle my guns with more care than anyone else. They're mine, after all.

    But in addition to these alternatives, many people, including yourself, have framed your response within the the context of protecting your rights, which, again, I find interesting, since the OP's question was never about your rights. It was about whether or not you'd accept a service.

    Now, those of us who don't think that the American government would love to get its hands on everybody's guns (since even the most developed assault rifle probably isn't going to do much good against a missile launched from hundreds of miles away by one of America's 10 nuclear-powered supercarriers) didn't see that question as an issue of rights. That's why you didn't understand the cheese analogy. Placing cheese in a context of your rights is silly, which was your point, but your response doesn't make any sense to anybody who correctly perceived this question as a matter of pragmatic response and not as an issue of rights. So of course you couldn't understand that analogy. It caused a brief moment of cognitive dissonance because you are not capable of viewing any issues relating to guns as anything but a civil liberties issue. Responding to floods pragmatically by offering a basic service isn't a civil liberty issue, so why did your response and so many other responses take it that far? Was it a coincidence? An accident?

    Or...

    You were baited by the poster of the OP and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. It was a very basic question--would you respond "yes" or "no" if the Police offered to safeguard your weapons in the event of a flood. The OP didn't even bother asking "why" because he knew that all the ra-ra-ra gun owners were gonna respond with litanies about government intrusion and their rights and all that.

    The purpose of this OP was to make gun-toting conservatives (or libertarian conservatives, or whatever they're calling themselves these days) look bad and that's exactly what it did.







    I don't really understand what that has to do with anything. Someone from Nigeria could have answered such a basic question. I related to the answers which had to do with logistical considerations, but you, yourself, took it way further than that. If you hadn't, we wouldn't have been discussing whether or not a socialist could form a decent answer to the relevant question.

    So is it a logistics issue or a rights issue? You don't know. Whatever sounds best at the time, right?







    Hold on. First London was a classic British example, wasn't it? You brought it up, not me. Suddenly the tables are turned and it doesn't represent Britain? Somehow, New York City isn't at all relevant to America?

    What kind of insanity is this?

    And what do you mean "you do things your way"? What, the conversation is over, now? We can't talk about it any more? I'm not from Canada or Britain, so phrasing it like you're talking to someone who isn't from the exact same country as you is kinda odd.







    No, you haven't explained anything about socialism. You threw a couple remarks at it to poison the well by referring to socialists as state-worshippers.

    As I said before, being able to carry pocketknives has nothing to do with socialism. Nothing in this thread has anything to do with socialism, which is government ownership of the means of production.

    How's it feel to have been successfully baited by the "Canadian OP"?



    Whatever bud. I don't have time for your nonsense.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #96
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Are Canadians really that much more law abiding than Americans?
    Quote Originally Posted by Carjosse View Post
    Well we don't have cultural hatred of the police or government and we are not afraid the government is coming for our guns.
    It only stands to reason, given the difference in the origin of the two nations. One was founded in a violent and forceful rebellion against a horrendous tyrant, while the other was founded in grovelling and cowering before that same tyrant, and kissing that tyrant's ass. It should be no surprise that these visible cultural differences remain to this day.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  7. #97
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by Carjosse View Post
    We actually deal with our crime problems here usually through force. If we had what was going in Chicago with all those murders the army would probably be called in to deal with it.
    A country using its military to make war against its own people. I can't imagine what could go wrong there.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  8. #98
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_Osophy View Post
    Excluding liberal ****holes, america is pretty free
    Unfortunately, America is being overrun with growing liberal ****holes, with the free areas becoming smaller, fewer, and farther between.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  9. #99
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

    In a disaster, where the authorities are going to be preoccupied, and it is very likely that opportunistic criminals are likely to take advantage of the chaos, as happens over and over again... **** no.

  10. #100
    Sit Nomine Digna
    Carjosse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,197

    Re: Would You Surrender Your Firearms To Police Voluntarily During A Natural Disaster

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    It only stands to reason, given the difference in the origin of the two nations. One was founded in a violent and forceful rebellion against a horrendous tyrant, while the other was founded in grovelling and cowering before that same tyrant, and kissing that tyrant's ass. It should be no surprise that these visible cultural differences remain to this day.
    It was founded by the people which were not welcome in America especially black loyalists. We were not founded through rebellion and war but we were defined by it. Even the French who hated the English saw the Americans as worse oppressors than the British. British colonies were the only places Blacks could really be free.
    Last edited by Carjosse; 12-01-13 at 01:10 AM.

Page 10 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •