Gun Control

[isaiah40]

And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.

in other news, a burglars break into a house and then gets shoves the man into a closet. End of story right? (Then again, maybe this man who needed a gun that quickly should have just went down to the local police station). It wasn't, read further!

[Evil Semp]

And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.

isaiah40 try reading a couple of pages back for context on the quote above. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=188997&start=720

Here is the post I am referring to.

And just for the record I am not in favor of taking guns away from citizens. I just think there should background checks and cooling off periods before someone walks out with a gun.

But that implies that everyone is out to kill someone with the gun they're buying.

And where did I say that? You and PS have an ability to stretch things.

Why should all citizens be assumed to be killers just because they want a gun?

Why do you assume that a background check is because of assumed killers? What about convicted felons who aren't allowed to own guns or even handle them?

What if people actually need the gun quickly?

If you need a gun that quickly the police might be a better option. I would think that part of a cooling off period would prevent someone who had an argument from running out and buying a gun and confronting the person they had an argument with. Possibly preventing a murder.

[Woodruff]

And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.

Which part of that scenario allows you to run to the gun store to purchase a gun, Isaiah? Are you even paying attention to your own arguments?

[Woodruff]

And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.

in other news, a burglars break into a house and then gets shoves the man into a closet. End of story right? (Then again, maybe this man who needed a gun that quickly should have just went down to the local police station). It wasn't, read further!

Did he have time to run down to the gun store to purchase a gun before he was shoved into a closet? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Please try to make your arguments at least sensical.

[kentington]

And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.

in other news, a burglars break into a house and then gets shoves the man into a closet. End of story right? (Then again, maybe this man who needed a gun that quickly should have just went down to the local police station). It wasn't, read further!

Did he have time to run down to the gun store to purchase a gun before he was shoved into a closet? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Please try to make your arguments at least sensical.

The robber actually gave him enough warning to go get a gun at a gun store. Unfortunately, he had to go back home empty handed because of the wait time. The burglar then shoved him in the closet.

[Woodruff]

And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.

in other news, a burglars break into a house and then gets shoves the man into a closet. End of story right? (Then again, maybe this man who needed a gun that quickly should have just went down to the local police station). It wasn't, read further!

Did he have time to run down to the gun store to purchase a gun before he was shoved into a closet? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Please try to make your arguments at least sensical.

The robber actually gave him enough warning to go get a gun at a gun store. Unfortunately, he had to go back home empty handed because of the wait time. The burglar then shoved him in the closet.

That's how it works in Canada. They're very thoughtful. But you forgot to mention that he apologized after shoving him into the closet.

[isaiah40]

Why do we need stricter gun control laws when gun crimes are actually decreasing?? Forbes reports on this a little.

[Phatscotty]

Why do we need stricter gun control laws when gun crimes are actually decreasing?? Forbes reports on this a little.

so the government can have more control and more power. See, what the government realizes that many citizens do not, is exactly how much money the government has spent recently that it did not have. They understand how much money is going to need to be taken from the citizens in the near future. They understand they better get crackin on preventing as many guns as possible from being owned by citizens.

[Woodruff]

Why do we need stricter gun control laws when gun crimes are actually decreasing?? Forbes reports on this a little.

so the government can have more control and more power. See, what the government realizes that many citizens do not, is exactly how much money the government has spent recently that it did not have. They understand how much money is going to need to be taken from the citizens in the near future. They understand they better get crackin on preventing as many guns as possible from being owned by citizens.

Because either way, taking the guns or not, is going to make little difference in such an outcome?

[Phatscotty]

I think the overall problem with why so many Americans are turning their back on America, which includes the problems of gun control, big government, and Socialism/Progressivism, can be summarized in a more broad and general concept, and that is lack of understanding/communicating Americanism.

[Nordik]

Just to note: I have only read this page of this debate. I apologise for not going through all 50+ pages, but realistically I'm too lazy.

Because either way, taking the guns or not, is going to make little difference in such an outcome?

I'm guessing he is one of these people that believes that having armed citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government who is taking all his money. I, on the other hand, believe that this is a load of BS.

Firstly, even if every citizen in the US had 20 guns, does anyone really believe that they'd be able to stand up to the army, navy and air force? Didn't think so. Now I know what the counter argument is; namely that getting the armed forces to fire on their own people isn't going to be easy. And I would say that you are probably right. At least somewhat. Although the American civil war (also known as the war between brothers) as well as a bunch of other armed conflicts where families were on opposite sides would kind of negate that argument. But for the sake of discussion, lets say that this is correct.

What with smart bombs, drones and other intelligent weapons, it doesn't take a large amount of people to be able to wage a war these days. Look at the wars that the US is waging in the middle east. A tyrannical government needs at least some popular support to be able to stay in place at all. Even the worst governments in the world have people that benefit greatly from them being in power whilst not actually being part of the government. From them you can easily glean enough people to wage a war against what comes down to peashooters.

But forgetting all of that, the US government is relatively democratically elected (I am personally a proponent of proportional representation as well as severely limiting interest groups, but that is another discussion) and this idea permeates US society, as well as the rest of the west for that matter, so completely that it would be next to impossible to put into place a government that isn't elected.

In other words, the idea that people having guns can do anything to affect the US government or that it is even needed is in my eyes a bit of a joke.

[Phatscotty]

Just to note: I have only read this page of this debate. I apologise for not going through all 50+ pages, but realistically I'm too lazy.

Because either way, taking the guns or not, is going to make little difference in such an outcome?

I'm guessing he is one of these people that believes that having armed citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government who is taking all his money. I, on the other hand, believe that this is a load of BS.

Have you heard about the IRS scandal rocking the white house at the moment?

Firstly, even if every citizen in the US had 20 guns, does anyone really believe that they'd be able to stand up to the army, navy and air force? Didn't think so. Now I know what the counter argument is; namely that getting the armed forces to fire on their own people isn't going to be easy. And I would say that you are probably right. At least somewhat. Although the American civil war (also known as the war between brothers) as well as a bunch of other armed conflicts where families were on opposite sides would kind of negate that argument. But for the sake of discussion, lets say that this is correct.

Arms aren't only guns. Arms are whatever we need to defend ourselves in whatever possible scenario might unravel in the future. Of course a guy with a gun can't stand up to an atomic bomb. But that's a little too linear. A guy with a gun can shoot the guy before he drops the bomb. There are a lot of ways things could go, and no matter how strong the enemy is, we have the right to defend ourselves, period. If someone is going to use a tank on the people, then the people will have tanks and related weaponry as well. And don't be so sure gorilla tactics and hit and run militia insurgencies don't work anymore. A lot of the most brilliant military leaders in history have made that same mistake.

What with smart bombs, drones and other intelligent weapons, it doesn't take a large amount of people to be able to wage a war these days. Look at the wars that the US is waging in the middle east. A tyrannical government needs at least some popular support to be able to stay in place at all. Even the worst governments in the world have people that benefit greatly from them being in power whilst not actually being part of the government. From them you can easily glean enough people to wage a war against what comes down to peashooters.

But forgetting all of that, the US government is relatively democratically elected (I am personally a proponent of proportional representation as well as severely limiting interest groups, but that is another discussion) and this idea permeates US society, as well as the rest of the west for that matter, so completely that it would be next to impossible to put into place a government that isn't elected.

In other words, the idea that people having guns can do anything to affect the US government or that it is even needed is in my eyes a bit of a joke.

Try thinking about it another way. It's not people having guns affecting the government that is the issue, it's what can and can't be gotten away with against a people who are armed or who aren't. An unarmed people are much easier to push over, violate, and dominate, than an armed people. Can you at least agree with that?

[Woodruff]

Just to note: I have only read this page of this debate. I apologise for not going through all 50+ pages, but realistically I'm too lazy.

Because either way, taking the guns or not, is going to make little difference in such an outcome?

I'm guessing he is one of these people that believes that having armed citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government who is taking all his money. I, on the other hand, believe that this is a load of BS.

Have you heard about the IRS scandal rocking the white house at the moment?

1. What does that have to do with the ability of the citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government?

2. Have you heard that so far, it's not really that much of a scandal?

Try thinking about it another way. It's not people having guns affecting the government that is the issue, it's what can and can't be gotten away with against a people who are armed or who aren't. An unarmed people are much easier to push over, violate, and dominate, than an armed people. Can you at least agree with that?

Why would that be the case, when you're speaking of the government?

I can see that being the case in an individual environment (others not being able to violate/dominate you), but not in a governmental environment.

[Nordik]

I think the overall problem with why so many Americans are turning their back on America, which includes the problems of gun control, big government, and Socialism/Progressivism, can be summarized in a more broad and general concept, and that is lack of understanding/communicating Americanism.]

I find this quite amusing as a post. The US was in my mind a socialist nation until the 50's. Now I know what you're going to say. Not red!! But it really is the truth. High taxes, good social benefits, the rich paying for the poor and so on and so forth.

Americans, in general, don't seem to understand what socialism is. They see it as evil and connect it with communism. In reality it is merely a more fair way of running a free market. Most of north west Europe is a socialist (with the exception of the UK) and we do perfectly well. Some ups and downs, but it is far less bumpy than the UK and the US are. Those downs hurt although the ups are of course nice. I would just prefer not to have the bank come take my house.

Either way, it is pretty amazing to me that the upper classes in the US pay less taxes as a percentage than the middle classes do. Something is very wrong there. And what amazes me more is that the rich are just getting richer and richer (and paying themselves more) while the workers are staying relatively stable or even falling. In other words, the inequality is getting larger and larger.



But anyway, lets not derail the thread further by going into this here. You can start a new topic if you'd like to regarding this if you want to discuss it further.

Have you heard about the IRS scandal rocking the white house at the moment?

Yes. And I find it highly amusing seeing as the same was done by both Bush and Nixon. The American right doesn't like having their own dirty tactics used against them.

Arms aren't only guns. Arms are whatever we need to defend ourselves in whatever possible scenario might unravel in the future. Of course a guy with a gun can't stand up to an atomic bomb. But that's a little too linear. A guy with a gun can shoot the guy before he drops the bomb. There are a lot of ways things could go, and no matter how strong the enemy is, we have the right to defend ourselves, period. If someone is going to use a tank on the people, then the people will have tanks and related weaponry as well. And don't be so sure gorilla tactics and hit and run militia insurgencies don't work anymore. A lot of the most brilliant military leaders in history have made that same mistake.

The grammar Nutsi in me has to... just has to. Guerilla. Gorillas are apes. I realise some of the gun nuts are fat and hairy, but..... Sorry. Had to.

Anyway, back to being relatively serious.

So what you're advocating is that everyone should be allowed to have their own tank, RPG and F-16 with sidewinder missiles? I can see that going down well. Get offa ma land or Imma blow yous to smithereens! And they'd be able to too. Besides, not exactly what you want any people that might want to.... you know... say blow up the Pentagon or a couple of large buildings in NYC to have.

Try thinking about it another way. It's not people having guns affecting the government that is the issue, it's what can and can't be gotten away with against a people who are armed or who aren't. An unarmed people are much easier to push over, violate, and dominate, than an armed people. Can you at least agree with that?

No. I disagree. I sincerely believe that as a people, the US is beyond that. I know we mostly are here in Europe. We certainly are in Scandinavia.

I have enough faith in our civilization and our system to firmly believe - it is beyond a shadow of doubt in my mind - that a tyrannical government would not be able to get in. Ever. We are beyond the craziness of the 19th and early 20th centuries (and before that). People are just too liberal and tolerant today. Of course, I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. Even in cash strapped Greece the right wing didn't manage to get in after all. History has taught them what happens if they do that. And they've not forgotten.

As for actual gun control, I think that various countries here in Europe have the right idea. Guns are for hunting and for sport as well as collecting. They are not for self defence. I've seen more than enough stats showing quite clearly that if you have a gun in the house you are more likely to get shot yourself than if you don't to confirm that for me. Which does make sense in my head. If you come down the stairs half asleep wielding a gun rather than a knife or bat or whatever, the robber is going to shoot you before you can shoot them. If you have something that you can't kill him from a distance in your hands, they'll just tell you to put down the weapon. Possibly not the nicest thing in the world to have to do, but better than getting shot. Personally, I value my life over any material goods, so I'd be firmly hiding under the bed if I knew there was a robber in the house. Call me chicken all you like, but screw that. I can always buy more stuff.

Things like not allowing guns to be sold to people without a licence (like they do at arms shows in the US), ensuring that firearms are locked away safely so that kids can't get a hold of them, not allowing guns that really aren't going to be used for hunting or for sport to be sold and so on just seem like common sense to me. I wouldn't call it gun control even. They just aren't needed by regular people.

[Phatscotty]

I think the overall problem with why so many Americans are turning their back on America, which includes the problems of gun control, big government, and Socialism/Progressivism, can be summarized in a more broad and general concept, and that is lack of understanding/communicating Americanism.]

I find this quite amusing as a post. The US was in my mind a socialist nation until the 50's. Now I know what you're going to say. Not red!! But it really is the truth. High taxes, good social benefits, the rich paying for the poor and so on and so forth.

Americans, in general, don't seem to understand what socialism is. They see it as evil and connect it with communism. In reality it is merely a more fair way of running a free market. Most of north west Europe is a socialist (with the exception of the UK) and we do perfectly well. Some ups and downs, but it is far less bumpy than the UK and the US are. Those downs hurt although the ups are of course nice. I would just prefer not to have the bank come take my house.

Either way, it is pretty amazing to me that the upper classes in the US pay less taxes as a percentage than the middle classes do. Something is very wrong there. And what amazes me more is that the rich are just getting richer and richer (and paying themselves more) while the workers are staying relatively stable or even falling. In other words, the inequality is getting larger and larger.



But anyway, lets not derail the thread further by going into this here. You can start a new topic if you'd like to regarding this if you want to discuss it further.

Have you heard about the IRS scandal rocking the white house at the moment?

Yes. And I find it highly amusing seeing as the same was done by both Bush and Nixon. The American right doesn't like having their own dirty tactics used against them.

Arms aren't only guns. Arms are whatever we need to defend ourselves in whatever possible scenario might unravel in the future. Of course a guy with a gun can't stand up to an atomic bomb. But that's a little too linear. A guy with a gun can shoot the guy before he drops the bomb. There are a lot of ways things could go, and no matter how strong the enemy is, we have the right to defend ourselves, period. If someone is going to use a tank on the people, then the people will have tanks and related weaponry as well. And don't be so sure gorilla tactics and hit and run militia insurgencies don't work anymore. A lot of the most brilliant military leaders in history have made that same mistake.

The grammar Nutsi in me has to... just has to. Guerilla. Gorillas are apes. I realise some of the gun nuts are fat and hairy, but..... Sorry. Had to.

Anyway, back to being relatively serious.

So what you're advocating is that everyone should be allowed to have their own tank, RPG and F-16 with sidewinder missiles? I can see that going down well. Get offa ma land or Imma blow yous to smithereens! And they'd be able to too. Besides, not exactly what you want any people that might want to.... you know... say blow up the Pentagon or a couple of large buildings in NYC to have.

Try thinking about it another way. It's not people having guns affecting the government that is the issue, it's what can and can't be gotten away with against a people who are armed or who aren't. An unarmed people are much easier to push over, violate, and dominate, than an armed people. Can you at least agree with that?

No. I disagree. I sincerely believe that as a people, the US is beyond that. I know we mostly are here in Europe. We certainly are in Scandinavia.

I have enough faith in our civilization and our system to firmly believe - it is beyond a shadow of doubt in my mind - that a tyrannical government would not be able to get in. Ever. We are beyond the craziness of the 19th and early 20th centuries (and before that). People are just too liberal and tolerant today. Of course, I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. Even in cash strapped Greece the right wing didn't manage to get in after all. History has taught them what happens if they do that. And they've not forgotten.

As for actual gun control, I think that various countries here in Europe have the right idea. Guns are for hunting and for sport as well as collecting. They are not for self defence. I've seen more than enough stats showing quite clearly that if you have a gun in the house you are more likely to get shot yourself than if you don't to confirm that for me. Which does make sense in my head. If you come down the stairs half asleep wielding a gun rather than a knife or bat or whatever, the robber is going to shoot you before you can shoot them. If you have something that you can't kill him from a distance in your hands, they'll just tell you to put down the weapon. Possibly not the nicest thing in the world to have to do, but better than getting shot. Personally, I value my life over any material goods, so I'd be firmly hiding under the bed if I knew there was a robber in the house. Call me chicken all you like, but screw that. I can always buy more stuff.

Things like not allowing guns to be sold to people without a licence (like they do at arms shows in the US), ensuring that firearms are locked away safely so that kids can't get a hold of them, not allowing guns that really aren't going to be used for hunting or for sport to be sold and so on just seem like common sense to me. I wouldn't call it gun control even. They just aren't needed by regular people.

You have an awful lot of faith in humans and big government. Temptation and greed of rulers know no bounds. I'm glad the Greeks have not forgotten history, by my perspective was that people ALWAYS seem to forget history. Winston Churchill said "the only thing we learn from history, is that we don't learn anything from history." If I only had a nickel for every time I heard "this time it's different", I would have a lot of nickels! I think if people were to never forget history, there would probably never be a financial bubble blown up and blown out EVER again. Unfortunately, I see people forget over and over again, making the same mistakes, always thinking "this time it's different". But that's just me.

Curious, how old are you?

When something gets easier to take, it is more likely to be taken. That's my statement and I'm stickin to it!

[Phatscotty]

Arms aren't only guns. Arms are whatever we need to defend ourselves in whatever possible scenario might unravel in the future. Of course a guy with a gun can't stand up to an atomic bomb. But that's a little too linear. A guy with a gun can shoot the guy before he drops the bomb. There are a lot of ways things could go, and no matter how strong the enemy is, we have the right to defend ourselves, period. If someone is going to use a tank on the people, then the people will have tanks and related weaponry as well. And don't be so sure gorilla tactics and hit and run militia insurgencies don't work anymore. A lot of the most brilliant military leaders in history have made that same mistake.

So what you're advocating is that everyone should be allowed to have their own tank, RPG and F-16 with sidewinder missiles? I can see that going down well. Get offa ma land or Imma blow yous to smithereens! And they'd be able to too. Besides, not exactly what you want any people that might want to.... you know... say blow up the Pentagon or a couple of large buildings in NYC to have.

Advocating that everyone should be allowed to have a tank??? That's one hell of a leap there. I think you missed the example, that being IF someone is going to use a tank against the people....in other words, you don't just sit there and get blown up. Trying to stay on your level, as of right now, no, nobody needs a tank.

Try thinking about it another way. It's not people having guns affecting the government that is the issue, it's what can and can't be gotten away with against a people who are armed or who aren't. An unarmed people are much easier to push over, violate, and dominate, than an armed people. Can you at least agree with that?

No. I disagree. I sincerely believe that as a people, the US is beyond that.

What do you base that on?

[Lootifer]

You're not allowed to ask how old he is PS; judging him by anything other than his post is against the Ad Hom thread you signed

[Woodruff]

You're not allowed to ask how old he is PS; judging him by anything other than his post is against the Ad Hom thread you signed

I hate to defend him, but it's not the 22nd QUITE yet. <evil smile>

By the same token, didn't Phatscotty refuse to answer that same question (I legitimately could be thinking of someone else, but I don't think so.)

[Lootifer]

I think I asked it and he answered.

I think he is the same age as me (between 30 and 35 iirc - or maybe 25-35...)

[Phatscotty]

You're not allowed to ask how old he is PS; judging him by anything other than his post is against the Ad Hom thread you signed :D

asking someone their age is judging them?

and what the hell is your deal with this gotchya crap? You realize you have to reach over the ad hominem machine in order to go on like that stretching out the most basic question in humanity (how old are you?) into a judgement/attack?

How can I respect that?

[Nordik]

You have an awful lot of faith in humans and big government. Temptation and greed of rulers know no bounds.

You're right. And that's why we have both legislative and judicial branches in any good government. The US's government is a relatively decent model, although again I'll mention that I think that proportional representation beats both the parliamentary and electoral college systems.

Also, I do love how American right wingers spout off about big government when the biggest expenditures are on their "little" baby, namely the military. Everything else is relatively small. But to be honest, I think the US does waste a lot, but it is mainly on red tape and bandaid solutions to social problems which could be solved in much better ways. But again, that's not part of this thread and we should discuss it elsewhere I guess.

I'm glad the Greeks have not forgotten history, by my perspective was that people ALWAYS seem to forget history. Winston Churchill said "the only thing we learn from history, is that we don't learn anything from history." If I only had a nickel for every time I heard "this time it's different", I would have a lot of nickels! I think if people were to never forget history, there would probably never be a financial bubble blown up and blown out EVER again. Unfortunately, I see people forget over and over again, making the same mistakes, always thinking "this time it's different". But that's just me.

Financial bubbles are an inevitable product of the free market being too free. People are greedy as you say. This is why government needs to enforce regulations to limit how far businesses are able to go. You know, like the regulations that were there before the housing bubble started.... deregulation just allows companies to run roughshod over people.

Or the lack of regulations enforced upon the oil industry which allowed a "little" oil spill to happen from a certain BP rig. Something which could not possibly happen in the North Sea oil sector - which incidentally has a ton more oil in much worse conditions (in terms of difficulty of engineering) than the Gulf.

Curious, how old are you?

I'm a 1977 model. Stopped counting at 30.

When something gets easier to take, it is more likely to be taken. That's my statement and I'm stickin to it!

But that's exactly my point. Having an armed populace isn't going to make it any harder nor easier to take.

Arms aren't only guns. Arms are whatever we need to defend ourselves in whatever possible scenario might unravel in the future. Of course a guy with a gun can't stand up to an atomic bomb. But that's a little too linear. A guy with a gun can shoot the guy before he drops the bomb. There are a lot of ways things could go, and no matter how strong the enemy is, we have the right to defend ourselves, period. If someone is going to use a tank on the people, then the people will have tanks and related weaponry as well. And don't be so sure gorilla tactics and hit and run militia insurgencies don't work anymore. A lot of the most brilliant military leaders in history have made that same mistake.

So what you're advocating is that everyone should be allowed to have their own tank, RPG and F-16 with sidewinder missiles? I can see that going down well. Get offa ma land or Imma blow yous to smithereens! And they'd be able to too. Besides, not exactly what you want any people that might want to.... you know... say blow up the Pentagon or a couple of large buildings in NYC to have.

Advocating that everyone should be allowed to have a tank???

Here:

Arms aren't only guns. Arms are whatever we need to defend ourselves in whatever possible scenario might unravel in the future. Of course a guy with a gun can't stand up to an atomic bomb. But that's a little too linear. A guy with a gun can shoot the guy before he drops the bomb. There are a lot of ways things could go, and no matter how strong the enemy is, we have the right to defend ourselves, period. If someone is going to use a tank on the people, then the people will have tanks and related weaponry as well. And don't be so sure gorilla tactics and hit and run militia insurgencies don't work anymore. A lot of the most brilliant military leaders in history have made that same mistake.

You even quoted it.

That's one hell of a leap there. I think you missed the example, that being IF someone is going to use a tank against the people....in other words, you don't just sit there and get blown up. Trying to stay on your level, as of right now, no, nobody needs a tank.

Where exactly are the people who are potentially getting blown up going to get these tanks? I think this question needs some serious thought from you.

What do you base that on?

What do I base the fact that I believe that we are beyond the days when we need armed rebellion? See everything I've written so far. Seriously, are you even reading what I write? Not to mention what you yourself write.

You're not allowed to ask how old he is PS; judging him by anything other than his post is against the Ad Hom thread you signed

I don't mind. Let him ask. I've got nothing to hide.

[Phatscotty]

When something gets easier to take, it is more likely to be taken. That's my statement and I'm stickin to it!

But that's exactly my point. Having an armed populace isn't going to make it any harder nor easier to take.

Okay, that's fine we are just going to have to fundamentally disagree.

Just a few quick question if you don't mind.
Is all government good all the time? Is there any such thing as bad government? Have you ever been to America? How well do you know America's government? Do you have an opinion on Piers Morgan? and btw, I think the Greeks did forget one little part of history, and that is spending too much of what you don't have doesn't end well.

[Phatscotty]

Also, I do love how American right wingers spout off about big government when the biggest expenditures are on their "little" baby, namely the military. Everything else is relatively small.

Ummmmmmmmmm sure about that? (I love them too! Aren't they just adorable!!!) You are operating with incorrect information. Will this correct information change your view on anything the incorrect information led you to believe?

Our entitlement programs triple our military spending, and Obamacare is just getting started.

[Nordik]

Okay, that's fine we are just going to have to fundamentally disagree.

I'd still like to know where people are going to get tanks from if you're not giving them to them now. That seems kind of fundamental to me. Because they're not going to just magically appear out of thin air after all.

Just a few quick question if you don't mind.

Not at all. I'm quite enjoying this.

Is all government good all the time?

Nope.

Is there any such thing as bad government?

There are plenty of examples of this. But as per the US constitution (and any other western democratic constitution), people are fully able to get rid of any government that they do not like or have faith in. Does that mean that every government that we elect is automatically good? Not at all. But it is no one's fault but our own when they're a bit crappy.

And this is the key point to my argument. Any government of a western nation is elected "for the people, by the people" (to coin a phrase). Our systems prevent tyrannical governments from ever being an issue.

As for really bad governments... we've not had any of those in the west for a long while now. Although they are of course within living memory still. But only barely.

and btw, I think the Greeks did forget one little part of history, and that is spending too much of what they didn't have doesn't end well.

Actually, I kind of disagree here, although only somewhat. They were cooking their books to adhere to EU regulations. What they forgot was exactly that. Cooking their books only lasts until things get completely dire and then they get found out. It is kind of like burning credit card bills and saying, "What bills?" and pretending that everything is OK because there are no bills in the inbox.

I actually blame the EU more than anyone for Greece's troubles. Their lack of oversight made it too easy to screw around.

[Nordik]

To answer the edit and the post you came up with while I was writing:

Have you ever been to America?

Plenty of times. I love the people and place.

How well do you know America's government?

I know enough about it to be able to argue generally like this. Get into semantics and I give up.

Do you have an opinion on Piers Morgan?

Not really.

Ummmmmmmmmm sure about that? (I love them too! Aren't they just adorable!!!) You are operating with incorrect information. Will this correct information change your view on anything the incorrect information led you to believe?

Our entitlement programs triple our military spending, and Obamacare is just getting started.

You were saying?