|
|||||||
| Coffee Lounge Talk amongst other community members. |
| View Poll Results: Should guns be a fundamental right in Canada, with no regulations? | |||
| yes |
   
|
5 | 20.83% |
| no |
  
|
19 | 79.17% |
| I don't know |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Topic Tools | Rate Topic |
Jul 05, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
The importance of owning guns in a free society
Here's video of the population being oppressed by their government in Korea. Someone in another forum has already stated that they can't own guns, or it's strictly regulated. he could be wrong, but it doesn't look like it.
 http://dolby.dyndns.org/upfoo/mov/1111677575718.wmv Here's another video of Chinese farmers getting oppressed by their government and an accompanying article that I posted a while ago. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5061401932.html Chinese Peasants Attacked in Land Dispute The seizure of farmland by local officials to build roads, dams, factories and other projects, often for personal profit, has emerged as an increasingly volatile issue in the Chinese countryside, where the government owns all land and gives farmers only long-term leases. Peasants often complain they are unfairly compensated when officials confiscate their plots, and have staged hundreds of protests over the issue in recent years. [...] Residents said the men arrived in six white buses before dawn, most of them wearing hard hats and combat fatigues, and they struck without warning, repeatedly shouting "Kill!" and "Attack!" Police failed to respond to calls for help until nearly six hours later, residents said, long after the assailants had departed. Access to firearms is strictly regulated in China, but villagers said the men fired on them with hunting shotguns and flare guns. They also wielded metal pipes fitted with sharp hooks on the end. Because of the preparation, residents suggested the men might have ties to organized crime groups working with local officials. ================ Bear in mind, South Korea is one of those much vaunted "by the people, for the people" democracies. Problem is, it only takes 51 percent of the people to vote your rights away. And if you start with gun rights, you pretty much consolidate the power monopoly of the state, and you can fuck the rest. Every move in history to disarm a population was a precursor to Tyranny and the genocide of political enemies. Between 1949 and 1976 Red China enacted gun control schemes aimed at "Political opponents; Rural populations, Enemies of the state" that resulted in the execution of 20-35 million. Soviet Russia, same dealio, which killed off 20 million of their own people. http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm CLIFFS: a slave has no rights, and has no ability to fight for them when he is disarmed. Gun are essential to having freedom. :) IBflamesfromliberalhomos 
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
in unrelated news, Zimbabwe is compelling their population to surrender their guns.
Rawanda Part II  http://www.zwnews.com/issuefull.cfm?ArticleID=12207
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Anyway, to make this relevant, I guess I should mention the evil United Nations
 In its most ambitious effort in recent years, the United Nations is meeting this week to discuss ways in which it can legally confiscate privately owned weapons on a global basis. To be sure, that's not the way it is being presented by the press – instead, the conference is theoretically going after small-arms manufacturers, but the net result is the same. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23579
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
free society would mean that you don't live in an oppresive regime where you need to protect yourself from you government/military. most canadians don't have a need for guns as protection against anything. they would do more harm than good.
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
seriously, all those examples you have shown us are from countries that are nothing like canada and have governments that are totally different. rwanda? how the hell is that supposed to be an accurate example to prove your point that we need guns in canada? like i said before: canada already IS a free society. we don't have a government like rwanda or other places like that. we don't need to protect ourselves from being militarily oppressed (i don't think the canadian military could do that anyway, haha). so what are we going to use the guns for if we don't need protection from our government? on ourselves of course! on our own citizens! that would be totally destructive. perhaps guns are needed by citizens in oppressive countries so they can protect themselves, but not in canada or other free societies like your poll suggests. your post is about two different things entirely. come back when you have an argument that works.
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
USA has lots of guns, but they have a really high gun murder rate as well. and they're not using their guns to protect themselves from the government, they're using them to kill each other. so that's what happens when a free society is chock full of guns...they seem to use them on each other. what's so good about that? if you're poll had been about whether people in oppressive regimes should be allowed guns, then maybe the outcome would have been different. however, that really doesn't make sense either, because what oppressive regime would allow their citizens to carry around guns?
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
fascism is the power monopoly of the state. with guns, we spread it around and keep it in check. although you should know that it takes on average 14 minutes for the popo to respond to a 911 call. guns are for your protection too. look at Switzerland. 
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
p.s id suggest the difference in homicide rates between america and switzerland are largely a result of social/cultural/economic differences between the two countries, americans still have the cowboy mentality. Last edited by SEAN!; Jul 05, 05 at 02:19 PM.
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
i've tried to get wum to see this time and time again, but here goes.
there's a little rule in the scientific world that states "correlation is not equal to causation". it goes something like this... it's pretty easy to prove a correlation between drinking milk and being a murderer because pretty much 100% of murderers drank milk at some point in their lives. there's a definite and strong correlation between drinking milk and being a killer. so is drinking milk the cause of murder? no. there's a correlation, but you can't prove causation. in order to prove causation you have to eliminate all of the other possible causes from the equation. to do this you have to take in to account all of the other situations. if you just look strictly at "drinking milk" vs. not drinking milk, and then look at what happens it's pretty obvious that drinking milk doesn't make any difference. in other words... you can't just throw out a couple of examples of countries that restrict gun use and also happen to be totalitarian to make your argument, you have to look at all countries...so what about canada? do we have more or less freedoms than countries with less gun control. one could argue that in many ways we have more freedom here than in the states, we certainly have a far smaller proportion of our population in jail. what about germany, or sweden, or the UK, or india? they have pretty tight gun control, are they on the way to becoming totalitarian states? australia had some pretty tight gun controls, are you bemoaning their lack of freedom? you bring up switzerland, and as an example of a country that has great freedom and great gun ownership, probably in reference to their mandatory military service and the mandatory rifle and ammo that you have to own on top of it. you probably aren't thinking about the fact that you have to produce that rifle and the sealed and untampered-with ammo once a year for government inspection, and you have to go through somepretty serious governement hoops to own anything else. that sounds awfully like gun control to me. what the hell do you mean by "freedom" anyways? the freedom to own guns? if that's freedom then why did the U.S. "liberate" Iraq? something like 90% of iraqi households owned guns before the war, so i guess they were living free as birds huh? we figured out a while ago that a certain amount of government regulation of weaponry is necessary. i mean would you argue that it would be acceptable for a private citizen to own an icbm? a nuclear bomb? how about a dirty bomb? a car bomb? a bazooka? land mines? aren't you upset that the governemt is taking away your "right" to own a weapon of mass destruction? ludicrous, isn't it? where do you draw the line? personally i see no problems in having to register guns, just like you register cars, homes, dogs, etc... Why would you consider the ownership of deadly weaponry a "right" anyways. except for that one paragraph in the US constitution there aren't many legal precedents for the "right" to bear arms. and that paragraph was written at a time when it's framers still feared the return of a british invasionary forces, recognized the need for militias specifically to combat that possibility, and had no concept of what a ak-47 with hollow point bullets would be capable of, and certainly no idea that you would be able to obtain a gun like that for the equivalent of 20 gallons of milk on the black market.
|
|
Jul 05, 05
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
