Why are guns so important to Americans?

[Bern80]

I thought everyone born in the US are born with rights? Am I mistaken? Well, after you cross the line, obviously you need to take rights away. That is the argument I am making. I don't see why gun owners are upset over that. As long as they follow the rules like they say they are, why does it effect them in a negative way? Please someone explain to me why taking away gun rights to someone who is a repeat offender, would upset anyone. Tell me why taking away free speech rights to someone who infringes on others right to free speech is any different. We are born with inalienable rights, but those rights are not free passes for every American, they are rights to only the law abiding Americans, therefore they should be taken away from repeat criminals.

Because that isn't the argument you're making. You're proposing that people jump through a hell of a lot of hoops to exercise that right. You thought we should have licenses, permits, yearly registrations, etc. to exercise a right.

 

[LOki]

My luck? What are you talking about? Luck in waht regard?

Luck in the regard that you really didn't make "BINGO!" by agreeing with the presumption that rights are something we have to ask for.

If you're obsessed with guns you're gun queer.Simply debating the issue of gun laws does not make one a gun queer.

We've already covered the "gun queer" issue sufficiently--so look up again, and try to keep up.

Yeah...I'm aware of that.

That's not terribly apparent Mr. Bingo.

True

Well, atleast here you recognize logical neccesity.

Are you telling me that criminals have more balls than all the honest gun owners in this nation? I guess you are.

You guessed wrong. I'm telling you honest people (including those who own guns) are likely to comply with laws; including laws that disarm them.

Criminals are willing to risk imprisonment so they can have a gun to threaten you or your family, but, according to you, honest gun owners aren't willing to take that risk if the government takes away their guns, not even to keep their protection from an oppressive government.

No. I'm saying human beings (gun owners included) can be fooled; they can be convinced that invisible beings in the sky are watching them, they can believe that wishing hard enough that mommy's cancer will go away will make it go away, they can be convinced that an inanimate object in the house possesses a dangerous will of it's own, they can be convinced that the government is here to help them and that's why they can't own guns anymore.

Gun owners, without any desire to do harm to anyone, can be just as stupid as criminals despite having no desire to harm anyone; and those in government, despite their explicit assurances that they have the noblest of intentions, pass legislation, that in the hands of criminals, is essential to oppressing the governed.

Isn't that what you're basically telling me when you say:

If all guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns?

No. Obviously.

Is there any federal legislation out there right now threatening your right to bear arms? Not that I'm aware of.

Every piece of federal legislation that infringes upon my right to keep and bear arms is a threat to that right. I find it obnoxious that you insist upon being unaware of such legislation.

Well, finally you seem to be getting it.

What d oyou mean by, "finally."

I am not interested in taking away your guns.

In so far as you're not interested in preventing others from their confiscational power ponzi scheme, you most certainly have an interest in taking away my guns.

I am also not interested in listening to a load of blather from gun queers about how they're the only thing standing between me and a repressive government since they aren't doing a damned thing even as our government becomes increasingly oppressive.

I am not interested in your continued beating of theis bullshit strawman.

The ire I have awoken in the gun queer community that exists on this board is quite obvious.

Yes, but not for the reasons you think. Very few queers like being called "queer"; this would suggest that very few people in general appreciate being painted a "queer" for whatever reasons.

And what is my real crime?

Being a douche; what else?

Well since I'm NOT calling for collecting their guns,...

Oh fucking stop already--you're calling for them to not complain that their rights are being infringed upon; you're calling for them ignore the stepwise fashion "authority queers" are in fact trying to collect their privately held guns. No, editec, you're not calling for the collection of their guns, but you are nodding in approval of the action.

I have to guess its because I'm pointing out how utterly full of shit they really are, eh?

This "guess" is just more evidence you're a douche.

Most of the gun queers I know absolutely LOVE the police state that's developing in this nation.

I suspect the sincerety if this statement.

They can't get enough of the Patriot act, of the war on drugs, of the supression of legal protestor and so forth.

Sounds to me like they're "authority queers".

Most of them hate personal freedom so much they're thrilled when police become criminal in support of repressing citizens.

Yep. It's more and more apparent that their queerness is for authority.

Now, I realize this is a generalization, of course.

But it's one formed by years of watching gun queers cheering on as the police become increasingly repressive of citizens' rights.

It seems you misplace what they are actually queer for, doesn't it?

Most gun queers are also very supportive of the police state that is forming in this nation.

You know, it really seems more like "authority queers" just find guns as imminently useful and valuable for repression, as "liberty queers" find them for self defense. But it's all just queers yo you isn't it?

Seems to me you're just queer about queers--a "queer queer" if you will.

 

[LOki]

Nope, you're just ignoring the facts now. I can point you to a string of precedents which explain why rape isn't necessarily a violent crime, but is a crime nonetheless.

I can point to a string of precednts which explain why robbery isn't necessarliy a violent crime, but it's still counted as one. I can also point to a string of factual realities (that you are fully ignoring for your fatuous purposes) that demonstrate rape is a violent crime.

 

[Thor]

Guns are important to me to keep the predators (human, animal AND Government) away, to provide food, a basis for survival and as a form of recreation. The bigger problem with gun violence is the fact that the judicial system isn't functioning very well. Those folks that commit crimes with guns often obtain them illegally. (Not always the case, but more often than not). Our courts have become far too lenient. Don't folks find it rather odd that gun crime was pretty low in the 40s, 50s, and early 60s?? What has changed since then?? The only things I can put my finger on are the courts and the lack of morals of today's society. The ONE thing that we can do to reduce gun crime is to punish the criminal. Harshly, firmly, and with resolve. No quarter can be given to those who use a gun in a crime.

 

[LOki]

Exactly. IOW, you are just another typical Yank who thinks the world revolves around you and therefore your experiences must supercede others. Typical.

Not at all so. What is typical, on the other hand, is that those from culturally homogenous countries think citizens of the U.S. are just as (or more) culturally homogenous as they are, and thus have no greater claim to understanding integrated diversity than them. They typically forget that our nation is to a certain degree 50 nations, and those nations are populated by people from all over the world, and thanks to that we actually have a pretty good idea about how things around the world work--particularly with our neighbors--at least as well other countries understand what their neighbors are about. And if you think that our "states" cannot compete against your nation, I'll point out that Califoria's GDP is likely to be at least twice that of your country, and the New Jersey National Guard is probably a match for your military.

How "armed" is Sweden?

An assualt weapon in almost every house. FYI.

How "disarmed" is England?

Pretty much universally.

Which ever way you look at it, the answer is yes. The US is more violent.

Well according to your paradigm, Sweden should be more violent, and England's violent crime rate is higher than the U.S.'s, making you the wrongest motherfucker yet.

What does it consider rape to be? Foreplay?

a sexual crime, like public exposure.

Do you know the sentence for a rapist in England?

I don't care; it's not the fucking point.

Is it any worse or better than the US?

I still don't care; it's not the fucking point.

What does a classifcation mean? Not a lot.

I disagree. It means that by virtue of determining a violent crime to not be a violent crime, the UK manages to make claims about their violent crime rate which are patently untrue, and the fucktards like yourself point at the UK's fictionally low rate of violent crime as some justification for your accusations regarding violence in the U.S., only to ultimately assert that it's all caused by our guns.

What happens after conviction is the only thing that matters.

Well, this is patently untrue.

If rape is considered a "violent" crime in the US and the average sentence is 15 years, but in England there is no aspect of "violence" attached to the charge but the average incarceration time is 20 years, who cares whether term "violent" is attached to it or not.

People who use the terms to bolster their bullshit argument regarding how civilized their "non-violent" country is. Would you accept some study regarding violence in the U.S.--concluding that there is practically no violence in the U.S. at all--to be valid if murder, rape, extortion, and robbery were excluded from being violent crime because certian examples demonstrate that such crimes are not "innately" violent? I would hope not.

If you found out that the reason those crime were excluded was because the American culture considered them to not be violent, would you then consider Americans to be more civilized than those cultures that considered such crimes violent? Again, I would hope not.

But here you are, you mendacious fucktard, trying to school me on cultural-centrism, while you desperately try to rationalize why a "civilized" culture deems rape to be not violent.

Now, I have no idea what the English or US sentences for rape are (I would assume in the US it varies from state to state), my piont is you argument is vacuous.

No, yours is.

It's like trying to decide the definition of "is"...

This is what you're attempting, not me.

Not at all. Typical of a dumbfuck like yourself to try and "interpret" what I am saying. Go for it. Classify all the violence in the US vs that in England, Aussie or NZ (where I'm from), at the end of the day the US is more violent than any of the countries I've mentioned.

This is a glaring denial of reality.

You stated that Heinlein said an armed society is a polite society. I'm just pointing out that if you compare an armed society like the US vs those that are not "armed" like England, Australia and NZ, then your argument is left wanting - whether or not rape is considered violent or not.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Hell, count the number of rapes in England, plus all the other violent episodes, as violence and STILL compare it to the US.

Well, total numbers are not the same thing as rates, are they? How many more people are there in the U.S. than your precious New Zealand?

You will find your numbers do not stack up.

You might be surprised that they do; particularly since your precious New Zealand ranks second in the world in it's total crime rate. Note also that the UK ranks higher than the U.S.

Now I realize that this is total crime rate, and not violent crime rate; but then I'd be willing to remove fraud and propery damage from the statisic and feel confident that The U.S. would still prove less violent. What I would not do, as you are clearly prepared to do, is remove all violence not commited with guns to make a point.

Now, I predict you'll go look up "murders per capita" to prove the U.S. is more violent; what you'll actually demonstrate, is that when Americans do get violent (which happens at a lower rate than with New Zealanders, for instance), we're way more effective than New Zealanders (for instance), just like we're more effective at just about everything--including lowering our crime rate.

I know you love your guns, and your constitution allows you to keep them. Bravo.

Yes! Yay for us!

Just don't tell me you society is better off with the 2nd under its belt with regard to "being" safer. You are not, as the examples of Oz, NZ and England clearly demonstrate.

But it looks excactly like we are--how about them apples?

It also proves Heinlein wrong.

It apparently does not.

Go figure...

Yeah, why don't you go do just that?

 

[LOki]

Are you absolutley sure about that?

Yep.

Lets say the constitution was written in the 12:th century. You would still celebrate the self evident right to have a cross-bow?

I can't see why not.

Guns would be a govenment issue?

So?

In your best interest, of course.

You've just veered off into a conversation no one but you are part of.

Someone should really try to asses this:
What effect on your personal freedom has the right to have a gun today compared to what the effect was back then.

It's the same.

Then - if there is a differance - adjust constitution accordingly.

No need, and not relevent.

Stop staring yourself blind on guns.

What?

They are medieval.

Not hardly.

 

[Thor]

I wonder if Dr Grump can explain WHY gun crime has actually risen in the UK and Australia since most guns are banned ?? Then we can look at the statistics of other crimes committed with weapons, such as knives, swords, etc. The fact is that crime will continue to happen. First it was rocks and branches, then spears, then arrows, and then guns. It will just revert back to whatever weapon is available.

 

[Diuretic]

I can point to a string of precednts which explain why robbery isn't necessarliy a violent crime, but it's still counted as one. I can also point to a string of factual realities (that you are fully ignoring for your fatuous purposes) that demonstrate rape is a violent crime.

I'm concerned that there's some major thread drift going on here but I'll respond anyway.

Robbery is a crime of violence. In common law terms it's "stealing from the person" using force. Aggravated robbery, again at common law, is robbery whilst armed, while in company or with violence (the beating being before or after the stealing event).

Rape can be committed by the use of force. It can also be committed by use of threats (to the victim or another person, eg a child) which don't require force. It can also be committed by fraud, for example misrepresentation of the act or by impersonation of another person to obtain consent. Given this then rape isn't a crime of violence, it can't be because to define it in that manner would remove the protection afforded to victims who are forced into sex by a person using threats or some form of fraud.

 

[Diuretic]

I wonder if Dr Grump can explain WHY gun crime has actually risen in the UK and Australia since most guns are banned ?? Then we can look at the statistics of other crimes committed with weapons, such as knives, swords, etc. The fact is that crime will continue to happen. First it was rocks and branches, then spears, then arrows, and then guns. It will just revert back to whatever weapon is available.

Fatuous argument, don't use it. Most guns haven't been banned in Australia at all. And claiming that crime has "risen" is ridiculous. Crime rises and falls in its various categories. If you're trying to link the two national gun buybacks with rises in the crime rate in Australia then you're going to be very disappointed, there's no link. One of the reasons is that people here in Australia don't own guns for self defence, they're for work or for recreation. Because we have a reasonably peaceful society we don't have an abiding fear of being attacked in our own homes by armed intruders.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well according to your paradigm, Sweden should be more violent, and England's violent crime rate is higher than the U.S.'s, making you the wrongest motherfucker yet.

Au contraire, that is not my paradigm at all. You stated an armed society is a polite society, not I. I'm saying that most western countries are unarmed compared to the US and are a lot less violent.

I disagree. It means that by virtue of determining a violent crime to not be a violent crime, the UK manages to make claims about their violent crime rate which are patently untrue, and the fucktards like yourself point at the UK's fictionally low rate of violent crime as some justification for your accusations regarding violence in the U.S., only to ultimately assert that it's all caused by our guns.

And dumbfucks like you still believe the US is less violent than the UK or NZ. I've had this argument at least three times on other boards over the past seven years, so I'm not going waste my time hunting down stats yet again to prove my point. However, in the next part I'll explain why you're stats are fucked...

You might be surprised that they do; particularly since your precious New Zealand ranks second in the world in it's total crime rate. Note also that the UK ranks higher than the U.S.

Now I realize that this is total crime rate, and not violent crime rate; but then I'd be willing to remove fraud and propery damage from the statisic and feel confident that The U.S. would still prove less violent. What I would not do, as you are clearly prepared to do, is remove all violence not commited with guns to make a point.

There are so many things wrong with these types of stats it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, do NZers report crime more? Does the US report less? What definitions of crime are used? Is something that is considered a crime in NZ, not so in the US?

I would take you up on that bet. The number of stats I have produced showing gun-related deaths, and assaults in general of the US vs other countries (western countries BTW) boggles the mind.

Then gun nuts go "oh, look the UK's gun crime has increased 25% over the past 10 years while the US has gone down 5 %. But they (unlike you) forget to the put the rates in. ie the UK goes (and I'm paraphrasing here) from 100murders a year to 125, (per 1,000,000), while the US goes from 300 to 285. Sure there is a drop, but whose society is still more violent.

Aside from the stats, there's the anecdotal evidence too.

At the end of the day, keep your freaking guns, just don't tell me your society is more polite, when clearly it is not. The graph you showed me also stated in a boxed section above the graph that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world....polite indeed...NOT..

 

[ErikViking]

Yep.

I can't see why not.

So?

Subjugaded?

You've just veered off into a conversation no one but you are part of.

I get the same feeling...

It's the same.

No need, and not relevent.

What?

Subjugaded?

 

[necritan]

At the end of the day, keep your freaking guns, just don't tell me your society is more polite, when clearly it is not. QUOTE]

Thankyou very much for the guns.

I dont know about the polite thing......I'm pretty much an asshole.....fairly sure I have the right to be one too.

 

[editec]

Luck in the regard that you really didn't make "BINGO!" by agreeing with the presumption that rights are something we have to ask for.

I didn't assume that. If its a "right" then it cannot be taken away.

We've already covered the "gun queer" issue sufficiently--so look up again, and try to keep up.

I responded to you suggestiion that I'm calling you a gun queer for debating the topic, remember?

That's not terribly apparent Mr. Bingo.

Not if you're going to presume you understand my position without bothering to read it, no.

Well, atleast here you recognize logical neccesity.

You guessed wrong. I'm telling you honest people (including those who own guns) are likely to comply with laws; including laws that disarm them.

I haven't suggest they wouldn't. In fact that's is my point.

Honest people would give up their guns, criminals would not.

Hence criminals have more balls to stand up to government than the vast majority of these guns queers who insist they are the ones standing between a repressive government and the people.

the government is ALREADY repressive. where are the guns queers? Hiding at home stroking their pistolas.

No. I'm saying human beings (gun owners included) can be fooled; they can be convinced that invisible beings in the sky are watching them, they can believe that wishing hard enough that mommy's cancer will go away will make it go away, they can be convinced that an inanimate object in the house possesses a dangerous will of it's own, they can be convinced that the government is here to help them and that's why they can't own guns anymore.

Yes, human can be fooled.


I'm having trouble responding to your post, because when I quote you, all I get to read in this system is your responses, without fully understanding what you were responding to, to comment on your comment.

I can't keep jumping from your post (with comments on my comments) to comment on your comments to my comments, if you get my drift.

Look let me summarize my position:

1. Keep you guns, I don't give a shit.

2. Millions of people are perfectly reasonable guns owners

3. A percentage of gun owners are queer for guns

4. Gun queers like to imagine that they stand between me and a repressive government

5. They are deluding themselves because most of the LIKE repressive government EXCEPT when it come to gun ownership.

That's basically all there is to my gun rights position.

I know you dearly wish I was a "gun grabber" so you could lecture me about how wrong I am, but I truly don't care about you or your guns.

Clear?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are over 200 million guns in private hands. You both are mistaken if you think the Government could disarm this country simply by changing the law.

Once again for the slow. A revolution does not require anywhere near a majority to occur nor to be won. All it takes is several hundred thousand to several million to stand up for their rights.

If a gun grab became a shooting war the military and the police would fracture all over the Country.

So while some might meekly submit, enough will not to ensure that any attempt in the near future to grab guns will fail miserably. Further a whole hell of a lot of people might not shoot to keep them, but they would get hidden or buried by a larger group then would fight. And if the fight started a good portion of THOSE people would dig up their guns.

 

[editec]

There are over 200 million guns in private hands. You both are mistaken if you think the Government could disarm this country simply by changing the law.

I suspect what would happen to gun owners is basically what happens to stoners, today gun.

At first the fines for having guns would be modest enough.

Then, after a while and enormous propaganda campaign, enough people would be convinced that gun owners were criminals, so that the fines and prison sensteces would get more and more outlandish and more and more repressive.

Until sane people would be afraid to even say anything about how absurd the penatlies for gun ownership are it for fear of losing their jobs, or their potential political careers.

Repressive governments don't happen overnight

And repressive governments don't annouce themselves as such, either.

Totalitarianism comes in baby steps, seemingly minor innocuous steps and ALWAYS under the guise of doing something to PROTECT THE CHILDREN.

If you want to see how they will screw guns owners, folks, just study the way the war on drugs.

See how the WOD has perverted the law, giving the police state more and more right to invade your piracy and impose its will upon people who refuse to fit into their system of power and control.

The techniques totalitariaists employ will be the same, regardless of what they are seeking to control.​

Why?​

Because what they are seeking to control is only this...​

EVERYTHING! YOU! ME! EVERYONE!​

Once again for the slow. A revolution does not require anywhere near a majority to occur nor to be won. All it takes is several hundred thousand to several million to stand up for their rights.

Standing up in the hundreds of thousands requires some kind of organization, sport.

Maybe the NRA is that organization, but frankly, I doubt it.

But my oh my, what a useful thing tNRA's membership list WILL BE for a government seeking to identify potential problem citizens, eh?

If a gun grab became a shooting war the military and the police would fracture all over the Country.

They might, but I doubt it. Remember prohibition? How many cops do you think drank?

And pensions are a mighty hard thing for cops to give up, aren't they?

Many cops won't CARE what the laws says because THEY WILL STILL BE ARMED, won't they?

So while some might meekly submit, enough will not to ensure that any attempt in the near future to grab guns will fail miserably.

Again. it won't be a grab.

It will be a step by step erosion of your rights, coupled with increasing the pressure on honest people to give up their guns or face harsh penalties.

Further a whole hell of a lot of people might not shoot to keep them, but they would get hidden or buried by a larger group then would fight.

On that we totally agree.

Cynical people might very well stockpile secret caches of guns just in case.

Why cynical men might even never mention their affection for guns in public, too....just in case.

Honest men, men fooled into thinking we are STILL a nation of laws, will stand up in opposition to gun controls openly.

They will openly join groups like the NRA and they will be the FIRST PEOPLE whose guns are taken, too.

Why?

Because the bastards will know who those people are.

And if the fight started a good portion of THOSE people would dig up their guns

I don't think so.

Why?

Because the "fight" will not be announced as such.

It will be petty battles with individuals all propagandized into threats to public order...like Waco, for example.

My point?

MOST of you gun people have already lost this battle.

You lost it a long time ago when you all ignored the other things about this developing police state that you agreed with.

You ALL lost it during the escalation of the war on drugs.

Ya'll just don't know it yet, but most of you gun owners have given the government the right to do whatever the hell it wants to you, already.

You wanted law and order?

You're going to get it, and I suspect you won't like it quite so much as you all thought you did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I suspect what would happen to gun owners is basically what happens to stoners, today gun.

At first the fines for having guns would be modest enough.

Then, after a while and enormous propaganda campaign, enough people would be convinced that gun owners were criminals, so that the fines and prison sensteces would get more and more outlandish and more and more repressive.

Until sane people would be afraid to even say anything about how absurd the penatlies for gun ownership are it for fear of losing their jobs, or their potential political careers.

Repressive governments don't happen overnight

And repressive governments don't annouce themselves as such, either.

Totalitarianism comes in baby steps, seemingly minor innocuous steps and ALWAYS under the guise of doing something to PROTECT THE CHILDREN.

If you want to see how they will screw guns owners, folks, just study the way the war on drugs.

See how the WOD has perverted the law, giving the police state more and more right to invade your piracy and impose its will upon people who refuse to fit into their system of power and control.

The techniques totalitariaists employ will be the same, regardless of what they are seeking to control.​

Why?​

Because what they are seeking to control is only this...​

EVERYTHING! YOU! ME! EVERYONE!​

Standing up in the hundreds of thousands requires some kind of organization, sport.

Maybe the NRA is that organization, but frankly, I doubt it.

But my oh my, what a useful thing tNRA's membership list WILL BE for a government seeking to identify potential problem citizens, eh?



They might, but I doubt it. Remember prohibition? How many cops do you think drank?

And pensions are a mighty hard thing for cops to give up, aren't they?

Many cops won't CARE what the laws says because THEY WILL STILL BE ARMED, won't they?



Again. it won't be a grab.

It will be a step by step erosion of your rights, coupled with increasing the pressure on honest people to give up their guns or face harsh penalties.



On that we totally agree.

Cynical people might very well stockpile secret caches of guns just in case.

Why cynical men might even never mention their affection for guns in public, too....just in case.

Honest men, men fooled into thinking we are STILL a nation of laws, will stand up in opposition to gun controls openly.

They will openly join groups like the NRA and they will be the FIRST PEOPLE whose guns are taken, too.

Why?

Because the bastards will know who those people are.



I don't think so.

Why?

Because the "fight" will not be announced as such.

It will be petty battles with individuals all propagandized into threats to public order...like Waco, for example.

My point?

MOST of you gun people have already lost this battle.

You lost it a long time ago when you all ignored the other things about this developing police state that you agreed with.

You ALL lost it during the escalation of the war on drugs.

Ya'll just don't know it yet, but most of you gun owners have given the government the right to do whatever the hell it wants to you, already.

You wanted law and order?

You're going to get it, and I suspect you won't like it quite so much as you all thought you did.

Sure thing "sport".

 

[DiveCon]

I suspect what would happen to gun owners is basically what happens to stoners, today gun.

At first the fines for having guns would be modest enough.

Then, after a while and enormous propaganda campaign, enough people would be convinced that gun owners were criminals, so that the fines and prison sensteces would get more and more outlandish and more and more repressive.

Until sane people would be afraid to even say anything about how absurd the penatlies for gun ownership are it for fear of losing their jobs, or their potential political careers.

Repressive governments don't happen overnight

And repressive governments don't annouce themselves as such, either.

Totalitarianism comes in baby steps, seemingly minor innocuous steps and ALWAYS under the guise of doing something to PROTECT THE CHILDREN.

If you want to see how they will screw guns owners, folks, just study the way the war on drugs.

See how the WOD has perverted the law, giving the police state more and more right to invade your piracy and impose its will upon people who refuse to fit into their system of power and control.

The techniques totalitariaists employ will be the same, regardless of what they are seeking to control.​

Why?​

Because what they are seeking to control is only this...​

EVERYTHING! YOU! ME! EVERYONE!​

Standing up in the hundreds of thousands requires some kind of organization, sport.

Maybe the NRA is that organization, but frankly, I doubt it.

But my oh my, what a useful thing tNRA's membership list WILL BE for a government seeking to identify potential problem citizens, eh?



They might, but I doubt it. Remember prohibition? How many cops do you think drank?

And pensions are a mighty hard thing for cops to give up, aren't they?

Many cops won't CARE what the laws says because THEY WILL STILL BE ARMED, won't they?



Again. it won't be a grab.

It will be a step by step erosion of your rights, coupled with increasing the pressure on honest people to give up their guns or face harsh penalties.



On that we totally agree.

Cynical people might very well stockpile secret caches of guns just in case.

Why cynical men might even never mention their affection for guns in public, too....just in case.

Honest men, men fooled into thinking we are STILL a nation of laws, will stand up in opposition to gun controls openly.

They will openly join groups like the NRA and they will be the FIRST PEOPLE whose guns are taken, too.

Why?

Because the bastards will know who those people are.



I don't think so.

Why?

Because the "fight" will not be announced as such.

It will be petty battles with individuals all propagandized into threats to public order...like Waco, for example.

My point?

MOST of you gun people have already lost this battle.

You lost it a long time ago when you all ignored the other things about this developing police state that you agreed with.

You ALL lost it during the escalation of the war on drugs.

Ya'll just don't know it yet, but most of you gun owners have given the government the right to do whatever the hell it wants to you, already.

You wanted law and order?

You're going to get it, and I suspect you won't like it quite so much as you all thought you did.

rant much?

 

[editec]

Okay.

Most of you gun nuts will figure it out after it's too late.

 

[del]

Okay.

Most of you gun nuts will figure it out after it's too late.

is that a black helicopter behind you?

 

[LOki]

I'm concerned that there's some major thread drift going on here but I'll respond anyway.

Robbery is a crime of violence. In common law terms it's "stealing from the person" using force. Aggravated robbery, again at common law, is robbery whilst armed, while in company or with violence (the beating being before or after the stealing event).

Rape can be committed by the use of force. It can also be committed by use of threats (to the victim or another person, eg a child) which don't require force. It can also be committed by fraud, for example misrepresentation of the act or by impersonation of another person to obtain consent. Given this then rape isn't a crime of violence, it can't be because to define it in that manner would remove the protection afforded to victims who are forced into sex by a person using threats or some form of fraud.

Rape is an act of violence. In civilized circles, it is a violent crime. You are clearly sick--seek help.