RunRyder RC
WATCH
 18 pages [ <<    <     7      8     ( 9 )     10      11     NEXT    >> ] 10469 views POST REPLY
Home🌌Off TopicsOff Topics News & Politics › Gun Control Didn't work in Australia Why Will it Work Here
01-08-2013 04:39 AM  7 years ago
irocu88

rrApprentice

norfolk,va

MyPosts All Forum Topic
how in the world does that post offend you koppter???
Very simple...anything the left does not agree with is offensive to them and therefore be banned.
Caliber 90 FT os91 c-spec
Caliber 50, OS50 hyper
Caliber 30 OS37
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 04:40 AM  7 years ago
GREYEAGLE

rrElite Veteran

Flat Land's

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Absolutley correct :Hoggy 42 : Gun Control's would Not have stopped: 9 /11 /2001

Neither would have box knife control

Alarming is that most of the youth that were 12 or 13 year's of age at the time :OF 911--- Cannot remember any detail or fact of the event.

Made Pearl Harbor Attack look like a skid mark compared to the Terrorism attack in New York and surrounding areas' of the Nation.

The 1st attack actually failed in the lower parking lot's to bring them down. Remember ??? 911 was the second try.

{ 9 /11/2001} -- Those or younger - remember absolutely VERY LITTLE of It since it was a bit over 10 year's ago.

They are now in their early 20's or mid 20's of age " Young Adult's "

Any child 10 or 11 year's of age or Younger -- It Has NO EFFECT - No Knowledge of it what so ever. The Multiple attack's on our home soil that cost thousandth's of lives of the innocent.

TERRORISM on a Judea Christian Culture - from a Middle East Culture

That really place's a ONUS on the present culture.

They will not even teach it / inform the fact of truth - in the National Public School System or the Public University Campus's of the Nation.

Gun Control Would not have worked

But WHAT CONTROL"S Would Have ???
greyeagle
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 05:38 AM  7 years ago
es1co2bar3

rrKey Veteran

winnetka california

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Very simple...anything the left does not agree with is offensive to them and therefore be banned
It look like unfear game played twice, what have you guy done to poor me
in the past?? all because the republican dont want to hear the truth.
someone say something about democrat awhile back
if the democrat dont like something then they dont want anyone to have it.
And the thit remind me of so much i think the republican is not different aaaaaaaaaahhh,
Now that thit amuse me for real.
I was waiting on some honey but there aren't no Queen bee,
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 01:20 PM  7 years ago
irocu88

rrApprentice

norfolk,va

MyPosts All Forum Topic
it is not the consevative thinking to ban things we don't agree with esco.....it is yours....I am very simple, leave me alone and will leave you alone.Caliber 90 FT os91 c-spec
Caliber 50, OS50 hyper
Caliber 30 OS37
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 02:08 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
No we are arguing for our natural right to defend ourselves from threats both foreign and domestic, being government or citizens.
The point I responded to concerned US citizens having a right to use guns against the US government. I have not discussed US citizens using guns on other US citizens, or foreigners.
You are the one trying to corner the argument into a legal issue...
No, that is the point I responded to. You are the one who is trying to argue other issues with me, about which I have not expressed an opinion. If you want to discuss using guns against other US citizens or foreigners, then I suggest responding to someone who has expressed an opinion on those issues.
Legal or illegal, we will defend ourselves from tyranny and oppression. And yes if gun confiscation does happen, you can bet we will band together and protect our rights (whether the govt deems it legal or not).
So you imagine all these ''brainwashed, bought out and marginalised'' voters, who would not even vote for different politicians, would ''band together'' to illegally use guns against the government they voted for? If a majority of US citizens choose to act to change your government and it's policies, then voting for someone else would be the prudent course of action. And as I also pointed out, when a minority try to use violence against a government that the majority has voted for, they are labelled ''terrorists'' and treated accordingly.
This is a stupid argument and it being legal or not, doesnt matter
For some folk here, that is the most important issue regarding the 2nd amendment. But as I said, in the context of using guns against your government, the 2nd amendment is largely irrelevant nowadays. You have a well established democratic electoral system, where governments are changed by voting at the ballot box.
The legality of retaliation is a moot point.
Using guns against an ''oppressive'' US government is the moot point.
Have a good day...
Same to you.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 02:09 PM  7 years ago
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Your best sueggestion is to arm teachers well that sounds like a fun happy classroom.
This is sensationalism at its' best, make the solution sound scary so people agree with you.

Fact is, you are not going round up every gun from every owner in the US. There are 300 million (US pop is 300+ million) weapons out there, with 2.9 being sold in just the last two months.

You cannot take away the guns, and they are not organic, so they will not die off.

There are tons of cities that have cops and armed gaurds in the middle and high schools (example is Baltimore city).

Administration can have biometric safes or security to protect the kids. Banning guns will do what exactly to prevent more school shootings?

How will that have an immediate effect on protecting children? You think access will be restricted? How? In PA you dont even have to go to a gun dealer to transfer a long arm (rifle). You can go into the city and buy a sanded down glock for 100 bucks.

Banning guns in American is like trying to redo prohibition, black markets will emerge. You cannot control humans like that, they are not servants to the government.
Tic Toc Tic Toc
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 02:13 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Look up aftermath of Katrina. Plenty of guns were illegally confiscated following the storm. And THAT was in a red state, because the Dem Governor bowed to the wishes of the Feds. One of the many reasons she was booted shortly afterwards. And one more checkmark against Bush IMO.
So all of the ''brainwashed, bought out and marginalised'' voters in that state, did actually object enough to the confiscation of guns, that they elected a different politician?

All the more evidence why, if a majority of Americans want to keep their right to own guns, they need not concern themselves that guns would be outlawed. Even in the unlikely event that it was to happen, it would simply be a matter of voting for politicians who would restore the legal right to gun ownership at the next election.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 02:16 PM  7 years ago
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
the 2nd amendment is largely irrelevant nowadays. You have a well established democratic electoral system, where governments are changed by voting at the ballot box.
You dont understand our legal system or our government, we are not a democracy (As I have already stated) we are a republic.

Do you know what the difference is?

Clearly the 2nd amendment is not irrevelant, nor is the constitution. The constitution enumerates specific powers the government may have, anything not listed on it is specifically reserved to the states. The Federal government is supposed to be a slave to the constitution.

The supreme court cannot change the constitution.

Citizens cannot vote to change the constitution, so it doesnt matter how they vote. Many of the power positions arent elected, they are appointed.

This is how you amend the constitution:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgo.../amendments.htm

Constitution cannot change with the electorate, unless the electorate unanimously elected equal viewed representatives in all states and the federal government. This is not the case as the current Federal Government is very divided.

Again, just because we have a democratic party run senate majority and president doesn't make the 2nd amendment irrelevant. You need to understand how our system works. Its not about simple majorities.
So all of the ''brainwashed, bought out and marginalised'' voters in that state, did actually object enough to the confiscation of guns, that they elected a different politician?
Because it doesnt work like there.
Tic Toc Tic Toc
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 02:25 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Yup. I would just like to point that there have been a few "elected" govts that our own govts pysically have fought against recently. Your grand fathers and both of mine fought against a few others that had turned bad...
You mean when they attacked other countries? Such as Germany invading Poland, and Argentina invading the Falklands?

Even if German and Argentinian citizens respectively at the time, had been armed, I doubt a majority would have used guns against their governments. The majority of Germans for instance seemed to support Hitler's policies, and any minority groups who might have wanted to take up arms against them, such as Jews, wouldn't have stood a chance against the German army. Particularly when the majority of German citizens supported the Nazis. In countries such as Lithuania, Christian citizens actually rounded Jews up to hand over to the invading German ''liberators.'' As the majority of populations in these countries supported the Nazis, the less guns they had, the better.

Can you name even one country, which had an elected government that ''turned bad,'' where you think citizens being armed would have made a positive difference?

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 02:27 PM  7 years ago
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Can you name even one country, which had an elected government that ''turned bad,'' where you think citizens being armed would have made a positive difference?
The American civil war, the revolutionary war....
Christian citizens actually rounded Jews up to hand over to the invading German ''liberators.'' As the majority of populations in these countries supported the Nazis, the less guns they had, the better.
I dont understand how you view this as a good thing? Are you saying it was better that the Jews had no weapons to defend themselves? Are you saying if they did they would still not stand up to Nazi's??? What?!?
Tic Toc Tic Toc
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 02:29 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
You dont understand our legal system or our government, we are not a democracy (As I have already stated) we are a republic.
Do you know what the difference is?

Clearly the 2nd amendment is not irrevelant, nor is the constitution. The constitution enumerates specific powers the government may have, anything not listed on it is specifically reserved to the states. The Federal government is supposed to be a slave to the constitution.
The supreme court cannot change the constitution.
Citizens cannot vote to change the constitution, so it doesnt matter how they vote. Many of the power positions arent elected, they are appointed.
This is how you amend the constitution:
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgo.../amendments.htm

Constitution cannot change with the electorate, unless the electorate unanimously elected equal viewed representatives. This is not the case as the current Federal Government is very divided.
Again, just because we have a democratic party run senate majority and president doesn't make the 2nd amendment irrelevant. You need to understand how our system works. Its not about simple majorities.
None of which has anything to do with what I said. You are deliberately taking my post out of context. Like I did say, and as you conveniently omitted:
in the context of using guns against your government, the 2nd amendment is largely irrelevant nowadays.
If you want to counter that point, then explain how, in the context of using guns against your government, the 2nd amendment is not largely irrelevant nowadays. Bearing in mind that:
You have a well established democratic electoral system, where governments are changed by voting at the ballot box.
Because it doesnt work like there.
So ''brainwashed, bought out and marginalised'' voters only reside in all the others states?

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 02:33 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The American civil war, the revolutionary war....
No, the question concerned countries which our countries had both fought. So that excludes both the US and UK.

In any case, is that the most recent example you can think of?
I dont understand how you view this as a good thing? Are you saying it was better that the Jews had no weapons to defend themselves? Are you saying if they did they would still not stand up to Nazi's??? What?!?
The more guns the majority had, the more of the minority would likely have been killed. Of course it's a good that people who hated Jews should have had as few guns as possible.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 02:43 PM  7 years ago
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
So ''brainwashed, bought out and marginalised'' voters only reside in all the others states?
Do you live in the US? I dont think I can explain this properly to you in forum. It's not a simple explanation.

We have more than 40% percent of our population recieving payments from our government in excess of their income. No one will vote to remove free benefits from government, therefore I deem them bought out.

Yes they reside in all states.

There are many brainwash (misled) individuals who cant even identify countries on a map, we need an intellectual uprising. Here we punish success and encourage failure in policies.

Again, I think you would understand if you lived here.
f you want to counter that point, then explain how, in the context of using guns against your government, the 2nd amendment is not largely irrelevant nowadays. Bearing in mind that:

You have a well established democratic electoral system, where governments are changed by voting at the ballot box.
We dont have a well established democratic electoral system, we are a republic.

I've already stated that the government will have to perform genocide to retrieve all the weapons from their citizens. It doesn't matter if it's technically legal or not. It's not legal for the government to confiscate and break into your home. Laws can be unjust and when they are severe enough, citizens revolt. The 2nd amendment supplies us with tools we need to keep the Federal Govt in check.

Im leaving on trip soon so this is my last post.

I feel as though I have treated you fairly and made my point, at this point if you are unwilling to open your eyes, then we can agree to disagree.
Tic Toc Tic Toc
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 03:16 PM  7 years ago
irocu88

rrApprentice

norfolk,va

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I know this has nothing to do with your conversation....but Dusty...why do you even care...you don't even live here...It irritates the crap out of me to have people tell us how it "should" be....or this is where your going wrong ect, ect....and they have no dog in the fight per say.....people that don't live hear have no clue...and just because you have visited does not mean crap.Caliber 90 FT os91 c-spec
Caliber 50, OS50 hyper
Caliber 30 OS37
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 03:24 PM  7 years ago
es1co2bar3

rrKey Veteran

winnetka california

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The point I responded to concerned US citizens having a right to use guns against the US government. I have not discussed US citizens using guns on other US citizens, or foreigners
Well this is what happening now across state line and these repelithug
cant come to grip and see the danger.
Now they say the gun is to deter a threat from the government. So the 2NSDMENT] is to arm citizen so they over trow thy government any given time,
well here stupid come stupid go. what a chronicle?
why would the funding father gave his citizen gun to over throw him.??/?

I see government interference police brutality carnal abuse formal abuse,all on the government token and not a soul putting the government
in check .

No the funding father must be rolling over in their grave asking themselves what've we done.
I was waiting on some honey but there aren't no Queen bee,
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 03:35 PM  7 years ago
irocu88

rrApprentice

norfolk,va

MyPosts All Forum Topic
why would the funding father gave his citizen gun to over throw him.??/?
Because they knew that one day foreiners like yourself would come here and try to change this country to be like the craphole they came from.....
Caliber 90 FT os91 c-spec
Caliber 50, OS50 hyper
Caliber 30 OS37
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 03:45 PM  7 years ago
spaceman spiff

rrKey Veteran

Tucson

MyPosts All Forum Topic
💎Sustaining Member
The founding fathers did not want anyone to over throw the govt. They wanted us to be able to in order to help ensure we don't end up with a govt that should be overthrown.

The old saying is power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Government must never be allowed have absolute power.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 04:08 PM  7 years ago
fla heli boy

rrElite Veteran

cape coral, florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
we're on the brink of them having that now and this whole gun thing just proves it. Exhibit 1A is the TSA. If you would've told air travelers in the 60's and 70's that they would be frisked and x-rayed before they were allowed to travel when no search is warranted.....they would've looked at you like you had 2 heads.
The Fed. government is completely out of control.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 05:52 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Do you live in the US? I dont think I can explain this properly to you in forum. It's not a simple explanation.
We have more than 40% percent of our population recieving payments from our government in excess of their income. No one will vote to remove free benefits from government, therefore I deem them bought out.
Around 50% of the population in the UK receives some form of social security benefit, and we have a greater proportion of people who work for the government. Yet we elected a Conservative government, which is cutting all sorts of social security benefits and other forms of government spending, as they said they would do.

Why do you think all these voters in the US are ''bought out'', while folk on welfare and others who depend on the government in other countries, are evidently not?

I think you're looking for excuses as to why your guy lost the election. While Ron Paul was the only true conservative in the GOP nominations, not to mention by far the most pro-liberty candidate, he was demonised by his party and the mainstream media. If drastically cutting public spending, cutting taxes where possible while being fiscally responsible, not restricting your right to own guns, and otherwise strictly adhering to your constitution, is so important to self-proclaimed conservatives in the US, then why didn't they all support Ron Paul?????

If more Americans voted for politicians on the basis of their policies, rather than the personality, they might get governments which have the policies they want. Seriously, the whole US presidential election process has as much in common with a who's-got-talent TV show, as it has with anything to do with politics. Our electoral process has started to go the same way, but it's nowhere near as hyped or glamourised as the process is in the US. For example, for the last election, the whole Conservative party campaign cost around £10 million - or around $15 million in your money, which is an amount either one of your main candidates would have spent in just a few days. And let's face it, the vast majority of Americans vote for the main guys they are presented with. That has nothing to do with welfare. It is the mainstream politicians who are ''bought out'', not the electorate.

This might not be widely reported in the US, but it's well recognised in the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...-finance-voting
We dont have a well established democratic electoral system, we are a republic
Of course the US is a republic, yet the electoral system is by definition, democratic. There is no such measure as a ''republic'' election process, as not all republics even have elections. And some that do, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, do not have democratically elected leaders.
I've already stated that the government will have to perform genocide to retrieve all the weapons from their citizens. It doesn't matter if it's technically legal or not. It's not legal for the government to confiscate and break into your home. Laws can be unjust and when they are severe enough, citizens revolt. The 2nd amendment supplies us with tools we need to keep the Federal Govt in check

Im leaving on trip soon so this is my last post.
I feel as though I have treated you fairly and made my point, at this point if you are unwilling to open your eyes, then we can agree to disagree.
I also feel I've treated you fairly, despite your inability to describe even one scenario, where you would use guns against your government. And that is despite me having provided examples, such as if the police came up to your door with a warrant and told you to hand over your handguns (but you could keep your rifles) or they were coming in to get them. I'm not interested in notions of genocide etc, I asked you a simple question as to what you would do.

My point also stands regarding if a majority of US citizens, for reasons of unjust laws or whatever, decided to revolt, then the prudent course of action would be to revolt at the ballot box, by voting for someone else.

Seriously, if they aren't pissed enough to vote for someone else, they are unlikely to be pissed enough to take up arms against the government they voted for - are they?????

On the one hand you argue that people will not vote for the other guy because they are ''bought,'' while on the other hand you argue that they would ''band together'' and take up arms against the government they voted for.

Surely you can see the fallacy in your argument? I'm not sure how much more obvious I could make it.

And, when a minority of citizens use armed force against their government, they are labeled as terrorists, and treated accordingly.

Until you are willing to open your eyes to these simple truths, then you are unlikely to accept that in the context of using guns against your government, the 2nd amendment is largely irrelevant nowadays.

Have a nice trip.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-08-2013 06:03 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I know this has nothing to do with your conversation....but Dusty...why do you even care...you don't even live here...It irritates the crap out of me to have people tell us how it "should" be....or this is where your going wrong ect, ect....and they have no dog in the fight per say.....people that don't live hear have no clue...and just because you have visited does not mean crap.
You mean like the OP implies what Australia is doing wrong, and that they should not be doing what they are doing? Did you tell the OP he doesn't know crap, because he doesn't live in Australia?

I couldn't care less how may guns Americans have. What interested me in this thread, which I haven't even bothered to read the first few pages of, is that some people seemed to think they have some sort of right to use guns against their government, which should be evident if you followed the discussion.

While most people of course know much more about their own country than most foreigners do, it would be rather foolish to believe that no foreigner knows some thing about the US that you do not know. Just as some Americans will know some things about the UK that I don't know. It simply isn't a case of ''people who live here have no clue,'' as is regularly demonstrated by people who don't live there.

I have not told anyone in this thread how I think anything regarding gun ownership in the US ''should be,'' or said ''this is where you're going wrong,'' or anything of the sort. I have not expressed an opinion on such matters. So none of my posts can have irritated you for any of the reasons you mention. Which begs the question, why did you mention them?

Did you mistakenly think that I have told someone how it ''should be'' or ''this is where you're going wrong'' etc, in regard to gun ownership? If so, I suggest quoting what I said which made you think this, and I will be pleased to help you end your irritation.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 18 pages [ <<    <     7      8     ( 9 )     10      11     NEXT    >> ] 10469 views POST REPLY
Home🌌Off TopicsOff Topics News & Politics › Gun Control Didn't work in Australia Why Will it Work Here
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 13  Topic Subscribe

Friday, April 3 - 6:48 pm - Copyright © 2000-2020 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online