Bitcoin Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQg0SD_AT-k

I dont support lowering gun crime by banning or limiting our firearms choices.

I do not want my children to be a gradually lowered gun crime statistic.

I want them alive and protected.

Guns do this.

In every country that has outlawed guns, there have been dramatic rises in violent crimes.

I guess I am selfish. I want the people I love alive, and if the people who try to harm them -or me - get killed, thats the breaks. If they kill other innocents who failed to prepare, its a terrible tragedy and I will mourn their loss, but its a cold hard world. Sorry. Prepare next time... with a gun and training.

psssst ... for most, there is no next time.

But... but... assault rifles are eeeeviiiil!

msnbc told me so

source? (please)

I don't think anyone in the US Govt is planning on outlawing guns, are they?

More Guns, Less Crime - John Lott (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=j6cMYKRgqQ8C)

Tyrants who effectively have no check on their power or the amount of heinous criminal acts they can get away with? No, never in a million years would they (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/bosnia.htm) ever (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/rwanda.htm) plan (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/pol-pot.htm) mass (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/holocaust.htm) disarmament (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm), enabling (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm) genocide (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/armenians.htm).

Plan to disarm the US? Probably not this time around. But boy, they surely would love to. And if they can get enough public support, drum up enough fear, they might try. To which, Jefferson responds:  "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

"The security of a free state" doesn't just mean from foreign enemies. It's precisely that which the founders intended to prevent with the second amendment, and it's precisely to that end that they have largely defanged it. I don't want to sound like a crackpot, here, and I certainly don't think that anyone in the government wants to commit democide. Probably, they just want their job to be easier. Enforcing laws is obviously easier on a disarmed populace. Unfortunately, so is democide. So is oppression. So is tyranny.

Sure, but the US?

Everything is what you make it.

Things like guns, which are actually bad
can be used to do something morally good.

The same can be said for nukes, drugs, and morally bad people. This is not in dispute. The dispute is whether the risk of allowing widespread access to guns in a given community outweighs the benefits.

What makes the tyrants who effectively have no check on their power or the amount of heinous criminal acts they can get away with that run the U.S. government so special that they couldn't possibly want to bathe in billions of litres of innocent blood? All these "gun free zone" massacres (that the government itself enables) are just appetizers.

Interesting thought, but what makes you think that the US is at risk of becoming a tyranny? Do you have any sources you could share?

"At risk?" LOL

I guess your definition of "tyranny" and and everyone else's is somewhat different. Could you explain more about what you mean?

"everyone else's"

Yes, "everyone else" in the world, (all 7,057,645,823 estimated people, with just me subtracted) sees zero tyranny whatsoever in the U.S.
Just puppies and rainbows.

LOL

You really think that the US is at risk of becoming a dictatorship? Why, and who do you think the dictator is likely to be?

So, you won't respond to what I'm actually saying.

/ignore

I have been trying to understand what your response to my comment is. Clearly I'm not doing well, so could you reply in a clear way? I'm not much of a one for riddles.

The question was:

"what makes you think that the US is at risk of becoming a tyranny? Do you have any sources you could share"

And the answer was that it's not at risk. It already is. The president can kill US citizens, without any more due process than his say-so, inside or outside the borders. He can pass any law he so chooses, with those "executive orders." If that doesn't make it a tyranny, I don't know what does. Do you think that just because we pick a new El Presidente every 4 or 8 years, that makes it not a dictatorship?

Well, he can be removed from office any time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States)
But obviously most politicians think he's not committing any serious crime.

So, yes, you think that picking a new El Presidente makes it not a dictatorship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE

Oh, they know he is, but they're jealous, or guilty, themselves.

Ok to be fair . are you able to prove this point.  I mean you can make a statement but you need to back up  some. 
To be fair.

Who are you responding to?

yeh. . 

Ahh. Typically, one would do these things as part of one post, so as to avoid this sort of confusion, but to each his own, I suppose.

I don't have data to back up that particular claim (perhaps Bitware does) but I do have data that backs it up in the US, at least. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=j6cMYKRgqQ8C I believe the third edition has some international data in it, too.

Ok.

Uranium kills, guns don't.

Put your head on uranium every night, lets see if you live longer than if you put your head on your gun.

Awesome.