Poll trend on Handgun possession

[dead0man]

One of the few freedoms Americans are near the top at!

[dead0man]

One of the few freedoms Americans are near the top at!

That's because you're the only people who consider it an essential freedom.

The Swiss are even free'r. (free'r?)

[dead0man]

I'm surprised there are that many against the possession of hand guns.  Maybe they are confusing the ownership with the ability to carry a concealed weapon? 

They actually think that regular citizens owning hand guns makes for a more dangerous society.  And yet they claim to love freedoms.  Odd I know.

[dead0man]

Need I point out that all the guns in the massacres, Columbine, V/Tech, all the other school shootings, the Omaha mall shooting were all legally obtained.

You can point it out all you want, but it doesn't make it true.  Cite?

[dead0man]

Like in Switzerland.

[dead0man]

Like in Switzerland.

No, in Switzerland guns are not treated as sacred.

Yes, the availibility is similar to the US (in fact well beyond), but yet, they don't go bonkers over them.
Also the Swiss laws will change next year when they become part of the Schengen treaty. The Swiss also restrict the degrees to which weapons can be carried outside of homes.

Plus the US has a sizeable military, the circumstances between the US and Switzerland on this key issue is so different that comparisons are pointless.

Right, the comparisons between the US and ANY other country with regaurds to gun rights (education levels or socialized medicine or anything else you care to think of) are pointless.  We're a very unique country for many many reasons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, to protect us from that future standing Army.

Need I point out that all the guns in the massacres, Columbine, V/Tech, all the other school shootings, the Omaha mall shooting were all legally obtained.

You can point it out all you want, but it doesn't make it true.  Cite?

http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/wb/113294
- Virginia Tech

I'm still hunting for the others, I've heard something about others, so I'm tracking them down.

How's the hunt (pun?) going?

[dead0man]

Quite frankly, I, along with pretty well the rest of the world, find the average American attitude towards guns to be sick and strange.  It's no wonder American society has gun problems when they're so amazingly paranoid about everything.

Good for you.  Some Americans (the majority) feels the "wrong" way about a subject you care a lot about.  We don't find your attitude towards guns to be sick and strange.  We respect your right to have your govt produce different laws.  Why the anger and hate from your side?  I could even understand Americans against gun ownership getting angry and irrational over the subject, but not somebody without a dog in the fight.  Maybe you should go shoot some clays or hunt a squirrel or maybe even just fire a few hundred rounds into a rusty car, that would calm your nerves.  Maybe that's not your bag, but why must we take it away from other people who's bag that is?

..and American society doesn't have "gun problems".  We're a nation of 300,000,000 most with a basic set of freedoms that includes gun ownership.  Sometimes 1 of those 300,000,000 will steal a legally owned gun, or even manage to purchase one themselves and use them against others.  Taking guns away from regular people wont change that or stop it from happening.  In fact,it has the potential to make things much much worse.  Look at what "gun free zones" got them at V. Tech.

[dead0man]

Absolutely! The power of the American Government would be no match for you and your gun!
LOL

So you think the average guy in the police and the military likes the Federal govt more than they like their fathers, brothers and uncles?  Who's going to come take these guns away?  Leftists with flashlights?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.  It's easier for the left to ignore this fact and make jokes that don't make any sense in the real world.

[dead0man]

You seem to be confused.
I didn't suggest that anyone liked or disliked the Federal Government; nor did I suggest it would be a prudent course of action to try and disarm the American populace at this stage.

What I did suggest was that the idea that having a gun protects you from tyrannical government is remarkably silly. The idea that people genuinely believe this notion I find both amusing and disconcerting.

If a tyrannical government is after me I'd much rather have a gun than not.  I find it amusing (but not disconcerting...I couldn't care less if somebody else protects themselves or not) that some people think they'd have a better chance against a tyranical government without one.

(by the way, I don't own a gun, have never owned one and may never own one.  I have no need for one.  I live in a safe neighborhood and rarely go into unsafe ones.  I didn't grow up with them.  My father never owned one.  But I would never ever vote for somebody that wanted to take away my right to own one.)

[dead0man]

Help me out here - under what circumstances does having a gun increase "your chances" against a hypothetical tyrannical American Government?

Seriously?  You can't think of any reasons why it would be beneficial to have a gun (or hundred) when a tyrannical govt comes for you.  Do you think guns only kill innocents?  Do you think the govt and it's people are invulnerable to firearms?  I don't understand how somebody couldn't see how a gun would be handy when a govt entity comes for you.  I'm not suggesting I'd win, I'm suggesting that if everybody that had a gun put up a fight when they came to take it, they'd stop trying after awhile or better yey, they wont try in the first place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree.  We're different.  I understand you guys don't have a long history of a gun culture.  Great.  That's awesome.  I'm not saying being pro-gun is the right way, it's just the American way.  We like our guns, most of Europe doesn't.  We share a lot of cultural similarities, but we also have some differences.  Guns is one of them.  Feel free to look down your noses at us because of it, we've gotten used to it from you guys.  We really don't care that much anymore.  We're different, get over it.

[dead0man]

So you concede that your gun isn't actually of any substantive use to you when faced with a tyrannical government, but that indeed the support of the masses is what could be crucial?

Sure, the support of the masses..... with guns.  An individual with or without a gun isn't going to be able to do much with a tyrannical govt against him.  A group of individuals with guns would.

But this is a pointless argument anyway.  There isn't a tyrannical govt out to get our guns and if there was, they'd have nobody to enforce it.  Do you really think the guys in the police and Army are going to shoot Americans because they won't give up their guns?  We have the 2nd Amendment, and an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with it.  We've heard all the arguments against them and we've decided that the pro's outweigh the cons.  You can think we're wrong, that's cool.  But guns ain't going anywhere.

[dead0man]

So you concede that your gun isn't actually of any substantive use to you when faced with a tyrannical government, but that indeed the support of the masses is what could be crucial?

Sure, the support of the masses..... with guns.  An individual with or without a gun isn't going to be able to do much with a tyrannical govt against him.  A group of individuals with guns would.

Really. I beg to differ. For example, I refer you to this man and this man. No guns, but they changed things utterly.

Ok, I'll give you Ghandi.  MLK wasn't fighting a tyrannical govt, he didn't do anything alone and many others also fighting for the same goal he was DID use guns.  Anne Frank fought a tyrannical govt without guns.  Lots of people died in Soviet gulags that fought tyranny without a gun.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never suggested that the American government would or should try to forceably disarm Americans at large. I don't deny that there may be a majority in favour of their right to hold all manner of lethal weaponry.

All I said, all I've argued against (in this thread), is the idea that a gun is of any practicable use against a tyrannical government. Such an idea is tragically misguided and remarkably paranoid.
[/quote]And I keep telling you I'd rather die FIGHTING a tyrannical govt rather than die up against a wall and blind folded.

[dead0man]

No, I'm comparing mass organised armed uprisings with significant support in the indiginous community against a foreign occupying power to the hypothetical case of a mass organized armed uprising with significant popular support against a hypothetical domestic tyrannical government.

And under your theory a group of Americans who felt the current American govenrment was tyrannical and followed the example of those Iraqi insurgents who use their Ak-47s, RPGs and IEDs against their fellow Americans would be better off doing using arms rather than through the ballot box or some other form of non-violent movement?

Do you even read what other people write?  Do we even agree what tyrannical means?  Part of the definition of Tyrannical is the inability by the masses to change it for the better through voting.  Or has Tyranny lost it's worth as a word due to overuse by idiots like "gulag" and "Holocaust"?