exactly.
Printable View
exactly.
Oh my good Lord, what a farce.
You have lost the point. We already dealt with the revolutionary war. Perhaps in 1776 nationwide gun ownership might have been appropriate, that has never been stated to be false. That is over with.
I would have thought you would have been able to work out that economic power brings military power. A better economy means more money to spend on defense and so forth. Or perhaps you think that it doesn't matter and you take the attitude to the military that North Korea does, where the military comes first and foremost and that's what makes the nation great? Somehow I doubt you will agree with the North Korean stance.
I cannot believe I am explaining this.
The USA was hardly an economic power when it fought off the British. The British were a military power. Just because a country has military power doesn't mean it's also an economic power also.
<joke>
I can't believe I'm explaining THIS. So there! Who's the man now!?</joke>
This is one of the things I just said.Quote:
Just because a country has military power doesn't mean it's also an economic power also
Do you think that the military power the US had in 1776 is the same kind of power it has now? I'll tell you if you like: it's not. As far as I can remember about this particular area of history (it's not something I've taken a big interest in over the years so this is general knowledge - or lack of), the American success in the War of Independance was due to knowledge of the lay of the land, confusing the British troops by not sticking to standard military tactics, and grim determination. Which of these qualities defined your military action in the Gulf? How about Vietnam?
The US army is based on very different foundations nowadays. You are talking about a situation that occurred over 200 years ago. Things have changed.
This does not change the fact that without weapons, the colonialists would not have been a military power strong enough to beat the British. Yes, knowing the lay of the land, etc. helped the USA to win, but we still would not have if we didn't have weapons. The colonialist did have military power which caused them to win the war.
The power the US has today is different from the power of past. However, this doesn't affect the variable of weapons or no weapons.
For goodness' sake, will you please pay attention to what has been discussed and dealt with in a dialogue? You are arguing in circles. I am simply going to repeat what I said the last time you repeated this:
What point are you trying to make with this? How does this justify giving the general public access to firearms in this day and age? You are not fighting a revolution, if you thought you were at risk of having to fight a revolution then you would have more to worry about than gun control, and we wouldn't be debating this.Quote:
You have lost the point. We already dealt with the revolutionary war. Perhaps in 1776 nationwide gun ownership might have been appropriate, that has never been stated to be false. That is over with
What are you saying? That you couldn't have fought as effectively in the Gulf if people didn't carry guns back home? You are making a point which seems irrelevant to me.
I have read all the posts. Have you? I only repeat answers to repeated questions.
The Gulf War has no effect on this discussion.
These are my points.
1. It is good that the USA allows citizens to own firearms. If this is allowed, we have security. If this is banned, we have a goverment that is leaning toward communist state.
2. What if we have to fight another war?
Why do you say justify giving arms to the public? Is there something wrong with this?
*Sigh* I just finished writing a fairly lengthy reply, and I lost it in a connection error :( Ahh well...
I don't feel inspired to write it all out again, but suffice it to say that I am still just as confident in my opinions, if not more so. I don't think either of us is going to be convinced by the other anyway.
Apart from anything else, I have coursework to write up which I ought to be doing right now ;) Perhaps I will resume the debate sometime soon.
[Whoa, nearly lost this one too! Blinking cable modem, I keep losing the channel]
I have work too... sigh... I guess we can pick up another day.
damn, just when it was getting interesting ;-)
td.
We are constitutionally garanteed the right to fire arms. Now part of that is to support the malitias it does plainly say "Right of the people to keep and bear Arms". We americans are the militia. This is part of our responsibility as american and part of why half the world is afriad to attempt to invade the US. We carry guns and every person in this country would be a potential threat.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To try and take away guns will only make things worse cause as any idiot knows, if criminals are already in violation of the law, don't you think they would be willing to violate any gun laws too. All this would do is take away peoples ability to defend themselves and in all actuallity cause more injury with guns. I myself don't like guns but I know what is right.
I attribute the higher rate of murder and crime to the lack of morality in this country along with the movie industry. With out any moral teaching of what is right and wrong along with the mass bombardment of violence and sex, It starts to soak in. your mind start to become number to these events. That is why. If it's not a gun it could be a knife, hammer, tv... basically whatever the person has. Taking away gun is just another way of not taking responsibility for what the problem is. Very typical of this generation.
The eagerness to wed yourselves to firearms is one of the truly scary things about the citizens of the US. Let's have another amendment to the Holy Constitution (right up there with the Bible for you guys):
A well cleaned firearm, being necessary in the maiming, killing and generally harming of each other, the right of the people to keep and bear increasingly lethal implements, up to and including tactical nuclear weapons, shall not be infringed
Think on.
P.
If i didn't know better, i would swear you were Charlton Heston himself Paul ;-)
td.
SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO ARM BEARS!!!!!
DerFarm
BEARS TO SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT ARM!!!!!
***;-!
td.
Yes of course, because nobody gets injured when someone shoots someone else in defence. Frankly, what a crock.Quote:
All this would do is take away peoples ability to defend themselves and in all actuallity cause more injury with guns
Do you think your TV and movies are really so different to the rest of the world? What would you identify as the big difference? Hmm well I'll suggest one, and you can try and suggest something different which seperates your culture from the rest. I'll suggest a severe lack of gun control. Your turn.
is suggest a lack of bowel control.
td.
Paul, we up for this friday?
TD - Your cultural deprivation is preventing you from
appreciating the irony of my above statement. You see,
for a long time you would see bumper stickers that said:
SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Since, as any thinking person knows, the only good response
to true believers is sarcasm:
SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO ARM BEARS
was an appropriate response.
Now, do you see what a twit you are?
DerFarm
yes Farm Boy.
oof!!
td.
Jethro:
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history...this century's history.... We all lived in this century. I didn't live in this 20th century."
-- Dan Quayle, then Indiana senator and Republican vice-presidential candidate during a news conference in which he was asked his opinion of the Holocaust
So it wasn´t Bush (at least one out. -If you don´t believe me, see
http://www.spurgeonstudio.com/Design/jokesn.htm
Dennis:
Don´t worry about weapons, only 1 out of every 100 Americans will get crazy and shoot the others 99!