(December 17, 2012 at 10:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: Oh, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg

This guy was raring for it for a few years before he tried to actually fucking kill Hitler. I'm pretty sure it says there that he was, dare I say it, in the army. That's resistance, German and don't try that no true Scotsman thing on such a thing as resistance. It doesn't work any better in that context.

If you read the article you would have noticed that he took part in operation Barbarossa, which was one big single warcrime.

Oh sweet, it was resistance. But for what purpose? For the purpose of reüplacing Hitler with another dictator, because he wouldn`t consider peace negotiations with the west. Your "real scotsman thing" doesn`t apply here, because it is necessary to question his motives to make conclusion about his historical role.

Call that resistance if you want to. I call that opertunism. And I will certainly not put him on the same level as the members of the resistance in the occupied nations aswell as other resistance figures.

(December 17, 2012 at 11:43 pm)cato123 Wrote: What a load of shit! You set up a gauntlet of conditions in an attempt to make your point.

Nope. It is members of this forum who argued that "One needs firearms in privat ownership to defend oneself in case the goverment goes to tyranny.

Wich will never happen. This is just fodder for those morons who see some conspiracy behind every bush. And a stupid way of arguing for lesser gun control.

Quote:1. Independent body of a nation's defence. Where is it that the military arm of a nation's defence is not under direct supervision of the controlling political party?

Indeed. The army of a democratic nation is a body which is independent from political parties. I dont know about the US, but I know that it is even forbidden to wear the uniform whilest making a political statement here.

A threat towards a democracy might come from a armed and uniformed group devoted to the cause of a political party, also known as "militia" or "paramilitary organisation" such as the brownshirts, the bolshiviks red guaerd, the Hutu militias or any other armed political group.
But this still isn`t a argument against gun control since the cause for such problems isn`t gun control but political conflict.

Quote:2. The point of establishing a dictatorship is to throw out the previous base of power. Eliminating a tyrant's succession by invoking the condition that the former head of state remain in place is fucking stupid. A tyrant/dictator, by definition, can't exist with the previous head of state in place. You have chosen to frame an arguable conclusion by definition that defies the meaning of the concept you were arguing against!!!!

?

So it never happened that a democraticly elected goverment chose to dispand the upcoming elections to rule supreme and totalitarian?

Hamas in Gaza?

I simply pointed out that that never happened with the use of the army, only by an army which did it independently to dispose a goverment.

(December 17, 2012 at 8:44 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 8:03 am)Kousbroek Wrote: Thx for the history lesson but that was back in the 18th century ... and i'm getting sick of all that stupid founding fathers bullshit.

I know it was in the 18th century. The second amendment was included so that if needed, citizens could revolt against their government again. That provision is still needed IMO, as it should be in any government. Any government has the ability to fall to corruption and become oppressive.

Quote:In a modern day society there is no room for armed civilians and anyone who thinks otherwise is either paranoid or just out of his right mind ( or both ).

Say that to the civilians who just retook their countries from dictators in the Arab Spring. If you think that the world is perfect, or that any government on this planet is perfect and cannot become oppresive, then it is you that is out of his right mind.

Quote:But keep on defending 'the right to bear arms' so we can wait for the next 'i took my mommy's gun to school and killed everyone in sight' incident.

Sorry, but there is a big difference between owning a gun and using one to commit mass murder. What we can do to limit the number of these incidents is do better background checks on people who want guns, and focus a lot of effort on the recognition and treatment of mental disorders.

What a load of crap.
Civilians armed with hand weapons won't stop a government from becoming corrupt.
We need armed police and army because the world isn't perfect, another stupid remark.
And if we checked mommy better would that have prevented this horrible tragedy ?
Another utterly stupid assumption, the only way to prevent people from shooting each other is by getting rid of weapons.

(December 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm)Napoléon Wrote: It's rather amusing that earlier in the thread people who shared similar viewpoints to mine were being accused of having a 'deplorable' attitude for bringing up the topic of gun legislation so soon after a massacre. I find that pretty damn ironic considering people are now playing the 'look how awesome my gun is' game.

Who both made that accusation and then played said game?

Read the thread my dear.

---

As for the rest of it, I think the car analogy is pretty interesting.

Being pro-seat belt or pro-speed limits isn't anti-car.

All I think is needed is more regulation. And yes, I'll say it, limits to who can purchase guns. IMO the average citizen really doesn't need a gun, which has the sole purpose of killing things. Just seems like a culture thing in America, and you guys seem over-protective of guns, pieces of metal that exist only to kill (be that animal, human whatever). Oh, and I ain't buying the shit about nailing up a fence, use a fucking hammer. (Predicting the "you can still kill someone with a hammer" argument, please, don't bother).

As Cinj pointed out, stats support both sides of the argument, but I'm of the view point that attempting to solve the gun problem is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing because of your 'second amendment' that was written hundreds of years ago in times completely different to now.

Seems to me that the american government is doing the exact same sort of shit to it's citizens and much of the world that caused america to rebel in the first place...

(December 18, 2012 at 9:39 am)Napoléon Wrote: All I think is needed is more regulation. And yes, I'll say it, limits to who can purchase guns. IMO the average citizen really doesn't need a gun, which has the sole purpose of killing things.

In the USA we already deny gun ownership to felons & people with a history of mental illness. I'm an average citizen (non-LEO, non-military) & have already demonstrated a need for a firearm around my house. To add to that anecdote I also personally know (as in went to high school with them) someone who shot & killed an armed intruder during a home invasion.

So exactly who makes that decision? Please keep in mind two things.

1.) In the USA by default all people are considered equal in respect to what they can & can't own. Changing this would require a Constitutional Amendment & you aren't going to be able to get 2/3rds of the population behind that.

2.) People who actually want to use said firearms to commit criminal acts by definition don't care about your laws to start with.

I don't have guns and I will never will, I like swords more(in a collectors idea). Now, you may call me a fool, but a human being's worth is better measured not by swords or guns, but by its words. We have tried to use pikes, swords, guns, cannons to make ourselves heard, but I think talking its the best way out of it.

(December 18, 2012 at 10:24 am)LastPoet Wrote: I don't have guns and I will never will, I like swords more(in a collectors idea). Now, you may call me a fool, but a human being's worth is better measured not by swords or guns, but by its words. We have tried to use pikes, swords, guns, cannons to make ourselves heard, but I think talking its the best way out of it.

LOL...The 'Last Poet', eh?...I guess all the poets before you tried talking their way out of it too?

(December 18, 2012 at 10:48 am)A Theist Wrote:

(December 18, 2012 at 10:24 am)LastPoet Wrote: I don't have guns and I will never will, I like swords more(in a collectors idea). Now, you may call me a fool, but a human being's worth is better measured not by swords or guns, but by its words. We have tried to use pikes, swords, guns, cannons to make ourselves heard, but I think talking its the best way out of it.

LOL...The 'Last Poet', eh?...I guess all the poets before you tried talking their way out of it too?

That is perhaps the worst joke I have ever heard.

(December 18, 2012 at 8:46 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: Nope. It is members of this forum who argued that "One needs firearms in privat ownership to defend oneself in case the goverment goes to tyranny.

Wich will never happen. This is just fodder for those morons who see some conspiracy behind every bush. And a stupid way of arguing for lesser gun control.

Is this meant to be an ironic argument, considering your nationality?

(December 18, 2012 at 10:48 am)A Theist Wrote: LOL...The 'Last Poet', eh?...I guess all the poets before you tried talking their way out of it too?

Come at me bro, I'll have my words you may have your favorite gun. I will die a true human.

You could live with "what would jeesus do?".