beamish78 142 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 ffs its the intent of the person not the object used to carry out that intent, that is the problem. yeh ok,,,,,guns dont kill people,,,people do,,,,,but that object wasnt a handgun yoused for protection was it,,,,, neither were the lorries used by ISIS to slaughter innocent people going about their business, should we ban lorries? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 44,182 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 So if the 2a is to protect their freedom for government, what would be the outcome if the government decided to impose Marshall law, cut internet communications and roundup anyone they cared to, demanded all weapon amnesty . I don't see it as anymore than a symbol on what their country was founded on? Is it still an effective form of maintaining democracy? Is their country any more democratic than ours? Ie couple of parties vote red or blue alternate every decade or so and change nothing of importance whilst focusing on expanding the capitalist wheel , globalisation, etc etc god I bored myself writing that one. Lol I have never visited the USA mate much less lived in it but now I live in Ireland I have noticed how lots of things here are VERY similar to the little I know of how things work in the USA. And what I will say is that Ireland is a MUCH more free society than the UK, it's people matter MUCH more at a local level that's for sure. If it indeed the same in the USA then that is well worth preserving because in comparison the U.K. Don't even come close. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
beamish78 142 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) 1984 big brother and all that, all in the name of public protection. thats what 2A is there to stop. Edited October 2, 2017 by beamish78 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) So if the 2a is to protect their freedom for government, what would be the outcome if the government decided to impose Marshall law, cut internet communications and roundup anyone they cared to, demanded all weapon amnesty . I don't see it as anymore than a symbol on what their country was founded on? Is it still an effective form of maintaining democracy? Is their country any more democratic than ours? Ie couple of parties vote red or blue alternate every decade or so and change nothing of importance whilst focusing on expanding the capitalist wheel , globalisation, etc etc god I bored myself writing that one. Lol The 2A is really simple it reads... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The whole point is that Americans have the capacity to resist invaders and if the government decided to impose its will on the people (tyranny) the people are constitutionally protected if they resist. The power remains with the people, not the government. It's hard to say whether it's an effective form of maintaining democracy but both China and North Korea ban firearms from private citizens. It's certainly an effective form of maintaining power. Edited October 2, 2017 by ChrisJones Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stumfelter 3,032 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 I'm of the opinion that who but the military needs access to fully automatic weapons.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,622 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 If the US government turned tyrannical in such a way the likes of the 3 percenters and oath keepers would go to f***ing war! I'd put money on a large number of servicemen supporting them too. The US military really is seen as the duty of the patriot in the states, they could not be counted on to be a tyrants enforcer. 2A doesn't make the US more democratic, just gives the people the tools to protect democracy if it is threatened. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 I'm of the opinion that who but the military needs access to fully automatic weapons.... I'm of the opinion that people who may need to resist a military need force equalizers. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 44,182 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 I'm of the opinion that who but the military needs access to fully automatic weapons.... They don't .......BUT........they should be free to if they want. That's the really important bit Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) True, Mugabe was pretty quick to disarm the whites in Zimbabwe , It came quick and I guess people thought the international community would intervene or he would be voted out, how wrong we can be... I'm not suggesting that access to firearms doesn't exacerbate criminal situations but there is no decent evidence to suggest that any form of gun control lowers access to guns should the criminal wish to get them. Without knowing more it's hard to say how this guy got them but he doesn't appear to have been on the wrong side of the law until now. Nevada has lenient laws so he could just as easily bought them legally. The elephant in the room is that if the US was to ban guns this very moment, what do you do with the millions in circulation? The American people will not dutifully line up at the local government building to hand them in. They're more likely to storm it and force them out. Edited October 2, 2017 by ChrisJones Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,622 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 I wondered to myself earlier, if the Catalonians had a right to bear arms and 2M voters went to the ballot with a rifle across their chest, if the authorities would have been so keen to oppress a peaceful act of democracy... 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 44,182 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 I'll give you an instance of what a government WITH weapons can do to perfectly peaceful citizens WITHOUT weapons.......Catalonia !! I mean I know people have the attention span of ants but f**k me, it was only yesterday ! Lol 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 44,182 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Born......you beat me too it !! Haha 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Shares in American Outdoor Brands (used to be Smith & Wesson) and Sturm Ruger have gone up 7% and 6% respectively. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stumfelter 3,032 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 I'm of the opinion that who but the military needs access to fully automatic weapons.... I'm of the opinion that people who may need to resist a military need force equalizers. So do you think people over here should have access to fully automatic weapons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kanny 19,322 Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 ffs its the intent of the person not the object used to carry out that intent, that is the problem. Guns don't kill people rappers do 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.