Goosey
.
If our country was attacked who would we want on our side?
I'm just fucken grateful that I live here in Australia
This doesn't excuse or diminish the problem however. There is a problem, doing nothing will not achieve anything. I get the impression that many don't acknowledge there is a problem. Maybe Wayne LaPierre has the answer - more guns in schools!
While the jingoist people salute the flag and prepare to defend their god given (2nd amendment) rights, the rest of the developed world is in awe of their stupidity.
Fadi: also to defend from government tyranny. Might sound ridiculous to us in 2016, but it has happened many times in the past.
As for the well organised militia, in the context of the constitution it means owning the firearms required to resist tyranny via the government (aka the Army), not about the creation of a fighting force. The Second Amendment is possibly one of the most heavily analysed pieces of the Constitution. "The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."
I was thinking the other day of what an incredible responsibility it must be to concealed carry; to know that any situation you get involved with could potentially end with someone being killed.
My point is this: since according to the statistics, that 21,000 out of 30,000 deaths were suicide by a gun (and not simply gun related violence), should we be focusing on the gun as being a weapon of choice for that mentally disturbed person, or should we focus on mental illness and disregard the reason why perhaps the gun is the weapon of choice for such a mentally disturbed person? I don't have the statistics of suicide by another object apart form a gun, and I'm sure that would be most helpful.suicide is a terrible thing
whats your point fadi.
America of courseIf our country was attacked who would we want on our side?
He also said that the existing background check system should be enforced more strongly and with more accurate data. Despite some over there opining that the NRA are sellouts for backing gun control in the context of people, it seems that most of their member base do support trying to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and felons.
top kek m8 I actually copied and pasted from here http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
If you're going to commit suicide, the gun has the highest success rateMy point is this: since according to the statistics, that 21,000 out of 30,000 deaths were suicide by a gun (and not simply gun related violence), should we be focusing on the gun as being a weapon of choice for that mentally disturbed person, or should we focus on mental illness and disregard the reason why perhaps the gun is the weapon of choice for such a mentally disturbed person? I don't have the statistics of suicide by another object apart form a gun, and I'm sure that would be most helpful.
If our country was attacked who would we want on our side?
If you're going to commit suicide, the gun has the highest success rate
If you're going to commit suicide, the gun has the highest success rate
Thank you Darkoz, that answers part of the question; that the gun plays a psychological role in its use by a mentally disturbed person. Thank you sir.If you're going to commit suicide, the gun has the highest success rate
Thank you for the reply bozodos, I appreciate it mate. Would you mind clarifying to me what exactly do you mean when you say "government tyranny"? We don't have dictatorship nor puppet regimes here in the west, and we certainly don't suffer from oppression nor suppression. So I'm a bit curious as to what you would consider as being "government tyranny" sir? Thank you very much in advance.Fadi: also to defend from government tyranny. Might sound ridiculous to us in 2016, but it has happened many times in the past.
I'm not after an argument here Jonnie, far from it (as I'm sure you'd appreciate). However the military arsenal you've mentioned above is great in an open field open warfare scenario, but fail miserably in house to house gorilla warfare so history and today's reality tell us. I may be wrong, persuade me otherwise if you can please sir.if the government turns on its people i don't thinking owning an ar-15 is going to protect you from drones, f22 raptors and cruise missiles. hence my out dated comment.
I'm not after an argument here Jonnie, far from it (as I'm sure you'd appreciate). However the military arsenal you've mentioned above is great in an open field open warfare scenario, but fail miserably in house to house gorilla warfare so history and today's reality tell us. I may be wrong, persuade me otherwise if you can please sir.
Actually that scenario of government versus its own people played out as recently as 34 years ago in Syria, and it was given the name the 1982 Hama massacre..., where the whole town was flattened and thousands of people (mainly civilians) were killed.the reason it doesn't work is we want to avoid civilian casualties, which im asuming isnt going to be a problem if the government decides to wage war on its civilians.
think the taliban would of held out for 10 years if we just went in there and demolished the entire country and everyone in it ala ww2?
also to defend from government tyranny
Actually that scenario of government versus its own people played out as recently as 34 years ago in Syria, and it was given the name the 1982 Hama massacre..., where the whole town was flattened and thousands of people (mainly civilians) were killed.
I see your point however. If the government does not give a damn about its people (as is the case in the middle east), then sure, the heavy weapons you've mentioned do really apply. However my point still stands re what bozodos has earlier stated, where perhaps owning a gun, has its purpose in/to:
The reason I asked the question was that here in the west, we don't have dictatorship nor a puppet regime as we have in the Mid-east, neither are we oppressed nor suppressed. On the contrary, we are free to exercise our right to freedom. Which begs the question, why does a civilian need to protect himself or herself from the tyranny of our ....western governments? If the answer is yes, they (our western governments are a bunch of tyrants let us say), then the civilians in such oppressed and suppressed countries as the Mid-East should own a tank or a jet fighter to counteract the injustices their governments are acting on a daily bases. Darkoz has said it several times now, that we are lucky to be living here in Oz, and I couldn't agree with the man more if I tried!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?