Those worries are also very legit and understandable of course. I would not dig the possibility that the guy next to me in a club would carry a concealed gun at all either. Whatever reason they might have for it.
Fair enough. But lets suppose was a different weapon, like a bomb instead. There was a recent bombing in the name of Islam near your country if I recall. Terrorism happens for a number of reasons (including governmental reasons), but it seems odd to say it's a USA problem and not a muslim problem.
If I get killed by ISIS or by somebody like Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, or Eric Rudolph, I'm equally dead.
I was talking about structural gun violence there. Terrorism by fundamental extremists (not muslims in general) is indeed an international problem.
Not true. None of our powers-that-be want any insurrection, not even a wee one. I think your argument doesn't work. The North Vietnamese defeated that same army with very little, not that I think ordinary Americans could defeat their own military. Defeat isn't the purpose of the Second Amendment. It's about deterance. (and in a civil war, soldiers under oath take sides) Eugenics was as popular in American medical circles as it was in Germany. Ask Carrie Buck, well, she's dead. But, google her. Also, ask a Native American or African American if they think IT can't happen here. Personally, I don't advocate violence against the powers-that-be. But, I do think an armed population keeps their dreams of greed from growing. Besides, Ted Bundy pulled a woman's finger off with a pair of pliers. Women should take responsibility for their own defense, and quit being helpless little lambs, waiting for a man to save them
oh, so then you obviously DIDN'T get my point. Nice how someone who admittedly knows little actual knowledge of either Islam or Christianity is going to tell us what's what. this shit is fucking priceless. hell, my name is Noxious Gas and I reside in the bowels of all mankind, but sure take the cake when it comes to talking out your ass. you should stop before you make yourself look even more foolish. ps. what you meant to say is not all MUSLIMS condemn homos, etc.,etc., but as I pointed out before all of Islam's current teaching that modern Muslims are supposed to follow does promote all the bad shit. again, when push comes to shove, the only thing dividing a violent Muslim from a peaceful one is the degree of their conviction and faith because the religion's text plainly says kill anyone different.
I have no problem admitting what I don't know or am unclear about. You claim I don't know what your point is...so tell me in simple words I can understand, what is your point? I didn't say I have little knowledge of Christianity, I was raised a Christian, what I said was that I have not read the complete Bible. Most of it, but I don't think I ever finished it, that was a long time age. I also haven't read the complete Vedas, all of the translated Buddhist scriptures, all of the "lost books" of the Bible, all of the Taoist texts, the Kojiki and so on. So what? I can still discuss the religions associated with them with a fair amount of intelligence. I'm not afraid of looking like an idiot. I'm always ready to learn. I don't know what this means. Muslims are followers of Islam so I don't understand what you are saying. I agree, not all followers of Islam (Muslims) condemn homosexuals, etc. So what you're telling me is that all of Islam has evolved into a violent religion and any modern follower of Islam (Muslims) must therefore be a violent person or promote violence? Is that your point?
The obvious problem with that way of thinking is that the holy books of Islam have not changed, that I know of. If we say that modern Islam is violent and historical Islam was not, we must ask why. The holy books of Islam haven't changed, (and remember they include the Torah, the Book of Psalms, and the Gospels). If the fundamental religion is always violent than we should see a continuous history of violence at all times, we don't. I see many modern Muslims who condemn violence.
The common sidearm kills more in the US every year than all those spooky looking rifles combined, yet no one is bumping their chests about restricting these. Wonder why that is. Is it that a larger magazine allows for more bullets to be fired in shorter durations, thus having a potential to harm or kill more people? By that logic a car driven into a crowd could kill many, many people, so we should ban vehicles. But wait Chigurh that's ridiculous, a car isn't designed to kill, its' purpose is to get us from point A to B, and we MUST have government approved insurance. Well that's a good argument imaginary friend, though the only firearms designed to kill are hunting rifles and military weapons, the majority of firearms are built to protect and you only need insurance if you actually drive a car. However, isn't our heart designed to keep us alive? Scratch that, did you know heart diseases kills more people every year in the US than accidents...literally accidents, and is the number one cause of death? Now hold on Chigurh, what does that have to do with responsible gun control? Glad you asked imaginary friend. If fat peoples insist on stuffing their fat mouths with food, shouldn't the government acquire them to register on a national data base, or at the very least ban them from certain fast food chains? dafuq Chigurh, do you even have a correlation? oy. If fat people are more likely to abuse the freedom of stuffing their fat faces with delicious fatty fat-fat foods, then they are more likely to have a heart attack while driving home from joint [x], so wouldn't the...actually, I can't even finish this analogy. The problem is religion, Islam at this particular moment in time. No laws on the book, or laws to be created will stop fanatics from completing their mission. The only thing more gun control policy will stop, is decent peoples' chances of protecting themselves from not only the religious, but the government itself. How anyone could argue against the reality of leading causes of death in the US vs their emotional bias, and expect to be taken serious, is fucking absurd.
That's just one part of a religion. The Bible didn't change during the Protestant Reformation, which radically changed Christianity in almost every way. So, just looking at the literature doesn't always show you the complete picture of a major religion. In the Middle East, there has been a lot of political and economic change, and communications technology has changed radically. Most likely, all of that played a role in changing the direction. But... the violent texts being quoted so much now were always there. Nobody is alleging that they've been added recently. I've read the Bible all the way through, twice, and I was required to attend all kinds of Bible studies by my parents, because that's what everybody around us was doing back then. There's all kinds of stuff in the Bible that absolutely nobody ever talks about, and some reform movement could start talking about some parts of it a hundred years from now, but that won't include a command to kill nonbelievers, or even implied permission to kill or otherwise punish nonbelievers in Christ, because it isn't there. I don't have to quote somebody else to tell you it's not there. All the orders to kill were directed to leaders of Israel. This is from another thread, but it seems quite relevant at the moment: Does anyone disagree?
6 I’ve already replied to this and why is it dumb, we have special response units that can be armed but most coppers aren’t – [SIZE=12pt]I‘m against the police been armed (except in certain limited cases) and in general the police in the UK are not armed (I believe some do have tasers). [/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]As to police shooting dead it very rare in the 24 years to 2015 only 55 people have been fatally shot by UK police. [/SIZE] By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries Thing is that in the UK most politicians (on the left and right) and police officers don’t want the police to be armed. “A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty” BBC
6 Again this seems to be the flawed defensive gun use argument that we have covered many times before - so remember that recent studies have come to similar conclusions as this one “Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defence gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.” The thing is that often intimidation turns into use, because there is nowhere else to go, a person might want something they don’t like to stop (even trivial things) so they show or pull out their gun to stop it – but what if it doesn’t stop, where to go then. What if the neighbour caries on playing the loud music, what if the wife laughs and says you have a big gun because your dick is so small – what then. Domestic disputes can be very emotionally charged and can turn nasty and violent very easily add to that guns and it is likely to end with a body on the ground. Anyway talking about lists- Parents Against Gun Violence compile a monthly report of some reasons why people have used their guns here are a few examples – A man knocked at my door asking for help but he wouldn’t answer my questions, so I shot him dead. Turns out he was deaf. My ex wanted me to pay child support, so I shot her and our daughter. My wife caught me cheating and tried to take a photo of me with another woman, so I shot her The parking valet was rude to me so I took my wife’s gun from her and shot her with it I was visiting a friend in his apartment when his roommate said I was too loud so I shot that guy and his girlfriend A saw a woman walking down the street and tried to flirt with her. She wasn’t interested, so I shot her dead My brother wanted my cheeseburger, so I shot him dead. My three year old stepson was jumping on the bed and wouldn’t behave so I shot him dead. My neighbour was mowing her lawn. I showed her where I thought the boundary was between our properties, but she disagreed, so I shot her. https://www.************/ParentsAgainstGunViolence/photos/pb.413407645397893.-2207520000.1464761488./996021877136464/?type=3&theater
[SIZE=11pt]This has been covered at length a number of times. But first I’d point out that its once again the fear factor, people fear ‘government’ suppression of their rights so they think the way to tackle that is to be frightening themselves (become armed). [/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]But as said before that doesn’t deal with the cause of the fear, why are people frightened of their democratic government? Its claimed that ‘an armed population keeps their dreams of greed from growing’ but who are ‘they’ and what ‘greed’ is being talked about and if the system is corrupt wouldn’t political action be the best way to tackle it rather than just getting a gun?[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]Anyway during times of obvious state repression the American people did not rise up to champion freedom and democracy in fact most accepted it, many thought it a good thing and others were happy even eager to help in it.[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]I mean did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police; do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]So what and at whom is the threat aimed at – guns are being held to stop ‘them’ from doing ‘things’ so the question is what things don’t the gun owners want done? [/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]I suppose we could start by looking at the demographic of gun owners, I believe Pew Research looked into this and the outcome was, basically tipped toward male, white, conservative, rural and over 49 years old, I think that is similar to a study done of NRA membership. [/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]* Can guns save you from suppression?[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/237657-can-guns-save-you-from-suppression/[/SIZE] Again fear – you should be frightened so go and get a gun – but wouldn’t it be better to try and create a society where people didn’t feel frightened and getting a gun isn’t going to bring that about and in fact is likely to make things worse, if that gun ends up in the hands of the criminal or irresponsible. The daily deaths related to guns and the high number of mass shootings like Orlando are related to easy access to guns because there are many guns in the system due to lax regulation so how does bringing more guns into the system help lessen societal fear?
Maybe take a look at reality. The american population is already armed. How's the greed of the powers that be in your country doing
