Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
No, actually that was my point exactly. The government's been abusing it's power for (far longer than) the last 30 years. Yet I can't have the weapon of my choice. Why is the NRA so excited about protecting the "rights" of gun owners, but they never say anything when blade users get screwed over? It's because 1) the NRA doesn't give a crap about the right to bear arms. They just want their guns and the 2nd is a convenient argument and 2) the 2nd doesn't give the absolute right to bear arms, it gives the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia, and if the NRA started advocating for being allowed to carry swords around, more people would come out of the woodwork and smack 'em down.
|
NRA stands for National RIFLE Association. If you wish to be able to wear katanas or claymores while walking down the street, lets look for a National Sword Association or something similar. Again, the 'well regulated militia HAS to be defined in terms of the period in which the constitution was written. I've posted that a little earlier. If you read it, you will see that it does indeed refer to individuals having a right to firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Go look in some of the VA hospitals. You'll notice that IED's do a pretty damn good job at mutilating American troops.
|
Yes, they are effective, but nowhere near as effective as 100 rifles and pistols in close quarters combat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
And this is why many people should NOT have guns. Now you're advocating shooting unarmed citizens just because you don't like what they do. How is that defending the rights and principles of this country?
|
I advocated no such thing, I was merely hypothesizing a situation in which the people would have to rebel against a tyrannical government. As it stands, if I don't like what MY representative does, I can campaign/vote against them. It's when they remove that opportunity for me to vote them out, thats when we need to look at the possibility of having to shoot them. Please do not try to paint my statements as an advocation of violence against unarmed persons when thats not what they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
I said NEARLY every time, and the cops have a much tougher target requirement than the average schmuck buying a gun.
|
In Texas, the requirements to obtain a concealed weapons license are pretty exacting. While I don't know what the shooting requirements and limits are, you must attend a training class that is at least 10 hours. I will continue to look up that information but I do not believe that the range qualifications are going to be any different for police or citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
and how many crimes are they used to commit? A lot more than that I'd wager.
|
ask yourself this question.....If criminals are killing people with guns, does it make sense to leave law abiding people defenseless against it? Would you prefer that those 2.5 million crimes are added on to an already high crime rate? How many of those 2.5 million crimes that were prevented may have been murders? would you feel all warm and fuzzy that an extra 500,000 people died but you kept as many guns off the streets as possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
I'm surprised it's that high since accidental shootings are nearly always classified as manslaughter. Meaningless statistic.
|
its meaningless when you switched from homicides to accidental shootings. When I say homicides, I'm referring to justifiable homicides in which a potential victim shot back killing the perpetrator. THAT statistic is not meaningless. Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S. according to a 2001, Center for Disease Control, WISQARS report.
For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are:
• Four times more likely to burn to death or drown
• 17 times more likely to be poisoned
• 19 times more likely to fall
• And 53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
I don't know how proficient they are. That's the problem. If we were required to have excellent and ongoing training in order to carry a gun, then I'd KNOW you were proficient if you were allowed to have a gun.
|
Explain to me why there is a difference between the law abiding citizen at 7-11 you don't know is carrying a gun and the criminal walking the street that you don't know is carrying a gun?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
No, I'm pointing out that maybe it's not such a good idea to let just anybody build up an arsenal.
|
And to a large extent I would agree with you. I do not like the idea that MS-13 gang members have access to automatic weapons but I sure would like to have one myself, as well as my friends and neighbors to have one, to protect ourselves from MS-13 or the like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Um. . .a lot. Pretty hard to get into a tank if the guys inside don't want you there. So the tank can run 'em over / shoot 'em at its leisure.
|
A tank is not like a childproof medicine bottle. It also has NO shot at stopping a huge mob of people coming from all different directions. There are openings that allow the occupants to breathe and air or tear gas to enter. Having been around tanks, I know that there are plenty of weaknesses to exploit.
Your reality has you as a totally controlled subject unable to do anything against the government when in actuality, it's very much the opposite.