Colorado Theater Shooting Victims and Relatives Demand Guns Be Discussed In Upcoming Presidential De - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Robbi;37889072]armed conflicts which have brought improved life for its citizens.[/QUOTE] List of armed conflicts which improved life for citizens: [QUOTE=Robbi;37889072]Are you really suggesting people have always had the ability to vote and that everyone has it?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_League[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Union[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartists[/url] [QUOTE=Robbi;37889072]Look at recent news. People usually have no problem harming other people as long as there is a figure of authority. Regimes are usually really good figures of authority.[/QUOTE] It gets problematic when half the country is standing in front of you. [QUOTE=Robbi;37889072]And that is how civil wars erupt.[/QUOTE] General strikes don't cause civil wars usually.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;37888047]sry dude but life isn't a overly dramatic action + social science fiction novel that you find at the back of an chapter 11 store[/QUOTE] A relatively underarmed Middle Eastern populace completely changed the scope of power in that region in the matter of only a year or so. You really need to fuck off if you think the introduction of an obvious autocratic or totalitarian regime wouldn't cause a great majority of us to take up arms. [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] The reason armed revolutions don't occur in the Western world is because we have a system that in theory allows and necessitates peaceful revolution. [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;37888684]violence isn't always the answer. fascist spain managed to transition themselves into a free-democracy without violent revolution (heck, it was violence that got the fascists into power in the first place)[/QUOTE] The United States could not have come into fruition without armed revolution.

[QUOTE=Strider*;37889208]A relatively underarmed Middle Eastern populace completely changed the scope of power in that region in the matter of only a year or so. You really need to fuck off if you think the introduction of an obvious autocratic or totalitarian regime wouldn't cause a great majority of us to take up arms. [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] The reason armed revolutions don't occur in the Western world is because we have a system that in theory allows and necessitates peaceful revolution. [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] The United States could not have come into fruition without armed revolution.[/QUOTE] well, i know you and most other people here will disagree with me, but i don't exactly see the formation of the united states as a good thing. actually that sounds stupid, i think the united states is fine and all, but i don't see how the american revolution was necessary or justified.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37889380]but i don't see how the american revolution was necessary or justified.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you're an American but have you read the Declaration? Take a look at the grievances and I think you will change your mind.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37889380]well, i know you and most other people here will disagree with me, but i don't exactly see the formation of the united states as a good thing. actually that sounds stupid, i think the united states is fine and all, but i don't see how the american revolution was necessary or justified.[/QUOTE] really i think there's way too much hired bullshit to get a clear picture of what was going through people's heads in that period of time all you ever hear is, "blah blah blah oppressive britain, blah blah tea sipping, blah blah americans were the good guys"

[QUOTE=Strider*;37889407]I'm not sure if you're an American but have you read the Declaration? Take a look at the grievances and I think you will change your mind.[/QUOTE] The American colonies were already almost independent entities. After the revolution, the people who said "No taxation without representation" were hit by tax raises, inflation and most of them couldn't vote.

[QUOTE=Strider*;37889407]I'm not sure if you're an American but have you read the Declaration? Take a look at the grievances and I think you will change your mind.[/QUOTE] yes when you look at an ideological document written by the men who would and did benefit the most from the revolution i'm sure it makes it look very reasonable.

[QUOTE=GunFox;37889013]Are you suggesting that the Cold War seriously played no part in their economic failure?[/QUOTE] As much as it pains me to agree with Sob when he's on his unverifiable "violent revolutions r evul" schtick, that point's right. [URL="http://www.nber.org/papers/w4735.pdf"]The Cold War seriously played no measurable part in the economic failure of the Soviet Union.[/URL]

Being this thread is really off topic, partly my fault I want to ask why do people want to put restrictions on firearms for [B]law abiding citizens[/B]? It really doesn't make any sense. They already do way more than necessary. Why is there a ban on sales of NEW automatic firearms? Any law abiding citizen should be able to buy any firearm they want. The only reason for it is the government fears its people. Which is exactly what they are supposed to do. It keeps them from making dumb decisions. But when you restrict peoples ability to fight back you do whatever you want, like give billions of dollars to thieving bankers that destroyed the lives of countless people. The whole solve everything nonviolently doesn't work for big things like oppressive and/or corrupt governments. We are not there yet as a species. It's a great idea wish it could be true but it isn't. We are incredibly war like and hostile and will be for some time. Like it or not it is true. I recently purchased my first firearm. It really changed my viewpoint on them. I was never against them but now that I own one I see how much fun they are. It was also a great opportunity to teach my younger brother to shoot as well. Gave him a much less skewed perspective on them. It also made my very anti-gun mother a little more accepting as now she wants to learn to shoot. Especially with the armed robberies that occur near where she works. It's just my little example about how the more people know about guns and are around them the less they are to judge them negatively. Which I may be wrong but I think that is where the anti gun sentiment comes from on here and most places. Most people aren't brought up around guns, all they get for education on them is that they are bad, news shows mainly bad stories about people getting killed by them, schools now are so insane about weapons that even pictures get you punished. It's sad that so many people are so misinformed about them. I feel very bad for the families of the Aurora incident but it doesn't mean we need stricter gun control because a few bad apples do bad things with a tool or a machine. If it was the case across the board there could be no cars, as they are used in getaways and sometimes people just run people over. Planes couldn't be flown because a few goat farmers crashed them into buildings. etc etc.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37889770]The only reason for it is the government fears its people. Which is exactly what they are supposed to do. It keeps them from making dumb decisions. But when you restrict peoples ability to fight back you do whatever you want, like give billions of dollars to thieving bankers that destroyed the lives of countless people.[/QUOTE] This is a kinda hopelessly terrible view of governments. Untrained citizens find it very very difficult to defeat a well organised and trained military force through violence alone. It's probably feasible that if the federal government suddenly banned guns tomorrow the "revolution" would be crushed. [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37889719]As much as it pains me to agree with Sob when he's on his unverifiable "violent revolutions r evul" schtick, that point's right.[/QUOTE] It's more that I think that non-violent action is more effective or desirable than violent ones. Violent revolutions can and do cause a lot of rapid change in a short period of time, but people tend to die during them.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37889844]Untrained citizens find it very very difficult to defeat a well organised and trained military force through violence alone. [/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements[/url]

[QUOTE=Robbi;37889894][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements[/url][/QUOTE] sorry, how many of these were successful in creating a better society than the one they toppled?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37889904]sorry, how many of these were successful in creating a better society than the one they toppled?[/QUOTE] And not all of the ones on the list have come close to toppling anything.

Maybe guns should have licenses sort of like cars. You should have at least a theory test to obtain one. You get points on your licence if you misuse your firearm, and lose it completely if you reach a certain amount of points

[QUOTE=RobbL;37890066]Maybe guns should have licenses sort of like cars. You should have at least a theory test to obtain one. You get points on your licence if you misuse your firearm, and lose it completely if you reach a certain amount of points[/QUOTE] I say the same requirements should be applied to voting. Voting is much more dangerous to a nation's government than some unlikely armed uprising.

[QUOTE=Ridge;37890079]I say the same requirements should be applied to voting. Voting is much more dangerous to a nation's government than some unlikely armed uprising.[/QUOTE] "this disenfranchises the voter"

[QUOTE=Robbi;37888643]That's a pretty stupid statement. What if opposition political parties are illegal? What if there's no freedom of speech? What if you have a Communist regime? Or a fascist one? Or just any autocratic government who is not afraid of using force on civilians? What will you then do? Cry?[/QUOTE] The UN the international community would surely do something

[QUOTE=Ridge;37890079]I say the same requirements should be applied to voting. Voting is much more dangerous to a nation's government than some unlikely armed uprising.[/QUOTE] lol step aside literal killing machines, the ballot box is the real instrument of death yeah voting licenses really swell idea Ridge

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37889844]This is a kinda hopelessly terrible view of governments. Untrained citizens find it very very difficult to defeat a well organised and trained military force through violence alone. It's probably feasible that if the federal government suddenly banned guns tomorrow the "revolution" would be crushed. It's more that I think that non-violent action is more effective or desirable than violent ones. Violent revolutions can and do cause a lot of rapid change in a short period of time, but people tend to die during them.[/QUOTE] You keep going back to this. The military won't kill it's own people especially if it is a widespread revolt. For just the sake of it I will say I am talking about the US govt, not other nations. If there is a widespread civil unrest I can guarantee most police will be at home protecting their own, most military would follow suit. Only a true moron would kill his own family because the government told them to. However overthrowing govt isn't really my point. It just seem the only reason to ban guns. That is what I am getting at. There is no reason to ban them other than a scared government or dumb misinformed people that were brought up to think guns are bad. All the anti gun morons will have a lot of fun trying to survive if the economy collapses, which is a lot more plausible than a full on revolt. However it could be the start of one but anyway that brings up a whole new slew of debates. Like how a military would fight with no economic backbone to support it.

[QUOTE=RobbL;37890089]The UN the international community would surely do something[/QUOTE] just like in syria right

[QUOTE=Ridge;37890079]I say the same requirements should be applied to voting. Voting is much more dangerous to a nation's government than some unlikely armed uprising.[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with voting licences?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37890096]lol step aside literal killing machines, the ballot box is the real instrument of death yeah voting licenses really swell idea Ridge[/QUOTE] I dare say let's make it a more reasonable age as well, perhaps something like 25. And while we're at it let's require property ownership; after all, voters should have some skin in the game. Since we're essentially talking ideas from the 1700s, let's disenfranchise women and minorities as well!

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37889770]Being this thread is really off topic, partly my fault I want to ask why do people want to put restrictions on firearms for [B]law abiding citizens[/B]?[/QUOTE] Has it occurred to you that being law-abiding [I]now[/I] says nothing for how law-abiding you will be [I]later?[/I] I mean, fuck, every criminal was law-abiding once upon a time! You're acting like there are good people in the world and bad people in the world and we should let good people have whatever shootin' ahrons they want. Those are not static and binary qualities. You're also ignoring the whole "accidents" and "firearms per capita" issues.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37890143]Has it occurred to you that being law-abiding [I]now[/I] says nothing for how law-abiding you will be [I]later?[/I] I mean, fuck, every criminal was law-abiding once upon a time! You're acting like there are good people in the world and bad people in the world and we should let good people have whatever shootin' ahrons they want. Those are not static and binary qualities. You're also ignoring the whole "accidents" and [B]"firearms per capita"[/B] issues.[/QUOTE] That's not an issue.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890109]The military won't kill it's own people especially if it is a widespread revolt.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mon;37890110]just like in syria right[/QUOTE] I had to, sue me. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;37890175]That's not an issue.[/QUOTE] Yeah, actually, it is. [URL="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014481889800012X"]Some studies suggest legal ownership increases adult homicide rates.[/URL]

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37890143]Has it occurred to you that being law-abiding [I]now[/I] says nothing for how law-abiding you will be [I]later?[/I] I mean, fuck, every criminal was law-abiding once upon a time! You're acting like there are good people in the world and bad people in the world and we should let good people have whatever shootin' ahrons they want. Those are not static and binary qualities. You're also ignoring the whole "accidents" and "firearms per capita" issues.[/QUOTE] no xenocide you misunderstand. the real issue with guns is lack of mandatory firearms training for every american man woman and child. the guns have nothing to do with it

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890109]It just seem the only reason to ban guns. That is what I am getting at. There is no reason to ban them other than a scared government or dumb misinformed people that were brought up to think guns are bad.[/QUOTE] What would you say if for example, somebody did some studies and experiments, loads of work on the subject, and found out with conclusive evidence (Not saying they did) that gun control was ultimately good at reducing crime in the long term? Would gun control be justified in that case?

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37890143]Has it occurred to you that being law-abiding [I]now[/I] says nothing for how law-abiding you will be [I]later?[/I] I mean, fuck, every criminal was law abiding once upon a time! You're acting like there are good people in the world and bad people in the world and we should let good people have whatever shootin' ahrons they want. Those are not static and binary qualities.[/QUOTE] So you are saying I should not be able to have my new gun because I could possibly maybe do something in the future. What the hell is wrong with you? Besides most gun crime is carried out with illegally obtain weapons. 99.999999999999999999999999999999998% of gun owners are the most level headed people you will meet. The mentality of protecting people from themselves is moronic. The odds are also quite staggering and not worth banning an entire industry and sport over a few incidents.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890243] 99.999999999999999999999999999999998% of gun owners are the most level headed people you will meet.[/QUOTE] Source? Really, I want the source that provides this exact number.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;37890243]So you are saying I should not be able to have my new gun because I could possibly maybe do something in the future. What the hell is wrong with you? Besides most gun crime is carried out with illegally obtain weapons. [B]99.999999999999999999999999999999998% of gun owners are the most level headed people you will meet.[/B] The mentality of protecting people from themselves is moronic. The odds are also quite staggering and not worth banning an entire industry and sport over a few incidents.[/QUOTE] lol i could say that 99.9 percent of bad drivers are from massachusetts and have absolutely no ground in that statement because blanket statements generally mean nothing