Here's another way to look at the thing, Farmerman.
It might not be Abrams tanks vs citizens with deer rifles, and the whole thing isn't just some sort of a rightwing wet dream; it could have easily happened six years ago with Algor's attempted coup d'etat.
The coup ended with the publicizing of dem efforts to shut down the military absentee vote in Florida; after that it was obvious that no meaningful segment of the military would have supported any sort of an effort by Slick to declare martial law in Florida and count votes without witnesses until Algor won.
Suppose that hadn't happened, and Slick HAD declared martial law in Florida and done just that, decllared Algor the president elect, and the CFR, along with Kofi Anan, Andy Brown, George Stevens, Amos Jones, Algonquin J. Calhoun and the rest of that crowd, along with the terrorist states and the "international community" had demanded that the American people accept that result.
What do YOU think would have happened? My guess is that the military would have split, the anti-Slick faction would have issued a general call to arms, and that the militias and other armed citizen groups would in fact have played a meaningful role in whatever transpired.
One more question here, Farmerman (or anybody else for that matter):
Why should the people of India tolerate a government whose idology-driven policies with respect to the idea of the people being allowed to own weapons is causing tens of thousands of them (the people) to die horrible deaths at the fangs of poisonous snakes?
Again for any who might have missed it...
This is a cat:
and this is a king cobra, 20+ feet long full grown:
Both will kill rats; which would you rather have around your children? How would you view a government which insisted that your children live around the cobra, and that you not be allowed to own weapons?
I mean, in a rational world nobody would have to point **** like that out, but, like the man says in Ruthless People, leftists really are that stupid.....
gungasnake wrote:
Both will kill rats; which would you rather have around your children? How would you view a government which insisted that your children live around the cobra, and that you not be allowed to own weapons?
As far as I know, in the USA are (state) laws eelating to private possession of exotic animals and you're not allowed to keep a cobra as pet at home.
Not in your state, gunga?
The point I was making and which you entirely missed (as usual), is that the second ammendment is an idea whose time has come all over the world, and not just in the US.
Armed people do not suffer tens of thousands of deaths from snakes every year as is the case in India.
Armed people do not easily get massacred as were the Tutsis were in Rwanda.
Armed people are not used by their government as fodder for a human body parts business as is the case with the Falun Gong in China.
Armed people are not a target rich environment for criminals, as the people of England, Canada, and Australia have become.
gungasnake wrote:Again for any who might have missed it...
This is a cat:
and this is a king cobra, 20+ feet long full grown:
Both will kill rats; which would you rather have around your children? How would you view a government which insisted that your children live around the cobra, and that you not be allowed to own weapons?
This is one of the more tortured analogies I've seen, but considering your avatar, it makes a kind of sense. I wouldn't want you near anyone's children...
Cats & cobras & weird arguments for guns!
This is a pretty wild thread, I've gotta say! :wink:
And, can I add, that the title of this thread is an absolute doozy!
Pardon the interruption, I just needed to say those things!
Please continue now....
msolga wrote:
And, can I add, that the title of this thread is an absolute doozy!
Indeed, but to the gun enthsiasts, it makes sense: The solution to the problem of school shootings is more guns!
Dartagnan wrote:msolga wrote:
And, can I add, that the title of this thread is an absolute doozy!
Indeed, but to the gun enthsiasts, it makes sense: The solution to the problem of school shootings is more guns!
In this particular case, the solution is one or two pistols in the pockets of one teacher and possibly one principal or supervisor. That isn't asking much and it could easily have saved the situation.
Leftists and one worlders make it out as if the whole rest of the world was cool and sophisticated and peaceful, and it was just Americans who were ****ed up. In reality, it's all these other countries which are messed up.
The second ammendment is an idea whose time has come, everywhere, and not just the United States.
Heaven forbid the teacher is the one who decides to start shooting, then we will have to arm the students and janitors as well for safety's sake.
Sheesh
Cycloptichorn
gungasnake wrote:
The second ammendment is an idea whose time has come, everywhere, and not just the United States.
You may be right. Guns and bombs seem to be especially trendy in Iraq this season.
oralloy wrote:kiwimac wrote:It is NOT a civil right to own a gun. Simply because the Second Amendment saw the need for armed militias does not make it a civil right FOR INDIVIDUALS.
The fact that individuals can be required to join a militia before exercising their Second Amendment rights does not mean that it isn't an individual civil right.
The amendment quite clearly requires the government to set up such militia, and once someone joined, they'd have the right as an individual.
It should also be noted that people's gun rights are not limited to the written text of the amendments. There is also an unwritten civil right of individuals to keep an automatic rifle at home for self defense.
The same right exists in your country too, although it is easily overridden by a statute since you guys are unfortunately without something like the Second Amendment.
blatham wrote:oralloy wrote:blatham wrote:Note the sexual-dominance braggadocio which underlies posts by oralloy, omsig, cjhsa and others.
Please grow real penises you are actually proud of, boys.
It isn't necessary for you to spew bigoted stereotypes like a Klan dragon.
Interesting charge. Moreso for the particular element excerpted as subject for the charge (my claim that the US demonstrates a pathological level of violence didn't merit inclusion). We also note the verb choice and the odd analogy.
I'm curious if you've ever told people who believe in a cause that they all suffer from sexual issues and had it lead to a meaningful conversation.
Ever gone into a biker bar and announced that people who ride Harleys need to grow a real penis?
blatham wrote:Each one of the folks I mentioned above (plus some others) predictably write posts wherein America's proper stance in the world is imagined or portrayed as admirably aggressive, confident, broad-shouldered, take-no-guff, shoot first and ask questions later (or never), we are way tougher than everyone else, etc etc.
That is a reasonable portrayal, seeing as how we are the current empire on this planet.
blatham wrote:This tenor in your posts as inevitable as the morning sunrise. The sexual dominance (that is, desired dominance) characteristic of it is utterly impossible to miss.
Some men need a manly uniform to feel manly enough. Some need a manly weapon to feel manly enough. Some need to pretend that their flag and their group ought to represent warriorness, all erect and sturdy like a big dangerous boner.
That is nothing but a stereotype, and like all stereotypes is completely untrue and highly offensive.
It is little different from the nonsense the KKK spews about non-whites.
Dartagnan wrote:msolga wrote:
And, can I add, that the title of this thread is an absolute doozy!
Indeed, but to the gun enthsiasts, it makes sense: The solution to the problem of school shootings is more guns!
More guns in the right hands; fewer guns in the wrong hands.
kiwimac wrote:Frankly,
I would argue that a civilised society limits the access of its populace to arms. It is one thing for a country like Switzerland to place arms in each home and then TRAIN folk to a military standard with them, including military standards of Fire-Arms safety and another thing entirely to say in effect " off you go, buy as many as you like, use them as you will." to all and sundry.
Kiwimac
Freedom is more important than civilization.
oralloy wrote:kiwimac wrote:Frankly,
I would argue that a civilised society limits the access of its populace to arms. It is one thing for a country like Switzerland to place arms in each home and then TRAIN folk to a military standard with them, including military standards of Fire-Arms safety and another thing entirely to say in effect " off you go, buy as many as you like, use them as you will." to all and sundry.
Kiwimac
Freedom is more important than civilization.
Well, that explains a lot. The law of the jungle, eh?
oralloy wrote:
Freedom is more important than civilization.
For sure you won't achieve or enhance civilization by denying or repressing freedom.
Other than that, I don't really view the idea of passing a stupid law which doubles or triples your violent crime rates and then boasting about it as terribly civilized or anything like that.
I just read, in my local paper, that there is an idiot up here in Canada, (British Columbia to be exact) who is saying we should get rid of our gun laws and arm teachers. He wants more guns, not less.
Ludicrous. Maybe he is a transplant bringing foolish ideas to Canada.
After reading some of the foolishness on these pages about shooting snakes in India, I suppose we should arm everybody in Alberta so they won't be bitten by rattlesnakes.
I am still wondering how those folks in India would shoot snakes without killing their children and sacred cows. This thread is certainly taking a turn for the absurd.
Intrepid wrote:
I am still wondering how those folks in India would shoot snakes without killing their children and sacred cows.
By aiming properly. The idea is that you aim the firearm at the snake, and not at the kids or cows....
