gun control (KKK, tax, enemy, weapon)

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by NVplumber

Hmmm, that incessant high pitched whine is a bit hard to track down. If ya figger out where it's coming from Tin coudja let me know what it is? It sounds insectoid in nature.

Insectoid eh? I thought it was methane bubbling up from some cesspool nearby. Insignificant anyway.

At any rate, the free access to proper weaponry in this country has been a mainstay of our lifestyle since the first colonists landed here and it should continue to be as well. Depite the fact that there are those out there that do not have the sand to familiarize themselves with the proper use of arms, we at least, will do our part to see the tradition continue and instruct our prodigy as well. Thus, perhaps, we can keep this nation out of the clutches of the rabbit breed. My son and I have just returned from the range (sighting in our .22's for an upcoming Appleseed shoot) and his enthusiasm for the shooting sports makes me proud. He has so much raw talent that it boggles my mind. A little polishing up and he's gonna be a contender I tell ya. Keep yer powder dry ya'll. See ya on the range.

Thats about the best you can do, raise another generation of men in case the world needs them.

Boys are born shooters if you just open the door when theyre young enough to learn what shooting is before being polluted by the liberal public schools. My boys were safe shooters before they set foot in kindergarten & continue to embarass adults regarding gun saftey & edicate at the range.

I may take up trap this year, never done it before but the boys are interested & the local range shoots every Tuesday year round.

Tell the kid theres a guy in CT routing for him!

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by Greatday

I'll deny it -

And, firearms are not WMD's no matter how hard you try to make them so.

He's really stretching it now eh.

[jdavid93225]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

But I guess you don't believe that guns (and other modern weaponry) poses a global threat anywayz, right?

The weapons themselves don't pose near as much of a threat as a government gone awry. The tyrannical government usually cannot be overthrown without the forceful use of arms.

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by swagger So ya believe that the American gun industry doesn't sell guns to foreign countries?
And how about the (global) arms race?
Nowadays the arms race is run quite differently compared to the cold war; terrorists aim at using unconventional WMD (like flying planes into towers) instead of trying to invent the newest generation of technological hi-tech toys.

If you read Swagger's post, you would have seen that he was referring to his personal weapon, a Glock, not weapons in general.

Since you mention the unconventional tactics of the terrorists, what do you propose to use to stop them, if not by use of force, including guns? Here in the United States of America, we have the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution that provides for citizens to protect the security of the nation. It doesn't work well when we aren't prepared (as on 9/11), but it works quite well when used as intended (the American Revolution).

[jdavid93225]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by swagger So you deny the fact that armies armed with guns can achieve the same devastating affect as a WMD?

This thread is about gun control in the United States. Armies, or what we call "the military" are not subject to gun control legislation. They can have tanks, jets, and machine guns when the average citizen cannot. They are also comprised of multiple persons, when each citizen is an individual. Many small arms, when used together, can cause significant damage, or what you are claiming as "mass destruction." An individual (the subject of this thread) with one gun, or even several guns, could not cause "mass destruction." Here's a definition for you:

From Wikipedia:
"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.
The term is often used to cover several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC), and radiological weapons. Additional terms used in a military context include atomic, biological, and chemical (ABC) warfare and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) warfare."

Originally Posted by Tricky D

The only difference is that guns and ammo are way cheaper than the average WMD.

Again, refer to the definition above to learn about the other differences between guns and WMDs. What you claim isn't necessarily true anyway. Some biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction are very cheap to produce. Guns and ammo aren't particularly cheap these days, either, though they are much cheaper than rockets and missiles.

[Noahma]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by Noahma This only is because China and Russia have cheaper work forces which make the AK-47 cheaper.
I'll bet that if the American gun industry could mass produce a cheaper version of the AK-47 they would jump at the opportunity.
But I guess America rather specialises in hi-tech weapons like stealth planes and smart bombs.
Selling weapons (guns) is just a business, right?
And it's all about making profit.

Originally Posted by Greatday Your action still contradicts your post.

of course I would want our military to focus spending and development on Stealth weapons (to keep our soldiers safe) and Smart Bombs (to limit civilian casualties) There was a gun made cheaper than the AK during WWII, it was made of stamped steel it was called the M3 or "grease gun" Germany had one very similar (MP40) as did the British (Sten) All four developed at the same point in history. All around the same cost to produce, but the AK-47 stuck as the worlds most produced weapon. You were attempting to make it sound like American guns make up the majority of weapons in the hands of people around the world which is highly untrue. Now run along.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by jdavid93225

The weapons themselves don't pose near as much of a threat as a government gone awry. The tyrannical government usually cannot be overthrown without the forceful use of arms.

Ghandi is proof that you're wrong, the British left India without Ghandi and his people having lifted a finger against them.

Some biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction are very cheap to produce.

True, but chemical weapons don't offer the same control as guns.
WWI taught us that you can damage your own troops when you use chemical weapons.

This thread is about gun control in the United States.

False this thread is only about gun control.
The part of 'in the US' is something you have fabricated yourself.

Again, refer to the definition above to learn about the other differences between guns and WMDs.

I simply will not, because Americans also believe that machineguns and WMDs can be used defensively which is not the case; machineguns and WMDs can only be used offensively.
Next you'll claim that a preliminary strike is a defensive manoeuvre?

Since you mention the unconventional tactics of the terrorists, what do you propose to use to stop them, if not by use of force, including guns?

Talk and find out what the true cause of the conflict is. What Americans seem to keep forgetting (or keep denying) is that 1 man’s terrorist is another 1’s freedom fighter.
Even the Americans have been branded terrorists by the British.

Originally Posted by Noahma

of course I would want our military to focus spending and development on Stealth weapons (to keep our soldiers safe) and Smart Bombs (to limit civilian casualties)

The problem is that terrorist don't behave like the conventional enemy (like in America's case the former USSR).

FYI the unwanted side affect of America trying to sell us the illusion that they're trying to make war 'safer' for civilians indirectly ensures that a terrorist attack has more impact ( because of the numerous civilian casualties).
Terrorists acknowledge that war is a dirty game; that there is nothing civilised about it. So every terrorist attack will strike even more terror when hi-tech weapons avoid as much unnecessary civilian casualties as possible.

You were attempting to make it sound like American guns make up the majority of weapons in the hands of people around the world which is highly untrue. Now run along.

Where did I post that I accuse America of making guns a global threat?
I only posted that guns are a global treat and that America also sell their weaponry to foreign countries which proves that they are acting globally.
I never posted that America is the only nation that sells weapons to foreign countries, nor did I post anything about the amount of weapons America has sold.
It's not my fault that you can't read English.
Now run along.

[TonyT]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Wow, you make it sound as if your Founders have a lot in common with Nazi Germany where they tried to exterminate German Jews and German Gypsies and the German disabled people to create more Lebensraum*. I don't see how more guns will help.

It was very clear what the poster you responded to meant. The reference to "controlling the population" indicated the poster's belief that authoritarian governments use gun control laws to prevent the average citizen from having any way of fending off government attempts to suppress their freedom. As the United States was born out of a struggle to free itself from a tyrannical monarchy, the Founders enshrined the citizen's right to bear arms into the Constitution. But just as you have in the past, you take the point out of context and twist it in an attempt to draw a parallel between the United States and Nazi Germany; a parallel that does not exist other than in your own mind.

If you wish to see an example, among many that exist, of a government disarming it's population so as to make it easier to oppress them, you need look no further then the home of your ancestors; Indonesia. Bung Karno came to power through armed resistance to your former Dutch colonial masters. But the thing about power is that once you get it, you want to keep it. So like any good dictator, he did what he needed to to stay there. And what was his first step? With the military behind him, disarmed the citizens so they couldn't oppose him. His successor, Suharto, certainly didn't change that policy. And despite moves to make Indonesia more free and democratic, their view of gun control is not something that has changed much. This should be evidenced by a statement given at a recent U.N. conference that dealt with restrictions on small arms. The representative from Indonesia said the following:

"We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons. We also believe that regulating civilian possession of Small Arms/Light Weapons will enhance our efforts to prevent its misuse. In our view, the issue of ammunition should be addressed in the context of the Program of Action because in the absence of ammuntion, small arms and light weapons pose no danger."

Sounds like Indonesia has more in common with Nazi Germany then the United States.

Originally Posted by TrickyD

you are the one who's goose-stepping and blindly following whoever walks in front of ya.

Once again with the Nazi imagery. It is particularly amusing given how you pride yourself on your independent thinking yet you continually extol the virtues of and voice your basically blind support for Dutch gun control laws; just like a loyal subject of the Crown. You seem to be unconcerned about your freedom and apparently have embraced the notion that the State knows what is best for you better then you do. That doesn't seem to be very independent minded of you. Your views explain perfectly why high level Dutch bureaucrats were so willing to keep the wheels of government going when Dr. Seyss-Inquart came to town, making his job of rounding up the Jews so much easier. After all when the idea of bowing to authority and not resisting is so deeply ingrained it becomes second nature.

I have no doubt that you will come back with some emoticon filled one line responses that have nothing to do with what I said. Or perhaps you will find some other historical facts to manipulate or more Nazi references you can make. In any event, you long ago exposed yourself as one that still doesn't understand that there is a difference between debate and arguing for the sole purpose of inflaming. When you figure out the distinction between the two, then maybe people on here will take you more seriously.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by TonyT

But just as you have in the past, you take the point out of context and twist it in an attempt to draw a parallel between the United States and Nazi Germany; a parallel that does not exist other than in your own mind.

Are you implying that America never had a policy of racial seperation which is comparable with the Nazi ideology?
Forget about your constitution because the Native Americans and black Americans only had full citizenship in the 20th century.

Until recently it was perfectly legal in some states to shoot black negroes if they were armed with a firearm*. And this happened way before the Jews were forbidden by law to arm themselves in Nazi Germany.

*From the beginning of the settlement in colonial America there has been a pronounced disparity between the rights of whites, who owned guns at high rates, and the rights of blacks, who were largely prohibited from owning guns for fear that they would use the weapons to gain freedom.
Source: Racial Justice in America: A ... - Zoeken naar boeken met Google

It is particularly amusing given how you pride yourself on your independent thinking yet you continually extol the virtues of and voice your basically blind support for Dutch gun control laws

I only agree with the Dutch laws I agree with.
It isn't my fault that they make more sense than the American's.

[Venom]

I don't need a gun.

[jeepejeep]

Originally Posted by Venom

I don't need a gun.

Nope you don't...untill you do .