You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: A Discussion About Guns

in #guns7 years ago

That was extremely deep!! There are a lot of different things that you touch on which make lots of sense. Because America is such a diverse society, it will be difficult if not impossible for everyone to agree on certain things, in this case firearms and protection.

However do you really think a few firearms would protect you from the American government if they really wanted to get at you? The american army machine is like nothing the world has ever seen. With troops and equipment on at least 6 of the 7 continents (not too sure about Antarctica) and the amount of spending that goes into the military complex, if the government really wanted fully oppress its people, I don't think citizens with their firearms could do a damn thing.

That being said, if you are concerned with the government infringing on your rights and enslaving more and more of its citizens daily, I can definitely see the case where the public feels the need to protect itself through weapons.

So if I am understanding most of the responses on this thread correctly, the right to owning a weapon is more of a safety precaution against the government rather than against your neighbor? I can understand that, but these mass shootings aren't coming at the hands of the government, they are coming at the hands of individuals acting on the own accord.

I don't think there is an easy solution, but I am glad we are having a discussion about it. Getting to the root of the problem is very important. Like most people in this thread I agree that guns are not the root of the problem but they are a symptom, curing the symptoms does help but it does not address the underlying issue.

Sort:  
Loading...

Inevitably, someone comes along and asks, "What about nuclear weapons?"

That's not the government destroying citizens. That's the government destroying any premise for its rulership at all.

There is no need for a Secretary of the Interior if there is no interior. There is no need for a Secretary of Transportation if the roads, rails, bridges, airports and seaports are all destroyed.

There is no question that the US government CURRENTLY enjoys a military advantage over its citizens, and that's not to say it would win, any more than to say that Jeff Horn can't beat Manny Pacquiao, or that the New England Patriots can't come back from a 28-3 halftime deficit.

The point is, when there is even just a philiosophical break, you can lose half your military to the other side.

How many times has the United States armed some foreign group on the basis that said group would help the US, only to find that they have accidentally armed its biggest enemy?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/asia/cia-funds-found-their-way-into-al-qaeda-coffers.html?_r=0

If the troops that the US Government sends out to confiscate guns don't actually believe that the guns should be confiscated, who has the bigger army then?

It's not about the law. It's about the consent of the people.

That was quite easy to obtain in Australia. It was like taking candy from a baby.

The US? Americans?

Not so much. That's like the fox banning chicken wire.