stahrgazer wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Night Strike wrote:
If that's entirely honest, then why don't armies use guns like the one on top, ever?
They used to. But they found that wood warps too easily in combat situations, so came up with other materials.
I don't mean the material, I mean the design. And clearly each gun has the same firing mechanism. But there aren't any countrys who go to war with polypropylene hunting rifles. That picture doesn't pass the "they're equal killers" test because of all the other differences between those two guns. Particularly those features that are already listed above, but also including the rapid-reloading clip.
stahrgazer wrote:chang50 wrote:stahrgazer wrote:chang50 wrote: If you think I am incorrect make the opposite case,I don't cram anything down your throat,you are an adult and should be able to handle robust discussion..it's not as if you hold back your own opinions which I might call bullshit.
Your country has a lot of power globally which it exercises regularly just like all superpowers have historically..that is the reality.It's the hypocrisy that sticks in my throat more than anything.The BS about promoting democracy,freedom and liberty,etc.It's all so vomit inducingly phoney.
Yes, it's reality that the United States has exercised its power globally since WWII.
It's inaccurate, however, to say that it's "hypocrisy" or "vomit inducingly phoney."
We may have backed the wrong leaders from time to time, but when we back a leader, it is to promote democracy, freedom, and liberty - starting with our own, of course.
I'm sorry but that's simply untrue.Have you looked into any of the examples listed by Juan earlier?Greneda,Guatemala,etc.etc...the US has regularly backed vile dictators like Pinochet in Chile when it suited them.That is how superpowers behave,just please don't pretend there is something noble motivating it..
We may have backed the wrong leaders from time to time, but when we back a leader, it is to promote democracy, freedom, and liberty - starting with our own, of course.
That is so not true. We have toppled democracies in favor of military dictatorships, like that last example, CHILE. Then Pinochet killed everyone.
I can remember people speculating on 9-11 that we were attacked by Chile, because it was the anniversary of our pointless massacre of the democratically-elected Chilean first family.
In fact, the three countrys that I listed had Democratically elected leaders that we helped kill. Once we did it just for cheaper bananas. How f*cked up is that?
Th point of the Military-Industrial Complex is that it is so big and profitable that it can't just shut itself down. After WWII America did the single greatest and most Honorable thing a victorious army has ever done. We disbanded. We helped rebuild the lives of the people we conquered. We let them rule themselves. We helped minorities and women in Europe and Japan to establish equal rights. We took our big-ass bombers and we sent them to the scrapyard... and we really didn't have to do that. We could have plowed right through to Moscow and ruled the whole planet.
Or at least I think we could have, and I think most Americans would agree.
I don't think anyone here understands Eisenhower's warning of the realities of the Military-Industrial Complex either. We destroyed our own bombers, but not the profits and incentives of building new ones. The cash-for-war profits are exponential so long as the Military-Industrial Complex makes the majority of Americans think that we all need those bombers. Here's a pair of my favorite Quotes from Smedley Butler, but feel free to skip them.
Smedley Butler wrote:"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
Smedley Butler wrote:"A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."
The UN, the pinnacle of our American achievements towards world peace, has done... like,... nothing toward that goal. We've got a five-nation only security council? And they are all enemies of each other and coincidentally the 5 biggest distributors of weapons globally? WTF is up with that?
patches70 wrote:You've railed on about how terrible, immoral and unethical the US government is through her actions and yet you advocate turning over even more gun control to those same people. It makes absolutely no sense.
Just look at what government debate about gun control has done just in recent weeks. It's caused massive sales in guns. Because the government threatens more gun control facilitates ever greater dissemination of guns. The exact opposite effect of what they are trying (and you seem to wish) to achieve. Again, just a case of gross incompetence. The government can't find their ass with both hands, flashlight and a map to their butthole. And you want to trust these idiots?
You are a funny, funny person.
What makes you think you can talk to Chang like that?
You want to try to have a discussion with me again, son?
You're going off so far from what we're talking about here. The US government cannot, for reasons I already laid at your feet before, turn it's weaponry on it's citizens. IT CAN do this in isolated cases, like it did during the labor movement, but it cannot, "all of a sudden" start raining bombs from the sky. No country does that save for dictatorships. That's a fantasy. The reason that Chang, thegreekdog, and I can lay such a long list of military abuses at the feet of Uncle Sam is because they took place with the consent of the people. Not all of the people, no, and you can see that when enough of the American people turned against Vietnam, for example, we left.
The American media and it's people would not consent to a spurious occupation of American soil for some fantasy reason. Every state has a defense force, and every state has a few dozen military armories as well. Some have naval yards and bases. Furthermore the Feds cannot collect cash from a state that they are at war with, so compromise will always be best. This should all be a part of a separate discussion about monkey spheres and evolutionary biology.
Point being that it's pretty stupid to even pretend that licensing and insuring fire arm purchases like everyone else is doing in civilized democracies will magically mean the Army is gonna come in and start shooting everyone. Of course, the discussion could get a lot more complex than this in a hurry, but at it's base, the discussion is about consent. For that Reason England and Australia are still functioning just fine and dandy.
Twitter and Facebook are the new tools of revolution my friend, not guns and ships. Armed revolutions and revolts are what normally end in dictatorships today. Beware of those.
Furthermore, we still, after all of these pages, are not discussing taking away all guns. I don't know why that argument is so paternally intrinsic to your side. This is an adult discussion about what to do about a real-life problem. Not one about a fantasy where Mexico invades the US or some sh*t.
patches70 wrote:Just look at what government debate about gun control has done just in recent weeks. It's caused massive sales in guns. Because the government threatens more gun control facilitates ever greater dissemination of guns. The exact opposite effect of what they are trying (and you seem to wish) to achieve. Again, just a case of gross incompetence. The government can't find their ass with both hands, flashlight and a map to their butthole. And you want to trust these idiots?
You are a funny, funny person.
I could laugh at this if I thought that it was a parody.
The US government is not threatening to take away guns. We've only got a small handful of Congresspeople on our side. "The government" hasn't even introduced any bills on gun legislation yet, because Congress only just got back from break. Yes, there is a gun legislation bill that will be introduced. But it's just a dressed-up a copy of the 1994 ban.
And even allowing that there is a bill in the works, how the hell do you reason that "it's the government's fault" that people are buying guns? The government doesn't care. There's no fault for gross incompetence here, unless the fault is gross incompetence of logic.
"Oh the big scary government wants my guns!"
No it doesn't; that's another paranoid delusion. Buy all the guns you want, but pay your taxes on them.
Night Strike wrote:I guess this woman should have just pled with the crowbar-wielding ex-con to go away and leave her and her kids unharmed?
You're right. If she had only a shotgun she'd be dead.
patches70 wrote:But hey, keep bowing at the alter of the supremacy of government. Don't forget, our government put 1000's of weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels over the objections of the gun dealers who were told by the DEA to allow said gun sales. 100's of people were then subsequently murdered with those weapons including at least one US border agent. And did all this without informing the Mexican government.
Yeah, the US government is capable of doing a great job with gun control........
Gun show sales are now organized crimes #1 method of acquiring guns. All of the guns used by those Mexican drug lords you're so proudly brandishing about came from the US, from legal markets. They did not come from the government, they came from Winchester, and Colt, and the other manufacturers. These gun manufacturers derive most profit from gun shows, and they are well aware that they are indirectly selling to criminals.
All those agents did was try to track them, like how they follow drugs back to their source. In many states you don't need a background check to buy a gun from a gun show, and that's how criminals get guns. So that's a pretty retarded argument from someone who's smugly displaying his total lack of knowledge on the vast issue of sensible gun control. The Fast & Furious debacle happened because your side refuses sensible gun control, not because the government is corrupt and evil. You lambast "the government" for trying to establish any fresh gun control, and you also attack them for not controlling the sales of guns. The people who bought those guns were legally permitted to. They were couriers, but with no criminal background.
Do you think that was the first attempt to follow the guns that flow to Mexico like hummingbirds in the winter? You think this was a one time event? As long as you all stand in the way of sensible gun control then there will be uncountable repercussions from that.
And why do you do it? Because you're paranoid about the United States government. 20,000 dead children and a civil war in Mexico is alright so long as you can own a f*cking awesome assault rifle. That's your price?
patches70 wrote:The politicians in the US are for the most part ideologues, liars, sycophants, degenerates, power hungry, greedy, instigating fools. Congress has an approval rating of around 18%. LMAO. People don't trust the government. How you can is a mystery since you seem to be forgetting everything you supposedly believe about the government when faced with this one issue.
Yeah, it's all the politician's fault that 20 thousand kids or whatever die from gunshots yearly. And how many people have been shot and killed since Sandyhook? 500 is it? f*cking politicians. They're all devil-worshipper. Did you know that? Those fucking socialist, meth-smoking, Devil worshiping scumbags.
Motherf*cking HOME OF THE BRAVE.
stahrgazer wrote:SENSIBLE gun restriction already exists in the United States.
1) Any known felons are not supposed to have guns.
2) Guns used, even in lesser crimes cause a stiffer penalty, and result in all guns by the perpetrator being confiscated.
3) Most states require a permit to carry concealed weapons.
4) Weapons cannot legally be transported across state lines without extreme restrictions.
We've been over this. This list is why children keep getting killed. Your "sensible" list actually does nothing to stop criminals from purchasing guns through licensed dealers, or from acquiring them. It's irresponsible of you to ignore that.
chang50 wrote:Surely we can agree some govt. is needed,the alternative would be total anarchy,the question is how much and what form?It's not a problem of trust,in a democracy the electorate gets what it deserves,what it voted for.
Word. This is what I said earlier. All you have to do to change the position of our government is to participate. If you're not participating then shut up. Amirite?
chang50 wrote:Your views seem right of centre for the US,which by European standards is far far right,and you lost recently so you have to suck it up.
Twenty years ago the center-right would have been our far-far-far right. Those of us on the left think these people are just as crazy as you guys do.