What's your opinion of gun control? - page 134.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: bonski on February 23, 2016, 10:05:33 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.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: valta4065 on February 24, 2016, 04:12:00 AM

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.

yugo23

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 252

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 23, 2016, 10:01:49 PM

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...

valta4065

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 500

Join @Bountycloud for the best bounties!

Quote from: BADecker on February 23, 2016, 09:32:07 PM

Quote from: mOgliE on February 22, 2016, 02:38:04 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 22, 2016, 02:29:28 PM

Quote from: xslugx on February 22, 2016, 01:48:44 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 22, 2016, 01:34:48 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.

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.

Cool

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.

n0ne

hero member

Activity: 2646

Merit: 548

DGbet.fun - Crypto Sportsbook

Quote from: bonski on February 23, 2016, 10:05:33 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.

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.

bonski

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

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.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

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?

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: mOgliE on February 22, 2016, 02:38:04 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 22, 2016, 02:29:28 PM

Quote from: xslugx on February 22, 2016, 01:48:44 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 22, 2016, 01:34:48 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.

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.

Cool

xslugx

sr. member

Activity: 293

Merit: 250

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 23, 2016, 04:20:15 AM

Quote from: craked5 on February 23, 2016, 04:13:50 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.

Don't know what you call revisionist history. Would you care to share your beliefs?

craked5

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 529

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 23, 2016, 04:20:15 AM

Quote from: craked5 on February 23, 2016, 04:13:50 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...

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: craked5 on February 23, 2016, 04:13:50 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.

craked5

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 529

Quote from: tvbcof on February 23, 2016, 12:25:43 AM

Quote from: matrix zion on February 22, 2016, 03:43:55 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 22, 2016, 03:38:28 PM

Quote from: matrix zion on February 22, 2016, 03:24:10 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 Wink

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.

Whosdaddy

hero member

Activity: 1148

Merit: 527

Quote from: redsun114 on February 22, 2016, 12:45:43 PM

Quote from: cluit on February 22, 2016, 10:12:35 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.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: matrix zion on February 22, 2016, 03:43:55 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 22, 2016, 03:38:28 PM

Quote from: matrix zion on February 22, 2016, 03:24:10 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 Wink

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.

mOgliE

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1251

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 22, 2016, 03:38:28 PM

Quote from: matrix zion on February 22, 2016, 03:24:10 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 Wink

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. Roll Eyes

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.

matrix zion

sr. member

Activity: 381

Merit: 251

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 22, 2016, 03:38:28 PM

Quote from: matrix zion on February 22, 2016, 03:24:10 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 Wink

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!

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: matrix zion on February 22, 2016, 03:24:10 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 Wink

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. Roll Eyes

matrix zion

sr. member

Activity: 381

Merit: 251

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 Wink

mOgliE

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1251

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 22, 2016, 02:29:28 PM

Quote from: xslugx on February 22, 2016, 01:48:44 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 22, 2016, 01:34:48 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.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: xslugx on February 22, 2016, 01:48:44 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on February 22, 2016, 01:34:48 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".

Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 134. (Read 450551 times)