Guns used for lawful self-defense Pt. 5

[Seth]

Seth keeps falling back on the second amendment and saying that because of the second amendment it is right to own hand guns.

Seth

It is the second amendment that is wrong!

Your idiotic opinion is noted...and rejected as idiotic and irrelevant.

You are taking one very, very wrong piece of legislation and using it as an excuse for a whole raft of other wrong things.

No other nation has anything similar,

That's a great pity. It's also why no other nation is made up of free people.

and no other developed, OECD country has the problems that arise from it.

They just have other, more serious problems...like enslaved masses.

No primarily English speaking, or western European nation has a per capita murder rate anywhere near as high as the USA.

There you go with the cherry picking again.

The highest is Finland, which apparently has a high rate of alcohol fuelled crime (like its neighbour, Russia). My own country has a murder rate one fifth that of the USA.

Slaves have little choice but to do what they are told to do.

The second amendment is a uniquely American piece of total weirdness.

Yes, sadly, it is. It should be a universal weirdness because the right that the 2nd Amendment protects is a universal natural right that accrues to every human being on the planet, including you.

It is dramatically harmful and at the center of your massive murder rate.

It keeps us free.

If you had politicians with guts, it would have been rescinded decades back.

Our politicians cannot "rescind" it, or anything else the Constitution protects by way of the rights of the People.

It has no practical value, and fuels the sickest attitude towards guns in the western world.

It's plenty practical. We're free and we are the world's leading superpower because we are free, and because we use that freedom, and the prosperity it creates, to export freedom to other people in oppressed nations like yours.

You think getting rid of guns would lead to high crime?

Yes, because it's impossible to "get rid of guns." The only thing the government can do is take guns away from the very people who are least likely to abuse them and who need them the most for self-defense and defense of the nation, among other things.

That has not happened anywhere else, and there is Britain, France, Germany, Scandinavia, Spain, Portugal, Italy, NZ, Australia, Canada, and many others to show that reducing gun ownership reduces gun murders.

More pettifogging amphigorical obfuscation, as usual. Everywhere guns are banned, violent crime is high and going higher, and the People are at risk not just from their own government, which has become their master, but from any other nation that chooses to claim them as slaves as well. They are helpless sheeple unable to care for or defend themselves. That's a sorry state of affairs.

Only the USA among developed nations has a pathological rate of gun crime, and that is because only the USA has a second amendment and the resulting ridiculous level of ownership of tools designed specifically for killing people.

As I said, handguns are designed to expel a projectile at high velocity in a particular direction with good accuracy, nothing more. And that's what almost all handguns in the US do...expel projectiles in a safe and harmless manner for the pleasure and enjoyment of the operator. Very few are used to kill people, and many of those are used to kill people justifiably in acts of self defense against criminal attack.

[Seth]

Seth

I have not suggested you give up your other weapons. It is just the one kind that does all the damage, that is used to murder 8, 000 people each year, and kill via suicide 12, 000 more and wound the best part of another 80, 000. Hand guns.

If the government is permitted to ban one type of "arms" that it's specifically prohibited from banning by our foundational documents and beliefs, then it can ban ANY type of arms it chooses. Therefore, it is necessary to deny the government the ability (it is already stripped of the power) to infringe, even a little bit, on our RKBA.

Hand guns are nothing to worry about losing, if you are thinking rationally instead of emotionally. They are pretty much useless for anything other than murder or suicide. Even shooting at targets can be done using all sorts of other toys, including air pistols.

Which are useless for killing people that need to be killed, which is not murder, and which are useless for deterring violent crime merely through their existence and presence in the hands of a law abiding citizen between 80,000 and 2.5 million times per year.

I have pointed out, with back up references, that hand guns are counter productive for self defence, since owning one increases, rather than reduces, your chances of being killed.

No, you've used ignorant opinions published by ignorant hoplophobes to come to an ignorant conclusion that is factually false.

In short, if you are not responding emotionally, there is no downside to getting rid of hand guns, and there are millions of Americans who will not get shot if those murder tools are removed.

We disagree. And my proof is the fact that the number of handguns in our society has doubled or tripled in the last 20 years or so and yet the handgun murder rate continues to drop to record lows, despite there being more than 5 million people nationwide who are now authorized to carry concealed handguns in public. If what you suggest were true, the number of handgun murders would be directly proportional to the number of handguns in society, and therefore the number of handgun murders would be doubling and tripling. But it's not. Ergo, ipso facto, you're wrong. QED.

In other words, you lose.

[Seth]

First they came for the slings,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't use a slingshot.

Then they came for the airguns,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't use an airgun.

Then they came for the crossbows,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't use a crossbow.

Then they came for my handgun.

And then I put a bullet or two in them and they didn't bother anybody any more.

[Seth]

Collector 1337 wrote:

You can enjoy your tyranny and oppression. Fair enough?

Do you know anything at all about NZ?

You know, the place where BG lives?

What utter and absolute bullshit.

Clearly, the world for you ends at the borders of the good ol' USA...

Your posts are like an ad for the Ugly American...

The free world does. You're just a slave who is comfortable with his golden chains. But whenever your masters care to jerk the chain tight, you'll tug your forelock and say "Yas Massa!" because you'll be killed if you don't and there's nothing you can do to prevent it...because you have stupidly allowed your government to strip you of the tools you would need to resist being enslaved and killed.

Pretty fucking stupid of you.

[Seth]

What Jim said also applies to Australia, which is a free democracy with excellent human rights. Also Canada, Britain, Germany etc. etc.

The definitive list of human rights is that produced by the United Nations, and that says nothing about bearing arms.

Which means it's not "definitive" and the rights aren't "human" rights, they are the rights of the States to determine what their citizens may and may not do on a global scale.

Only in weirdsville is bearing tools for committing murder seen as a human right.

Yup, more's the pity. Slaves like you can't see beyond the edge of the field they have been set to work in by their masters.

[Seth]

Meanwhile in the non-tyrannical USA......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22793851

Mass surveillance, ordered by a secret court. Not much a gun can do about that, except maybe shoot up the telephone exchange.

Yeah, well, the appointed legislative and judicial processes grind slowly, but they do grind on. Since they haven't failed yet, there is no need to take up arms. At least we know about it and can simply deny the State what it wants by encrypting our messages, if they are of importance.

But, when the judicial and legislative processes fail, and the Administrative branch attempts to seize dictatorial powers in opposition to the will of the People and the constraints of the Constitution and it fails to acknowledge the source of all it's power and authority, if that ever comes to pass, which I hope it doesn't, we at least will be able to retake our government and restore the Constitution to it's rightful place by force of arms, as is expressly provided for in our founding documents and principles.

You, however, are just completely fucked when the demagogue arises and begins his reign of terror, because you have neither the means nor the training to resist. So, you will be enslaved even more.

[Seth]

No, it's not, because none of the above are fundamental enumerated Constitutional rights which interference with is specifically and explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

And obviously that's the source of all that is good and right in the world

Yes, in point of fact, it is. Pity you're too servile and slavish to comprehend that.

[MrJonno]

No, it's not, because none of the above are fundamental enumerated Constitutional rights which interference with is specifically and explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

And obviously that's the source of all that is good and right in the world

Yes, in point of fact, it is. Pity you're too servile and slavish to comprehend that.

Sorry don't do worshipping of dead people or dead/non-existent gods, not to mention there is no abolute good or rights in this world

[Collector1337]

No, it's not, because none of the above are fundamental enumerated Constitutional rights which interference with is specifically and explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.

And obviously that's the source of all that is good and right in the world

Yes, in point of fact, it is. Pity you're too servile and slavish to comprehend that.

Sorry don't do worshipping of dead people or dead/non-existent gods, not to mention there is no abolute good or rights in this world

Yeah, I bet your worship of government takes up all of your time.

[Collector1337]

I am not responsible, nor can I control any of the other students. How is it other students' fault when 1 misbehaves? What absurd rationale are you using to punish the whole class? To punish the entire class is just insane. YOU ARE INSANE

It teaches people that their is a collective responsibility something that will come in useful later in life and obviously a lesson that obviously hasn't been learnt by a few

"Collective responsibility?"

I see you've been totally brainwashed.

Good luck trying to control me, douche bag.

[MrJonno]

Yeah, I bet your worship of government takes up all of your time

No more than I worship Oxygen but both are necessary for survival

[Collector1337]

Yeah, I bet your worship of government takes up all of your time

No more than I worship Oxygen but both are necessary for survival

You think government is necessary for survival.

You are a very sick person.

[Jason]

MrJonno survives a shipwreck and washes up on a deserted island with 3 of his shipmates. First order of business:

Build a shelter?
Find drinking water?
Build a signal?
Look for food?


Nawp. He holds general elections, assigns ministers, and discusses island policy.

[MrJonno]

MrJonno survives a shipwreck and washes up on a deserted island with 3 of his shipmates. First order of business:

Build a shelter?
Find drinking water?
Build a signal?
Look for food?


Nawp. He holds general elections, assigns ministers, and discusses island policy.

Putting someone in charge would absolutely be the most vital thing to ensure survival, elections would be somewhat optional as with such small numbers a leader would naturally emerge(hopefully not me or we really would be fucked). That is nothing to do with capitalism or socialism its just plain common(ish) sense

[Collector1337]

MrJonno survives a shipwreck and washes up on a deserted island with 3 of his shipmates. First order of business:

Build a shelter?
Find drinking water?
Build a signal?
Look for food?


Nawp. He holds general elections, assigns ministers, and discusses island policy.

Putting someone in charge would absolutely be the most vital thing to ensure survival, elections would be somewhat optional as with such small numbers a leader would naturally emerge(hopefully not me or we really would be fucked). That is nothing to do with capitalism or socialism its just plain common(ish) sense

OMFG. There's 4 people total and you think you need "someone in charge?"

You are so hopelessly brainwashed. You are a perfect example of learned helplessness and government dependence.