Lady Lilith Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gp1Ir_TrEJKg12J38nzShbH2nklQ?docId=CNG.780c4bf9e65b341af8332455cba1b2e0.841 Yep...Politicians sure are stupid and say dumb things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSXtreme_ Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Couldn't disagree more. If people actually look at what was being compared rather than rely on the headline, it's easy to see the point that was trying to be made. Gun control IS related to those two instances, being that they were the first steps to allow the eventual ending. An unarmed populace is nothing more than a potential victim to a tyrannical government. The first step for any dictator is to first get the guns outta the hands of the general population. It makes keeping power so much simpler when you progress to the extreme. "Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that his agenda would not be possible unless the people were disarmed." Edited June 21, 2012 by PSXtreme_ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Bee Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Couldn't disagree more. If people actually look at what was being compared rather than rely on the headline, it's easy to see the point that was trying to be made. Gun control IS related to those two instances, being that they were the first steps to allow the eventual ending. An unarmed populace is nothing more than a potential victim to a tyrannical government. The first step for any dictator is to first get the guns outta the hands of the general population. It makes keeping power so much simpler when you progress to the extreme. You are assuming the intentions of the government. You make the comparison that an unarmed populace will lead to the holocaust, that is bull. Just because that is how Hitler did it, does not mean that anyone who wants to promote the safety of their people and cut the murders by firearm substantially is going to do the same thing. Canadians are still allowed to get licenses for weapons, but it is a more involved process then in the states. Now compare the Homicide rates. In 2009, there were a recorded 610 murders. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal12a-eng.htm). In the US there were 13 636. 9 146 were from firearms (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html). Now to make the math simple, we will round that the US has 10x the population of Canada (I get that it is less then 10x, but for simplicity sake we will use that). This means that if the population of both Canada and the US were the same, there would have been 6 100 murders in Canada compared to 9 146 from just firearms alone in the US. I understand that your gun laws are not the end all be all reason for this, but where is the argument to say that they have zero effect. Now you have a government that is trying to make it safer for their people by introducing gun control, and people twist that to compare it to the holocaust. That is why this argument is stupid and an unfair comparison. When you were a kid, and your parents gave you a curfew, did you freak out and tell them that they were Nazi's? This gun control comparison is just as stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You are assuming the intentions of the government. You make the comparison that an unarmed populace will lead to the holocaust, that is bull. Just because that is how Hitler did it, does not mean that anyone who wants to promote the safety of their people and cut the murders by firearm substantially is going to do the same thing. Canadians are still allowed to get licenses for weapons, but it is a more involved process then in the states. Now compare the Homicide rates. In 2009, there were a recorded 610 murders. (http://www.statcan.g...egal12a-eng.htm). In the US there were 13 636. 9 146 were from firearms (http://www2.fbi.gov/...hrtable_08.html). Now to make the math simple, we will round that the US has 10x the population of Canada (I get that it is less then 10x, but for simplicity sake we will use that). This means that if the population of both Canada and the US were the same, there would have been 6 100 murders in Canada compared to 9 146 from just firearms alone in the US. I understand that your gun laws are not the end all be all reason for this, but where is the argument to say that they have zero effect. Now you have a government that is trying to make it safer for their people by introducing gun control, and people twist that to compare it to the holocaust. That is why this argument is stupid and an unfair comparison. When you were a kid, and your parents gave you a curfew, did you freak out and tell them that they were Nazi's? This gun control comparison is just as stupid. They have done tons of studies and it has been proven (in the States at least) that the more strict the gun control laws are, the higher the violent crime. Simple reason is because the criminals (the people who don't care whether or not guns are legal) know most people won't have guns if they are extremely hard to obtain legally, and use that to their advantage. There is a town in some state (I want to say it's on Colorado, but I've completely forgotten) and it's mandatory to own a gun with the proper training and licensees, and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the US because all the criminals know that every house, store and citizen has a gun and can defend themselves. Guns are not a bad thing, but I do agree that it is a little too easy to obtain a gun in the USA. We should have a better process, and people should have to sit through a class and actually learn about guns before they can buy one. Any intelligent gun owner poses no threat to anyone but the criminal that threatens his life, however a gun owner who is not comfortable with their gun, or who bought one just to "be a badass" are the dangerous ones. It's far too late to introduce gun control in the USA. Any criminal that wants a weapon has millions of ways to get one, and if you disarm the citizens I can guarantee crime will rise. Parker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maitre Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) guns are risky ... i say we go back to swords Bunraku style. Edited June 21, 2012 by Maitre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Bee Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Swords are too pointy, lets go back to rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSXtreme_ Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) You are assuming the intentions of the government. You make the comparison that an unarmed populace will lead to the holocaust, that is bull. Just because that is how Hitler did it, does not mean that anyone who wants to promote the safety of their people and cut the murders by firearm substantially is going to do the same thing. Canadians are still allowed to get licenses for weapons, but it is a more involved process then in the states. Now compare the Homicide rates. In 2009, there were a recorded 610 murders. (http://www.statcan.g...egal12a-eng.htm). In the US there were 13 636. 9 146 were from firearms (http://www2.fbi.gov/...hrtable_08.html). Now to make the math simple, we will round that the US has 10x the population of Canada (I get that it is less then 10x, but for simplicity sake we will use that). This means that if the population of both Canada and the US were the same, there would have been 6 100 murders in Canada compared to 9 146 from just firearms alone in the US. I understand that your gun laws are not the end all be all reason for this, but where is the argument to say that they have zero effect. Now you have a government that is trying to make it safer for their people by introducing gun control, and people twist that to compare it to the holocaust. That is why this argument is stupid and an unfair comparison. When you were a kid, and your parents gave you a curfew, did you freak out and tell them that they were Nazi's? This gun control comparison is just as stupid. I'll let wiser men than me speak for me... "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. -Thomas Jefferson “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson’s Commonplace Book “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson “...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” — George Mason “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. They have done tons of studies and it has been proven (in the States at least) that the more strict the gun control laws are, the higher the violent crime. Parker ...and there you go with two of the most recent instances... http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/ In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000. http://www.foxnews.c...rtant-gun-news/ Politicians predicted disaster. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision. Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ." The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court's "unwise" decision that there is a right for people "to keep guns in the home." But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate. Edited June 21, 2012 by PSXtreme_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielVT Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) http://www.google.co...455cba1b2e0.841 Yep...Politicians sure are stupid and say dumb things. What's new?? lol This article is such a waste of time, it is so inconsequential. They have done tons of studies and it has been proven (in the States at least) that the more strict the gun control laws are, the higher the violent crime. Simple reason is because the criminals (the people who don't care whether or not guns are legal) know most people won't have guns if they are extremely hard to obtain legally, and use that to their advantage. There is a town in some state (I want to say it's on Colorado, but I've completely forgotten) and it's mandatory to own a gun with the proper training and licensees, and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the US because all the criminals know that every house, store and citizen has a gun and can defend themselves. Guns are not a bad thing, but I do agree that it is a little too easy to obtain a gun in the USA. We should have a better process, and people should have to sit through a class and actually learn about guns before they can buy one. Any intelligent gun owner poses no threat to anyone but the criminal that threatens his life, however a gun owner who is not comfortable with their gun, or who bought one just to "be a badass" are the dangerous ones. It's far too late to introduce gun control in the USA. Any criminal that wants a weapon has millions of ways to get one, and if you disarm the citizens I can guarantee crime will rise. Parker Thank you Parker for summing up my overall belief as well. The only thing I feel like saying is that if you let the government even begin to force people to take a class, they will take it and run with it. Give the government a tiny bit of power, and they will make you instantly regret it. Edited June 21, 2012 by DanielVT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSXtreme_ Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 What's new?? lol This article is such a waste of time, it is so inconsequential. Operation Fast and Furious...that's what's new. The Federal Government's attempt to bolster gun numbers in Mexico to "prove" previous statements issued by Obama and Hillary Clinton made back in 2009. Prove what point, you ask? That the "lax" gun laws here in the U.S. are the reason for all the violence over the border and that the majority of weapons are purchased on the north side of the border and run down to the drug lords. Although the investigation has been ongoing now for almost 2 years, after the death of a Border Patrol agent was caused by one of these illegally purchased guns, nary a handful of people are aware of it, nor of the fact that the U.S. AG is facing contempt of Congress charges for not supplying subpoenaed documents. The ulterior motive??? Stricter gun regulation for U.S. Citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Lilith Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 I believe I'm slowly becoming an anarchist. It's just simpler that way. Reminds me of Diablo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielVT Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I believe I'm slowly becoming an anarchist. It's just simpler that way. Also, I don't think the US government could ever convert to dictatorship, because our politicians are too selfish to give up their shot at the throne and too greedy to be inferior to chairman. Well, we can find solace in that at least! lol Operation Fast and Furious...that's what's new. The Federal Government's attempt to bolster gun numbers in Mexico to "prove" previous statements issued by Obama and Hillary Clinton made back in 2009. Prove what point, you ask? That the "lax" gun laws here in the U.S. are the reason for all the violence over the border and that the majority of weapons are purchased on the north side of the border and run down to the drug lords. Although the investigation has been ongoing now for almost 2 years, after the death of a Border Patrol agent was caused by one of these illegally purchased guns, nary a handful of people are aware of it, nor of the fact that the U.S. AG is facing contempt of Congress charges for not supplying subpoenaed documents. The ulterior motive??? Stricter gun regulation for U.S. Citizens. Spot on my friend, spot on. Those are my thought to the letter as well. If the government had nothing to hide, than Obama would not have misused his authority by using an executive order to directly protect one of his own, and on top of that, use another executive order to hide the revealing documents from the GOP or any other prying eyes. I love the outrage that this is causing.....Romney does not even need to campaign. All he had to do is sit back and watch Obama screw himself left and right. Obama really is flat out stupid.........(but who did not already know that??) lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myers Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I will only say this (this has been said in a longer post above): If you are willing/going to kill someone, which is obviously illegal, why do you care if the gun you are going to use is legal or not? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScreechingOwl Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Anyone can tell just by reading the topic title this is sensationalist tabloid trash. Don't feed the beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Bee Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I will only say this (this has been said in a longer post above): If you are willing/going to kill someone, which is obviously illegal, why do you care if the gun you are going to use is legal or not? This is only partially true. This about it like this. Have you ever hit someone because you were just so frustrated with them? Have you ever been in or seen a bar fight that starts because one guy made fun of another? Have you heard of, or seen the hate crimes that happen often, especially in the southern states? I have not found, but I would be interested in seeing how many of the murders in the States were not planned, but were heat of the moment murders. Knowing so many people who have tempers, I would not want any of them to have guns, because when a person gets angry, there is no control. Not to mention now involving alcohol. How many accidental deaths occur each year because of alcohol. Or how about how many kids are killed or kill other kids because there are guns all over the place. This entire argument that guns are a necessity is ridiculous. So many countries in the world have strict gun laws, and most if not all of them have a much lower murder rate then the States. If you could only get a gun illegally, and it was made to be difficult, then far less people would have guns. Yes, you are always going to have the people who were going to go out and kill someone anyways, but those people exist all over the world and that is why we have murders. Outside of those, you will eliminate all the stupid deaths, the heat of the moment deaths, the kids killing or being killed, even school shootings and robberies would become less common because getting a gun is much more difficult. The only reason that this is even such an issue is because it is in the constitution. If that never happened, I would bet the murder rate would be closer to that of Canada or other safer countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSXtreme_ Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 When you make guns illegal, only the criminal will have them. Funny how all the big gun killing sprees within the past decade have all occurred in gun-free zones... Nevertheless, none of that is the reason for the 2nd amendment. The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that it won't be needed until the government tries to take it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) The 1938 German gun laws simply made taking Jews away to prison camps easier since it stated that a Jew couldn't own a weapon or ammunition. Anyone else that wasn't a Jew were limited to handguns. The Nazi's never told the Jews they captured that they were going to be killed. They were simply told that they would be moved hence why they were segregated in ghetto's in the 30's before Himmler planned out the extermination camps. There were so many different people that were killed in the Holocaust yet the only ones that we're told about are Jews. Ohh the media Edited June 23, 2012 by Deth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSXtreme_ Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 The 1938 German gun laws simply made taking Jews away to prison camps easier since it stated that a Jew couldn't own a weapon or ammunition. Anyone else that wasn't a Jew were limited to handguns. The Nazi's never told the Jews they captured that they were going to be killed. They were simply told that they would be moved hence why they were segregated in ghetto's in the 30's before Himmler planned out the extermination camps. There were so many different people that were killed in the Holocaust yet the only ones that we're told about are Jews. Ohh the media It's called revisionist history...instead of tellin' ya the way it was, you tell it the way you wanted it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now