Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
NEWS BOX
We last left off where Seth decided to go to Valor on his black dragon Erath. And when he got there...And if anyone forgot the story, Kyan found his long lost friend Seth on Valor, and his black dragon Erath. Kyan is a mamkute that can still use swords as well as dragon stone attack.
Welcome to BEHG. We hope you enjoy your trip through our cesspool of hatred and lies.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Gun-grabbers suck.
Topic Started: May 13 2007, 09:17:31 AM (2,336 Views)
Lord Jim
Member Avatar
There can be only one.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Actually, Germany was in such a miserable condition, that when Hitler offered a solution that worked (at first), they just kept supporting him.

Later, Hitler did become a dictator though.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Unregistered

Quote:
 
I assume you speak of certain military dictatures and Nazi Germany. In the first case, nobody'd give a damn about the constitution. The second... Wasn't unconstitutional, as far as I know.


I believe he means that such autocrats could have possibly been stopped by a revolt if they had weapons. There are some prominent cases of those happening (The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution), but I'm not certain about what degree of weapons rights the people then had. Of course, the Russians were probably too poor to afford guns anyway.

Of course, as you said, the Nazi party's takeover wasn't really illegal, and was certainly popular. Hitler, as far as I know, followed all the proper channels to becoming Chancellor of Germany. Either way, not enough people then were willing to revolt anyway, so it's irrelevant.

As for Sweden having less violent crime than the USA... I'm rather certain that is true. However, guns aren't the source of the problem. Violence is just taken more casually here for one reason or another, and there are more powerful criminal groups here (many supplied extensively by drug money), and a larger gap between rich and poor (not caused by capitalism, but by corruption and mismanagement).

Before this gets into any sort of Socialism vs. Capitalism debate, let me state that the USA is not to be seen as a very good model of Capitalism, due to the high levels of corporate subsidies and corruption in our government. Furthermore, Sweden's economy isn't much less free than the USA's - the Index of Economic Freedom ranks Sweden 21st worldwide, at 72.6% free. The USA is 4th, but at 82% free. Sweden is at 92/100 in terms of Freedom from Corruption, while the USA is at 76/100.

More info about these numbers: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/...x/countries.cfm

Summary: IMO, The USA's higher levels of violence are caused by poverty, not gun access.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Waddacku


Yes, indeed. But whatever the reason for a culture being more violent, I don't think giving it easy access to guns is a good thing.

As for the French Revolution, they didn't have much in the way of weapons until they seized them by force, either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

guns are not always bad. Guns can be used in self defense, namely against other people with guns.
However, if the attackers didn't have guns, you wouldn't need a gun to be on even ground with them.

Think of weapons like a wild bear: Yes, there are multiple ways to kill. However, if this bear is declawed, there is a significant amount of threat eliminated, because one venue of death is gone.

My stance is that guns should have strict moderation. Banned from the public, in most cases. There can be organized hunting associations that will lease completely listed guns to people during hunting seasons-- but after that, they must give the guns back or face the law.

Jeff: Have you read the Anarchist's Cookbook? That is a great example of how a population without guns can effectively rebel against a government with guns.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fersnachi
Unregistered

scuba(
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stone Kirby
Member Avatar
¢¾¢Ü!?

Other than "victimless crimes" like prostitution which shouldn't be illegal in the first place, to commit a crime, you have to harm someone's person or property. People with guns have the potential to do this, but the vast majority of people have not. By taking away guns from law-abiding citizens, you presume them guilty of a crime before they do anything wrong. What's worse, you leave them less able to defend themselves without the aid of The State. The right to bear arms is not about being able to hunt. If The State is the only one with weapons, then the opportunity for tyranny increases dramatically. There is nothing about The State that should entitle it to use weapons but not let its own people have those same weapons. Gun control fails to take guns away from the most dangerous and destructive group in society - The State and its agents - and leaves everyone else to the mercy of these criminals.
For those damned "liberals" in America who despise our current president and advocate gun control, answer me this: Why the fuck do you want Bush and those whom he commands to be the only ones with guns?
If The State tries to take your guns, then defending yourself and your property against it is completely justified, although likely futile. BOOM, HEADSHOT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lord Jim
Member Avatar
There can be only one.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
In theory, the poin of the democracy is that the forces of security and the army are also citizens. Thus, if the government went out of track, they should act as powers to oppose it.

The fact that now they have themselves become a weapon of the government and have been differianted from common citizens is what screws everything up.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Waddacku


Liberals are against gun control? The US just seems more and more fucked up...

Also, some people here are seriously paranoid about the state.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
roarshock
Member Avatar
metalgod.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
... Has anyone given anythought to the people in america that WANT to own guns for sport? Such as skeet shooting with shotguns, or deer hunting with said rifles? Or how bout rodent control of say squirrles and other such vermin with pistols? As jim said before this is not an issue that can be solved with a law.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lord Jim
Member Avatar
There can be only one.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The only thing that I can say is that if you buy a gun of any sort, it must be recorded somehow.

Just to make sure that noone can just buy a gun anonymously and do whatever with it.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

If they want to own guns for sport, they need to take pills for that. Pest control is highly impractical with guns. Killing the wildlife with guns is also highly impractical due to the fact that there is no real reason to do it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
roarshock
Member Avatar
metalgod.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
F3nr1L
May 13 2007, 15:30:57
If they want to own guns for sport, they need to take pills for that. Pest control is highly impractical with guns. Killing the wildlife with guns is also highly impractical due to the fact that there is no real reason to do it.

I'd like to see you live in michigan when the deer population becomes so numerous that the deer start wandering into the citys and cause accidents and kill people because they were caught in the middle of the road.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stone Kirby
Member Avatar
¢¾¢Ü!?

Lord Jim
May 13 2007, 14:11:06
In theory, the poin of the democracy is that the forces of security and the army are also citizens. Thus, if the government went out of track, they should act as powers to oppose it.

The fact that now they have themselves become a weapon of the government and have been differianted from common citizens is what screws everything up.


I'm not really a big fan of democracy. The idea that a majority of people can always, or even often, be trusted to make the right government decisions is pretty much a joke, IMO. If the average voter over there is a quarter as stupid as the one over here, you will understand what I mean. At the very best, democracy is the least bad way of making government decisions - but the vast majority of what most governments do are completely unnecessary in the first place. And the last few governments and elections that we have had over here don't exactly give me a lot of hope.

Quote:
 
Liberals are against gun control? The US just seems more and more fucked up...


I'm pretty sure that Liberal means something completely different over here than it does over there. If I used it in the sense that you are familiar with, it would confuse the other Americans, and there's not really a good word I can think of that is a synonym for what people in America call "liberal."

Quote:
 
Also, some people here are seriously paranoid about the state.


The expansion of state power is the negation of liberty. Even if I am too skeptical of The State, my "paranoia" and that of those like me can not come close to balancing out the many times greater number of people who give The State far too much credit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lord Jim
Member Avatar
There can be only one.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If not a bog fan of democracy though, what political system would work?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Technocracy or complete public vote with no particular leaders.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Serious Business · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Auspice Zeta created by sakuragi-kun of the ZBTZ