Hillary banning guns?

[telle]

Assuming that I have no understanding of European colonialism into the Americas because I didn't respond to your older post is pretty pathetic.

You can blame the media about portraying minorities in a false light all you want about their stances on certain laws, but don't act like the same doesn't happen to the people who hold the majority opinion. That would be complete ignorance on your part.

The lives lost your talking about being prevented through "stricter" gun laws has never worked. Which is why I stated several posts back about how Chicago has the most amount of gun deaths out of any state in the US while holding the strictest gun laws. This is a proven fact, yet you state that tighter gun laws will keep people safer.

I also mentioned that there are numerous amounts of people in the US that have saved their own lives, and others, because they owned a gun LEGALLY and defended themselves.

Again, you are saying people that hold the minority opinion are portrayed a certain way in the media but disregard the fact that the media does not show all of the times that people have been saved from people carrying. Another reason to believe that the media can portray things to be good and bad on both sides, not just the minority.

Firstly, I did not claim that you have "no understanding of European colonialism" but rather, you just have a very poor grasp on the topic. I gave you the name of a Pulitzer Prize author who specializes on this topic; he has also studied the tribal laws of the hunter and gatherers of New Guinea for decades, which is relevant to our previous discussion. You know, the one you bailed on after going back and forth for a couple pages?

On my previous post that you were responding to, I made no reference to previous or current gun regulations and/or their effect on crime rates. I would however be interested to hear which flopped regulations you are referring to when you claim "stricter gun laws has never worked".

You keep bringing up Chicago, as if it tells the whole story for a country of over 300 million people. If you wouldn't mind sharing some sources on that, it would be helpful as I don't pretend to speak with any authority on the topic. With that said, I am familiar with a related issue that happens a lot in the city that I live in; many of the recovered firearms that have been involved in gun violence are smuggled illegally across the border. The reason I am bringing this up is that I am curious as to whether Chicago's strict gun laws somehow keep firearms from entering the city. Because it seems to me that a city can have all the laws it wants, but if a couple counties over or even a neighboring state has laws which make firearms more readily accessible there is little that law enforcement can do to stop legally purchased guns from being brought in by a determined individual.

I have no doubt that there have been instances in which legally owned firearms have saved lives and I don't think that I have claimed anything contrary to that. However, that certainly does not mean there is not a large number of wrongful deaths by both legal and illegally owned firearms every year.

The overall statement I was attempting to make in my response to Allybeboba was that he appeared to value the right to bear arms more than freedom of speech and the right to assemble. I believe the latter to be more important to democracy and was curious to hear his response.

 

[Allybeboba]

Alright another try:

So you know telle was right?

A fact that has no relevance to this discussion.

You can't seem to grasp the idea that maybe these people wouldn't have been in danger in the first place, if your gun laws were more heavily regulated.

It's as if you claim so desperately to your right to bear arms, that you cannot see the paradox of it. You have guns to protect you yourself, from people with guns...

Because it might save lives. Just because knives are involved in more homicides pr year, it doesn't mean that guns aren't a problem that should be fixed.

I already explained a few pages back why the 2nd Amendment was written 225 years ago.
Who knows, we may have even avoided WWII if certain countries had similar "rights".

By the way, "minorities" freedom to speak to protected by the 1st amendment. Should that be more regulated too? Some would think so as we have been told to strike certain words from our vernacular as to not hurt other's "feelings".
The problem lies, the silent majority will soon tire of being silent. That is when the sleeping lion will awaken.
I am outta here...

 

[madhombre]

its 2016 and ppl still argue with ally/frozenwill

 

[AlisterCrow]

its 2016 and ppl still argue with ally/frozenwill

I'm kind of new here, but I'm starting to see your point already.

 

[Kryptonite]

USA definitely needs less guns. We have hardly any guns up here where I live in Canada and I've never felt scared of being shot or felt the need to have a gun. I think all the guns in the USA is what makes people so scared all the time. It seems like a vicious circle.

No gun= lost of sovereignty. From what I know about FIPA which is the reason why Canada is on the verge of their sovereignty. Lost of sovereignty means government can not protect their citizen and interest.

 

[Leek]

Hillary for prison 2016?

 

[Dorigon]

USA definitely needs less guns. We have hardly any guns up here where I live in Canada and I've never felt scared of being shot or felt the need to have a gun. I think all the guns in the USA is what makes people so scared all the time. It seems like a vicious circle.

Never felt threatened by guns even once while living in America for about 28 years. Barely ever even noticed guns, even while living the majority of that time in a very gun-liberal state (Arizona). Maybe some urban ghetto areas are different, but I guarantee that they are rough places in Canada and Europe too regardless of the proliferation of firearms.

Honestly, your post reeks of naivety. People scared all the time? Come on.

 

[AlisterCrow]

Never felt threatened by guns even once while living in America for about 28 years. Barely ever even noticed guns, even while living the majority of that time in a very gun-liberal state (Arizona). Maybe some urban ghetto areas are different, but I guarantee that they are rough places in Canada and Europe too regardless of the proliferation of firearms.

Honestly, your post reeks of naivety. People scared all the time? Come on.

People that haven't lived in large cities have nooooo idea lol. People that don't get out much have no idea either. I've worked in bars as an adult, hung out on the streets and partied at houses by colleges in several towns...I've seen some crazy shit. I've lived in small towns and large cities and I can tell you that far too many people are paranoid about something stupid born from misinformation. When it comes to guns, they're only around where there are drugs around for the most part.....or maybe when you drunkenly find yourself in the backyard of a ww1 veteran's house....been there lol.

 

[Srs]

I don't know anyone that's under 60 that wants Hillary to be the Democratic candidate. She's your grandmother's candidate. Their wave of feminism is moot. We're in the post-feminist era.

Since gender is fluid, Trump or Sanders needs to declare himself to now be identifying as a lesbian female. That way we can have our first female, trans, and queer president all at once to get all this "identity politics" stuff of the way.

 

[AlisterCrow]

I don't know anyone that's under 60 that wants Hillary to be the Democratic candidate. She's your grandmother's candidate. Their wave of feminism is moot. We're in the post-feminist era.

Since gender is now fluid, Trump or Sanders needs to declare himself to be identifying as a lesbian female. That way we can have our first female, trans, and queer president all at once to get all this "identity politics" stuff of the way.

Hahaha that would be awesome, but this country is not ready for a trans president. We still have people talking about "winning the latino vote" or "black voters" as if they're some kind of sub-section of people...like "those aren't normal citizens" It's so cringey....

 

[Snack]

I already explained a few pages back why the 2nd Amendment was written 225 years ago.
Who knows, we may have even avoided WWII if certain countries had similar "rights".

Maybe that argument is the exact reason it needs to be regulated. Or are you saying times havn't changed for 225 years?

By the way, "minorities" freedom to speak to protected by the 1st amendment. Should that be more regulated too? Some would think so as we have been told to strike certain words from our vernacular as to not hurt other's "feelings".
The problem lies, the silent majority will soon tire of being silent. That is when the sleeping lion will awaken.
I am outta here...

And I'm guessing this was directed at someone else, since I havn't really been bothered to take up on your discussion about minorities.

its 2016 and ppl still argue with ally/frozenwill

yeah... I guess we hope that we can someday reach them, but it seems they're hiding too far behind their wall of stubbornness

 

[inoobupro]

Guns r fukin awesome

Thats all

Nn pacifist cucks

 

[Snack]

I promised myself I would not post in this thread again but you all keep drawing me back in. I just post post about the subject I suppose..,



kek...
WW1 vets are no longer alive...



You won't draw me into a race debate. That is not my style. It may be yours, it is not mine.
I specifically stated "minority (not race)" in my earlier post as in, not the majority.
Being a minority does not necessarily always dictate being discriminated against. It just indicates that those numbers are less that that of the majority's numbers.
In this specific case I just mentioned that the minorities(not race but numbers) seemed to garner all the media attention. While the overwhelming majority of people remain silent.
I suppose one could akin it to Muslim extreme terrorist. It seems the only ones that get any attention are the extremists. The vast majority of Muslims are not extremists(the very definition of the word), yet we do not hear anything from or about their good deeds. We only hear about the acts of the villainous ones. Shouldn't the media be covering both equally? Probably... But they do not...

FEAR and hate gets TV ratings. Peace and love do not. That is why the news companies cherry pick certain stories. More people love to stop and stare at a train wreck than like to gaze at a peaceful meadow. So the news agencies go for the train wreck approach.
I really dislike using analogies, they only serve to derail the thread ever more-so. Sometimes it truly is a great way to get your point across figuratively as well as visually.

Good job, you completely missed my point; I wasn't going to have a discussion about minorities with you, I wanted to stay on topic, but you completely ignored that.

 

[Conq]

I'd say a huge portion of gun deaths are related to the war on drugs...which you know...government helping people traffic crack/cocaine into the black communities and all. Anyway rather an armed and dangerous society now than an enslaved and docile one later.

 

[AlisterCrow]

Keep taking the bait guys.

 

[Apnea]

Alright, I'm going to play the bad guy here and say it - the 2nd Amendment is archaic and no longer necessary in our modern society. It was written during a time when the nation was just beginning to lay its foundation and could have been invaded at any time. That's quite clearly no longer an issue in 2016.

So you want guns to protect yourself? To protect yourself from what? Criminals entering your home? Criminals in public?

How effective do you think those guns are going to be if you actually practice proper gun safety in home? In order to prevent gun accidents with those very children or family members in your home that you want to protect, do you not agree that they should be unloaded, locked up and secured with appropriate trigger guards? Tell me how useful those guns are then in the event of a home invasion by criminals?

"Excuse me Mr. Burglar sir, give me a few minutes to go to my gun safe, unlock it and put a few rounds of ammo in and then you may continue with your invasion."

Right. How many people actually live in an area where they think carrying a gun around all the time provides safety against criminals in public? Do you just walk around in constant fear of something happening and think that having a gun is the only way to feel safe? What a miserable existence.

Protecting yourself from the government? If you honestly think having a few rifles and pistols in your home is going to serve even the slightest bit of purpose in the event you would actually need to defend yourself from a tyrannical government, that's a delusion that I can't even begin to touch.

Can't we just admit that the majority of Americans who clamor over the slightest threat to the 2nd Amendment are people who think guns are cool and just like blowing shit up with them? This being the case, what's wrong with allowing licensed and regulated places like shooting ranges to have guns that you can rent and blast to your heart's content?

Apologies for the wall of text, I highly doubt many people will take the time to read it all and will probably just call me a socialist pacifist coward or some variation. I just think the 2nd Amendment is archaic and no longer needed.

 

[Hashbrowns]

Alright, I'm going to play the bad guy here and say it - the 2nd Amendment is archaic and no longer necessary in our modern society.

Wow so dangerous... The 2nd amendment gives power to the people, to protect us from government over reach and control. It was enacted so that we have the ability to rise up should things get out of hand. It's the ultimate check and balance system and it was purposefully done that way. The government is enacted by us for us, they are public servants. This is a huge part of american history. Never give up the ability to defend yourself. Absolute power will corrupt absolutely, do not give any party that chance.

 

[Apnea]

Wow so dangerous... The 2nd amendment gives power to the people, to protect us from government over reach and control. It was enacted so they we had the ability to rise up should things get out of hand. The government is enacted by us for us, they are public servants. This is a huge part of american history. Never give up the ability to defend yourself. Absolute power will corrupt absolutely, don't give them that chance.

Did you completely miss the part where I said that you're delusional if you actually think a few rifles in your house will serve any purpose in the event that you need to defend yourself from the government?

This is the United States government we're talking about. There is basically a 0% chance that you could do anything if the government decided to turn on its people and actually resort to the sort of violence where you would need guns to defend.

Protect us from overreach and control you say? Have you seen anything that people like Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning have leaked? Have you done the slightest bit of research on the complete overreach the NSA has had for the past decade or more? Did you not see recent evidence leaked that indicated that the George W. Bush administration was all but complicit in 9/11?

Where were your guns for all of this overreach?

 

[Hashbrowns]

Did you completely miss the part where I said that you're delusional if you actually think a few rifles in your house will serve any purpose in the event that you need to defend yourself from the government?

This is the United States government we're talking about. There is basically a 0% chance that you could do anything if the government decided to turn on its people and actually resort to the sort of violence where you would need guns to defend.

Protect us from overreach and control you say? Have you seen anything that people like Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning have leaked? Have you done the slightest bit of research on the complete overreach the NSA has had for the past decade or more? Did you not see recent evidence leaked that indicated that the George W. Bush administration was all but complicit in 9/11?

Where were your guns for all of this overreach?

I did yes, guilty of reading the first part and commenting.

You'd be surprised what a few billion people could do vs any government entity... Aside from like turning nukes on us, but that's not the goal. The goal is control and power, won't do then any good if everyone's dead.

The NSA is a complete joke and snowden is a hero. And look at what they say they will scale back and what they actually do... They don't give a damn. That 600 billion acres data center is fully operational. That's why I caution gun control, they don't give up power. They will mask it in "its for your safey" but give that 10-20 years and it will be exploited.

 

[Apnea]

They don't give a damn.

That's precisely the point I was making. They don't care. If it seriously came to an armed revolution against the United States government, there's very, very little chance We The People are going to be able to fight back in any meaningful capacity against the most powerful entity in the world.

You'd be surprised what a few billion people could do vs any government entity... Aside from like turning nukes on us, but that's not the goal. The goal is control and power, won't do then any good if everyone's dead.

There's not even close to a billion people in the US, it's a little closer to 300 million. The government almost literally walks all over us every day and there's not even the slightest hint at rebellion brewing. I can't honestly believe anything else will make people want to rise up.