RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

BamaD -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 4:14:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Are you advocating arming the rioters with lethal weapons?


Yes, he is advocating arming the rioters with guns. He *REALLY* needs a live action 'Call of Duty' deathmatch because he gets WTF PWNED by teenagers online....



He advocated no such thing.


This has me scratching my head, Bama. If you're advocating gun ownership in order to stop rioters from smashing up your shop or other business premises, how do you prevent those who go out rioting from having guns too? If everybody, on both sides, is armed ... isn't the likelihood that the riots will be a whole lot worse in terms of injuries and deaths?

I've read the view, also, that those sorts of people who go out rioting tend not to have guns anyway, because they're 'losers' (or something similar) - but elsewhere - and frequently - I've read that it's these 'losers' who are also doing lots of the shooting - as gang members and the like.

So maybe you should put everything of value out on the sidewalk for them and hope they don't burn down your store.
Do you realize that a mob is a mindless monster that doesn't think things through. If they go home an get their guns there won't be anything left to steal. During the Watts riots in the 60's there were cases of rioters who realized when it blood lust left them that they had burned their own homes.



thompsonx -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 4:25:06 PM)

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

You cant understand the "gun" culture in the US, then the image and the history behind it should help.

If it doesnt how about this fact.

1) Initially stuff like axes, shovels etc were not allowed to be made in the colonies, they had to be imported from the mother country.

For the historically illiterate that would be called the colonial system where the colony would produce raw material and the mother country would turn them into manufactured products.


2) King George and the government decided to tax the shit out of the colonies and not give the colonists the right to protest or even speak against the acts before the laws were passed.

You are full of shit. Get a phoquing history book written for someone past the fifth grade.

3) Crown troops were placed in homes of colonists without pay and were expected to be fed and cared for because they were crown troops.

Well let's see lee and washington start a war and g.b. comes to fight it and need quarters for their troops who are expanding the teritory of the rich colonists like lee and washington.

4) Due process in the original colonies was something that just didnt happen. If you disagreed with something, the crown authorities could throw your ass in jail and forget you.

Once again you are full of shit. Get a phoquing history book. The colonies had a goverment that was instituted by the mother countr. Due process was the same in virgina as it was in london.

5) Resources, wood, crops etc were subject to being taken by the crown with no, repeat no, compensation.

Once again you are just full of shit.




For example, during the colonial era, wood for the Royal Navy Ships came from the colonies, and after being cut, the royal agents could just come in, take the wood that some poor shit for brains colonist had just busted his ass to get, and not pay for it, and why, because the king needed, wanted or just for the hell of it.


Perhaps you might try to validate this moronic shit???how about it?

In other words, the colonists got tired of getting fucked without a kiss, said fuck you and your royal horse that you rode in on, and after the red coats attempted to take the arms of the local militia (formed at the behest of the Royal governor) we decided to use those nice crosses on red coats where the two belts worn by British soldiers for target practice.


Once again it was the french who spent the most bullets killing red coats.

In other words, it was every day Americans tired of the bullshit that took up their arms against a tyrannical government and with some help from the French sent them packing.


Roflmfao...it was the other way round dumb ass.

After that, it became a major part of our culture, simply because it was private guns that won our Freedom,

Actually it was your guns that insured slavery would survive another 60 years for without them no black would do anything less than slit massa's throat.




a hundred plus years before any other British colony figured out that, all things being equal, they werent.

We learn about the minute men and American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence etc at a very young age, and whether the American Liberals like it or not, that was because of private gun ownership. We learned why we were able to do it, how we did it, and how we had to fight the freaking British again in 1812 because they decided they could conscript American Sailors into the British Navy to fight the French.


Actually we went to war in 1812 because we did not want to fulfill our obligations from the treaty that ended the revolution. Please try to keep your facts straight. When the brits took sailors they only took brit subjects. If the opposite were true there would be no evidence in amerikan ship logs of sailors not taken which there is plenty.

The fact that in 1812, there really was not a standing American Army, it fell once more to private citizens with guns to fight for the freedoms of Americans both here and at sea.

Andrew jackson was regular army and really the only soldier who did didly durring that war. Who else on land did well? At sea it was the u.s. navy and not the "minute man" ...please educate yourself.

So basically, it pretty much falls to the fact that for the first part of our history, it was private citizens who stood up and told the British Crown to take a flying leap at a rolling donut and get fucked.

Maybe that is in the movies but not in any history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade.

Adding to that was the fact that as the settlers moved west, it became once more clear, that they were going to have to depend on themselves and their own guns for protection. Even after the law caught up with settlers, especially in the Southwest there were gangs of bandits who would dash across the border raiding ranches and towns, and the army was too few and too far in between to do much good.

Of course you would have cites for this bullshit????[:-] I mean besides old episodes of gunsmoke and the lone ranger.

That little fact is true even in the 20th century, i.e. Pancho Villa.

As if gringo's did not cross the boarder to mexico to steal cows etc.

Now, if, in an effort to understand the culture behind gun ownership, folks would study history, they might have gotten a clue.

If you would spend less time watching t.v. and more time actually reading amerikan history you would not appear such a fool.






thompsonx -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 4:26:31 PM)

Do you realize that a mob is a mindless monster that doesn't think things through.

Like the mob at breed's hill?



PeonForHer -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 4:29:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Do you realize that a mob is a mindless monster that doesn't think things through. If they go home an get their guns there won't be anything left to steal. During the Watts riots in the 60's there were cases of rioters who realized when it blood lust left them that they had burned their own homes.


So ... rioters wouldn't think to bring their guns with them in the first place? Does it take some great intellect to think to pack a gun that shopkeepers, for instance, have - but rioters don't? Are all these rioters the sorts of people who a) are unthinking, aggressive loons but b) *so* unthinking that they would actually forget to bring their firearms with them?

And all those gangbangers - those people, the dross and the crims who I hear are responsible for such a large bulk of gun-crimes in US cities - they'd somehow be too unthinking to bring their guns when they go out rioting, too?

I can certainly believe that rioters are apt to go haywire and destroy all sorts of things - even their own homes - in the process. I've seen it often enough. But, why would it somehow help them, and the situation overall, for them to be armed?




BamaD -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 4:43:09 PM)

And all those gangbangers - those people, the dross and the crims who I hear are responsible for such a large bulk of gun-crimes in US cities - they'd somehow be too unthinking to bring their guns when they go out rioting, too?


This isn't "Warriors" they are busy shooting each other.



PeonForHer -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 4:46:14 PM)

quote:

You want to understand the culture, look at our history and what it was that the private ownership of guns gained the country as a whole.


It's almost impossible to see your version of the history of the USA as plausible, JLF. For example,

"Resources, wood, crops etc were subject to being taken by the crown with no, repeat no, compensation. For example, during the colonial era, wood for the Royal Navy Ships came from the colonies, and after being cut, the royal agents could just come in, take the wood that some poor shit for brains colonist had just busted his ass to get, and not pay for it, and why, because the king needed, wanted or just for the hell of it. "

I'm being invited to believe, here, that the British Army - from our tiny country - was able to control such things across such a large land-mass as the USA covers, and the other side of the treacherous Atlantic, to boot, as hewn wood, cultivated crops, and the like? An army from a country that would fit into just one of your states - and an army that was already overstretched after its various fights pretty much all over the rest of the world?

But even if that portrayal of a mouse - the UK - somehow tyrannising an elephant - North America - were true ... why is it still somehow so vital to the current state of affairs in the USA? There's nothing that says that the way you all lived two or three hundred years ago just must be the way you should live now, is there? What exactly do you owe history and why is it so important to you?



BamaD -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 4:47:32 PM)

So ... rioters wouldn't think to bring their guns with them in the first place?

You don't prepare for a riot you get caught up in one. The shop owners were prepared for hold-ups but their weapons worked for a riot. You realize you are arguing that something would not work when the thread started off showing not that it might, not that it should, but that it did. There is no reason to debate, reality and history are against you.



PeonForHer -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 4:51:00 PM)

Far as I can see, if people think they're going to face other people who'll use firearms against them, they'll carry firearms themselves. And they should do - as all gun-fans here on CM appear to agree.



thompsonx -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 4:53:22 PM)

I'm being invited to believe, here, that the British Army - from our tiny country - was able to control such things across such a large land-mass as the USA covers,

During the colonial period the u.s. was just the 13 colonies and only extended inland for a few hundred miles. Not really a big place and all one really need control are the ports.
Yes g.b. did utilize the produce of the colonies...that is what the colonial system was...a source of raw matreials. The "stealing of a man's labor is just so much bullshit. The only labor stolen was from the slaves.



BamaD -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 4:58:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Far as I can see, if people think they're going to face other people who'll use firearms against them, they'll carry firearms themselves. And they should do - as all gun-fans here on CM appear to agree.


As far as I can see you didn't even read what I said, you don't plan on being in a riot, you don't plan on facing people with guns even if you are. You, being part of a mob are invisible and everyone else is terrified of you. They only realize people are going to shoot at them when people start shooting at them.



igor2003 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 5:07:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

It proves both ignorance of the situation, and it seems to imply that if you take the guns from law abiding citizens the criminals will politely give up theirs


It's been managed in other countries, JLF. Why couldn't it happen in the USA, too? Are the USA's criminal - and gun-carrying - element, of a different breed to those of other countries whose criminals once carried guns? Australia managed it - are Aussie criminals much nicer and less violent and murderous than American criminals, in some way?

I keep coming up against this question: Why is the USA *so damned exceptional* when it comes to guns? It's not like the UK, to be sure ... but it's not *utterly unlike every other country* - surely? Or is it?


According to the FBI there are about 33,000 gangs, and somewhere between 1,000,000 and 4,000,000 gang members from street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs in the U.S. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs
This doesn't count the single criminals, and small groups of criminals, which also like to carry guns. People keep saying "Look at Australia", or "Look at the U.K.", "they were able to do such and such." Tell me, which country of either of those two had that many gangs and criminals to try to take the guns away from?

Now when you have street gangs like the Bloods, Crips, MS 13, and the Mexican Mafia, and motorcycle gangs like the Hells Angels, Mongols, and Devil's Disciples, just how many of them do think are going to comply when Officer Friendly gently asks them to "Hand over your guns please?"

So please don't give me this bullshit about "See what happened in Australia or the U.K. It simply does not compare.

Edited to add: And yes, in my opinion the modern day American gangs would make the every day criminals from the U.K. or Australia look like grade school kids fighting in the sand box.



thompsonx -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 5:14:18 PM)

Officer Friendly gently asks them to "Hand over your guns please?"

"Officer friendly" indeed?[:-]



jlf1961 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 5:23:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

You want to understand the culture, look at our history and what it was that the private ownership of guns gained the country as a whole.


It's almost impossible to see your version of the history of the USA as plausible, JLF. For example,

"Resources, wood, crops etc were subject to being taken by the crown with no, repeat no, compensation. For example, during the colonial era, wood for the Royal Navy Ships came from the colonies, and after being cut, the royal agents could just come in, take the wood that some poor shit for brains colonist had just busted his ass to get, and not pay for it, and why, because the king needed, wanted or just for the hell of it. "

I'm being invited to believe, here, that the British Army - from our tiny country - was able to control such things across such a large land-mass as the USA covers, and the other side of the treacherous Atlantic, to boot, as hewn wood, cultivated crops, and the like? An army from a country that would fit into just one of your states - and an army that was already overstretched after its various fights pretty much all over the rest of the world?

But even if that portrayal of a mouse - the UK - somehow tyrannising an elephant - North America - were true ... why is it still somehow so vital to the current state of affairs in the USA? There's nothing that says that the way you all lived two or three hundred years ago just must be the way you should live now, is there? What exactly do you owe history and why is it so important to you?



I just love how Brits forget that at the time of the Revolution, the "landmass" in question was not the entire continent, I suggest you look at the map of the British Colonies in question.

Population wise, the colonies was about the same as Great Britain.

And that little item in the bill of rights about home owners being forced to billet troops, well, that came directly from the Royal Army's habit of doing just that.

Funny how you folks seem to forget some of the crap the British Colonial rule has placed on its colonies through out history.

Lets take one from the 20th century, shall we? 13 April 1919, Jallianwala Bagh India, British Police open fire on innocent group of people.
850 Sikhs dead, 50 Hindus, 100 muslim killed, all unarmed by the way.

The Boer Concentration Camps, Aden’s Torture Centers, The Chinese “Resettlement”, The Cyprus Internment, Crushing The Iraqi Revolution, and of course, lets not forget Ireland.

Now going back to the period in question, there is the Cherry Valley massacre, in which British loyalists with the help of some native Americans killed and mutilated the citizens of the small town.

The fact that when confronted with these facts concerning benign British Colonial rule, the implication is that the facts are "inflated," to make the brits look bad.

Suggest you research the British prison ships in New York Harbor.

As for the war of 1812, your Parliament was impressing American Sailors into the Royal navy on the grounds that even though they signed the Treaty of Paris, the United States were still technically colonies of the Empire and subject to royal service.

So forget the "vast" land area, try 360000 square miles, at least that were under British control.

So, yeah, your idea of the reasons behind the revolution may be lacking information.



thompsonx -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 5:35:25 PM)


ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Population wise, the colonies was about the same as Great Britain.

Actually g.b. was about 4 times the population of the u.s..

http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/british.htm


Funny how you folks seem to forget some of the crap the British Colonial rule has placed on its colonies through out history.

Do you just open your mouth to change feet? What the phoque do you think colonies were?


As for the war of 1812, your Parliament was impressing American Sailors into the Royal navy on the grounds that even though they signed the Treaty of Paris, the United States were still technically colonies of the Empire and subject to royal service.


How about some validation for this moronic shit you post?

So

So, yeah, your idea of the reasons behind the revolution may be lacking information.


As does yours.[8|]



BamaD -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 5:45:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

You want to understand the culture, look at our history and what it was that the private ownership of guns gained the country as a whole.


It's almost impossible to see your version of the history of the USA as plausible, JLF. For example,

"Resources, wood, crops etc were subject to being taken by the crown with no, repeat no, compensation. For example, during the colonial era, wood for the Royal Navy Ships came from the colonies, and after being cut, the royal agents could just come in, take the wood that some poor shit for brains colonist had just busted his ass to get, and not pay for it, and why, because the king needed, wanted or just for the hell of it. "

I'm being invited to believe, here, that the British Army - from our tiny country - was able to control such things across such a large land-mass as the USA covers, and the other side of the treacherous Atlantic, to boot, as hewn wood, cultivated crops, and the like? An army from a country that would fit into just one of your states - and an army that was already overstretched after its various fights pretty much all over the rest of the world?

But even if that portrayal of a mouse - the UK - somehow tyrannising an elephant - North America - were true ... why is it still somehow so vital to the current state of affairs in the USA? There's nothing that says that the way you all lived two or three hundred years ago just must be the way you should live now, is there? What exactly do you owe history and why is it so important to you?



I just love how Brits forget that at the time of the Revolution, the "landmass" in question was not the entire continent, I suggest you look at the map of the British Colonies in question.

Population wise, the colonies was about the same as Great Britain.

And that little item in the bill of rights about home owners being forced to billet troops, well, that came directly from the Royal Army's habit of doing just that.

Funny how you folks seem to forget some of the crap the British Colonial rule has placed on its colonies through out history.

Lets take one from the 20th century, shall we? 13 April 1919, Jallianwala Bagh India, British Police open fire on innocent group of people.
850 Sikhs dead, 50 Hindus, 100 muslim killed, all unarmed by the way.

The Boer Concentration Camps, Aden’s Torture Centers, The Chinese “Resettlement”, The Cyprus Internment, Crushing The Iraqi Revolution, and of course, lets not forget Ireland.

Now going back to the period in question, there is the Cherry Valley massacre, in which British loyalists with the help of some native Americans killed and mutilated the citizens of the small town.

The fact that when confronted with these facts concerning benign British Colonial rule, the implication is that the facts are "inflated," to make the brits look bad.

Suggest you research the British prison ships in New York Harbor.

As for the war of 1812, your Parliament was impressing American Sailors into the Royal navy on the grounds that even though they signed the Treaty of Paris, the United States were still technically colonies of the Empire and subject to royal service.

So forget the "vast" land area, try 360000 square miles, at least that were under British control.

So, yeah, your idea of the reasons behind the revolution may be lacking information.

Actually it seems that the Population of Great Britain is estimated at about 6.5 million, while the population of the colonies was about 2.5 million. Much closer than I had thought. This, in part, explains why the British did not grant the one request that would have cut the legs right out from under the Revolution. Had they, as Adams and others requisted, granted equal (per population) it would have killed "taxation without representation" and the denial of the basic rights of Englishmen. It would have also led to the Empire being ruled by the colonies since the other colonies would have wanted the same thing.



jlf1961 -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 5:46:07 PM)

Just for the brits who have no idea how the British Government could piss off anyone.

One of the more major causes of the American Revolution, the Intolerable Acts were ...

The Boston Port Act, closing the port of Boston until the Dutch East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea;
The Massachusetts Government Act, putting the government of Massachussets almost entirely under direct British control;
The Administration of Justice Act, allowing royal officials to be tried in Britain if the king felt it necessary for fair justice;
The Quartering Act, ordering the colonies to provide lodging for British soldiers
The Quebec Act, expanding British territory in Canada and guaranteeing the free practice of Roman Catholicism.



thompsonx -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 6:07:20 PM)


ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Just for the brits who have no idea how the British Government could piss off anyone.

Dude...the colonist were brits.[:-]

One of the more major causes of the American Revolution, the Intolerable Acts were ...

The Boston Port Act, closing the port of Boston until the Dutch East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea;


Why are you offended that those criminals who destroyed private property were punished?

The Massachusetts Government Act, putting the government of Massachussets almost entirely under direct British control;

Since mass was a british colony why is that wrong?

The Administration of Justice Act, allowing royal officials to be tried in Britain if the king felt it necessary for fair justice;


When was it different since 1603?

The Quartering Act, ordering the colonies to provide lodging for British soldiers

Why is it unreasonable to expect those being protected to help the army?


The Quebec Act, expanding British territory in Canada and guaranteeing the free practice of Roman Catholicism.

Freedom of religion except for catholics[:-]





thompsonx -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 6:09:57 PM)

Actually it seems that the Population of Great Britain is estimated at about 6.5 million, while the population of the colonies was about 2.5 million.

Dumb ass I have already posted the link to brit population in 1801 the first official census and it shows 16 million brits, which is 4 times the u.s. population of nearly 4 million.



ifmaz -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 7:27:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I was just drawing attention to the fact that, if everyone has a gun as you seem to be advocating, then all those rioters would have had guns in their hands instead of rocks, stones and the occasional petrol bomb.

The storekeepers defending their stores wouldn't have lasted a minute, if the rioters been armed. They really ought to be thankful that the rioters weren't armed.

IF everyone is armed, then any minor disagreement has the potential to turn into a lethal shoot out in an instant. Add guns to a riot and you will get a bloodbath.

These are just some of the problems with the idiotic policy you are proposing. All this is glaringly obvious - it is a measure of how one eyed you are on this topic that you are unable to see these self evident flaws. That ought to be cause for some reflection.


Yes, imagine at some little league event. A pair of fathers arguing over the call the umpire made. In the heat of thier argument, one pulls out their gun and tries to shoot the other. The other dodges, but the first shoots someone else's kid. So the father of that kid pulls out his gun and shot the shooter.

Is that how little league should be handled? Because that's 'firearm utopia' on display. I've stated it many times, that just having a firearm does not make one immune to blind rage. If everyone has firearms, then more firearm deaths will take place. Often replacing what should have been an argument followed by a punch to the face; now everyone can attend the funeral!


As long as we're playing this fantasy "what if" game where every argument ends in homicidal rage, is it not equally plausible that the pair of arguing fathers could be armed with a knife? That one of the pair could use their car to run over the other? Or use a baseball bat to beat in the head of the other? Or are you attempting to imply that firearms somehow inject thoughts of violent murder into their owners, vaguely reminiscent of a Stephen King novel?



BamaD -> RE: The Best Historic Argument in Keeping Guns. (10/15/2015 7:32:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I was just drawing attention to the fact that, if everyone has a gun as you seem to be advocating, then all those rioters would have had guns in their hands instead of rocks, stones and the occasional petrol bomb.

The storekeepers defending their stores wouldn't have lasted a minute, if the rioters been armed. They really ought to be thankful that the rioters weren't armed.

IF everyone is armed, then any minor disagreement has the potential to turn into a lethal shoot out in an instant. Add guns to a riot and you will get a bloodbath.

These are just some of the problems with the idiotic policy you are proposing. All this is glaringly obvious - it is a measure of how one eyed you are on this topic that you are unable to see these self evident flaws. That ought to be cause for some reflection.


Yes, imagine at some little league event. A pair of fathers arguing over the call the umpire made. In the heat of thier argument, one pulls out their gun and tries to shoot the other. The other dodges, but the first shoots someone else's kid. So the father of that kid pulls out his gun and shot the shooter.

Is that how little league should be handled? Because that's 'firearm utopia' on display. I've stated it many times, that just having a firearm does not make one immune to blind rage. If everyone has firearms, then more firearm deaths will take place. Often replacing what should have been an argument followed by a punch to the face; now everyone can attend the funeral!


As long as we're playing this fantasy "what if" game where every argument ends in homicidal rage, is it not equally plausible that the pair of arguing fathers could be armed with a knife? That one of the pair could use their car to run over the other? Or use a baseball bat to beat in the head of the other? Or are you attempting to imply that firearms somehow inject thoughts of violent murder into their owners, vaguely reminiscent of a Stephen King novel?


There were little league games with the very types of attacks you discribed this summer, but none I saw with guns.

Maybe guns have more willpower than he does. Mine have never even tried to talk me into anything like that, they seem to know that I, and not them, are in charge.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625