Vote democrat for now on

coffee

Why would you recommend it?

What do you mean about the rest of the constitution.

So it is partly about you being frightened for your safety?

So you just have hunting rifles? How do they help in rough neighbourhood?

 

Piney

It not about the number but the way the votes are proportioned.

The answer to both is that in a first past the post system its not worth voting for a smaller third party, and could be seen as even dangerous in a better of two evils sense.

As I said earlier a third party of the right helps the Democrats and a third party of the left gives victory to the Republicans.
In a proportional system others than the big two have a chance of been represented (proportional representation)

 

Pretty much. An unarmed populace is much easier to inflict harm upon.

It's not so much fright, it's more of a deterrent against potential threats.

Hunting rifles won't help you in a rough neighborhood obviously. How are you gonna conceal one? Stuff it in your trousers? That's where hand guns come in handy.

 

What are you gonna shoot at the cops when they come to enforce a bit of "tyrannical legislation? I doubt it

How is a concealed weapon gonna deter potential threats? Pack a .45 on yer hip, that'll let everyone know you mean business!

 

coffee

Is that true or is it just that the false sense of power that guns can give people makes them believe they are a protection against government persecution.

For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of?

Think about US history, 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?

Here is the long version –

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

A threat you fear so much that you feel you need a weapon specifically designed to kill or maim people to protect you.

What is making you so frightened?

 

It depends on the legislation. And how effective the resistance can organize.

One can show the potential attacker their armed by making the gun visible for a split second. It happened to my friend once; a van of thugs approached his car as he was leaving the restroom of a rest area. He made his concealed revolver pulled back the flap of his jacket revealing his gun and they backed off.

Classic divide and conquer. You might have a good point, but Hitler sure made the process easier by legislating gun prohibition before he started the Jewish extermination.

Here's a question for you: why did Hitler take over every other country surrounding Germany but left Switzerland alone. A country filled with an armed populace?

Natives did fight back, with several wars in fact. Another tidbit of history is that many cities, states, and territories made it illegal to barter or sell muskets with the natives at that time. Diseases like smallpox were also an issue.

Another tidbit of history is that the first anti-gun activist organization in the United States was the KKK who fought to keep newly freed slaves from owning guns, so they could terrorize black households without risk of being shot at.

Looks like racism sides with you on this one. Ooohh burn.

To be fair you bring up a decent point. I don't actually know how many of those Japanese or the McCarthy accused actually put up resistance.

I guess sometimes they don't put up any resistance for the same reason a country surrenders after a war: they become outgunned. Like Japan in 1945 with atomic bombs. Japan could have put up the fight a bit longer but I'm sure more would have been lost.

But going back to what you're saying. Some methods of persecution throughout history, took lots of time, money, and resources to get the propaganda going in full motion to divide the public.

Who says it has to be a person? Why not a wild animal? Why would I have to maim or kill whatever it is to protect myself? Show a potential attacker your armed, or point the gun at them, they're very likely to back down.

What is making you such a hoplophobe?

 

Either way it doesn't matter.

The more gun control leftists that get elected, the more guns the people will purchase due to the potential risk of their rights being taken. Meanwhile, my stocks will rise and I'll laugh all the way to the bank!

Hahaha '$_$' ca-Ching ca-Ching

 

Coffee

You don’t seem to be addressing what I said which is that many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty and uphold the US constitution.

So what were they doing when their fellow citizens rights were been curtailed in such open fashion and the Constitution trashed?

As establishments know if they want to go after a people, religion or political group they first have to demonize it and or make it seem threatening.

This can be done for many reasons to scapegoat, blaming a particular group or race for the woes of the majority as happened with the Jews and Bolsheviks in 1930’s Germany, or it can be directed at whose that are seen as political rivals.

The Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats seem crude today but the principles are the same as the anti-communist films made in the US.

The thing was that many people at that time (as now) who were pro-gun were also right leaning politically and were therefore not seen as a threat by the political establishment but rather as an ally.

But the American public does seem divided in a lot of ways, so it might be said that propaganda has worked.

Can you answer the question I asked of why you seem so afraid?

You are going to meet wild animals in those ‘rough neighbourhoods’ you mentioned? Are there many lions and tigers and bears living in such neighborhoods where you live?

I said such weapons are specifically designed to kill or maim people, and although you might not have to if you carry one you must presumably be willing to kill or maim.

The irrational fear of weapons and believer that such weapons have a will of their own (the word invented by a pro-gunner in 1962 to mock his opponents)

Why is it that when anyone wants to talk rationally about US gun culture this quack psychology is thrown out at them by pro-gunners?

It just seems like lazy abuse rather than rational argument.

Thing is that I grew up in the countryside around people that owed guns for keeping down vermin and hunting. I was also a member of a gun club and was a fair shot, (shooting rats for pocket money at a local feed store).

As I’ve said before it is possible to get a gun in the UK, many people have shot guns and if you are law abiding and seem responsible it is possible to get a license. It is just that most people don’t feel the necessity to have a gun. I mean what would I do with a gun in the city? Hunting, I’d rather preserve the wildlife we have, rather than shoot it. Keeping down vermin, I think calling a professional exterminator would be more efficient and less time consuming than sitting out on my porch in the hope a rat will show up. As to home defence, well, as I’ve said before there just doesn’t seem to be the US pro-gunner’s level of fear about that here.

 

I guess its a vote for Hillary then. Although I doubt she will have the same effect on the gun nuts.

 

Maybe the Battle of Athens should provide a good example. This is a short video based on actual events.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw"]The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law - YouTube

www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

I agree, and the process is much easier when those people are disarmed first.

Oh really? Gun owners are seen as allies by the political establishment? Then why is anti-gun propaganda pumped up so heavily by the mainstream media?

Maybe, if you tried answering some of my questions I gave you. Like the one about hitler and Switzerland

But if you wanna talk psychology, I'll answer YOUR question:

Having a way to defend one's self in case any trouble comes their way gives them a sense of emergency preparedness and a sense of added confidence. And extra confidence can take you a long long way. There, basic psychology

Again, why does it have to be "where I live?" Shouldn't people be able to protect themselves away from home as well? THINK!!! Not everyone is a stay-at-home suburbanite dweller who's afraid to get their feet wet. Some people actually have jobs and hobbies that entail venturing into wilderness where they actually might encounter threats from wild animals. Different environments offer different threats. Wild animals invade campsites, travelers, and can put people at risk. They have a right to defend themselves.

I'm so sick of the naive urbanite mentality that stems from the fallacy that nature is for plants and animals only, and cities are for people only.

My words don't seem to phase you as you like to filter out what you don't like hearing. Maybe these will help:

Man is bloodied and bruised after a deer attack (saved by gun fire)
http://www.startribune.com/local/165598126.html

Vehicle saves man from polar bear chase
http://jalopnik.com/5119694/truck-saves-alaskan-from-man+eating-polar-bear

Homeless man attacked by cougar (aka mountain lion)
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...-Attack-of-Homeless-Man-Perris-243245231.html

Lists of fatal animal attacks in North America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_alligator_attacks_in_the_United_States_by_decade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_alligator_attacks_in_the_United_States_by_decade

These lists don't count the injured survivors of animal attacks unfortunately.

You can make just about any object a weapon if you throw it or swing it hard enough. But for some reason makeshift weapons like a shovel or a blunt 2x4 with a long nail sticking out at the end isn't taken very seriously by most. Would you take the risk of provoking someone who is making their gun visible?

Any rational gun owner or armed officer hopes they would never have to actually fire their gun near or at somebody. I know you're trying to bait me to say that I am willing to kill someone. It ain't gonna work, bud.

I only pulled that word from the dictionary of phobias.

Wouldn't exactly call it quack psychology. For some reason nowadays whenever some people see someone in civilian clothes (or a uniformed official) wearing an exposed handgun on their belt holster, they get edgy and nervous. And sometimes policemen will stop them and interrogate them for no good reason. Many establishments won't let someone inside wearing one of those, because it makes people uncomfortable. Therefore it's not worth the hassle for most people. I guess that's why concealed weapons are getting more popular.

Did you know that having a uniformed (or armed) person standing nearby will deter someone from committing crime or mischief? That's not quack psychology, that's common psychology.

I've actually had my life threatened at gunpoint. True story.
I worked night shifts for a film company doing security. We were filming at a location way way out in redneck country. I was driving out to this location I had never been, so I used the GPS to find my way out there. It was dark, cold, very foggy, and the road was windy. Had to drive slow and cautiously. This company labeled their film location signs with a black arrow on a yellow sign. The GPS led me to a farmhouse that looked like a promising film location where there was a yellow sign with an arrow. I was almost late for work and I pulled into the driveway and got out. I was about to call my supervisor when I heard a woman's voice from around the corner of the home asking who was there. I approached to greet the person standing a few feet away up some steps, thinking it was one of the film workers. I was greeted with a blindingly bright flashlight in my face, I couldn't see much else. I said hello, told them my name, and I was security for the film project. But she interrupted and yelled "I don't think so! Get the hell out of here or you're gonna get shot!" She shined the light down to her other hand which was holding a pistol aimed right at me (Bear in mind I was wearing all black from head to toe including a black stocking cap, as that was my uniform for work; I looked like I could have been an intruder)! I put my hands up and begged "OK OK I'm leaving don't shoot! Wrong address." Got outta there as fast as I could, I was terrified. The correct address was 1/2 km or so down the road where the correct yellow sign was. The GPS led me to the wong house and the similar yellow sign was misleading. I had to commute by that house to and from work every day for the rest of that week. It wasn't easy.

You'd think an event like that would turn me away from my support of private gun ownership. I could have been killed or maimed. But it still doesn't change my views.

Toward the end of the filming, the home owner learned I was not an intruder and that it was an honest miscommunication. We met briefly. She apologized for threatening me, and I told her there was no hard feelings considering the circumstances. I thanked her for not shooting and for giving me a chance to leave. I also said that as a security officer, I thought she did the right thing by defending her home from what she thought was a serious threat. She just smiled.

 

LOL Talk about paranoid. (Animals can sense that you know)...This kind of thing is so rare, and generally happens to those that have no awareness of where to be and how to act in the wilderness.

I live in bear country, I hike in the woods only a few miles from a major grizzly corridor, we have mountain lion and wolves too. I don't carry a gun mainly because its a pain in the ass and mostly not necessary. First of all unless they are sick, deranged or very desperate Mountain lion are NOT going to attack any confident full grown man, cats are easily injured and they know it. Wolves also generally prey on only the weakest,they can't afford to expend anymore energy or risks of injury than they have to. Bears are the only thing to be concerned with... I'll wager I've had more dangerous wildlife encounters than you ever will. Here's one I happened to capture on my blackberry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FZAfwyk_HQ"]Street musician Bear encounters - YouTube


Protecting yourself from wildlife is a weak argument at best for 'needing' guns.

 

Smearing yourself in with a predator animal's poo has done the trick for centuries.

 

I talked about that same question to my husband not too long ago... but the conclusion that we came to was, that some idiot or like 5 people or something would vote and be the sole decider(s).

 

Dbl post

 

I know, thats the obvious thing, or they would just falsify votes. It of course never happen they way I've proposed.
It's really just a statement about solidarity.

 

Yea, I know. I think I brought this up recently (obviously knowing it would never happen) simply because I was thinking "what if everyone just got fed up and stuck together and decided not to vote and would that somehow help create a new government.... to REALLY change things?" ... but yea, even that hypothetical situation never got further along in my thoughts then "yea, some idiot would decide to vote and determine the whole thing" OR yea, I think it would be very very likely they would falsify things... how would anyone prove them wrong?

 

"Vote democrat for now on"

In a way I agree. Sometimes the only way to resolve a problem is to make it much worse, to the point that it begins to have effect on everyone.

 

Coffee

I could mention the Battle of Matewan or the Battle of Blair Mountain and a lot of the labour history of the US which was often violent (usually instigated by its opponents)

But that still doesn’t address what I’ve said “many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty and uphold the US constitution. So what were they doing when their fellow citizens rights were been curtailed in such open fashion and the Constitution trashed?”

It happened in that case and in a small number of others but as a whole gun ownership hasn’t really played a part.

On the whole the labour movement was peaceful as was the civil rights movement (although a gunman assassinated MLK).

But in you analysis shouldn’t those who are armed come to the defense of the persecuted, as I say that didn’t happen. At the time of the holocaust most of the male population of Germany was armed, the guards at the camps were armed.

What I’m saying is that just being armed does not make you automatically a defender of what is ‘right’.

As you say the KKK fought to keep newly freed slaves from owning guns keeping them for themselves so they could threaten black with being shot.

Shouldn’t the ‘patriotic’ gun owners have been defending those black people, why didn’t they?

Here are the questions you asked in your last post – I seem to have answered all but one of them – can you produce the important questions you think I have not answered?

why did Hitler take over every other country surrounding Germany but left Switzerland alone. A country filled with an armed populace?

Who says it has to be a person?

Why not a wild animal?

Why would I have to maim or kill whatever it is to protect myself?

What is making you such a hoplophobe?

Better man? But as I’ve said I seem to have answered your questions so why the better man, jib, if you want me to answer a question I’m happy to do so, which burning question have I missed?

So why are so many pro gunners seemly so afraid of their society that they feel they need such deadly weapons to defend themselves, why are they going through life feeling they need to be prepared for an attack?

Have I said they haven’t?

You mentioned hunting and then specifically said “and defence to give me the confidence to travel through a rough neighborhood with a sense of assurance”

I presumed that meant you were making a distinction between a country and urban settings

Looking at the first three of you videos they all seem NOT to have happened in build up urban neighborhoods.

So what did you meant when you said “rough neighbourhood”?

Are you saying that you think if Americans didn’t have access to guns they would still kill as many people but only this time with shovels and such?
Why are people so afraid that they feel the need to have the gun to show someone in the first place?

But what’s the point of having such a deadly weapon if you are not willing to use it and possibly kill someone?

It wasn’t coined by a psychologist but invented by a pro-gunner to mock his opponents

Well having a police officer (unarmed) standing nearby will deter most people from committing crime or mischief? (I mean if you are a suicide bomber or mentally deranged for example it wouldn’t matter much if the police officer was armed or not)

[/quote]I've actually had my life threatened at gunpoint. True story…[/quote].
So it was all about fear the woman seemed to be so frightened that her response to someone coming to her door was to point a gun in their face to instill fear and you were duly terrified.

I don’t feel so frightened of by society and people that a meet anyone who comes to my door with a weapon in my hand.

Why did she think you were a threat just because you were there?

This seems to fits in with my theory that that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control.

 

You know, OP... if you really wanted gun sales to take off you could find a depressed, unstable teenager, give him a bushmaster and tell him to have a great day at school. The NRA would take care of the rest.

I think it's really ironic that gun nuts keep saying Obama was the gun salesman of the year when it was actually Adam Lanza. Obviously they can't publicly admit that they love that kid, but privately they most certainly do. I mean, it gives them a chance to whip up all of this 'they're going to break into your homes and take your guns now' hysteria that sells so many guns and puts them in the media as champions of freedom for the completely retarded.

It was the NRA that immediately went on the offensive when this whole thing happened... they were much louder and much more obnoxious about expressing themselves than Obama could ever hope to be-- it's part of Rush Limbaugh's influence on the American right, with just a touch of Alex Jones (not too much to spoil their credibility with the few remaining right-leaning moderates, however). Suddenly the best possible solution to the problem of school shooters was giving everyone guns, putting armed guards in public schools, making sure everyone was armed, hallelujah it's raining guns!

Suddenly, Obama wasn't about banning semi-automatic assault rifles or guns that pretty much have no practical purpose whatsoever unless you're a mass murderer or live in a war zone, it was about armed soldiers breaking into your house and ripping ALL of your guns away from you in the middle of the night, while your wife and children stood by and saw you robbed of your manhood and shamed forever, and from that point on nobody ever felt safe again. Oh, and then the government would drive tanks through the streets and kill all dissenters the following week.

Suddenly Sandy Hook didn't even happen and the only thing that would prove it did was Obama personally allowing everyone their god-given right to see the bodies of the dead children on display, then taken on a tour of the US so that they could be examined by every single conspiracy nut in the world... but even then, the government probably just killed other children to cover themselves! It was all a conspiracy to take away their guns so that they could kill you because you sit at home and spout ridiculous right-wing conspiracy theories over the internet... because of course everyone takes your insightful, totally not imaginary and completely sane ideas so very seriously!

Suddenly Obama was Hitler, who actually didn't give his people guns after the Treaty of Versailles forbade the German people from arming themselves (some pretty amazing revisionism there!).

I'm not even anti-gun... they can be tools for hunting, in some cases might be good for self-defense (probably at home), etc... I just think the idea that this was Obama's fault or that the issue is all or nothing is ridiculous.

 

It goes back to what I said about divide and conquer. Besides, this ain't Hollywood where the good guys always win in 95% of all films ever made; the bad guys (in government) often win as well.

Regarding the incidents you've been referring to.... Such as the imprisonment of Japanese Americans. Maybe the resistance against the constitution shredding machine wasn't organized as well as it has been in other events. That's why divide-and-conquer is such an effective method: when the populace is divided, it can be very difficult to unify the masses to accomplish anything. And if you're outgunned by the opponent, you have a choice either to surrender, or go down a martyr.

When blacks own guns, hunting them down became a more dangerous task for the klansmen. The armed blacks were able to defend themselves their own households from such a threat. If they were armed they could put up a good fight against the gangs trying to take over their properties and killing their families. The KKK wanted to take their guns away to keep the blacks from banding together in large numbers to resist the white supremacist movement before they even got started.

The nation was very divided back in those days, in both race and region. The attitude toward blacks was that they were 2nd class citizens in the south and NORTH.

And as I said, the good guys don't always win. The bad guys in government use divide and conquer to prevent unification toward resistance of the oppressed. Citizens owning arms doesn't guarantee a victory, but it at least gives them a chance

You sure about that?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.

In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned.

LOL prison guards being armed on duty doesn't count. Government officials are still armed in disarmed societies.

We agree

I think the Hitler and Switzerland question is a good one. As it brings up an example how an armed society deterred an invasive army away from their homeland.

I answered your questions in the forms of other questions to provide examples that using a gun for defense doesn't mean you have to shoot and kill someone.

This incident, and thousands like it, are a prime example:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2014/01/pinson_neighbors_hold_suspecte.html

Shit happens

I suppose I was being a little too vague when I said "rough neighborhood." Excuse me. However I did mention in post #38 about living far away from a police district and being able to matters into your own hand long before help arrives.

Yes, and they seem to do it a lot more often in your country and at a much higher rate.

People are less likely to mess with you if you're armed (as I've pointed out several times). So it's better to deter a conflict before it starts.

As a deterrent, I can't stress that enough. I'd sooner tell the potential threat to go away. If they don't, you get more serious. If that doesn't work, you tell them you're calling the police. If that doesn't work. The clickback sound of a shotgun should do the trick.

Some people like to collect knives and swords. They're specificly designed to cut and kill things. Yet you don't hear nobody fighting to put restrictions on those sorts of things. So why guns?

The word Homophobia wasn't coined by a psychologist either. Yet it's used like crazy by the media and the gay community. And nobody seems to have any problems with it. So why is it wrong to say Hoplophobe? Maybe we should all be PC and stop saying homophobe. I've pointed out plenty of examples of its reality in post #50.

Oh so you admit there might be a reason for people to be paranoid of others.

Suicide bombers are an extreme example. But if you want to me smart with me, I was referring to lesser crimes like vandalism, theft, hit-and-run, and maybe even littering.

Yeah she was scared; she had every reason to be considering the mixed up circumstances. From her point of view: She lived in a quiet little house far away from civilization, let alone a police precinct. She was sound asleep, not expecting any visitors in the middle of the night, and someone comes onto her property wearing all black. Heck, she was pissed off enough that I woke her up. I was twice her size and half her age. Now, if I was a bad guy and she had no defense weapon, she would have been no match for me. She could have called the police, but I had a head start; the police station was 45 minutes away and I was on the property. But I'm good guy so it wouldn't have happened. She could have told me I had the wrong address and to go away, and I honestly would have left. But she didn't want to take any chances considering my attire and the time of day.

Imagine if you woke up in the middle of the night to find someone dressed entirely in black, or in gang colors, on your property who looked like they were up to no good. I don't believe for one second you wouldn't be the least bit scared or suspicious of the person's stated intentions.