Alex Jones speaks against Amendment 2: The Right to keep and bear arms
-
That was bad. What the hell he was thinking?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
you tell me. you love the guy lol i can't stand him because he sensationalizes bad situations, making them look worse than they already are. now he's just making himself look more ridiculous, and completely fraudulent.
I don't love him. I just like his aggressiveness, but not when it gets in the way of patriots.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
What cause is that ?
Liberty. In a truly free society (which is, I think we can all agree, NOT what we have today), we'd all be able to protect ourselves. Gun banning suspends the second amendment, which is the right to self-defense, and now we see encroachment into a police state. Crime rates are only seen in progressive cities, especially detroit. crime is through the roof, residential closings are at all time highs. and school shootings? those are few and far between, at least from what i've heard. If you keep living in fear, the government will continue to wipe away liberty. That's all I have to say about this one.
josda1000 wrote: and school shootings? those are few and far between, at least from what i've heard. 18 mass shootings a year in America. 13 in Australia, not a year, but EVER. None, not one, since the gun buyback over a decade ago. josda1000 wrote: we'd all be able to protect ourselves. Well, you know, I feel that knowing that the stranger on my property almost certainly hasn't got a gun means I am happy to grab an axe and walk down and ask what the hell he's doing. In the US, I'd hide in the house and wait for them to leave. I know if I had a gun, that having both parties armed makes my odds of dying far greater than if neither of us were. josda1000 wrote: Gun banning suspends the second amendment, which is the right to self-defense, and now we see encroachment into a police state. how do you see a police state ? The second ammendment is not a right to carry arms day to day, it's a right to own them for the purpose of forming a militia. Which made sense when your gun at home, and the guns the army had, were the same. Today, it is a nonsense. josda1000 wrote: If you keep living in fear, the government will continue to wipe away liberty. What amuses me about this, is that my observation of life in the US is that your media seeks to keep people in fear, if people by and large buy into it or not, is another question. There's certainly a lot more fear in the USA than there is here at home. Guns don't seem to me to be a factor in this equation.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I don't love him. I just like his aggressiveness, but not when it gets in the way of patriots.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
When you use the word 'patriot', I thnk of people with no teeth, who are married to farm animals.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote: and school shootings? those are few and far between, at least from what i've heard. 18 mass shootings a year in America. 13 in Australia, not a year, but EVER. None, not one, since the gun buyback over a decade ago. josda1000 wrote: we'd all be able to protect ourselves. Well, you know, I feel that knowing that the stranger on my property almost certainly hasn't got a gun means I am happy to grab an axe and walk down and ask what the hell he's doing. In the US, I'd hide in the house and wait for them to leave. I know if I had a gun, that having both parties armed makes my odds of dying far greater than if neither of us were. josda1000 wrote: Gun banning suspends the second amendment, which is the right to self-defense, and now we see encroachment into a police state. how do you see a police state ? The second ammendment is not a right to carry arms day to day, it's a right to own them for the purpose of forming a militia. Which made sense when your gun at home, and the guns the army had, were the same. Today, it is a nonsense. josda1000 wrote: If you keep living in fear, the government will continue to wipe away liberty. What amuses me about this, is that my observation of life in the US is that your media seeks to keep people in fear, if people by and large buy into it or not, is another question. There's certainly a lot more fear in the USA than there is here at home. Guns don't seem to me to be a factor in this equation.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
18 mass shootings a year in America. 13 in Australia, not a year, but EVER.
where can I find these stats?
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, you know, I feel that knowing that the stranger on my property almost certainly hasn't got a gun means I am happy to grab an axe and walk down and ask what the hell he's doing.
This is illogical, and kind of proving my point as well at the same time. Knowing that he doesn't have a gun doesn't mean he doesn't have an axe, just like you. This is just like saying, if axes are outlawed, I know I can go downstairs with my fists ready because he doesn't have fists. The point is, you need to defend yourself. Besides, if a guy really wanted to rob you, he'll find a gun anyway. Just because guns are outlawed doesn't mean he won't get one anyway, because he's already breaking the law by going into your house.
Christian Graus wrote:
In the US, I'd hide in the house and wait for them to leave.
See, that's the thing. People that own guns have a way to defend their houses. That's what we do here, cuz we actually have backbones. No offense, but seriously think about this.
Christian Graus wrote:
how do you see a police state ?
How do you NOT?! Random searches inside cars, self-written search warrants, wiretapping, airport security for no reason, traffic cameras on the street... the list goes on. This kind of thing would never happen in a free society, I'm sorry.
Christian Graus wrote:
The second ammendment is not a right to carry arms day to day
Yes. It is. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Keep = Own. Bear = Carry. Arms = Guns (specifically rifles)
Christian Graus wrote:
Today, it is a nonsense.
It won't be if martial law is ever declared. Not saying that it will, but if it is ever declared, you're going to think twice about what you just said. Personally, I do believe that the dollar will collapse soon. And this will mean that martial law will be declared. So... yeah.
Christian Graus wrote:
What amuses me about this, is that my observation of life in the US is that your media seeks to keep people in
-
When you use the word 'patriot', I thnk of people with no teeth, who are married to farm animals.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
18 mass shootings a year in America. 13 in Australia, not a year, but EVER.
where can I find these stats?
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, you know, I feel that knowing that the stranger on my property almost certainly hasn't got a gun means I am happy to grab an axe and walk down and ask what the hell he's doing.
This is illogical, and kind of proving my point as well at the same time. Knowing that he doesn't have a gun doesn't mean he doesn't have an axe, just like you. This is just like saying, if axes are outlawed, I know I can go downstairs with my fists ready because he doesn't have fists. The point is, you need to defend yourself. Besides, if a guy really wanted to rob you, he'll find a gun anyway. Just because guns are outlawed doesn't mean he won't get one anyway, because he's already breaking the law by going into your house.
Christian Graus wrote:
In the US, I'd hide in the house and wait for them to leave.
See, that's the thing. People that own guns have a way to defend their houses. That's what we do here, cuz we actually have backbones. No offense, but seriously think about this.
Christian Graus wrote:
how do you see a police state ?
How do you NOT?! Random searches inside cars, self-written search warrants, wiretapping, airport security for no reason, traffic cameras on the street... the list goes on. This kind of thing would never happen in a free society, I'm sorry.
Christian Graus wrote:
The second ammendment is not a right to carry arms day to day
Yes. It is. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Keep = Own. Bear = Carry. Arms = Guns (specifically rifles)
Christian Graus wrote:
Today, it is a nonsense.
It won't be if martial law is ever declared. Not saying that it will, but if it is ever declared, you're going to think twice about what you just said. Personally, I do believe that the dollar will collapse soon. And this will mean that martial law will be declared. So... yeah.
Christian Graus wrote:
What amuses me about this, is that my observation of life in the US is that your media seeks to keep people in
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>where can I find these stats?</blockquote> <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aEsJF8HMg5yM&refer=australia">Australia</a>[<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aEsJF8HMg5yM&refer=australia" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] I honestly can't find the figure for the US, I did read it recently, but it looks to me like the real figure is probably lower. It is, however, certainly a lot higher than Australia. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div> Knowing that he doesn't have a gun doesn't mean he doesn't have an axe, just like you. This is just like saying, if axes are outlawed, I know I can go downstairs with my fists ready because he doesn't have fists. The point is, you need to defend yourself.</blockquote> But, two guys with axes is not as dangerous as two guys with guns. Guns change the whole picture, and greatly increase the possibility of someone dying. They don't make you any safer, far from it. They create an illusion of safety that is likely to get you killed. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Besides, if a guy really wanted to rob you, he'll find a gun anyway. Just because guns are outlawed doesn't mean he won't get one anyway, because he's already breaking the law by going into your house.</blockquote> But it's far harder to get one in a society that doesn't have gun shops on the outskirts of every town, where there's no gun shows, where it's almost impossible that a prior robbery would have got them a gun. Yes, I've been to America. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>How do you NOT?! Random searches inside cars, self-written search warrants, wiretapping, airport security for no reason, traffic cameras on the street... the list goes on. This kind of thing would never happen in a free society, I'm sorry.</blockquote> Well, I was not disputing, more asking for your reasoning. your list is flawed. Airport security is not for no reason, it's an expression of capitalism. People would not fly after 9/11, so security went ballistic, to prove to people it was safe. It's all a smoke screen, and smart people know that, but it's done that way, because it makes d
-
This implies you actually do live in a dreamworld, Christian. Take it easy buddy, and try to act with a little logic sometimes. You don't always have to be a bully. I'll take hillbillies for five hundred, Alex.
In all honesty, it means that my perception of the 'freedom movement' has been formed by talking to CSS and assuming they are all like him. I know that's probably not true, but it's the sample I've had to work with, so far.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>where can I find these stats?</blockquote> <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aEsJF8HMg5yM&refer=australia">Australia</a>[<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aEsJF8HMg5yM&refer=australia" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] I honestly can't find the figure for the US, I did read it recently, but it looks to me like the real figure is probably lower. It is, however, certainly a lot higher than Australia. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div> Knowing that he doesn't have a gun doesn't mean he doesn't have an axe, just like you. This is just like saying, if axes are outlawed, I know I can go downstairs with my fists ready because he doesn't have fists. The point is, you need to defend yourself.</blockquote> But, two guys with axes is not as dangerous as two guys with guns. Guns change the whole picture, and greatly increase the possibility of someone dying. They don't make you any safer, far from it. They create an illusion of safety that is likely to get you killed. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Besides, if a guy really wanted to rob you, he'll find a gun anyway. Just because guns are outlawed doesn't mean he won't get one anyway, because he's already breaking the law by going into your house.</blockquote> But it's far harder to get one in a society that doesn't have gun shops on the outskirts of every town, where there's no gun shows, where it's almost impossible that a prior robbery would have got them a gun. Yes, I've been to America. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>How do you NOT?! Random searches inside cars, self-written search warrants, wiretapping, airport security for no reason, traffic cameras on the street... the list goes on. This kind of thing would never happen in a free society, I'm sorry.</blockquote> Well, I was not disputing, more asking for your reasoning. your list is flawed. Airport security is not for no reason, it's an expression of capitalism. People would not fly after 9/11, so security went ballistic, to prove to people it was safe. It's all a smoke screen, and smart people know that, but it's done that way, because it makes d
Christian Graus wrote:
But, two guys with axes is not as dangerous as two guys with guns.
In the end, both are tools. They are both dangerous, and both can be taken from the hands of the offender. So really, this is open to speculation. Basically it comes down to the fact that you're afraid of a gun, perpetrated probably by media and the government. But that's open to speculation as well.
Christian Graus wrote:
Guns change the whole picture, and greatly increase the possibility of someone dying. They don't make you any safer, far from it. They create an illusion of safety that is likely to get you killed.
This is also speculation. When was the last time you heard about any axe muderers? No stats probably on this at all, anywhere.
Christian Graus wrote:
But it's far harder to get one in a society that doesn't have gun shops on the outskirts of every town, where there's no gun shows, where it's almost impossible that a prior robbery would have got them a gun. Yes, I've been to America.
That's cool. I live in the USA myself. Massachusetts. One of the most liberal states of the confederation. Guess what: I haven't been to a gun show. And guess what: I don't own a gun. I'm just defending the position because I believe in liberty. I literally choose not to own a gun, but I'll support the right to keep and bear it.
Christian Graus wrote:
Airport security is not for no reason, it's an expression of capitalism. People would not fly after 9/11, so security went ballistic, to prove to people it was safe.
Nope, it's not capitalism. The government demanded it. Government = force.
Christian Graus wrote:
Traffic cameras on the streets are also capitalism, both the state making money on victimless crime, and the fact that there are people who WANT speed cameras because ( again ) they think it makes them safer.
Nope, it's not capitalism. The government demanded it. Government = force. Capitalism is the free market at work, meaning the government doesn't interfere one iota. But since the government created TSA and local/state police demanded these cameras in whatever areas, that's not capitalism. Especially for the fact that these cameras are monitored by the police, and that the TSA is a gov
-
Christian Graus wrote:
But, two guys with axes is not as dangerous as two guys with guns.
In the end, both are tools. They are both dangerous, and both can be taken from the hands of the offender. So really, this is open to speculation. Basically it comes down to the fact that you're afraid of a gun, perpetrated probably by media and the government. But that's open to speculation as well.
Christian Graus wrote:
Guns change the whole picture, and greatly increase the possibility of someone dying. They don't make you any safer, far from it. They create an illusion of safety that is likely to get you killed.
This is also speculation. When was the last time you heard about any axe muderers? No stats probably on this at all, anywhere.
Christian Graus wrote:
But it's far harder to get one in a society that doesn't have gun shops on the outskirts of every town, where there's no gun shows, where it's almost impossible that a prior robbery would have got them a gun. Yes, I've been to America.
That's cool. I live in the USA myself. Massachusetts. One of the most liberal states of the confederation. Guess what: I haven't been to a gun show. And guess what: I don't own a gun. I'm just defending the position because I believe in liberty. I literally choose not to own a gun, but I'll support the right to keep and bear it.
Christian Graus wrote:
Airport security is not for no reason, it's an expression of capitalism. People would not fly after 9/11, so security went ballistic, to prove to people it was safe.
Nope, it's not capitalism. The government demanded it. Government = force.
Christian Graus wrote:
Traffic cameras on the streets are also capitalism, both the state making money on victimless crime, and the fact that there are people who WANT speed cameras because ( again ) they think it makes them safer.
Nope, it's not capitalism. The government demanded it. Government = force. Capitalism is the free market at work, meaning the government doesn't interfere one iota. But since the government created TSA and local/state police demanded these cameras in whatever areas, that's not capitalism. Especially for the fact that these cameras are monitored by the police, and that the TSA is a gov
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div> Basically it comes down to the fact that you're afraid of a gun, perpetrated probably by media and the government</blockquote> No, that is BS. I'm not afraid of a gun, I've been thinking of getting one, actually, as we live in the country. The point is, when you have scared people walking around with guns, you have an explosive situation. When a guy comes onto my property with a gun, and I get out my gun, the threat is more immediate and more lethal than if I am holding a piece of wood. That escalates the situation and greatly increases the odds of someone dying. That's just common sense. It has nothing to do with fear. A gun is a tool. It is made to visit sudden death on people. As Lynyrd Skynyrd said, it ain't good for nothin' else. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>This is also speculation. When was the last time you heard about any axe muderers? No stats probably on this at all, anywhere.</blockquote> Well, why would anyone bother ? A gun is the obvious tool for killing people and the ONLY way to get away with mass murder. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>. Massachusetts. One of the most liberal states of the confederation. Guess what: I haven't been to a gun show.</blockquote> Well, that does not surprise me, do they happen up there ? I've been, nice place, but the thing I most recall was a gun show poster that was really a protest poster. When I travelled the south, I saw a lot of ads for gun shows, and gun shops. josda1000 wrote: And guess what: I don't own a gun. I'm just defending the position because I believe in liberty. I literally choose not to own a gun, but I'll support the right to keep and bear it. OK, that's fine. I still think you're wrong. I don't think owning a gun gives you any freedom, except freedom to create a society where mass shootings happen far too often, and crime is almost always violent, because everyone can get a gun. josda1000 wrote: Again, this is speculation. How did us dumbass americans win against the English Empire, the greatest force in the world at the time? Well, this leads to my point. BECAUSE your guns were the same as their guns, or close enough to it. That' why
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div> Basically it comes down to the fact that you're afraid of a gun, perpetrated probably by media and the government</blockquote> No, that is BS. I'm not afraid of a gun, I've been thinking of getting one, actually, as we live in the country. The point is, when you have scared people walking around with guns, you have an explosive situation. When a guy comes onto my property with a gun, and I get out my gun, the threat is more immediate and more lethal than if I am holding a piece of wood. That escalates the situation and greatly increases the odds of someone dying. That's just common sense. It has nothing to do with fear. A gun is a tool. It is made to visit sudden death on people. As Lynyrd Skynyrd said, it ain't good for nothin' else. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>This is also speculation. When was the last time you heard about any axe muderers? No stats probably on this at all, anywhere.</blockquote> Well, why would anyone bother ? A gun is the obvious tool for killing people and the ONLY way to get away with mass murder. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>. Massachusetts. One of the most liberal states of the confederation. Guess what: I haven't been to a gun show.</blockquote> Well, that does not surprise me, do they happen up there ? I've been, nice place, but the thing I most recall was a gun show poster that was really a protest poster. When I travelled the south, I saw a lot of ads for gun shows, and gun shops. josda1000 wrote: And guess what: I don't own a gun. I'm just defending the position because I believe in liberty. I literally choose not to own a gun, but I'll support the right to keep and bear it. OK, that's fine. I still think you're wrong. I don't think owning a gun gives you any freedom, except freedom to create a society where mass shootings happen far too often, and crime is almost always violent, because everyone can get a gun. josda1000 wrote: Again, this is speculation. How did us dumbass americans win against the English Empire, the greatest force in the world at the time? Well, this leads to my point. BECAUSE your guns were the same as their guns, or close enough to it. That' why
Christian Graus wrote:
I've been thinking of getting one, actually
Now, this is just hypocritical, plain and simple.
Christian Graus wrote:
The point is, when you have scared people walking around with guns, you have an explosive situation. When a guy comes onto my property with a gun, and I get out my gun, the threat is more immediate and more lethal than if I am holding a piece of wood. That escalates the situation and greatly increases the odds of someone dying. That's just common sense.
I'm not denying that, this is completely valid.
Christian Graus wrote:
A gun is a tool. It is made to visit sudden death on people. As Lynyrd Skynyrd said, it ain't good for nothin' else.
I agree it's a tool, but it's not made to kill people (originally, that is.) It was made for hunting. But then once governments (and men in general) used it on each other, it has been demonized along with every other weapon.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, why would anyone bother ? A gun is the obvious tool for killing people and the ONLY way to get away with mass murder.
I completely and heartily disagree with this. You referenced my question of "Have you heard of any axe murderers lately?" Now you're saying that a gun is the obvious tool for killing people. Agreed. But the only way to get away with mass murder? Hardly. Bombs. Grenades. Arson. etc.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that does not surprise me, do they happen up there ?
Yes. Though, more in New Hampshire.
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, that's fine. I still think you're wrong. I don't think owning a gun gives you any freedom, except freedom to create a society where mass shootings happen far too often, and crime is almost always violent, because everyone can get a gun.
Actually, people are jailed more often here for nonviolent crimes, such as possessing marijauna and the like. But that's besides the point... There was less crime in the States in the first hundred years of its existence than today, and it has more to do with poverty (welfare state). When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, this leads to my poi
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I've been thinking of getting one, actually
Now, this is just hypocritical, plain and simple.
Christian Graus wrote:
The point is, when you have scared people walking around with guns, you have an explosive situation. When a guy comes onto my property with a gun, and I get out my gun, the threat is more immediate and more lethal than if I am holding a piece of wood. That escalates the situation and greatly increases the odds of someone dying. That's just common sense.
I'm not denying that, this is completely valid.
Christian Graus wrote:
A gun is a tool. It is made to visit sudden death on people. As Lynyrd Skynyrd said, it ain't good for nothin' else.
I agree it's a tool, but it's not made to kill people (originally, that is.) It was made for hunting. But then once governments (and men in general) used it on each other, it has been demonized along with every other weapon.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, why would anyone bother ? A gun is the obvious tool for killing people and the ONLY way to get away with mass murder.
I completely and heartily disagree with this. You referenced my question of "Have you heard of any axe murderers lately?" Now you're saying that a gun is the obvious tool for killing people. Agreed. But the only way to get away with mass murder? Hardly. Bombs. Grenades. Arson. etc.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that does not surprise me, do they happen up there ?
Yes. Though, more in New Hampshire.
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, that's fine. I still think you're wrong. I don't think owning a gun gives you any freedom, except freedom to create a society where mass shootings happen far too often, and crime is almost always violent, because everyone can get a gun.
Actually, people are jailed more often here for nonviolent crimes, such as possessing marijauna and the like. But that's besides the point... There was less crime in the States in the first hundred years of its existence than today, and it has more to do with poverty (welfare state). When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, this leads to my poi
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Now, this is just hypocritical, plain and simple.</blockquote> Why is it ? I have no problems with people having a gun if they have a use for one. That means farmers ( which I am ). It doesn't mean people in the suburbs. I sure as hell would not carry one off my property. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>It was made for hunting. But then once governments (and men in general) used it on each other, it has been demonized along with every other weapon.</blockquote> So your claim is that someone who lives in LA would own a gun so they can hunt their own food ? <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>But the only way to get away with mass murder? Hardly. Bombs. Grenades. Arson. etc.</blockquote> Sure. Those things happen from time to time. But, in terms of someone wanting to go ballistic in a school, or place of work, a gun beats an axe. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Actually, people are jailed more often here for nonviolent crimes, such as possessing marijauna and the like.</blockquote> Hordes of peole being jailed for victimless crime, does not prove that you have a much higher per capita murder rate than countries who do not allow citizens to carry guns. josda1000 wrote: There was less crime in the States in the first hundred years of its existence than today, and it has more to do with poverty (welfare state). When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it. Well, that much is probably true. Another reason not to add guns to that mix. josda1000 wrote: I have to say, this is a good point. But, we could still use massive weapons against theirs (bombs, grenades, etc). But, theirs are massiver. And they have weapons that they can use remotely. It would not be a fair fight, that's for sure. josda1000 wrote: how many militia were there compared to the number of citizens, during the Revolution? The difference was that the guns were the *same*. You need bigger numbers now, to fight against their bigger guns. josda1000 wrote: If that's the case, why do you insist on writing legislation against it? Because while they don't cause fear to those in power, they do arm criminals and increase crime. Note: after the gun
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div> Basically it comes down to the fact that you're afraid of a gun, perpetrated probably by media and the government</blockquote> No, that is BS. I'm not afraid of a gun, I've been thinking of getting one, actually, as we live in the country. The point is, when you have scared people walking around with guns, you have an explosive situation. When a guy comes onto my property with a gun, and I get out my gun, the threat is more immediate and more lethal than if I am holding a piece of wood. That escalates the situation and greatly increases the odds of someone dying. That's just common sense. It has nothing to do with fear. A gun is a tool. It is made to visit sudden death on people. As Lynyrd Skynyrd said, it ain't good for nothin' else. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>This is also speculation. When was the last time you heard about any axe muderers? No stats probably on this at all, anywhere.</blockquote> Well, why would anyone bother ? A gun is the obvious tool for killing people and the ONLY way to get away with mass murder. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>. Massachusetts. One of the most liberal states of the confederation. Guess what: I haven't been to a gun show.</blockquote> Well, that does not surprise me, do they happen up there ? I've been, nice place, but the thing I most recall was a gun show poster that was really a protest poster. When I travelled the south, I saw a lot of ads for gun shows, and gun shops. josda1000 wrote: And guess what: I don't own a gun. I'm just defending the position because I believe in liberty. I literally choose not to own a gun, but I'll support the right to keep and bear it. OK, that's fine. I still think you're wrong. I don't think owning a gun gives you any freedom, except freedom to create a society where mass shootings happen far too often, and crime is almost always violent, because everyone can get a gun. josda1000 wrote: Again, this is speculation. How did us dumbass americans win against the English Empire, the greatest force in the world at the time? Well, this leads to my point. BECAUSE your guns were the same as their guns, or close enough to it. That' why
The major flaw that adversely influences your logic (or illogic) is the fact that you think so low of the human species, that they are cattle to be controlled, manipulated, and exploited. You think of patriots as toothless barefooted animals that run around after chickens in the dirt. That corrupt belief destroys your credibility. If a real revolution were to take place the country would be divided as seen in the civil war. A new government, a new currency, a new flag, a new military with a very large percentage if not the majority of current military signing up. The new countries economy would begin pumping out ammunition and weapons as the surplus of the general armed public (over 100 million gun owners) is used to fight tyranny. As we see in the middle east, wars like that are impossible to win. Also it is important to point out that the general public does own military assault rifles of all calibers, and body armor. We have seen for over a year, gun and ammunition sales are off the charts, so is the demand for gold and silver, storable food, and medical supplies. Oh, and I forgot to add that the current government is bankrupt. How will they fight in the middle east and America?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
modified on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 10:31 PM
-
The major flaw that adversely influences your logic (or illogic) is the fact that you think so low of the human species, that they are cattle to be controlled, manipulated, and exploited. You think of patriots as toothless barefooted animals that run around after chickens in the dirt. That corrupt belief destroys your credibility. If a real revolution were to take place the country would be divided as seen in the civil war. A new government, a new currency, a new flag, a new military with a very large percentage if not the majority of current military signing up. The new countries economy would begin pumping out ammunition and weapons as the surplus of the general armed public (over 100 million gun owners) is used to fight tyranny. As we see in the middle east, wars like that are impossible to win. Also it is important to point out that the general public does own military assault rifles of all calibers, and body armor. We have seen for over a year, gun and ammunition sales are off the charts, so is the demand for gold and silver, storable food, and medical supplies. Oh, and I forgot to add that the current government is bankrupt. How will they fight in the middle east and America?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
modified on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 10:31 PM
CaptainSeeSharp wrote: The major flaw that adversely influences your logic (or illogic) is the fact that you think so low of the human species, that they are cattle to be controlled, manipulated, and exploited. No, that is your fantasy version of me, not anything I've ever said. CaptainSeeSharp wrote: . You think of patriots as toothless barefooted animals that run around after chickens in the dirt. No, I think of YOU that way, based on your actions. CaptainSeeSharp wrote: If a real revolution were to take place the country would be divided as seen in the civil war. A new government, a new currency, a new flag, a new military with a very large percentage if not the majority of current military signing up. The new countries economy would begin pumping out ammunition and weapons as the surplus of the general armed public (over 100 million gun owners) is used to fight tyranny. As we see in the middle east, wars like that are impossible to win. This is a retarded fantasy. Put away the vaseline and try coming up with your own opinions, and explaining them. CaptainSeeSharp wrote: Also it is important to point out that the general public does own military assault rifles of all calibers, and body armor. I'm sure they do. Woo hoo. CaptainSeeSharp wrote: We have seen for over a year, gun and ammunition sales are off the charts, so is the demand for gold and silver, storable food, and medical supplies. So what ? none of that will turn your fantasies into reality.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The major flaw that adversely influences your logic (or illogic) is the fact that you think so low of the human species, that they are cattle to be controlled, manipulated, and exploited. You think of patriots as toothless barefooted animals that run around after chickens in the dirt. That corrupt belief destroys your credibility. If a real revolution were to take place the country would be divided as seen in the civil war. A new government, a new currency, a new flag, a new military with a very large percentage if not the majority of current military signing up. The new countries economy would begin pumping out ammunition and weapons as the surplus of the general armed public (over 100 million gun owners) is used to fight tyranny. As we see in the middle east, wars like that are impossible to win. Also it is important to point out that the general public does own military assault rifles of all calibers, and body armor. We have seen for over a year, gun and ammunition sales are off the charts, so is the demand for gold and silver, storable food, and medical supplies. Oh, and I forgot to add that the current government is bankrupt. How will they fight in the middle east and America?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
modified on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 10:31 PM
CaptainSeeSharp wrote: Oh, and I forgot to add that the current government is bankrupt. How will they fight in the middle east and America? Well, THAT is actually a good point. The answer is, they won't. The American century is coming to an end, I suspect I'll need to learn Chinese to travel to the USA in a few years time.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Now, this is just hypocritical, plain and simple.</blockquote> Why is it ? I have no problems with people having a gun if they have a use for one. That means farmers ( which I am ). It doesn't mean people in the suburbs. I sure as hell would not carry one off my property. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>It was made for hunting. But then once governments (and men in general) used it on each other, it has been demonized along with every other weapon.</blockquote> So your claim is that someone who lives in LA would own a gun so they can hunt their own food ? <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>But the only way to get away with mass murder? Hardly. Bombs. Grenades. Arson. etc.</blockquote> Sure. Those things happen from time to time. But, in terms of someone wanting to go ballistic in a school, or place of work, a gun beats an axe. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Actually, people are jailed more often here for nonviolent crimes, such as possessing marijauna and the like.</blockquote> Hordes of peole being jailed for victimless crime, does not prove that you have a much higher per capita murder rate than countries who do not allow citizens to carry guns. josda1000 wrote: There was less crime in the States in the first hundred years of its existence than today, and it has more to do with poverty (welfare state). When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it. Well, that much is probably true. Another reason not to add guns to that mix. josda1000 wrote: I have to say, this is a good point. But, we could still use massive weapons against theirs (bombs, grenades, etc). But, theirs are massiver. And they have weapons that they can use remotely. It would not be a fair fight, that's for sure. josda1000 wrote: how many militia were there compared to the number of citizens, during the Revolution? The difference was that the guns were the *same*. You need bigger numbers now, to fight against their bigger guns. josda1000 wrote: If that's the case, why do you insist on writing legislation against it? Because while they don't cause fear to those in power, they do arm criminals and increase crime. Note: after the gun
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is it ? I have no problems with people having a gun if they have a use for one. That means farmers ( which I am ). It doesn't mean people in the suburbs. I sure as hell would not carry one off my property.
Doesn't mean that someone that owns a gun for farming won't take it off their property, as seen in the United States every day.
Christian Graus wrote:
So your claim is that someone who lives in LA would own a gun so they can hunt their own food ?
No. See, this is how you construe my words to fit your own agenda. No, I'm saying that guns were made originally to hunt. Those are my words in my last post, look it up for yourself. Guns were eventually used to not just hunt for food, but hunt persons. So now, I'm saying that someone in LA should own one for protection from whomever may be hunting them.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sure. Those things happen from time to time. But, in terms of someone wanting to go ballistic in a school, or place of work, a gun beats an axe.
What I was trying to say here is that guns are not the ONLY mass murder weapon, as you blatantly and arrogantly stated in a previous post. But yes, I'd agree that a gun beats an axe. Range weapons are always preferable to melee weapons.
Christian Graus wrote:
There was less crime in the States in the first hundred years of its existence than today, and it has more to do with poverty (welfare state). When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it. Well, that much is probably true. Another reason not to add guns to that mix.
I still disagree here. The reason why I'd mentioned the less crime in the first hundred years was because we were more prosperous, because we were more free from an intrusive government. Once the 1920s and 1930s came around, government slowly started taking over (from the federal government specifically. I'm not talking about state governments.) Now we have an overbearing government, and you can see that crime is more abound than back in the 1800s. More regulation on business = more poverty = more crime, whether you have guns or not. It's not about the tools, it's about the situations.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, theirs are massiver. And they have weapons that they can use remotely. It w
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is it ? I have no problems with people having a gun if they have a use for one. That means farmers ( which I am ). It doesn't mean people in the suburbs. I sure as hell would not carry one off my property.
Doesn't mean that someone that owns a gun for farming won't take it off their property, as seen in the United States every day.
Christian Graus wrote:
So your claim is that someone who lives in LA would own a gun so they can hunt their own food ?
No. See, this is how you construe my words to fit your own agenda. No, I'm saying that guns were made originally to hunt. Those are my words in my last post, look it up for yourself. Guns were eventually used to not just hunt for food, but hunt persons. So now, I'm saying that someone in LA should own one for protection from whomever may be hunting them.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sure. Those things happen from time to time. But, in terms of someone wanting to go ballistic in a school, or place of work, a gun beats an axe.
What I was trying to say here is that guns are not the ONLY mass murder weapon, as you blatantly and arrogantly stated in a previous post. But yes, I'd agree that a gun beats an axe. Range weapons are always preferable to melee weapons.
Christian Graus wrote:
There was less crime in the States in the first hundred years of its existence than today, and it has more to do with poverty (welfare state). When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it. Well, that much is probably true. Another reason not to add guns to that mix.
I still disagree here. The reason why I'd mentioned the less crime in the first hundred years was because we were more prosperous, because we were more free from an intrusive government. Once the 1920s and 1930s came around, government slowly started taking over (from the federal government specifically. I'm not talking about state governments.) Now we have an overbearing government, and you can see that crime is more abound than back in the 1800s. More regulation on business = more poverty = more crime, whether you have guns or not. It's not about the tools, it's about the situations.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, theirs are massiver. And they have weapons that they can use remotely. It w
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Doesn't mean that someone that owns a gun for farming won't take it off their property, as seen in the United States every day.</blockquote> That is true. Do you have any idea what small percentage of people are farmers nowadays ? So, letting them (us) own guns, does not flood society with guns. It does not put any guns in urban areas. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>No. See, this is how you construe my words to fit your own agenda.</blockquote> I'm just calling them as you present them and trying to work out your position. I confess that the idea of people owning guns as a right is pure idiocy to me, and I regard it as a religious platform in the US, which is held to irrationally. Having said that, you appear to be rational, and I'm trying to work out why you think it's a good idea, how you account for the far greater number of homocides per capita in the US, etc. Do you think some other factor is creating these shootings, and they would be worse if you didn't have guns ? josda1000 wrote: So now, I'm saying that someone in LA should own one for protection from whomever may be hunting them. And that is only necessary because in LA, anyone could go and buy a gun ( barring a few exceptions, but people would assume if someone was 'hunting' them, they would have a gun, because it's America ). josda1000 wrote: What I was trying to say here is that guns are not the ONLY mass murder weapon, as you blatantly and arrogantly stated in a previous post. But yes, I'd agree that a gun beats an axe. Range weapons are always preferable to melee weapons. Guns ARE the only viable weapon for mass murder that you control. Control is why people go on shooting sprees, that, and I suspect, a death wish. But, the desire to be on TV means you use a gun, not a bomb. An axe is totally out of the picture. josda1000 wrote: The reason why I'd mentioned the less crime in the first hundred years was because we were more prosperous, because we were more free from an intrusive government. You were generally prosperous because it was a farming economy and the land was free. There was nothing stopping you. josda1000 wrote: Now we have an overbearing government, and you can see that crime is more abound than back in the 1800s. More regulation on business = more poverty = m
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Doesn't mean that someone that owns a gun for farming won't take it off their property, as seen in the United States every day.</blockquote> That is true. Do you have any idea what small percentage of people are farmers nowadays ? So, letting them (us) own guns, does not flood society with guns. It does not put any guns in urban areas. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>No. See, this is how you construe my words to fit your own agenda.</blockquote> I'm just calling them as you present them and trying to work out your position. I confess that the idea of people owning guns as a right is pure idiocy to me, and I regard it as a religious platform in the US, which is held to irrationally. Having said that, you appear to be rational, and I'm trying to work out why you think it's a good idea, how you account for the far greater number of homocides per capita in the US, etc. Do you think some other factor is creating these shootings, and they would be worse if you didn't have guns ? josda1000 wrote: So now, I'm saying that someone in LA should own one for protection from whomever may be hunting them. And that is only necessary because in LA, anyone could go and buy a gun ( barring a few exceptions, but people would assume if someone was 'hunting' them, they would have a gun, because it's America ). josda1000 wrote: What I was trying to say here is that guns are not the ONLY mass murder weapon, as you blatantly and arrogantly stated in a previous post. But yes, I'd agree that a gun beats an axe. Range weapons are always preferable to melee weapons. Guns ARE the only viable weapon for mass murder that you control. Control is why people go on shooting sprees, that, and I suspect, a death wish. But, the desire to be on TV means you use a gun, not a bomb. An axe is totally out of the picture. josda1000 wrote: The reason why I'd mentioned the less crime in the first hundred years was because we were more prosperous, because we were more free from an intrusive government. You were generally prosperous because it was a farming economy and the land was free. There was nothing stopping you. josda1000 wrote: Now we have an overbearing government, and you can see that crime is more abound than back in the 1800s. More regulation on business = more poverty = m
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you think some other factor is creating these shootings, and they would be worse if you didn't have guns ?
Yes. As stated in previous posts, it comes down to poverty. This is not factored by guns or whatever weapon you have on hand. You do what you have to in order to survive... so if that comes down to stealing, you'd do it, with whatever weapon you have on hand.
Christian Graus wrote:
I confess that the idea of people owning guns as a right is pure idiocy to me, and I regard it as a religious platform in the US, which is held to irrationally.
Just to defend myself, and I know you're not implying it, but no I don't hold a religious platform in the traditional sense. But I do expect to have the right to self-defense, so I will defend the right to own a gun.
Christian Graus wrote:
And that is only necessary because in LA, anyone could go and buy a gun ( barring a few exceptions, but people would assume if someone was 'hunting' them, they would have a gun, because it's America ).
Yes. gun vs gun, axe vs axe, fists vs fists. It doesn't matter the weapon you have.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: The reason why I'd mentioned the less crime in the first hundred years was because we were more prosperous, because we were more free from an intrusive government. You were generally prosperous because it was a farming economy and the land was free. There was nothing stopping you.
Precisely. You made the point for me.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Now we have an overbearing government, and you can see that crime is more abound than back in the 1800s. More regulation on business = more poverty = more crime, whether you have guns or not. It's not about the tools, it's about the situations. I don't remotely agree with this. Situations like the way that immigrant workers were treated by the meat packing firms in Chicago in the late 1800s, for example, are the result of no regulation. I am certain there was plenty of crime in the shanty towns those people lived in, but no-one bothered to record it, because those people did not matter. Over regulation is a bad thing. Zero regulation is good only for the rich.
Actually, this is a matter of perspective, because the
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you think some other factor is creating these shootings, and they would be worse if you didn't have guns ?
Yes. As stated in previous posts, it comes down to poverty. This is not factored by guns or whatever weapon you have on hand. You do what you have to in order to survive... so if that comes down to stealing, you'd do it, with whatever weapon you have on hand.
Christian Graus wrote:
I confess that the idea of people owning guns as a right is pure idiocy to me, and I regard it as a religious platform in the US, which is held to irrationally.
Just to defend myself, and I know you're not implying it, but no I don't hold a religious platform in the traditional sense. But I do expect to have the right to self-defense, so I will defend the right to own a gun.
Christian Graus wrote:
And that is only necessary because in LA, anyone could go and buy a gun ( barring a few exceptions, but people would assume if someone was 'hunting' them, they would have a gun, because it's America ).
Yes. gun vs gun, axe vs axe, fists vs fists. It doesn't matter the weapon you have.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: The reason why I'd mentioned the less crime in the first hundred years was because we were more prosperous, because we were more free from an intrusive government. You were generally prosperous because it was a farming economy and the land was free. There was nothing stopping you.
Precisely. You made the point for me.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Now we have an overbearing government, and you can see that crime is more abound than back in the 1800s. More regulation on business = more poverty = more crime, whether you have guns or not. It's not about the tools, it's about the situations. I don't remotely agree with this. Situations like the way that immigrant workers were treated by the meat packing firms in Chicago in the late 1800s, for example, are the result of no regulation. I am certain there was plenty of crime in the shanty towns those people lived in, but no-one bothered to record it, because those people did not matter. Over regulation is a bad thing. Zero regulation is good only for the rich.
Actually, this is a matter of perspective, because the
josda1000 wrote: Yes. As stated in previous posts, it comes down to poverty. I wonder what percentage of the killers in school shootings, do so because of poverty ? josda1000 wrote: Yes. gun vs gun, axe vs axe, fists vs fists. It doesn't matter the weapon you have. Of course it does. Would you rather lose a fist fight, or a gun fight ? josda1000 wrote: Precisely. You made the point for me. How did I ? The land was free, as in, you could grab a parcel and farm it. Government regulation did not change that, the fact that people owned all the land did. josda1000 wrote: So yes, you need to be able to make decent contracts and treat people right, but you can't overtax and overburden. We are in agreement here, not that you "don't remotely agree" lol Well, if you qualify it like that, then we would probably agree. You seemed to me to imply that the ideal is no regulation at all. josda1000 wrote: If martial law were to come about, you're defenseless with no gun. There's a .0002% chance that will be an issue for me. There's a far greater chance that someone I know will die because of a gun if I allow society to be flooded with them. Do you have any idea how many Americans I know who have family members or friends who were shot dead ? More than a couple. Australians ? None. I know more Aussies. josda1000 wrote: But you're going to steal a gun, with an axe?? From whom, the government? If there were martial law, that would equate to dudes walking around, with guns. Hell, I could get a gun tomorrow if a REALLY wanted one, by jumping a cop. Yes, with an axe. josda1000 wrote: Anyone with criminal intent in the first place would still have a gun. You think that, because you live in America. You're wrong. josda1000 wrote: Why would they submit to a law when they are outlaws in the first place? Again, you are in America. In America, if you want a gun, they are everywhere. That's the point. They may WANT a gun, that does not guarentee they can GET one. josda1000 wrote: Therefore, you're the one without defense when the one with criminal intent definitely HAS a gun. I still say you're baseless here. Because you can't envisage a society that is not rife with firearms. josda1000 wrote: I was implying that the robber had a gun as well. You're even. Because you're in America. josda1000 wrote: That's
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you think some other factor is creating these shootings, and they would be worse if you didn't have guns ?
Yes. As stated in previous posts, it comes down to poverty. This is not factored by guns or whatever weapon you have on hand. You do what you have to in order to survive... so if that comes down to stealing, you'd do it, with whatever weapon you have on hand.
Christian Graus wrote:
I confess that the idea of people owning guns as a right is pure idiocy to me, and I regard it as a religious platform in the US, which is held to irrationally.
Just to defend myself, and I know you're not implying it, but no I don't hold a religious platform in the traditional sense. But I do expect to have the right to self-defense, so I will defend the right to own a gun.
Christian Graus wrote:
And that is only necessary because in LA, anyone could go and buy a gun ( barring a few exceptions, but people would assume if someone was 'hunting' them, they would have a gun, because it's America ).
Yes. gun vs gun, axe vs axe, fists vs fists. It doesn't matter the weapon you have.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: The reason why I'd mentioned the less crime in the first hundred years was because we were more prosperous, because we were more free from an intrusive government. You were generally prosperous because it was a farming economy and the land was free. There was nothing stopping you.
Precisely. You made the point for me.
Christian Graus wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Now we have an overbearing government, and you can see that crime is more abound than back in the 1800s. More regulation on business = more poverty = more crime, whether you have guns or not. It's not about the tools, it's about the situations. I don't remotely agree with this. Situations like the way that immigrant workers were treated by the meat packing firms in Chicago in the late 1800s, for example, are the result of no regulation. I am certain there was plenty of crime in the shanty towns those people lived in, but no-one bothered to record it, because those people did not matter. Over regulation is a bad thing. Zero regulation is good only for the rich.
Actually, this is a matter of perspective, because the
Just to add, this was news this morning: http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/01/29/124541_tasmania-news.html[^] You may say, what if the shop owner had a gun ? I'd say, if it went for it, he'd probably be dead. My point is, I don't recall the last time something like that happened, here. It's big news precisely because it's rare. The last hold up I remember was two teenage girls holding up a corner store with a knife. They used their parents car, which is how they were caught, they were 14 or so.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.