mOgliE
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
|
 |
February 22, 2016, 07:38:04 PM |
|
Governments have killed and maimed many times more people than all "civilians" have ever, per capita, but governments should be the only ones with guns? Fuck you to death, you pro-democide freaks. What an argument... You're talking about governments like they were some independent entity! Government NEVER KILLED ANYONE! People did! When a government wants to kill part of the population or another country's population, they send the army, the people! And the people are more than willing to kill! What would gun control change to that? Distinction without a difference. If the government (the minority of the people) wants to kill people, it does, over all objections by the majority of the people, who have been disarmed by "gun control". Oh, you ignored the historical example given. And the government can't kill the majority because the army is also the majority. It never did. Give me one example. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The network tries to produce one block per 10 minutes. It does this by automatically adjusting how difficult it is to produce blocks.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
matrix zion
|
|
February 22, 2016, 08:24:10 PM |
|
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA. Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too  |
|
|
|
|
TheButterZone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1031
RIP Mommy
|
|
February 22, 2016, 08:38:28 PM
Last edit: February 22, 2016, 08:59:18 PM by TheButterZone |
|
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA. Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too Less deaths of/more security for those committing democide in Europe (the minority of the people, who are in the armed forces, vs the majority of the people, who aren't), absolutely. When USA becomes a "civilized country" like those in Europe, American mass graves will be a tourist attraction for Europeans. Give an example of a dictatorship that came into existence despite all civilians being legally armed (who wanted to be, and weren't infringed like all democide victims, who obeyed "gun control"). Oh wait, dictators and their loyalists (who count their own votes to falsely claim majority rule) are invincible, and shrug off any amount of incoming fire from their innocent victims, nevermind.  |
Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
|
|
|
|
matrix zion
|
|
February 22, 2016, 08:43:55 PM |
|
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA. Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too Less deaths of/more security for those committing democide in Europe (the minority of the people, who are in the armed forces, vs the majority of the people, who aren't), absolutely. When USA becomes a "civilized country" like those in Europe, American mass graves will be a tourist attraction for Europeans. Pff... You're saying shit again, if armed people would prevent dictatorship please explains why it never worked? Give an example of a dictatorship that failed thanks to armed people! |
|
|
|
|
mOgliE
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
|
|
February 22, 2016, 08:52:35 PM |
|
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA. Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too Less deaths of/more security for those committing democide in Europe (the minority of the people, who are in the armed forces, vs the majority of the people, who aren't), absolutely. When USA becomes a "civilized country" like those in Europe, American mass graves will be a tourist attraction for Europeans. Give an example of a dictatorship that came into existence despite all civilians being legally armed (who wanted to be, and weren't infringed). Oh wait, dictators and their loyalists are invincible, and shrug off any amount of incoming fire from their innocent victims, nevermind. Well say whatever you want but most of the time a dictatorship gets more than 50% of the population as a support at least at the begining. And please give an example. Cause WWII was exactly that: population fully armed. |
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
|
February 23, 2016, 05:25:43 AM |
|
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA. Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too Less deaths of/more security for those committing democide in Europe (the minority of the people, who are in the armed forces, vs the majority of the people, who aren't), absolutely. When USA becomes a "civilized country" like those in Europe, American mass graves will be a tourist attraction for Europeans. Pff... You're saying shit again, if armed people would prevent dictatorship please explains why it never worked? Give an example of a dictatorship that failed thanks to armed people! The basic idea is that dictatorships would be more cumbersome to construct amongst an armed populace. Some of the authors of our founding documents were fairly clear about this. All that '...enemies foreign and domestic...', '...it is their right, it is their duty...', stuff. Functionally, at the vary least, a well armed population helps the plebs select the flavor of dictatorship they prefer, and helps totalitarian rule be such an expensive pain-in-the-ass that it reverts back to a democracy, or some other more tolerable form of government, that much more quickly. Again, the 'full court press' against the 2nd over the last few years certainly makes me wonder who has what visions for the future. |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
|
Whosdaddy
|
|
February 23, 2016, 06:23:42 AM |
|
A lot of people have misused and abused this system of owning a dangerous weapon and the government needs to crack down on who and who cannot own a gun. So, in my view Government should not allow any weapons to public.
You are right, it's better banning all type of weapon completely without any negotiation of incenses and all, this must be a good long term solution in my view too. Otherwise, Strict guidelines and how to use a weapon safety should also be bought into force. Civilians who fear for their safety in an unruly neighborhood should be given a consideration or more police bought into the vicinity to counteract crime, so the need for guns becomes less. |
|
|
|
|
|
craked5
|
|
February 23, 2016, 09:13:50 AM |
|
Bah gun control debate only concerns USA. Europe understood well that gun controls means less deaths and more security. When USA will become a civilized country they'll understand it too Less deaths of/more security for those committing democide in Europe (the minority of the people, who are in the armed forces, vs the majority of the people, who aren't), absolutely. When USA becomes a "civilized country" like those in Europe, American mass graves will be a tourist attraction for Europeans. Pff... You're saying shit again, if armed people would prevent dictatorship please explains why it never worked? Give an example of a dictatorship that failed thanks to armed people! The basic idea is that dictatorships would be more cumbersome to construct amongst an armed populace. Some of the authors of our founding documents were fairly clear about this. All that '...enemies foreign and domestic...', '...it is their right, it is their duty...', stuff. Functionally, at the vary least, a well armed population helps the plebs select the flavor of dictatorship they prefer, and helps totalitarian rule be such an expensive pain-in-the-ass that it reverts back to a democracy, or some other more tolerable form of government, that much more quickly. Again, the 'full court press' against the 2nd over the last few years certainly makes me wonder who has what visions for the future. Maybe that's what your founders believe. But History says your founders are wrong. |
|
|
|
|
TheButterZone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1031
RIP Mommy
|
|
February 23, 2016, 09:20:15 AM
Last edit: February 23, 2016, 10:09:13 AM by TheButterZone |
|
Maybe that's what your founders believe. But History says your founders are wrong.
Revisionist history to shit on the graves of "gun control" aka democide victims, certainly. |
Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
|
|
|
|
craked5
|
|
February 23, 2016, 09:38:55 AM |
|
Maybe that's what your founders believe. But History says your founders are wrong.
Revisionist history to shit on the graves of "gun control" aka democide victims, certainly. Funny I think you already said this but never refers to any precise part of history. You only come here and say "blah blah blah you're wrong blah blah blah you're lying" without giving any example even if you were asked to like 4 or 5 times already. Well sorry but as long as you have such great arguments, I don't see how I can agree with you... |
|
|
|
|
|
xslugx
|
|
February 23, 2016, 02:14:46 PM |
|
Maybe that's what your founders believe. But History says your founders are wrong.
Revisionist history to shit on the graves of "gun control" aka democide victims, certainly. Don't know what you call revisionist history. Would you care to share your beliefs? |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
|
|
February 24, 2016, 02:32:07 AM
Last edit: February 24, 2016, 05:47:56 AM by BADecker |
|
Governments have killed and maimed many times more people than all "civilians" have ever, per capita, but governments should be the only ones with guns? Fuck you to death, you pro-democide freaks. What an argument... You're talking about governments like they were some independent entity! Government NEVER KILLED ANYONE! People did! When a government wants to kill part of the population or another country's population, they send the army, the people! And the people are more than willing to kill! What would gun control change to that? Distinction without a difference. If the government (the minority of the people) wants to kill people, it does, over all objections by the majority of the people, who have been disarmed by "gun control". Oh, you ignored the historical example given. And the government can't kill the majority because the army is also the majority. It never did. Give me one example. How about 3: Stalin, Hitler, Mao. And there are a lot more. Genghis Khan was religious. He was Shamanistic. In addition, he didn't try to kill off people because of their religious beliefs, even if they were different than his. Thus, Temujin must be added to the religious end of the killing... a mere 12,000,000 compared to the 100,000,000 of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. Besides, the people Temujin killed were armed soldiers of other nations. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao killed their own unarmed citizens.  |
|
|
|
TheButterZone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1031
RIP Mommy
|
|
February 24, 2016, 03:01:49 AM
Last edit: February 24, 2016, 05:13:50 AM by TheButterZone |
|
And that's the difference. 2 sides armed, in combat=war. 1 side armed, 1 side disarmed, in aggression=democide. Would you rather be A) a defenseless innocent in the oven aka prey B) a criminal against humanity filling the ovens aka predator or C) that "fucking gun nut" who would neither be predator nor prey?
|
Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
|
|
|
bonski
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
February 24, 2016, 03:05:33 AM |
|
And as the history of my country (Philippines) Spaniards used gun to promote their religion which is Catholicism. If gun will still exist to this world, they will be always war everywhere and criminals will use it to scare the innocent people by using it to their crimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
n0ne
|
|
February 24, 2016, 08:35:12 AM |
|
And as the history of my country (Philippines) Spaniards used gun to promote their religion which is Catholicism. If gun will still exist to this world, they will be always war everywhere and criminals will use it to scare the innocent people by using it to their crimes.
I have never heard such history of Philippines. If such incident took place atleast we can see a small group of people in the country opposing catholic, but there is no such thing. Lets stop gun just thinking of past few years gun trend that took many lives. So using of gun should have certain age restrictions too. |
|
|
|
|
valta4065
|
|
February 24, 2016, 09:12:00 AM |
|
Governments have killed and maimed many times more people than all "civilians" have ever, per capita, but governments should be the only ones with guns? Fuck you to death, you pro-democide freaks. What an argument... You're talking about governments like they were some independent entity! Government NEVER KILLED ANYONE! People did! When a government wants to kill part of the population or another country's population, they send the army, the people! And the people are more than willing to kill! What would gun control change to that? Distinction without a difference. If the government (the minority of the people) wants to kill people, it does, over all objections by the majority of the people, who have been disarmed by "gun control". Oh, you ignored the historical example given. And the government can't kill the majority because the army is also the majority. It never did. Give me one example. How about 3: Stalin, Hitler, Mao. And there are a lot more. Genghis Khan was religious. He was Shamanistic. In addition, he didn't try to kill off people because of their religious beliefs, even if they were different than his. Thus, Temujin must be added to the religious end of the killing... a mere 12,000,000 compared to the 100,000,000 of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. Besides, the people Temujin killed were armed soldiers of other nations. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao killed their own unarmed citizens. How about: You're wrong and don't know history. Stalin, Hitler and Mao had the majority. Hitler was elected, Mao and Staline led a revolution. Thanks for giving the wrong examples. |
|
|
|
|
yugo23
|
|
February 24, 2016, 11:46:54 AM |
|
And that's the difference. 2 sides armed, in combat=war. 1 side armed, 1 side disarmed, in aggression=democide. Would you rather be A) a defenseless innocent in the oven aka prey B) a criminal against humanity filling the ovens aka predator or C) that "fucking gun nut" who would neither be predator nor prey?
It's never clear and plain 1 side against another one... I don't even know you can think it's that simple... |
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
|
February 24, 2016, 04:22:36 PM |
|
How about: You're wrong and don't know history.
Stalin, Hitler and Mao had the majority. Hitler was elected, Mao and Staline led a revolution. Thanks for giving the wrong examples.
Good and important point. I would take some exception in the case of Stalin however. As I understand things, he was mostly part of Lenin's entourage and the guy who came out on top at some point after the revolution. |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
February 24, 2016, 04:22:52 PM |
|
And as the history of my country (Philippines) Spaniards used gun to promote their religion which is Catholicism. If gun will still exist to this world, they will be always war everywhere and criminals will use it to scare the innocent people by using it to their crimes.
Last I heard, the Phillipines, beautiful though they are, had terrorists in various places, also numerous areas which are outright Communistic. Quite a few guns around the islands, right? What does that say? How about we consider the NOW, rather than hundreds of years ago? I ask not to denigrate your comment but to see your opinion as to the problems of today. |
|
|
|
|
|
craked5
|
|
February 24, 2016, 06:24:21 PM |
|
How about: You're wrong and don't know history.
Stalin, Hitler and Mao had the majority. Hitler was elected, Mao and Staline led a revolution. Thanks for giving the wrong examples.
Good and important point. I would take some exception in the case of Stalin however. As I understand things, he was mostly part of Lenin's entourage and the guy who came out on top at some point after the revolution. Yeah it's right for Staline. But it's the same, 3 people were leading the revolution, two died, the one remaining leads the country and he has the majority ^^ |
|
|
|
|
|
