The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

Why have drivers licences?

Why not have a licence to breed?

 

[RBKSoulja]

americans can always answer ur questions lol

"Its in the constitution, says you have the right to bear arms and the right to arm bears, whatever the hell ya wanna do!"

YouTube - Robin Williams - Live at The Met - Guns, God, and Fish

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Whats with all these pasty upper-middle class internet warrior kids wanting guns? I can picture it perfectly;The 'goverment is oppresing my liberties' paranoia stench drips from their sweat as they are roasted by the glow of their up-late ron-paul youtube marathons.

That was actually a pretty funny image.

Still, it wouldn't matter if we were obese terrorist, pedophiles wallowing in our own filth as we type. The arguments are sound.

 

[John McCain]

Don't know if I support the right of islamic extremists and corporations to freely trade nuclear and chemical weapons.

If you're going to make a general statement that the government shouldn't intervene in the rights of others to choose to acquire arms, you must support the rights of the worst people to bear the worst weapons.

What rights has the government to interfere in convicted criminals bearing arms? If I decide I want to sell a convicted rapist a gun, no one should be able to force me to do otherwise.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

If you're going to make a general statement that the government shouldn't intervene in the rights of others to choose to acquire arms, you must support the rights of the worst people to bear the worst weapons.

The government are the worst people and they already do have arms. But point taken, and yes, I do support the right of the "worst people" to bear arms including nuclear weapons.

I certainly doubt that there would be much of a problem with terrorism if the US government hadn't funded these groups, and pissed them of by invading their land, setting up permanently military installations and killing their people.

The whole notion that fundamentalist islamic groups want to destroy the west because they are just bad and evil is utter fiction. They are pissed of because we have fucked with them. Can you imagine how Americans would react if it was the other way round and middle eastern countries had military bases on their soil.

 

[jb_nc]

The government are the worst people and they already do have arms. But point taken, and yes, I do support the right of the "worst people" to bear arms including nuclear weapons.

I certainly doubt that there would be much of a problem with terrorism if the US government hadn't funded these groups, and pissed them of by invading their land, setting up permanently military installations and killing their people.

The whole notion that fundamentalist islamic groups want to destroy the west because they are just bad and evil is utter fiction. They are pissed of because we have fucked with them. Can you imagine how Americans would react if it was the other way round and middle eastern countries had military bases on their soil.

I do support the right of the "worst people" to bear arms including nuclear weapons.
I do support the right of the "worst people" to bear arms including nuclear weapons.
I do support the right of the "worst people" to bear arms including nuclear weapons.
I do support the right of the "worst people" to bear arms including nuclear weapons.
I do support the right of the "worst people" to bear arms including nuclear weapons.

LMAO

 

[jb_nc]

Population of the USA vs the population of Australia...

lol suprised this hasnt been called out

but

you are a dumb cunt

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I do support the right of the "worst people" to bear arms including nuclear weapons.

Well its hard to judge who are the "worst people" but I think any group that does the following would have to be in the running:

-Has murdered civilians using nuclear weapons.
-Holds people in secret prisons without trial.
-Monitors the whole world's phone and internet traffic.
-Has killed millions of civilians in various foreign, non-defensive wars.
-Actively funds violent militia groups around the world and has helped them overthrow democratically elected governments, all for its own strategic purposes.
-Has hundreds of military bases all over the world.
-has the capability to deploy a nuclear warhead to any location on the earth's surface.
-Has an enormous stockpile of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and continues to spends millions on research how to make these weapons more effective at killing people.
-Has conducted numerous experiments on brainwashing and mind control on people against their will.
-Locks up more of its own citizens than any other state in the world.

 

[ubernuton]

nazi germany, had popular backing, so did the USSR, at it creation atleast, so did comunist china once again at its creation.
also they all had large conscripted armys, therefore if there was a large enough belive to overthrow the state it could happen.
i am personaly perfectly happy with people owning guns, as long as no one not even cops are alowed handguns (pistols and revolers)

 

[Empyrean444]

The sky is the limit. The main reason to have guns is to be able to defend ourselves from armies as well as criminals (see the OP for more on this). To do this ordinary citizens need to have access to the same sort weapons that armies have.

What, like tanks, artillery, air support? Right to bear arms is one thing (I personally don't support it) but I hardly think a bunch of pleb citizens would really be able to stand up to a modern army or even a kitted out police force if the govt became really intent on oppressing, repressing or enacting largescale violence against its people and had the support of these organisations. Bear in mind in such a situation the actual training and superior discipline that professional soldiers wield (even if small arms are the same technological level for both 'belligerents', so to speak) would become a critical factor; in addition,it would simply be impractical and almost impossible for the citizens to harbour serious armament against the opressor (such as armour, etc.). Furthermore, simply giving people the right to bear arms by no means means that all or the necessary amount will invest in the serious arms needed to even begin to amount a full-scale defence. Citizen resistance, if anything, would probably as likely as not devolve into some sort of anarchy (not of course by any means vindicating any such hypothetical violence, just simply stating the likely futility of resistance).

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

What, like tanks, artillery, air support? Right to bear arms is one thing (I personally don't support it) but I hardly think a bunch of pleb citizens would really be able to stand up to a modern army or even a kitted out police force if the govt became really intent on oppressing, repressing or enacting largescale violence against its people and had the support of these organisations. Bear in mind in such a situation the actual training and superior discipline that professional soldiers wield (even if small arms are the same technological level for both 'belligerents', so to speak) would become a critical factor; in addition,it would simply be impractical and almost impossible for the citizens to harbour serious armament against the opressor (such as armour, etc.). Furthermore, simply giving people the right to bear arms by no means means that all or the necessary amount will invest in the serious arms needed to even begin to amount a full-scale defence. Citizen resistance, if anything, would probably as likely as not devolve into some sort of anarchy (not of course by any means vindicating any such hypothetical violence, just simply stating the likely futility of resistance).

History says otherwise. The Vietcong was able to defeat the US army ffs. Ordinary citizens that know the local terrain often have a huge advantage over armies which suffer from all the typical flaws of centralized planning.

Of course there are no guarantees. If a superpower is determined to invade a small country like Australia, it may very well succeed no matter how well prepared Australia is.

The point is that having a well armed population greatly increases the costs of invading it. When people are disarmed it doesn't take many soldiers to oppress the entire population. If people have guns and can fight back, it takes a lot more manpower and money. Soldiers loose morale because instead of being able to storm through an area raping and pillaging (as the like to do with disarmed populations) they are in constant fear of being killed by guerrillas. So if a foreign power is deciding whether or not it is worth invading, they are more likely to decide that the costs outweigh the benefits if the population is armed.

I never claimed that guns are a panacea for all threats of violence, only that they make us safer by reducing the likelihood of violence and increasing the likelihood that we will be able to fight of those who would do us harm.

 

[Empyrean444]

History says otherwise. The Vietcong was able to defeat the US army ffs. Ordinary citizens that know the local terrain often have a huge advantage over armies which suffer from all the typical flaws of centralized planning.

Of course there are no guarantees. If a superpower is determined to invade a small country like Australia, it may very well succeed no matter how well prepared Australia is.

The point is that having a well armed population greatly increases the costs of invading it. When people are disarmed it doesn't take many soldiers to oppress the entire population. If people have guns and can fight back, it takes a lot more manpower and money. Soldiers loose moral because instead of being able to storm through an area raping and pillaging (as the like to do with disarmed populations) they are in constant fear of being killed by guerrillas.

I never claimed that guns are a panacea for all threats of violence, only that they make us safer by reducing the likelihood of violence and increasing the likelihood that we will be able to fight of those who would do us harm.

I believed you were referring to a people's own govt opressing them (I took this as the implied context) which produces a different set of political circumstances to that of one state invading another (sorry if I misread). Naturally in the case you describe above the conditions are more pertinent. Bear in mind though - but admittently I'm not too sure of this - that guerilla armies like the Vietminh would surely have had a high level of essential training. In addition, the Vietminh (just to focus on the example) were also led by an extremely capable command; this is not to mention the factors of unique terrain which always have a paramount say in how successful a guerrilla/counter guerilla strategy will be. Moreover, as much as the problem was with armed populations in Vietnam, I believe it was also to do with such peoples harbouring the better trained soldiers. Finally, giving a bunch of citizens guns or even establishing some sort of citizen militia is not the same as conditioning the population to fight protracted and intricate campaigns (guerrilla or not) which a professional army, depending of course on geo conditions, with an understanding of the area will be far more suited to conducting. Finally, while I agree that an armed population would make invasion more costly and act as a possible deterrent, you are also counting on the peoples' resolve which is unfortuantely not always particularly dependable. If, for instance, the invading army makes an example by wiping out a large proportion of a town/city via bombing, with the demands that they surrender (which of course entails throwing down of arms), one must question whether the peoples will be willing to continue the fight (depending of course how successfully the invader fashions his own image).
Ultimately, though, there are probably too many variables to decide either way with any sense of finality.

 

[David Spade]

if australia was invaded i would be so many sniper and living in the bush near hillston 4eva

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Ultimately, though, there are probably too many variables to decide either way with any sense of finality.

Well at the very least we can say that it provides some sort of deterrent and certainly doesn't make attackers more likely to invade. So it is a benefit of gun freedoms, although the extent of the benefit is debatable.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Walking down a street with an Ak-47 is no different from driving down a street. Both are deadly if used irresponsibly. The only reason it would cause a fuss is because of panic.

Disagreed. As murphyad said before, a gun is specifically designed for the purpose of harming or killing...even in self-defence. However, the main purpose of a car is not to do either of those things. Of course, it can be *used* for those purposes, just as a gun could be *used* for...say...turning off lights (hehe, Homer.) Okay, maybe using The Simpsons isn't the best example, but you get my drift. I think the importance lies in not only the main purpose, but also the symbolic nature of that purpose...as you said, a gun would cause panic, much more so than a car, and I think that's because it's so strongly associated with injury and death *as its main purpose*.

Also, I agree with SashaTheMan's point...although, admittedly, I don't know much about it. But if 'ordinary' citizens are given the (non) right to bear arms, would this make it easier for criminals to get guns? And if the laws are made more flexible, how do we truly decide who should be allowed guns and who shouldn't?

 

[redmayne]

Disagreed. As murphyad said before, a gun is specifically designed for the purpose of harming or killing...even in self-defence. However, the main purpose of a car is not to do either of those things. Of course, it can be *used* for those purposes, just as a gun could be *used* for...say...turning off lights (hehe, Homer.) Okay, maybe using The Simpsons isn't the best example, but you get my drift. I think the importance lies in not only the main purpose, but also the symbolic nature of that purpose...as you said, a gun would cause panic, much more so than a car, and I think that's because it's so strongly associated with injury and death *as its main purpose*.

Exactly, I personally think the Homer Simpson example is actually pretty apt. There are plenty of Homers out there that just shouldn't have a gun. EVER. And same applies to half the people in this thread who are having naive teenage fantasies of having Halo-esque fights at the farm when the evil government turns on them. For God's sake, this whole thread could be out of a movie.

Guns are savage machines that launch pieces of metal to rip through people's bodies, specifically designed for killing. Kitchen knives are not. Cars are not. Sticks are not.

The very reason you are still here today is because the government has run and protected the country. For example, if the Japanese had not faced the armies in WWII, you think that Larry from the milkshop with his pistol, your grandma with her Lee-Enfield and Tom the hobo with a grenade could have stopped the Japanese invasion. Trained, fanatical soldiers?

Please, if you want a country where people wander around with assault rifles. Off you pop to one of the fine African selections.

The argument for every citizen to have guns is laughable, but the idea that some people actually support that argument makes me sick.

 

[redmayne]

Walking down a street with an Ak-47 is no different from driving down a street. Both are deadly if used irresponsibly. The only reason it would cause a fuss is because of panic.

Haha, who are you kidding mate!

Of course people panic, it's a bloody great gun!

People fear guns, and by injecting them into society you are breeding fear. And with good reason, they're not something to be handed out like condoms.

By giving people guns, you're not making anyone safer. You're doing the opposite, you're putting everyone in danger.

I seriously hope you can see that...

 

[David Spade]

i think everyone is overlooking something


every person over 18 without a criminal record can have a gun anyway lol you just have to be a memeber of a shooting club or game council or something eh. the argument for and against automatics is different than the argument against gun ownership, as banning of automatics is harm minimisation and imo a good thing. as much as i would love an automatic

Edit: people fear guns bcoz they r stupid ok

 

[redmayne]

yeah we would hav killed the nips good n proper

Yeya! Racism, guns. Feels like a good old fashion Klan meeting! You beinging the burning cross?

Yeah but the laws are strict, which is where they need to stay. What you nutters want is people wandering the town with assault rifles strapped to their back, and a handgun on your hip.

Yeah, yeah, a fear if guns is so unfounded... Idiot.

 

[David Spade]

the laws arent that strict lol if i become a member of a gun club i can get semi auto pistols, large calibre rifles, shotguns. There are plenty of loopholes that allow me to get hold of auto shotguns and rimfires. Auto centrefires are a bit scarce and i can understand why.

What the nutters want is people to be able to buy whatever fucking piece of pressed steel implement they want, that when a trigger is pulled, a pin strikes a tiny explosive primer, igniting some powder and the resulting increase in pressure pushes a projectile out at high speed. What is wrong with that