Guns check government

[JCSr]

You gave me one veteran (who never left the country & had an in-service history including multiple disciplinary actions and imprisonment), cool. Aurora shooter, 121412 shooter, and the two Columbine shooters. 1:4, wanna keep playing?

No. I have provided a perfect example why the DHS identifies gun owning veterans as one of the greatest threats to our national security.

 

[Schneiderman]

How many gun laws have been enacted under Obama? none.

Thank you for demonstrating your unwillingness to participate in a rational discussion. I could use this statement to argue that you don't know how our government works- the president does not make law. I could use this statement to argue that you don't understand the realities of our political process- politicians only act in their self interest of holding office. But none of this is the case. You know enough about our government and our political process to know that the statement you just made is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is that the discussion at hand offends the delicate complacency into which you have been indoctrinated and cognitive dissonance compels you to posture in order to avoid recognizing that your own government does not trust you to make individual decisions.

The government seeks to disarm its own citizens because it does not trust them. No government trusts its constituency, otherwise the government wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

Because they are more likely to go off and kill people.

As a matter of fact, they are not. As a population, people who own firearms are more law abiding than the average person.

Well one reason presumably is to prevent disturbed sociopaths from shooting schoolchildren.

If that's the case, then they should address the cause rather than the symptom. But that does not answer the question. Politicians absolutely love tragedies like this because it gives them so much power.

But as I said - it's your country. The only time I would comment on such a debate is when something truly ludicrous like "we're keeping the government in check" is rolled out as the reason for owning firearms. WALOB.

Can you quote a single person in the history of this forum who ever stated that the reason they own a firearm is specifically to keep the government in check?

I could own a gun in the UK should I wish. It might be fun to shoot pheasants and eat them. Maybe when I retire. If/when I do it will be because shooting and hunting are quite exciting pursuits and I enjoy game.

All very reasonable. I wish the entirety of your post demonstrated such quality.

And probably by then I might be impotent and so having a nice phallic gun could help me feel like a man.

If you think this will be the outcome then you will be sorely disappointed. But, of course, you are merely engaging in more childish ad hominem nonsense. You appeal to emotion because you have no rational foundation for your statements.

Do away with the standing army so the citizenry can justify owning their guns.

I don't need a justification for owning guns. You need a justification for taking them away.

Good idea. It might make a useful comparison for cretins who think they are modern day minutemen to see just how more effective the armed forces actually are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

Note "2001-Present". Yeah, look how effective the armed forces really are.

(And this does not even take into account the fact that, in any hypothetical domestic violence scenario, the Armed Forces of the United States would splinter into factions)

We have a large standing army already so it's too late unless you want to get rid of it. It's bizarre to me that a lot of pro-gun people are all for making the military bigger and spending unlimited funds on it all the while talking about the need for civilians with their little ar-15's being able to defeat them. If standing armies are bad and we should have militias instead why aren't these people demanding massive cuts to the military?

Who are you talking to? If you are interested in a rational discussion then why are you making broad, inaccurate generalizations? I for one have long been an advocate of making deep cuts in military spending, along with stopping all of our illegal wars and stopping our murder of people in countries we aren't even at war with.

 

[Schneiderman]

No. I have provided a perfect example why the DHS identifies gun owning veterans as one of the greatest threats to our national security.

No, because of the two statements you made, one was irrelevant and the other was factually incorrect.

 

[JCSr]

No, because of the two statements you made, one was irrelevant and the other was factually incorrect.

You are wrong, I am correct

 

[Schneiderman]

You are wrong, I am correct

OK, prove it. The argument you have put forth is that veterans who own guns are "more likely to go off and kill people". You did not specify whom they are more likely than to do such a thing, so I have to assume you are comparing them to the general population. In the interest of rational civility, I'll offer you the chance to amend your argument if you need to, but in any case I would like to see you substantiate this claim with some sort of evidence.

edit>

 

[StromRider]

 

[stamperben]

I'm asking, not telling, you're the one saying that we have to stand up to drone attacks without any evidence that the Military (who are Americans) will attack their fellow Americans.

If you look you'll see many cases of the military in the form of the National Guard being used against the general population. And I'm not even bringing up the Civil War.

We can only see what might happen if a hairbrained group were to try to storm Washington (or take your pick of targets) with their AK's in hand.

They are soldiers, trained to take and obey orders even when it rubs them the wrong way.

 

[Schneiderman]

Ooh look, an appeal to emotion. How compelling and not stale at all.

 

[StromRider]

Ooh look, an appeal to emotion. How compelling and not stale at all.

Continuing mass murders makes me sad. I guess I'm funny that way being affected emotionally by the slaughter of 20 kids.

But how can the continuing tally of innocents killed be stale? It's not like it ever stops, or even pauses, in the US.

 

[JCSr]

OK, prove it. The argument you have put forth is that veterans who own guns are "more likely to go off and kill people". You did not specify whom they are more likely than to do such a thing, so I have to assume you are comparing them to the general population. In the interest of rational civility, I'll offer you the chance to amend your argument if you need to, but in any case I would like to see you substantiate this claim with some sort of evidence.

<edit>

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf




<edit> Sorry if the truth hurts.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Because they are more likely to go off and kill people.

No. I have provided a perfect example why the DHS identifies gun owning veterans as one of the greatest threats to our national security.

You said that veterans were more likely to go off and kill people . . . .. when countered with 4 non veterans to the one veteran you listed. . .. you say, no you provided a perfect example. How is a 1:4 ratio against your statement a perfect example of why you were right. Help me out. . . . last time I did math 4 was more than 1 by more than double. . . . which means 1 is less than four and not by a small margin. Why is it your statements should be perceived as valid when your grasp on math is so. . . . um. . . . I don't have words adequate to express the depth of poorness.

 

[Schneiderman]

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf




No lying here. Sorry if the truth hurts.

DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Have they? No.<edit> When it comes to murders that actually occur in the real world, the vast majority of murderers are in fact not gun-owning veterans. Until the day comes that a majority of murders are committed by gun-owning veterans, your statement remains factually incorrect.

The document you cited is an example of "psychological warfare" and furthermore, a prime example that our government does not trust us and that we can not trust it.

 

[Schneiderman]

Continuing mass murders makes me sad. I guess I'm funny that way being affected emotionally by the slaughter of 20 kids.

But how can the continuing tally of innocents killed be stale? It's not like it ever stops, or even pauses, in the US.

What does any of this have to do with the 2nd amendment or firearms in general? Do you understand that murder existed before firearms did? Do you understand that we are living in the most peaceful time in the history of human existence? And the only reason we are able to live in relative comfort and peace today is precisely due to the proliferation of the firearm. If it was not for readily available access to firearms by common man, you would be living as a serf today, toiling in some Noble's muck field.

Oh wait, excuse me. Your profile states that you are 49 years old. Were it not for the proliferation of the firearm, you would probably already have died by now, either of violence or the malnutrition and disease inherent in the short, brutal life of servitude.

Civilization as we know it today could never have come about without the firearm serving as an equalizer of men. Oppression makes me sad. Without the firearm, those 6 year olds would never have been in a school. Most of them would have died in infancy and the rest would be spending the entirety of their days doing chores or menial labor. It's amazing how ungrateful people can be.

 

[bricklayer]

What does any of this have to do with the 2nd amendment or firearms in general? Do you understand that murder existed before firearms did? Do you understand that we are living in the most peaceful time in the history of human existence? And the only reason we are able to live in relative comfort and peace today is precisely due to the proliferation of the firearm. If it was not for readily available access to firearms by common man, you would be living as a serf today, toiling in some Noble's muck field.

Oh wait, excuse me. Your profile states that you are 49 years old. Were it not for the proliferation of the firearm, you would probably already have died by now, either of violence or the malnutrition and disease inherent in the short, brutal life of servitude.

Civilization as we know it today could never have come about without the firearm serving as an equalizer of men.

Guns are safer than gravity, fire, water, sharp objects, the wheel and electricty, for example.

At the very first camp fire there was one person who kept saying, "We should put that out; it's too dangerous. Even if it saves one life ...".

 

[JCSr]

You said that veterans were more likely to go off and kill people . . . .. when countered with 4 non veterans to the one veteran you listed. . .. you say, no you provided a perfect example. How is a 1:4 ratio against your statement a perfect example of why you were right. Help me out. . . . last time I did math 4 was more than 1 by more than double. . . . which means 1 is less than four and not by a small margin. Why is it your statements should be perceived as valid when your grasp on math is so. . . . um. . . . I don't have words adequate to express the depth of poorness.

I have seen nobody here post any evidence of any 1:4 ratio. Please point out your evidence.

 

[MachZer0]

Guns are safer than gravity, fire, water, sharp objects, the wheel and electricty, for example.

At the very first camp fire there was one person who kept saying, "We should put that out; it's too dangerous. Even if it saves one life ...".

If the object is merely to save lives, then we should ban swimming pools and bathtubs, not to mention automobiles

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

If that's the case, then they should address the cause rather than the symptom. But that does not answer the question. Politicians absolutely love tragedies like this because it gives them so much power.



Can you quote a single person in the history of this forum who ever stated that the reason they own a firearm is specifically to keep the government in check?



All very reasonable. I wish the entirety of your post demonstrated such quality.



If you think this will be the outcome then you will be sorely disappointed. But, of course, you are merely engaging in more childish ad hominem nonsense. You appeal to emotion because you have no rational foundation for your statements.



I don't need a justification for owning guns. You need a justification for taking them away.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

Note "2001-Present". Yeah, look how effective the armed forces really are.

(And this does not even take into account the fact that, in any hypothetical domestic violence scenario, the Armed Forces of the United States would splinter into factions

I'm sorry I thought this thread was about how privately owned guns help check the governement, what with the title of the thread being "Guns check government" and the OP explaining that people in the US don't keep guns because they like killing things/people but rather they keep guns to keep the government in check.
Again, I'm not trying to take your guns away, so I really don't have to give you any "justification". I'm pointing out that whatever the reasons are for owning guns the least convincing reason is that by doing so you are preventing government forces from doing whatever it is you think they might want to do. Repeat ad infinitum, in the event of a civil war the side to which most of the armed forces/military equipment are allied will win.

Admitting to wanting to own guns because you quite like guns and what they can do is no shame really. I just did it.

When it comes to addressing the root cause of sociopaths shooting people - I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind as the "root cause". If you mean the root cause of sociopathy, then good luck with finding that. Sociopathy, at least in the UK is more of a criminal definition than a psychiatric definition as most/all sociopaths are only identified after committing crimes.
If you think that sociopathy should be screened for and those identified incarcerated regardless of whether they have committed any crimes or not then I would suggest that such a measure would be tyrranous and I would be very worried about any government who introduced such measures.
But I do not wish to construct any staw men here. I'd be interested in what you see as the root cause of sociopathic murders and how you would deal with said cause.

 

[StromRider]

What does any of this have to do with the 2nd amendment or firearms in general? Do you understand that murder existed before firearms did?

Yes I do. I also understand that it would be pretty difficult for someone with a spear or sword to kill many people quickly outside of arms reach.

<edit>

Oh wait, excuse me. Your profile states that you are 49 years old. Were it not for the proliferation of the firearm, you would probably already have died by now, either of violence or the malnutrition and disease inherent in the short, brutal life of servitude.

You speak of dieing early by violence if there were no firearms on a thread started as a result of the murder of 20 children by firearms?<edit>

Without the firearm, those 6 year olds would never have been in a school. Most of them would have died in infancy and the rest would be spending the entirety of their days doing chores or menial labor.

Where are the facts to back up such statements? I can't believe what I just read.

 

[Bethesda]

What does any of this have to do with the 2nd amendment or firearms in general? Do you understand that murder existed before firearms did? Do you understand that we are living in the most peaceful time in the history of human existence? And the only reason we are able to live in relative comfort and peace today is precisely due to the proliferation of the firearm. If it was not for readily available access to firearms by common man, you would be living as a serf today, toiling in some Noble's muck field.

Oh wait, excuse me. Your profile states that you are 49 years old. Were it not for the proliferation of the firearm, you would probably already have died by now, either of violence or the malnutrition and disease inherent in the short, brutal life of servitude.

Civilization as we know it today could never have come about without the firearm serving as an equalizer of men. Oppression makes me sad. Without the firearm, those 6 year olds would never have been in a school. Most of them would have died in infancy and the rest would be spending the entirety of their days doing chores or menial labor. It's amazing how ungrateful people can be.

'the only reason we are able to live in relative comfort and peace today is precisely due to the proliferation of the firearm.'
Double post!

 

[Bethesda]

What does any of this have to do with the 2nd amendment or firearms in general? Do you understand that murder existed before firearms did? Do you understand that we are living in the most peaceful time in the history of human existence? And the only reason we are able to live in relative comfort and peace today is precisely due to the proliferation of the firearm. If it was not for readily available access to firearms by common man, you would be living as a serf today, toiling in some Noble's muck field.

Oh wait, excuse me. Your profile states that you are 49 years old. Were it not for the proliferation of the firearm, you would probably already have died by now, either of violence or the malnutrition and disease inherent in the short, brutal life of servitude.

Civilization as we know it today could never have come about without the firearm serving as an equalizer of men. Oppression makes me sad. Without the firearm, those 6 year olds would never have been in a school. Most of them would have died in infancy and the rest would be spending the entirety of their days doing chores or menial labor. It's amazing how ungrateful people can be.

'the only reason we are able to live in relative comfort and peace today is precisely due to the proliferation of the firearm.'
Are you talking in the US history aspect - that you would have been toiling under the boot of red coated soldiers (albeit armed now with SA80s) if it hadn't been for the gun (though seems to me that the gun was neutral since both sides had it - if the darned Frenchies hadn't bailed you out then it might have been different!). I don't see that guns have made the world a better place - they have been used as much to oppress as to liberate - if they did then shouldn't we be handing out more of them in Africa where children still die in infancy and most spend their days in menial labour? Guns are surely just a tool - before then it was swords and bows - even then the longbow (the equaliser of its day) couldn't stop us losing the 100 Years War ultimately. Its ideas that change societies not guns. I think people here in the main come at all these topics from a very US centric point of view (understandable in the context of the recent shootings but less so in the context of understanding why for instance Western Europe has finally put away war as a means of settling disputes)