gungasnake wrote: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....
Brilliant
Aiming and hitting are two different things. Do you think that everybody is automatically a marksman when you put a gun into their hands?
Intrepid wrote: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.
That's not idiocy; he just wants to restore freedom and civil rights to Canada -- certainly a noble goal.
So, guns = rights. Without guns, there can be no rights? Since I don't own a gun, I have no rights?
Before you say yes, consider this. You, oralloy, with whatever puny arsenal you have at your disposal, would be crushed like a bug by this gov't if it so disposed.
Dartagnan wrote:So, guns = rights. Without guns, there can be no rights? Since I don't own a gun, I have no rights?
Before you say yes, consider this. You, oralloy, with whatever puny arsenal you have at your disposal, would be crushed like a bug by this gov't if it so disposed.
If whatever the govt. had done just got oralloy pissed off, you're right. If they ever get 30 or 40 million guys with rifles totally pissed off, it won't matter how many tanks and helicopters they might have.
If that were not the case, Nicolae Ceausescu would still be ruling Romania.
Actually, Ceausescu appears to have been brought down by a combination of popular protest and army coup, not a bunch of yahoos wielding their firearms.
But don't let the facts stop you....
oralloy wrote:Intrepid wrote: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.
That's not idiocy; he just wants to restore freedom and civil rights to Canada -- certainly a noble goal.
You obviously only know the history and geography of your own little world. Canada is a free country with all of the rights that we need. Try not to be too envious.
It may surprise various folk here to learn that violent crime has not doubled or tripled since we inaugurated the new, tougher gun laws. In fact violent crime is moving downwards for the first time since the 1980s.
NZ, per head of population, probably has as many Guns or perhaps more than the US but here a Gun is a privilege NOT any kind of a right. Am I willing to give up the "Freedom" of owning a gun in order to live in a society in which guns are treated like the dangerous things they are rather than some kind of penile extension? Damn right I am.
Kiwimac
blatham wrote:
Quote: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.
orralloy replied:
Quote:
That is a reasonable portrayal, seeing as how we are the current empire on this planet.
...I think this exchange says all that need be said about the mindset we are dealing with
One of the questions people ask about such situations is basically what drives the attitudes of anabaptists like Amish and Mennonites and other Germanic denomination members such as Huterites.
My understanding of it is this. The first modern wars in the sense of nation vs nation which ever took place in Europe, at least in recent centuries, were the Napoleanic wars; everything in the previous three or four centuries had been basically gang fights involving the royal families of Europe.
If that wasn't bad enough during the ages of swordplay and archery, it got much worse in the centuries when firearms rose to dominate warfare. There are two basic things which most people should need in order to feel halfway good about being involved in wars, i.e. a rational and just cause, and a reasonable chance to win. European wars of the 16'th, 17'th, and 18'th centuries were as far from that as you could get. Battles in those days meant lines of guys walking straight up to eachother and blasting away with muskets from 50 meters apart or less, with very few exceptions for the greater glory of those same royal families.
Frederick the Great once told Voltaire that if any of his soldiers were to ever think about what they were doing for ten seconds, they'd all be gone.
A lot of the ones who did think about it that long ended up in Pennsylvania.
The basic attitudes towards warfare or violence of any sort arises from a view that if in three hundred years you never saw something, in this case a just cause for violence or warfare, it probably does not exist.
I mean, they're wrong of course, but you can see where the attitude comes from.
And why are they wrong, pray tell?
Dartagnan wrote:So, guns = rights.
More like "a full set of rights includes the right to keep an automatic rifle for home defense".
Dartagnan wrote:Without guns, there can be no rights?
Without the right to have automatic rifles for home defense, there is not a full set of rights, and the people in question are not free.
Dartagnan wrote:Since I don't own a gun, I have no rights?
You have the right to have an automatic rifle.
At present, no one is demanding that you exercise that right.
Dartagnan wrote:Before you say yes, consider this. You, oralloy, with whatever puny arsenal you have at your disposal, would be crushed like a bug by this gov't if it so disposed.
I really wish people would wait until they actually see me advocate the use of Second Amendment weapons against the government before they make such a point.
Intrepid wrote:oralloy wrote:Intrepid wrote: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.
That's not idiocy; he just wants to restore freedom and civil rights to Canada -- certainly a noble goal.
You obviously only know the history and geography of your own little world.
Wrong again.
Intrepid wrote:Canada is a free country with all of the rights that we need. Try not to be too envious.
You guys always babble about "need" when it comes to freedom. It never fails.
No, you are not a free country, not since you've passed laws that overrule the right to keep a military rifle at home.
And I am hardly envious of your serfdom.
kiwimac wrote:but here a Gun is a privilege NOT any kind of a right.
Well, yes and no. Since you don't have anything like our Second Amendment, your government can easily pass a law to overrule the right, but it is in fact a right in your country, unless your legal system is no longer descended from English Common Law.
kiwimac wrote:some kind of penile extension
While it is not a crime to be a bigot (at least in a country with Free Speech) please keep your bigotry to yourself, if possible.
oralloy wrote:Intrepid wrote:oralloy wrote:Intrepid wrote: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.
That's not idiocy; he just wants to restore freedom and civil rights to Canada -- certainly a noble goal.
You obviously only know the history and geography of your own little world.
Wrong again.
Intrepid wrote:Canada is a free country with all of the rights that we need. Try not to be too envious.
You guys always babble about "need" when it comes to freedom. It never fails.
No, you are not a free country, not since you've passed laws that overrule the right to keep a military rifle at home.
And I am hardly envious of your serfdom.
Nothing overrules our right to keep a military rifle at home. In fact, I have one. The fact that it is registered does not take away any freedom. Also, the fact that I own one does not, in any way, mean that I have it for the purpose of harming another human being.
You don't know what freedom is. You are so wrapped up in your "need" to have a weapon to do harm that it is consuming you. Your bravado talk is childish and I would not doubt that you would shoot your little gun without hesitation. It is your ilk that is the cause of grief in this world.
It is no coincidence that the majority of death by guns is in the U.S. It is no coincidence that the majority of deaths are caused by testosterone toting males. It is no coincidence that your second amendment is silly and outdated.
Intrepid wrote:Nothing overrules our right to keep a military rifle at home. In fact, I have one.
I doubt it. What sort of military rifle do you claim to have?
Intrepid wrote:You don't know what freedom is.
Liar.
Intrepid wrote:You are so wrapped up in your "need" to have a weapon to do harm that it is consuming you.
Liar.
Intrepid wrote:Your bravado talk
Liar.
Intrepid wrote:It is your ilk that is the cause of grief in this world.
Liar.
The little boy does not even know the meaning of the word liar. The immaturity that is showing is another reason not to own guns. I expect to see large fonts in vivid colours next.
Troll sighting.......
scroll
scroll
scroll
