What if she didn't have a gun?

[KevinWestern]

I'm saying in modern times it won't matter if people have guns. With all our modern sources of news it's not going to happen. If it did you'd fight with your brain, not guns.

I don't mean this in a condescending way but I think you're being incredibly naive.

First of all, it'd be an arrogant thing for an American to think (not saying this is you, btw) that we'll always have an abundance of everything, food will be plentiful, etc just because the last 70 years have treated us well. We’re headed for some major changes in the next 50-100 years. With our lives as plugged in electronically as they are now, and with people as helpless as they are now, what happens if a major supply chain breaks down for 5 months due to a terrorist hacking attack, or plant disease, or fuel shortage, or internet outage, or flood, or drought, or earthquake, or (another) large scale terror attack etc ?

Not saying the entire US will be affected, just a portion. That’s a fair prediction for the next 100 years/beyond right?

How am I supposed to “fight with my brain” when an intruder breaks into my house to steal some food to feed his kid. I don’t think that’s going to work, man.

 

[KevinWestern]

No you're playing games. If the majority of the military won't fight then certainly they can beat the minority that will.

Majority of military beats the small portion that will fight. No need for your armed citizens.

We'll agree to disagree on this subject. I disagree with your reasoning. Military weapons will still be "controlled" by government and the defecting military will need to source from the citizen's arsenal.

 

[Brain357]

I'm saying in modern times it won't matter if people have guns. With all our modern sources of news it's not going to happen. If it did you'd fight with your brain, not guns.

I don't mean this in a condescending way but I think you're being incredibly naive.

First of all, it'd be an arrogant thing for an American to think (not saying this is you, btw) that we'll always have an abundance of everything, food will be plentiful, etc just because the last 70 years have treated us well. We’re headed for some major changes in the next 50-100 years. With our lives as plugged in electronically as they are now, and with people as helpless as they are now, what happens if a major supply chain breaks down for 5 months due to a terrorist hacking attack, or plant disease, or fuel shortage, or internet outage, or flood, or drought, or earthquake, or (another) large scale terror attack etc ?

Not saying the entire US will be affected, just a portion. That’s a fair prediction for the next 100 years/beyond right?

How am I supposed to “fight with my brain” when an intruder breaks into my house to steal some food to feed his kid. I don’t think that’s going to work, man.

That's not tyranny. I'm arguing we don't need guns to fight off tyranny.

 

[Brain357]

No you're playing games. If the majority of the military won't fight then certainly they can beat the minority that will.

Majority of military beats the small portion that will fight. No need for your armed citizens.

We'll agree to disagree on this subject. I disagree with your reasoning. Military weapons will still be "controlled" by government and the defecting military will need to source from the citizen's arsenal.

Now your changing your own argument. You think the majority of the military wouldn't fight and would give up their arms now? That would be silly. If that were the case then the small minority with all the weapons would still win. But I don't think the majority would give up their weapons. More likely they would remove the tyranny.

 

[KevinWestern]

No you're playing games. If the majority of the military won't fight then certainly they can beat the minority that will.

Majority of military beats the small portion that will fight. No need for your armed citizens.

We'll agree to disagree on this subject. I disagree with your reasoning. Military weapons will still be "controlled" by government and the defecting military will need to source from the citizen's arsenal.

Now your changing your own argument. You think the majority of the military wouldn't fight and would give up their arms now? That would be silly. If that were the case then the small minority with all the weapons would still win. But I don't think the majority would give up their weapons. More likely they would remove the tyranny.

Gotta go back to work, we can discuss later.

There are obviously going to be hostile/non-hostile regions. What if ¾ of the military was on the side of the citizens but you happened to live in an area heavy with military compliant to the Federal Government? What if that part of the Federal army was marching through your town? Wouldn’t you rather just have a rifle/shotgun to have the best fighting chance to protect your family in that scenario?

Even if the ¾ military could eventually defeat the ¼ military that didn’t defect, wouldn't it make for a much quicker battle if an additional 90 million armed americans joined in to squash the oppressive regime? Each year of war means millions additional dead...

If you think citizens owning guns aren’t a check on tyranny than I think you’re living too much within a modern, safe lens. The world hasn’t always been like it is in the US right now, and it we’re guaranteed nothing. Nothing, my friend.

 

[JoeB131]

But Joe, the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that it protects MORE than just a militia.

I mean, you can't deny the facts right??

Actually, the Supreme COurt has said no such thing.

US v. Miller, they found a right to regulate personal firearms. ANd even though the truly awful Heller decision rolled that back, even Scalia had to do handstands to explain why you can't have that howitzer in your backyard.

But the Heller decision protects an individual's right to possess a firearm. Your opinion is worth much, much, much less than the Heller decision, lol. Not trying to be a dick, just stating the facts.

5 Justices found FOR Heller, 4 against. That tells me that this really is one septegenarian heart attacck away from a sensible interpretation.

 

[JoeB131]

[

No, my point was you said that ENTIRE MILITARY vs. US CITIZENS = CITIZEN DEFEAT (which is true), but I asserted the situation would look more like A SMALL PORTION OF THE MILITARY vs US CITIZENS + A LARGE PORTION OF THE MILITARY = CITIZEN VICTORY.

Make sense?

You're playing games. Don't, please.

It's an idiotic statement.

The vast majority of the military WOULD obey orders.

You also work on the delusion that you'd get a bunch of popular support when you guys have your uprising.

YOu know, that's what McVeigh thought before they gave him the Hot Shot.

 

[KevinWestern]

5 Justices found FOR Heller, 4 against. That tells me that this really is one septegenarian heart attacck away from a sensible interpretation.

An official ruling is a ruling. It trumps your opinion and my opinion on all counts in this democracy. Fortunately (for me) the ruling is consistent with my views..

 

[JoeB131]

My point - Joe - is say Rahm Emmanuel wants to rid the city of handguns and asks that all citizens turn the guns into the nearest police station (or face arrest/felony), do you think the gang members on the south/west side are going to be the first ones in line, or do you think - perhaps - it's going to be the law abiding non-gang members?

How is that going to improve my safety? I just don't understand.

Dipshit, the gangbangers aren't the problem. THe Police confiscate 6500 guns from them last year. And then they go right to the gun shop they've set up in Riverdale where 20% of the guns retrieved from gangbangers come from, and they get new ones.

NOw. Get rid of those gun shops, you arrest little johnny gangbanger and take his gun, and he can't get a new one.

Simple. Even for you.

McCarthy: More Than 6,500 Illegal Guns Seized So Far This Year « CBS Chicago

 

[KevinWestern]

It's an idiotic statement.

The vast majority of the military WOULD obey orders.

You also work on the delusion that you'd get a bunch of popular support when you guys have your uprising.

YOu know, that's what McVeigh thought before they gave him the Hot Shot.

Listen man, I'm not talking about an uprising today, tomorrow, or even in 50 years. I'm just saying that HISTORY HAS TAUGHT US that governments do occasionally turn oppressive, violent, etc and ordinary citizens have time and time again deemed it necessary to forcefully overthrow their governments. It's reasonable to think that it may happen someday here in the US. Gun ownership is a check against government tyranny.

It happens. Might not be for another 200 years. Who knows.

I'm just saying it's important we preserve our right to hold firearms. That's all. I'm also saying that "gun control" is not going to yield the results you think that it's going to yield because there's no getting rid of guns.

There's only removing them from law-abiding citizens, which seems silly to me.

 

[JoeB131]

The American Revolution would have never been possible if the colonists weren't allowed to own guns. We'd have been crushed by the British. We would still be reporting to a king today.

I sure most people - gun controllers and gun holders - can agree with that fact, right?

Whole lot of flaws with that statement.

Flaw 1- Colonists didn't have that many guns to start with. In fact, when the war started, the continental congress had a very hard time getting guns. The influx of weapons that turned the tide was because Louis XVI was willing to bankrupt his country to get back at the Brits by supporting us.

Flaw 2- That is the Founding Slave Rapists lost, this would not have be a bad thing. YOu know what would have happened? We'd all be freaking Canadians. Which means we'd have sensible gun laws, universal health care, and slavery would have ended by royal decree instead of a pointless and bloody civil war. Can't see any of these things as bad, really.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I always wonder - too - is that if you strip guns away from everyone (theoretically speaking of course), is the 'playing field' now equalized? I mean, what is to protect a single female living in a bad area (or just in general)?

Can a woman fight off a fully grown man with a knife? When a woman calls the cops what are the odds she will not have been raped - or worse - in the 10 minutes it takes for the authorities to arrive?

Is it easier for MEN to say (sure get rid of guns) because they know they will always have a one-up physically and can at least compete with any potential intruders?

Most women are raped by men they know. It's why you almost never hear of these cases of "chased a rapist off with a gun", because they almost never happen.

 

[KevinWestern]

Dipshit, the gangbangers aren't the problem. THe Police confiscate 6500 guns from them last year. And then they go right to the gun shop they've set up in Riverdale where 20% of the guns retrieved from gangbangers come from, and they get new ones.

NOw. Get rid of those gun shops, you arrest little johnny gangbanger and take his gun, and he can't get a new one.

Simple. Even for you.

McCarthy: More Than 6,500 Illegal Guns Seized So Far This Year « CBS Chicago

Dipshit? How about you go fuck yourself, Joe? I don’t recall ever using inflammatory language prior to this post.

Gang members will find ways to get guns regardless of the laws. There’s 250 MILLION of them floating around in the US right now. They ship thousands of tons of cocaine, heroine, pot to Chicago every single year – all of which are highly illegal – they will figure out a way to get guns too if need be.

 

[mudwhistle]

Back then the military and citizens had similar arms. Now they are not slightly comparable.

But I made the point before; our government - yes - has much more powerful weapons than the average citizen. However, is it logical to assume they'd use nukes to put down an uprising? No. Is it logical to assume the air force is going to be 100% on board with dropping bombs on US cities like Chicago where they grew up? No.

The fact of the matter is that most of the combat would be rifle vs. rifle.

Are you aware how good our military is? It wouldn't be close. Would be rifles with tanks and grenades and rocket launchers... Against guys with rifles and very little training who would probably have a big friendly fire problem.

We wouldn't be fighting our own military.

 

[KevinWestern]

Most women are raped by men they know. It's why you almost never hear of these cases of "chased a rapist off with a gun", because they almost never happen.

About 30% of victims are raped by strangers. But I guess those people aren't important to you? Only about 27,000 people/year...

Disgusting.

 

[JoeB131]

5 Justices found FOR Heller, 4 against. That tells me that this really is one septegenarian heart attacck away from a sensible interpretation.

An official ruling is a ruling. It trumps your opinion and my opinion on all counts in this democracy. Fortunately (for me) the ruling is consistent with my views..

SO you wingnuts are going to stop trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, then?

Didn't think so.

Scalia dies of a heart attack and is replaced by Lawrence Tribe. Game, Set Match, baby!

 

[mudwhistle]

Dipshit, the gangbangers aren't the problem. THe Police confiscate 6500 guns from them last year. And then they go right to the gun shop they've set up in Riverdale where 20% of the guns retrieved from gangbangers come from, and they get new ones.

NOw. Get rid of those gun shops, you arrest little johnny gangbanger and take his gun, and he can't get a new one.

Simple. Even for you.

McCarthy: More Than 6,500 Illegal Guns Seized So Far This Year « CBS Chicago

Dipshit? How about you go fuck yourself, Joe? I don’t recall ever using inflammatory language prior to this post.

Gang members will find ways to get guns regardless of the laws. There’s 250 MILLION of them floating around in the US right now. They ship thousands of tons of cocaine, heroine, pot to Chicago every single year – all of which are highly illegal – they will figure out a way to get guns too if need be.

If they took our guns they'd finally have to close the borders.

 

[JoeB131]

Most women are raped by men they know. It's why you almost never hear of these cases of "chased a rapist off with a gun", because they almost never happen.

About 30% of victims are raped by strangers. But I guess those people aren't important to you? Only about 27,000 people/year...

Disgusting.

Given the absolute uselessness of a gun in those situations, um, yeah... I kind of don't care.

How many women shot their rapists last year. Come on, give us a number.

Incidently, the percentage of "acquantence rape" is about 83%.

 

[JoeB131]

Dipshit, the gangbangers aren't the problem. THe Police confiscate 6500 guns from them last year. And then they go right to the gun shop they've set up in Riverdale where 20% of the guns retrieved from gangbangers come from, and they get new ones.

NOw. Get rid of those gun shops, you arrest little johnny gangbanger and take his gun, and he can't get a new one.

Simple. Even for you.

McCarthy: More Than 6,500 Illegal Guns Seized So Far This Year « CBS Chicago

Dipshit? How about you go fuck yourself, Joe? I don’t recall ever using inflammatory language prior to this post.

Gang members will find ways to get guns regardless of the laws. There’s 250 MILLION of them floating around in the US right now. They ship thousands of tons of cocaine, heroine, pot to Chicago every single year – all of which are highly illegal – they will figure out a way to get guns too if need be.

Ummm, yeah, probably. Still, no excuse for making it easy for them and less excuse for the 80% of gun deaths which are people who brought a gun into the house to "protect" themselves.

 

[KevinWestern]

Whole lot of flaws with that statement.

Flaw 1- Colonists didn't have that many guns to start with. In fact, when the war started, the continental congress had a very hard time getting guns. The influx of weapons that turned the tide was because Louis XVI was willing to bankrupt his country to get back at the Brits by supporting us.

If the colonists didn’t have guns, would they have had a chance against the British? Please try answering the question.

Flaw 2- That is the Founding Slave Rapists lost, this would not have be a bad thing. YOu know what would have happened? We'd all be freaking Canadians. Which means we'd have sensible gun laws, universal health care, and slavery would have ended by royal decree instead of a pointless and bloody civil war. Can't see any of these things as bad, really.

Well, I guess I know with 100% certainty who I’m talking to right now. A self-loathing American who hates the founding fathers. Were they perfect? No. Were they all slave rapists? No, you disrespectful, ungrateful "American". Did they create a system of government that fostered an environment for innovation/capitalism that lifted up a country to became one of the best places on earth in any time period? Yes. Was this model of government adopted by many other countries due to how well it worked? Yes.