GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys

Page 3 of 3

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1094513)

Robbie

12-29-2012 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10 (Post 19396218)

Today's US military versus citizens with assault rifles doesn't remotely compare to the north versus the south.

You're missing my point

Of course if it was just a few guys with guns the outcome would be immediate.

But if (just like the civil war), half the military were to defect to the people trying to overthrow a tyrannical govt. then it would be a different situation.

It's not gonna happen anyway. But I'm just pointing out that once the citizenry is disarmed...then even that tiny bit of possibility is gone.

But I do absolutely believe that if somehow our govt. went "rogue" and people rose up against it en-mass then the results would be very different than the US military vs. a few guys with guns.

The military would think twice before killing their own families and friends. Especially if the mood of the country was so anti-govt. at the time and large portions of the military began defecting.

It just happened in Libya, and it's happening in Syria.

Again, I'm not saying that will happen here. Tony is right...Americans have it too good. We are all more worried about getting the newest tech gadget than we are about our freedom and rights.

So if enough people in this country really want to disarm themselves...then the 2nd amendment should be scrapped.

Anything else is unconstitutional and just us arguing over nothing.

Maybe you guys are right. We are all doomed anyway and slaves to the govt. In that case, let's just get rid of the 2nd amendment and move forward from there wherever it may take us.

Hell, this country is probably gonna limp along in a somewhat recognizable form during our lifetimes anyway. Let the people 100 years from now worry about not having a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. We'll all probably be long dead before the U.S. govt. becomes completely tyrannical.

brandonstills

12-29-2012 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10 (Post 19396224)

Guns aren't addictive substances. Totally different

Hmm, I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you implying that drugs are addictive and so that is why people will find a way to get it no matter what? I would agree with that. But isn't it true that people greatly value freedom and security from others who intend them harm. Those are forces that are very strong drives as well and a reason why people will go to great lengths to get guns.

If the goal is to stop violent crimes from happening, I don't think banning guns is the solution.

The thought many people have is that if there are less guns there will be less gun related crimes. That leads people to think "hey, let's ban guns".

There are 2 problems with this.

1) Gun bans will not prevent criminals from getting guns. Disarming lawful citizens prevents them from protecting themselves. The risk to a criminal is now decreased and disarmed citizens are much easier prey. As a result this will only increase crime. A gun ban will widen the gap disparity between criminals and citizens ability to protect themselves (in favor of the criminals).

2) If the concentration of guns determines the likelihood of violent crimes then wouldn't a gun show be the most likely place for a massacre, not schools? The fact is that there is less crime in areas of high gun ownership.

In the presence of well armed citizens, the probability of pulling off a successful crime is much less and the risk of bodily harm to a criminal is much greater.

In order to rationalize a gun ban, it must first be proven that decreasing guns per capita will reduce crime and that implementing a gun ban will indeed reduce the amount of criminals with guns. I think both of those assumptions are false but I am open to changing my mind should a rational argument and supporting evidence be presented.

GrantMercury

12-29-2012 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzard (Post 19395022)

The Ban should be on government, If you are associated in any way, shape or form with government, you are NOT allowed at any time to posess a firearm.

The government is US. We The People. Stop trying to turn it into "them".

The problem is when government stops being US. When $$$ corrupts the system, We The People aren't heard. When people can't be bothered to learn the names of their Congressmen and Senators, the system gets away from us.

GrantMercury

12-29-2012 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19395546)

Guys, the Second Ammendment to the constitution says that: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It doesn't specify that the "people" (which means the citizens of the United States) can only have a certain type of weapon.

I recall something that comes before this...something about being "well regulated"...hmmmm.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...11365736_n.png

Gozarian

12-30-2012 12:32 AM

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
--Thomas Paine

Coup	12-30-2012 12:35 AM

Guns is cool man

Robbie

12-30-2012 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19396310)

The government is US. We The People. Stop trying to turn it into "them".

You know that's not true. It long ago went out of the people's hands and became totally corrupt.

Did you decide to "experiment" on poor black people and deliberately give them STD's and fake treatments just to see what would happen to them? No? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to go to an undeclared war in Vietnam? Nope? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to have our CIA promote disruption and destabilization of govt.'s and assassinate leaders in South and Central America? Nope? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to start a "war on drugs" against the citizens of this country? No? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to invade Afghanistan when a handful of guys with box cutters hijacked and crashed planes on 9-11? No? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to invade Iraq "pre-emptively"? No? Me either.

GrantMercury...our govt. is NOT "us". It's a group of totally corrupt lifetime politicians who are bleeding this country dry.

I seriously can not understand how any liberal minded person would want to give the govt. more money and more control over our lives.
The liberal people I saw when I was young in the 1960's and 1970's were all about FREEDOM and protested against govt. control of their lives.

This is like some kind of bizarro world where everything is upside down.

I think that in time you and many others are going to come to regret your faux liberalism view of handing the govt. everything and taking your own rights and money away.

GrantMercury

12-30-2012 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19396410)

??? WTF are you going on about? Get a grip.

Who fucking throws out corrupt lifetime politicians? WE DO. Who demands changes in laws that aren't working? WE DO. We can have the country we want. But people have to fucking give a shit. People have to pay attention. People have to read newspapers. People have to think in the abstract. People have to know and regularly contact their lawmakers. People have to fucking VOTE! Forty percent don't even bother to do that. So why do you think the crooks have taken over?

The government certainly isn't ALL bad. And the shit that's not working can be fixed IF WE INSIST on it. THAT is the beauty of America. THAT is the genius of the Constitution.

Bellyaching about corruption and giving up is bullshit. Every positive piece of legislation passed in government came about because the people demanded it, and in some cases fought for it, and even died for it. There have been so many positive changes in America's short history. None of it happened as a result of people sitting on their asses, throwing up their hands, and moaning about "gubment".

And who ever said anything about giving the government more money or control over our lives, anyway?

Robbie

12-30-2012 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19396431)

??? WTF are you going on about? Get a grip.

Who fucking throws out corrupt lifetime politicians? WE DO. Who demands changes in laws that aren't working? WE DO.

And who ever said anything about giving the government more money or control over our lives, anyway?

Dude you are living in a dream world. You just voted for another corrupt politician for President (Romney would of been the same...I voted Libertarian for real freedom).

I am sad to say that Harry Reid is my Senator. And he is about the perfect example of a lifetime corrupt politician as you will see.

"WE" aren't voting anybody out. "WE" are doing what you did...letting the media tell you who and what to vote for. And did anything change? No.

Even the bill for Hurricane Sandy disaster relief...it's FULL of pork barrel spending!
It has $8 MILLION dollars to buy cars for Homeland Security personnel.
$150 MILLION for fisheries in Alaska.
13 BILLION dollars for planning for future disasters!!!!!
The list goes on:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...Elj4CKwbheEV0N

THAT is your precious federal govt. full of fucking crooks at "work".

Wake up man. You're not cut from the same cloth as say an Abbie Hoffman. You're more of the "sheeple" variety than a true liberal who loves freedom.

Dirty F

12-30-2012 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank21 (Post 19395994)

Then why is the police armed? With the anti-gun logica unarmed cops result in much safer streets, why not start there?
No law or amendment has to be changed for that just take the guns of the cops, problem solved.
In the schoolyards it worked! Take away the guns of the good guys and it will be all OK i promise you.

My god, you are retarded.

Gozarian

12-30-2012 03:15 AM

At least here we know the politicians are crooks and most, sadly, wear it as a badge of honor. In America its biz as usual "what me?" while the right hand is behind the back taking the $ and fucking someone.

tony286

12-30-2012 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19396438)

I know the pundits clouded your mind. But lets think about a few things. If you are elected to congress or the senate whats one of your main jobs? To bring money to your state. They showed an example of that during the election Paul "the budget hawk" Ryan asking multiple times for stimulus money for his state. If you cant go back and say I brought this back you dont get reelected.
Also as long as Humans are in gov it will never be pure. In the constitution slaves had no rights and there were people who had a problem with that but the author had a shitload of slaves. So he was taking care of his interests.

Also we see all the time guys in office forever get voted out. You dont like Harry what did you do to get him out besides bitch on gfy? People can still change things, look at gay rights, those people work tirelessly to make that happen and its happening.

Also something else interesting the Thomas Jefferson lines about fighting and blood and he never fought in the war. He wrote great documents but he was a young man there is no excuse why he didnt take up arms.You never hear the people who were actually in battle making the chicken hawk statements. I guess things really do never change.

Cherry7

12-30-2012 09:08 AM

Guns don't make revolutions, ideas do.

You win the majority over to your way of thinking and you can take power.

The army defected to the people in the Russian Revolution etc...

Societies without guns look on with in credulity at the USA killing its own children.

Do you think we all despair that we can't change the government because we have no guns?

More important to have a better TV and mass media than guns.

There is no reason why anyone should be armed in a peacefully society - including the police.

2MuchMark

12-30-2012 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19394934)

We have a large number of returning soldiers from overseas -- why not station them on guard duty in schools? A friendly soldier patrolling with a machine gun for public protection is not such a bad thing in these circumstances notwithstanding .

I can think of a few reasons this is a bad idea.

First, maybe they don't want to. They've seen enough shit and horror to last them a lifetime.

Next, it's expensive. Assuming they would be paid what an average security guard makes ($55k) it would cost $4 Billion a year to place one in every school across the US

Finally, it's a bandaid solution that patches a problem instead of curing it.

Barry-xlovecam

12-30-2012 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ********** (Post 19396753)

1. They are still on active duty and are collecting a paycheck.

2. The average armed security guard ... What good might that do is questionable -- let's not discuss his shooting abilities. It would cost little to station active duty soldiers that are collecting a paycheck on guard duty at schools.

3. If you are in the armed forces what you like to do is of little issue;
You carry out any legal order -- that is what you are paid to do -- in a volunteer army by that soldier's choice -- he enlisted ...

4. It's a band-aide we cant find and lockup every psycho-killer from society unfortunately.

5. It's already illegal to carry a firearm into a school unless you are a allowed person.

So the real question is why was this guy not stopped -- he carried concealed weapons into a school and that is a crime. "Lanza was found dead next to three guns, a semi-automatic .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer, a law enforcement source told CNN." The guy was a nutjob, he intended to massacre -- you might not stop one maniac.

In the end, this may result on some restriction on the future sale of "assault weapons." No law can be ex-post facto and as long as the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment what arms are possessed legally are legal to own.

I guess we US citizens will have to decide on that 44 billion you assert as the rent-a-cop cost; That would cost the 120 Million US taxpayers [133,457,468 tax returns 2011] less than $40.00 a year. I would think there would be support for the bearing of this cost.

However, one rent-a-cop with a side arm is a limited solution. A few soldiers with automatic weapons and well trained in their use seems a more effective deterrent. That in itself will not stop some psycho but knowing that he would be facing down soldiers with flack jackets and fully auto rifles might scare a psycho off.

In spite of all the drama, and I am not diminishing this tragedy in any way, there will always be a problem of violence here, also gun violence for reason of our right to own firearms.

People were killing each other with rocks, spears, swords, and arrows for years. It is just the nature of some of mankind to murder. Should we outlaw Machetes too? They can be used to hack people to death, e.g.; Rwanda. Had the victims been armed in Rwanda, or guarded, might they not have been victims? Or at least, less of them and that is the point -- less pointless deaths.

tony286

12-30-2012 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19397026)

1. They are still on active duty and are collecting a paycheck.

2. The average armed security guard ... What good might that do is questionable -- let's not discuss his shooting abilities. It would cost little to station active duty soldiers that are collecting a paycheck on guard duty at schools.

3. If you are in the armed forces what you like to do is of little issue;
You carry out any legal order -- that is what you are paid to do -- in a volunteer army by that soldier's choice -- he enlisted ...

4. It's a band-aide we cant find and lockup every psycho-killer from society unfortunately.

5. It's already illegal to carry a firearm into a school unless you are a allowed person.

So the real question is why was this guy not stopped -- he carried concealed weapons into a school and that is a crime. "Lanza was found dead next to three guns, a semi-automatic .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer, a law enforcement source told CNN." The guy was a nutjob, he intended to massacre -- you might not stop one maniac.

In the end, this may result on some restriction on the future sale of "assault weapons." No law can be ex-post facto and as long as the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment what arms are possessed legally are legal to own.

I guess we US citizens will have to decide on that 44 billion you assert as the rent-a-cop cost; That would cost the 120 Million US taxpayers [133,457,468 tax returns 2011] less than $40.00 a year. I would think there would be support for the bearing of this cost.

However, one rent-a-cop with a side arm is a limited solution. A few soldiers with automatic weapons and well trained in their use seems a more effective deterrent. That in itself will not stop some psycho but knowing that he would be facing down soldiers with flack jackets and fully auto rifles might scare a psycho off.

In spite of all the drama, and I am not diminishing this tragedy in any way, there will always be a problem of violence here, also gun violence for reason of our right to own firearms.

People were killing each other with rocks, spears, swords, and arrows for years. It is just the nature of some of mankind to murder. Should we outlaw Machetes too? They can be used to hack people to death, e.g.; Rwanda. Had the victims been armed in Rwanda, or guarded, might they not have been victims? Or at least, less of them and that is the point -- less pointless deaths.

The same constitution that allows guns, doesnt allow soldiers armed on patrol in the US.

Robbie

12-30-2012 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19396690)

I know the pundits clouded your mind. But lets think about a few things. If you are elected to congress or the senate whats one of your main jobs? To bring money to your state.

So you think it's okay for all that pork barrel spending (bribing) to get Congress to pass an emergency bill to help hurricane victims?
Of course you don't.

But if you read your post Tony, you too used it for politics. You started attacking Republicans. What does that have to do with what I am pointing out?

The federal govt. is a bunch of crooks. It doesn't matter what political party they claim to be in. The whole thing is nothing more than a GIANT money collection agency. The rest is just for show.

And if you think that any politician in Washington D.C. really gives a shit about your "safety" then you are sadly mistaken.
They are all packing guns and surrounded with guns. And their kids are surrounded with guns.

It's just like everything else they do in Washington...from spending more than they take in, to the schools they send THEIR children to (private schools), to their health care (single pay...govt. funded), to their ability to play the market with inside information, and the list goes on and on.

What is GREAT for them...is no good for peasants like you and I.
Guns, private school, health care, insider trading, spending "free" money like a drunken sailor...that's for those ELITE Democrat and Republican crooks in Washington D.C. to do.

We are all expected to live under their heels and pay them for the privilege. And if a tiny percentage of us are still able to rise up and live the same lifestyle that the politicians do (the EVIL rich people), then they use the media to get people to resent that and have culture warfare.

The people we SHOULD be angry at and protesting...are the lifetime corrupt politicians in Washington D.C.
You know, the way REAL liberals did in the 1960's and 1970's when the REAL press didn't take their marching orders from Washington and actually investigated and reported the bullshit that the govt. was pulling.

tony286

12-30-2012 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19397138)

You actually now make me regret going into porn, I should went into politics sounds like a better deal. lol

DBS.US

12-30-2012 01:47 PM

Real Americans only shoot guns made by Americans.:2 cents:

Robbie

12-30-2012 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19397142)

You actually now make me regret going into porn, I should went into politics sounds like a better deal. lol

It's a better deal than anything...except being a preacher of course (preferably evangelical with your own t.v. show)

tony286

12-30-2012 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19397357)

It's a better deal than anything...except being a preacher of course (preferably evangelical with your own t.v. show)

preacher now you are talking real money brother. lol

Robbie

12-30-2012 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19397379)

preacher now you are talking real money brother. lol

tax free and all the pussy (or little boys according to preference) and drugs you want!

Barry-xlovecam

12-30-2012 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19397096)

The same constitution that allows guns, doesnt allow soldiers armed on patrol in the US.

"posse comitatus" is a Federal law from the US Civil War Era. There is no specific ban on using the Military as a police force other that what is written into this Act of Congress.

Quote:

18 USC § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, wilfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

The US Coast Guard is a "Federal Police Force" patrolling on US Soil they are part of the US Armed Forces. They perform may criminal apprehensions side by side with Federal police authorities.

Quote:

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, ...

I think that bodily threat to our children assembled in public school buildings would pass muster of being within the framers' intents.

Schools are the primary responsibility of the States however their Governors are empowered to enforce law and order by use of the State Militia (National Guard) when deemed necessary.

Does protecting schoolchildren from psycho-killers seem in light of recent events necessary? There are not enough police to do this nor should there be -- we have trained soldiers that will have no wars to fight soon -- this is something constructive that they can do.

The gutless Congress could intervene in a positive and constructive manner, which in many ways; "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by (the Constitution or ) [an] Act of Congress" denotes that they have the power to.

They are our children and we are responsible for their safety.

Maybe taping multiple semi-auto clips (magazines) together like you are going to war should call for firearms confiscation and and a prohibition of firearms ownership?

GrantMercury

12-30-2012 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19396438)

Fuck you, dude. You're a whiner. It's that "can't do" spirit of yours that really screws the country.

What were the abolitionists thinking? What were the suffragists thinking? What were the union organizers thinking? What were the gays who wanted marriage equality thinking? They all should have done nothing - everyone knows nothing can change. They were living in a dream world.

You've got the right idea - just throw up your hands, and let the lobbyists go about their business completely unopposed. The patriotism is so moving. :disgust

Robbie

12-31-2012 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19397767)

Fuck you, dude. You're a whiner. It's that "can't do" spirit of yours that really screws the country.

I voted. And I voted for Gary Johnson a Libertarian.

You voted for a bloodthirsty Democrat because you THINK he's a "liberal".

I did my part to really change things. You didn't. You voted for status quo.

The only one whining is you. I'm telling you straight up...you are just another of the oh so common faux "liberals" who don't truly believe in freedom for themselves.

It's just the way you were conditioned to think. I was the same way 20 years ago. I opened my eyes as I grew older and saw the scams all around me.
I can't change your mind...but experience will change it for you as your eyes slowly open over the years like mine did.

GrantMercury

12-31-2012 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19397910)

You know virtually nothing about me. WTF are you talking about? I don't vote for anyone because I think they are "liberal". Such terms are meaningless and serve only the pundits.

You did your part to "really change things"? But you've said it's "out of the people's hands". Please clarify. Sounds to me like you've just given up.

Gozarian

12-31-2012 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19397910)

:winkwink::thumbsup

Rochard

12-31-2012 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19395291)

---- According to an annual report published by the National Safety Council, there were 39,800 deaths last year related to motor vehicles in 2008.

so what's you're point? people with cars are stupider than people with guns?

I love this one! It's pretty simple - more cars equals more car deaths. Common sense right?

The difference nearly everyone has a car - I have three myself - and they are used for transportation, not for intentionally killing people.

And BTW, not only do you have to have a license to drive a car, you also have to register your car. LOL.

Rochard

12-31-2012 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 19395285)

I was reading some death row stats a few months ago, almost every person on death row had already been convicted of manslaughter, served time and was released. and that's a very interesting statistic that should really guide the legal system.

That's what I keep saying - this isn't a matter of "banning assault rifles". We need better health care to ID these people, restrictions on who can have firearms, and better legal so that when someone is charged with a violent crime they stay in the prison until they die.

Take someone's life with a firearm or a hammer (or a spoon for that matter) and you spend the rest of your life in prison. And never ever get out.

Gozarian

12-31-2012 05:40 PM

Man gets weekends in prison for guns, threats, child porn.

dgraves

12-31-2012 05:58 PM

http://nationalmemo.wpengine.netdna-...-MM918-007.jpg
A Barrett M82 50-Caliber Sniper Rifle - sold legally online.[/QUOTE]

YES! Now you're talking..."Reach out and touch someone", from a mile away!

dev777

12-31-2012 06:01 PM

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/1...ed-az-shooter/

enough said.

Gozarian

12-31-2012 06:12 PM

WFT - guy had a concealed carry permit, disarmed the individual who held the gun, and never fired. Only the likes of Maddow could turn that into a bad gun story.

Gozarian

12-31-2012 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves (Post 19398862)

A Barrett M82 50-Caliber Sniper Rifle - sold legally online.

YES! Now you're talking..."Reach out and touch someone", from a mile away![/QUOTE]

I like my McMillan more, it seems to have greater accuracy at distance. :winkwink:

dgraves

12-31-2012 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gozarian (Post 19398882)

YES! Now you're talking..."Reach out and touch someone", from a mile away!

I like my McMillan more, it seems to have greater accuracy at distance. :winkwink:[/QUOTE]

Ya, I saw that one...very nice. The Cheytac looks good to. At $5/round you'd want to make sure it's one shot, one kill.

oppoten

01-01-2013 12:04 AM

I agree, the good guys should keep slaves. No reason why the bad guys should claim history as their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury (Post 19397767)

What were the abolitionists thinking?

Exactly.

GrantMercury

01-01-2013 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dev777 (Post 19398866)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/1...ed-az-shooter/

enough said.

Exactly.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:50 PM.

Page 3 of 3

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page