Gun Myth Tragically Debunked: Texas DAs Prepared, Armed And Expecting Trouble

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
LOL! And you're supposed to be a lawyer? Shouldn't lawyers be observant? It's no secret that Magons in from down under. That's come up plenty of times over the years.

This is what I think what the gun thing is really about: American fear and insecurity.

Sure, there's a chance that something bad could happen, but there's a bigger chance that something bad will happen every time I get in my car. I'm not going to freak out over it, nor am I going to live in a little cave of my fear.

That is my freedom. I choose not to be trapped by fear of the unknown. A large chunk of America (not coincidentally, the red part) is not so free.

Your right. This is all about fear and insecurity. You have a tremendous amount of fear. You fear guns, but really you fear responsibility. You don't trust yourself to be personally responsible for your own safety. You fear the dangers guns pose and don't trust yourself to master those tools and use them properly. You have so much fear and shame that you not only want to make the choices for yourself, you want to choose for everyone else.

You are afraid of the unknown. You don't know guns. Sure you know what they can and can't do...generally. But you don't own one. You've never mastered shooting, gun safety or any of the related fields. Go take a shooting class. Show you can master your fears. Then make an informed decision. Say to yourself, this is my gun and I can shoot it, clean it, safely store it, and use it responsibly and THEN you can say without fear that you, knowing full well all there is to know on the subject, have made an informed decision.

Me, I've lived with guns for years, but not always. I was raised with guns. I learned gun safety from the time I was three years old and first noticed our gun cabinet. But I also went years without guns (most of my 20s). Now I have a number of guns. My father gave me two, one is an heirloom .357 police revolver, the other a fairly common 9mm. I've bought several more. A shotgun for sport shooting and home defense. I just traded my Sig .380 for the .40 Beretta Storm SC for concealed carry. My Sig M400 should be coming in anytime...just because I wanted one.

I've had training, both informal and professional.

Knowing both sides of the issue I can make the informed decision you can't...I choose to have them.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:10 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So your point is that if anyone has a gun, they absolutely MUST find something to kill with it? There exists in your mind no possibility that someone with a gun might choose not to shoot?

You've just made a great case for fewer people having guns, if only to cut down on the volume of gunfire flying around the country!

Actually my point is that a dog is little protection from a person with a gun.

As we've seen time and time again, a gun is little protection from a person with a gun. Reagan was literally surrounded by "good guys with guns", and they couldn't protect him. And when the shooting started, only one person there got off any shots. Nobody pulled out their gun and shot back.

Quote:

Sure, they might choose not to use it. They could also be breaking into your home with good intentions...perhaps to leave you flowers and candy.

And as usual, you missed the point, because you're incredibly stupid, or you just choose to miss the point on purpose. They WEREN'T breaking into my house at all, not once they saw the dog. And I wasn't home, so my guns would have done absolutely nothing for me at all.

A gun sitting on your table cannot guard your home from break-in. As gun nuts keep insisting, the gun can't jump up and shoot anyone at all. (They never seem to notice that a gun control law doesn't jump down off the books and kick in your door and take your guns, either, but that's because they, like "Hero" here, are either stupid or willfully blind to their own hypocrisy). My guns were 100% useless that day, whether the would-be burglar was armed or not, because there was nobody there to use them.

Quote:

I guess you are ok leaving it up to them. The criminal intent on committing a burglary you are now trusting with your life and the life of your family. I guess it makes sence. You'd rather have the armed intruder making all the life and death decisions since you are afraid to trust yourself with that responsibility.

Ah, the good old all-or-nothing argument comes out yet again. When "Hero" and his dipshit righties can't argue reality, they have to invent their own reality. If I say that you don't need a 6000 round-per-minute chain gun to protect your house, he'll say that I'm leaving every self-defense decision to criminals. 'Cause we all know you cannot defend yourself without guns; nobody can. Ever.

If you can't defend your house with ten rounds, then twenty more aren't going to do you any good. And as Geezer has argued, you don't need a bigger magazine capacity because it only takes a second or less to change mags, so you can't slow anyone down by forcing them to change magazines while shooting.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:12 AM

Quote:
You have so much fear and shame that you not only want to make the choices for yourself, you want to choose for everyone else.

You, ummmm, ARE anti-abortion, are you not? Are you afraid others might make a choice you don't like? So afraid that you'd take that choice away from them rather than let them choose for themselves?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 10:42 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Lets do an experiment.

We both post signs outside our home and on Craigslist.

Mine says, "Owners armed, intruders will be shot...many, many times."

Yours says, "Owners have no weapons and do not trust the police. If you rob us, your safety is guaranteed."

Then we can wait and see who gets robbed first. I suspect...and maybe I'm off here...it's going to be you, hell there'll be a line, you could sell 'come rob me tickets'....

That's where I left off yesterday. My immediate reaction was "Whaaa? Is that or is that not the SINGLE stupidest post anyone's ever posted here?! Does he think he's making some kind of point?!?"

And yes, Mike, it's dumber than Wulf's dumb remark, because Wulf merely made the usual stupid leap to "NO guns...instead, he made some kind of...I don't know what...that went waaaaay beyond that and which paints a picture so far beyond "no guns" as to be even more moronic than Wulf's.

Magons,

Quote:
I don't fully understand why large segments of the population appear so myopic about wanting to own guns.

The evidence appears to strongly suggest that an armed population increases the chances of having a gun being used against the population.

Additionally I do not advocate hard strong laws at this point in time for the US, even though I am not a supporter of a population being heavily armed. I think the proposed changes look pretty mild to me.

I've seen a lot of debates on this board around this issue. I've seen people who own guns call for restrictions on assault weapons, on the amounts of ammo you can buy and some better regulation/or implementation of regulations about who can buy guns.

None of that appears fanatical to me.

I've also seen arguments, although you could hardly call them that, where any discussion around ANY restriction results in bitter bile and accusations being spewed forth.

That appears fanatical to me.

That is pretty much the entire "debate" in our country, in a nutshell.

I agree with Mal4:

Quote:
American fear and insecurity. Fear of being victimized by some scary Other, and insecurity that maybe every American isn't automatically superior to everyone else in the world so we better come up with something to help us believe that we are. Don't fuck with us or we'll shoot you. Yeah, that makes us feel high and mighty.

So you see Magons, even THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS are sensible enough to reason it out, too. We just have a minority which is very powerful, very vocal, and whose agenda carries enough weight to stymie intelligent debate.

People like Wulf:

Quote:
The only people who are against people having guns

...which, of course, is nobody HERE, nor the vast majority of Americans...

And "Hero":

Quote:
I regret every criminal or accidental gun death and celebrate every legal use of firearms. By comparison I've found my regrets far outnumbered.

Which is ironic, since the number of criminal and accidental gun deaths FAR outnumber the number of times legal use of firearms was successful...

Admittedly, "Hero" goes far beyond silly and way into idiotic:

Quote:
the land that our liberty and firearms have made free and prosperous

That, and all his rah-rahing about America are funnier than hell, given Australia's history has so many parallels to ours, yet they've managed to do it WITHOUT humongous gun proliferation, as well as without all the natural resource bounty and all the other things that made America so "free and prosperous"... Our "liberty and firearms" aren't at the bottom of our prosperity (except insofar as they allowed us to slaughter the indigenous population and take over this rich land). The British had guns, too; we outsmarted them, we didn't "outshoot" them. People like Wulf and "Hero" just want to believe we owe our "freedom" to guns, not to the intelligence of those who, tho' they had to expel landlords, didn't have to overthrow a resident king and army but to arable land, natural resources, timing (industrial revolution), having a new country to play with in the first place, ingenuity, education, so MANY things which went into the bounty of this country. Trying to say firearms made us "free and prosperous" is...well, there are no words...

Well, yeah, Mike had some good ones: "Sometimes "Hero" posts things that just leave one's jaw on the floor, they're so mind-numbingly dumb." As well as, thank you Mike, some perhaps uncomfortable reminders about America...

Sorry, Magons, I apologize for the more moronic American attitudes you see reflected here, just please know they ARE in the minority, thank gawd, just not minority ENOUGH...

Oh, {{facepalm}} I just hit "so I'm not trying to take your 'freedoms' *coughbullshitcough* away from you"

DEFINITELY the award for the first, totally unexpected, out-and-out LAUGH of the morning! Many thanx. And yes, what you said about the comedian; "a lot of Americans think like I do as well, just their voices are drowned out by the patriotic BS spouted by nutjobs like the NRA and Fox." In a nutshell.

I think "Hero" is amusing...and that we should get a couple of lawyers to come here and tell him to stop claiming he is one, he would be an embarrassment to the bar if he were, his thinking is so skewed. Fact is, a good barking dog will deter ten times as many potential robbers coming into your home as having a gun in the house, and is a much faster response. Not to mention that the potential robber, aside from being brave enough to enter a home where he hears a dog bark, would have to know he's a good enough shot to get the dog on the first shot, and to hope there's only one. We have two, and they're fast...but they're huskies, they don't bark and would probably want to lick the potential robber to death; but then there's never been an armed robbery anywhere around us, our house is old, shabby looking and there's little worth stealing in the first place, so I don't obsess on it. His is a silly argument, and anyone intelligent enough to pass the bar wouldn't make it.

Quote:
Sure, there's a chance that something bad could happen, but there's a bigger chance that something bad will happen every time I get in my car. I'm not going to freak out over it, nor am I going to live in a little cave of my fear.

Bingo. I take precautions against the things which, in the places I travel, endanger me most. We've lived here over 38 years; we've never locked our doors. We've always had dogs. We've never been robbed. There have been robberies in the neighborhood, but none of the families who have dogs have ever had a robbery. That's good enough for me.

And Mal4 has got it:

Quote:
This is not the movies; the bad guys won't attack at a convenient time and place and miss you with a dozen shots while conveniently keeping themselves in your crosshairs.

Ahhh, well...I just hit "Hero"s idiocy about fear...he's just gotten wayyyy too far out there, as has, once again, this usual argument--in their world, there are only two possibilities: ALL guns or NO guns. They aren't capable of thinking in terms of moderation, logic, common sense. And around in circles they go. Let them dance with themselves, they'll never get it in a million years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 10:50 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Back to the OP:
And still no one has addressed the point: this DA was armed and trained and ready and expected trouble, yet still was killed.

So you can sit on your big arsenal and think that makes you safe, but your attacker chooses the time and line of attack. This is not the movies; the bad guys won't attack at a convenient time and place and miss you with a dozen shots while conveniently keeping themselves in your crosshairs.

And there's evil still in the world. Right. Got it.

Sometimes the bad guys win. Sucks for the rest of us, I know. But which would you rather be, a target that can fight back , or just a target ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Thank you for your insights. I do appreciate the observations on our respective cultural view of gun ownership.

I wont speak to you on the silly 'in' or 'from' issue. We now know where you are, although you failed to say you were from Australia, but you've implied it and your claiming that your Australian culture forms the basis of your beliefs about guns in your country and ours. I respect that.

You said our founders would feel that we have misunderstood and misused the 2nd Amendment. I disagree. Our founders included soldiers, explorers, and hunters. These men had fought a long and bloody war of independence. I'm not sure if you are aware but the first battles of that war at Lexington and Concord were fought because of a British expedition to disarms the local militias. In any event our founders designed our govt with an extensive series of specific power divisions and restrictions among the States, the Federal govt, and the people. `If you read their writing on the subject you see a great fear of the power given to the Federal govt. They feared a Federal tyranny so much it threatened to stop us from successfully forming our govt. As a compromise they agreed to pass a Bill of Rights to codify certain liberties and power. The 2nd Amendment was specifically placed in the Bill of Rights as a final check upon the power of the Federal govt. The idea being that universally armed citizens could oppose any sort of national Army and prevent a tyrant from imposing his will and subverting our liberty. This is not mere conjecture...its what they wrote in the Federalist papers and other contemporary documents.

I would suggest you read the Bill of Rights with this in mind...'why would they put this in the Bill of Rights?'

For example, not quartering of soldiers in houses? That makes no sense...until you remember that's what the British did. The right to free speech? The British shut down papers and arrested people who spoke against the King. Search and seizure? The British busted into homes and took what they wanted. Nearly every part of the Bill of Rights has a basis in the historical actions of the tyrannical govt we'd just fought off.

I will now take some time to read about Australia's gun culture before I make any more comments on the subject.

Thank you, yes as I said, I have had many a discussion with Americans re this issue, and I grasp the historical context. There have been many threads where I have aired my views. When I enter into discussions with people of your beliefs, it becomes difficult, because it feels like I am entering into the terrority of sacred historical doctine. You say the words, but their sacredness means that you can no longer question or examine your statements. You speak with a hand over a beating patriotic heart, and they are the things that prevent you from thinking in any clear manner.

Personally, I quite like the Bill of Rights, both the earlier English and American ones. They form the basis for some pretty important concepts of western thinking around government and law. But they were also written by people who lived in a world so different from our own that would scarcely recognise us as the same species. They are also open to interpretation, and it would appear that some 'bear arms' means NO goddam restrictions on any weapon and for others it doesn't imply that at all.

I'd also like to point out that free speech and democracy exist in other parts of the world without everyone owning weapons, and conversely there are plenty of places where weapons abound and tyranny exists. What's that about then, guv?

PS. I did say where I was from, quite clearly and have been very open, constantly on these boards about being from Australia.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 12:52 PM

Hi Niki. Thanks for backing me up in your thread.

Just wanted to clear one thing up, even though it is COMPLETELY off topic.

"That, and all his rah-rahing about America are funnier than hell, given Australia's history has so many parallels to ours, yet they've managed to do it WITHOUT humongous gun proliferation, as well as without all the natural resource bounty and all the other things that made America so "free and prosperous"."

I know that the common view is that we're some kind of wasteland, but in actual fact our wealth is largely because of our bountiful natural resources, of which we are very lucky to possess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You, ummmm, ARE anti-abortion, are you not? Are you afraid others might make a choice you don't like? So afraid that you'd take that choice away from them rather than let them choose for themselves?

Can't argue the apples, time to break out the oranges?

Actually a similar argument comes into play. Fear. Why choose to about a child? There are many reasons, but a big one is fear. They fear the pain, fear the inconvenience, fear the long term cost, and so on...so much easier to just make it go away and pretend it didn't happen. Like I said, many reasons, but don't pretend fear of taking responsibility isn't one of them.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I know that the common view is that we're some kind of wasteland, but in actual fact our wealth is largely because of our bountiful natural resources, of which we are very lucky to possess.

Waiting for the crazy liberals to attack you...because you know you stole those resources from their rightful owners. They love to harp on that when us rah-rah types talk about how great Australia...I mean, America is.

Australia has an interesting gun relationship. You had a colonial experience much different from ours. Your frontier phase was far more peaceful. You had a gun culture but one that was never deeply rooted like ours. You destroyed your gun culture in the 1980's out of fear.

Shame. I suspect that had you faced armed invasion during the 2nd world war your cultural attitude would differ. Good thing Americans were there to help you out I guess. Gun loving Americans with American guns fighting alongside you to protect you from a warrior culture intent on conquest. Would your people have resisted...sure. Aussies are really tuff...well, some of them are. But that was then...nowadays there are a lot who are more like you. Willing to be conquered I guess. You'd have loved Japanese occupation, they were known for their humane and gentle treatment of captured western women.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Waiting for the crazy liberals to attack you...because you know you stole those resources from their rightful owners. They love to harp on that when us rah-rah types talk about how great Australia...I mean, America is.

No arguments from me there. Not proud of our interactions with the indigenous people of this country. Did you think I might get defensive about that?

Quote:
Australia has an interesting gun relationship. You had a colonial experience much different from ours. Your frontier phase was far more peaceful. You had a gun culture but one that was never deeply rooted like ours. You destroyed your gun culture in the 1980's out of fear.

Well we never had a gun culture like yours in the first place, but people would have owned weapons for hunting and farming on the frontier. I suppose the difference was we don't have the history of conflict the same as the US.

Still we've managed to grow a country that is largely free and peaceful without recall to weaponry. A lot of that is about luck and positioning, I'll grant you that.

Quote:
Shame. I suspect that had you faced armed invasion during the 2nd world war your cultural attitude would differ. Good thing Americans were there to help you out I guess. Gun loving Americans with American guns fighting alongside you to protect you from a warrior culture intent on conquest. Would your people have resisted...sure. Aussies are really tuff...well, some of them are. But that was then...nowadays there are a lot who are more like you. Willing to be conquered I guess. You'd have loved Japanese occupation, they were known for their humane and gentle treatment of captured western women.

We did face armed invasion. The Japanese bombed the north of the country.

The last time I checked it was the US military that was involved in WW2, in the Pacific region for the benefit of US interests. You know the STANDING ARMY that you still have, the one that your government sinks a large percentage of your GDP into arming and training, not a bunch of farmers rowing over with their shotguns.

Not sure what that has to do with gun ownership laws in either of our countries.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Back to the OP:
And still no one has addressed the point: this DA was armed and trained and ready and expected trouble, yet still was killed.

So you can sit on your big arsenal and think that makes you safe, but your attacker chooses the time and line of attack. This is not the movies; the bad guys won't attack at a convenient time and place and miss you with a dozen shots while conveniently keeping themselves in your crosshairs.

And there's evil still in the world. Right. Got it.

Sometimes the bad guys win. Sucks for the rest of us, I know. But which would you rather be, a target that can fight back , or just a target ?

And there you have the conservative mindset in a nutshell: It has never occurred to Rappy or "Hero" to not put a target on your back in the first place. Their attitude is "People hate us, so we better kill more of them until they see that we're the good guys!"

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The last time I checked it was the US military that was involved in WW2, in the Pacific region for the benefit of US interests. You know the STANDING ARMY that you still have, the one that your government sinks a large percentage of your GDP into arming and training, not a bunch of farmers rowing over with their shotguns.

The last time you checked eh? Yep, today we have a military that can project its power and influence across the entire world...it's been that way...since 1945.

You see, as WIll Rogers (American actor/commentator in the '30s and '40s) once said, "America is the only country that waits till it gets in a war to start getting ready for it."

The American military was small, it's supply of modern equipment was virtually nonexistant. Take the American Navy. The bulk of our fleet was sunk in the first hour of the war. Most of our trained officers and active crews were killed or wounded. What about our huge Army...nope, didn't exist yet. We had a small number of troops. Most of those were killed or captured within the first few months in the Philippines. The Air Force...didn't exist until after the war and most of the pre-war fighters and bombers were unable to match the Jap Zero which was one of the best fighters in the world...and the others belonged to Germany. The US had P-40s, slow and not very maneuverable in comparison. We had only a handful of ships and vitrually no organzed Army to defend the west coast. Military analysts have said it's likely that an invasion would have penetrated as far as the Mississippi River before being stopped because we had no troops to stop them. What we did have was a gun culture.

A tradition of armed citizenry that stretched back to before our founding. Entire towns went to war. Teachers, policemen, firemen, civic leader became officers. Store owners, workers, farmers, and students became soldiers. It was nothing new, these people did this so well because their fathers had done a generation before to go 'over there', and those men had heard stories of their fathers and grandfathers going to fight for Mr. Lincoln or to march with Marse Robert. They were the children of people who'd tamed the Wild West or made it Wild in the first place. Those fellas that had gun experiance made the best soldiers for obvious reasons.

You see it was not until after WW2 that we had the huge standing military that you see today. In 1941, on the eve of war...I'm sorry but I think you need to reconsider your opinion about what we had.

Oh, and the reason your country does not spend huge amounts on its military is because you existed within the British umbrella until WW2 and you've been under our protection ever since.

Want to go it alone? A massive country with a small population and lots of natural resources in the same region with a country with a HUGE population and military and a thirst for land and natural resources. Study your chinease.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And there you have the conservative mindset in a nutshell: It has never occurred to Rappy or "Hero" to not put a target on your back in the first place. Their attitude is "People hate us, so we better kill more of them until they see that we're the good guys!"

Sure your on the right board?

How about 'if somebody tries to kill you, its ok to try and kill them back'. And I seem to recall a number of times when shooting first was a good idea. And that's before you go to war...because if we go to war, we'l show you something you haven''t seen. And so on...

Liberals here are all just Alliance in Brown clothing.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 6:04 PM

What are you on about? What of this is anything to do with gun ownership within a population preventing tyranny? You are in fact debunking your own argument by discussing the role of the US military. If every citizen in the US was disarmed tomorrow, you would still hold the position of power that you hold in the world because of the strength of your military.

Australian soldiers fought along side US soldier with armaments provided by their respective governments. They were not informal militia using their own weaponry. The tyranny of WW2 was not defeated by citizens with guns but by military force, by increasing advances in weaponry funded by governments and ultimately used by governments against one another.

Sounds to me like your feathers have been ruffled and you've turned up the volumn on your patriotic fervour. The fact that Australia and the US are in alliance is not about gun ownership, its about military and government alliances. The fact that we are a small population that would struggle to defend ourselves (with or without an armed population) actually flies in the face of your own argument. It demonstrates that conflict and peace in this world are reliant on more complicated concepts than your 18th century vision can allow you to see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 6:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And there you have the conservative mindset in a nutshell: It has never occurred to Rappy or "Hero" to not put a target on your back in the first place. Their attitude is "People hate us, so we better kill more of them until they see that we're the good guys!"

Sure your on the right board?

How about 'if somebody tries to kill you, its ok to try and kill them back'. And I seem to recall a number of times when shooting first was a good idea. And that's before you go to war...because if we go to war, we'l show you something you haven''t seen. And so on...

Liberals here are all just Alliance in Brown clothing.

Says the idiot who has worked his adult life as a paid shill for that very same Alliance. What is it you do for a living again, boy?

And weren't you the bunch who accused people of hating America when we didn't support that Alliance torturing people, wiretapping them without warrants or cause, indefinitely imprisoning people without charges or evidence, and even targeted murders without due process?

I'm guessing your favorite suit has a bit of a purplish color to it.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
If every citizen in the US was disarmed tomorrow, you would still hold the position of power that you hold in the world because of the strength of your military.

Actually the illegal govt would hold that power...the citizens would hold none.

Quote:

Australian soldiers fought along side US soldier with armaments provided by their respective governments. They were not informal militia using their own weaponry. The tyranny of WW2 was not defeated by citizens with guns but by military force, by increasing advances in weaponry funded by governments and ultimately used by governments against one another.

First of all I think your dead wrong. Lots of countries fought in WW2. Let's take the example of the Soviet Union. They had millions of soldiers who had little or no experiance with weapons. They were slaughtered...by the million.

Compare that to the average American soldier. American soldiers arrived with a healthy dose of gun culture built in. It was not just experiance with weapons, it was experiance with the idea of weapons. Many could shoot. Most had expeianced gun violence in movies, books, and radio. The transition from citizen to soldier was a strong part of our culture. Our soldiers lacked combat experiance but the had the ability to adapt and think independently making them capable of advanced small infantry tactics that other countries could not perform. Even the Japanese often relied on simple tactics like the human wave assault. The mentality was different. Japanese and other nation's soldiers were dying for their country...Americans were willing, as Patton put it, to make those poor bastards die for their country.

Quote:

The fact that we are a small population that would struggle to defend ourselves (with or without an armed population) actually flies in the face of your own argument. It demonstrates that conflict and peace in this world are reliant on more complicated concepts than your 18th century vision can allow you to see.

That nonviolence is an option is a byproduct of American gun culture. In the old days...the people who nonviolently resisted would be killed. Now...because America changed the rules...they are not killed. Nonviolence only works if the people you are resisting restrain themselves.

Edited to add: Not my best response. I'll reread your original post and get back to you. My general point is people who have gun experiance or have a gun mindset make better soldiers. I think you'd find it made us better at every level of combat...from trenches to clouds, Americans fought with a particular style that overcame so much in the opening phase of the War in the Pacific. I suggest you watch a couple John Wayne movies...and you'll get the idea. Or just do some reading on Guadalcanal and the Battle of Midway. BTW, Midway has a connection to why warrantless wiretapping is a good idea.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And weren't you the bunch who accused people of hating America when we didn't support that Alliance torturing people, wiretapping them without warrants or cause, indefinitely imprisoning people without charges or evidence, and even targeted murders without due process?

Can't say I ever argued those issues the way you described.

1. Wasn't torture.
2. There is no evidence, not one case, where Americans had their phones tapped without a warrant. Our program was listening in on overseas calls. Which is nothing new. Listening in on enemy communications is in the Army playbook going back the Sun Tzu.
3. I have always opposed holding people without charges, trial, evidence, or other due process...and I think I noted that the Constitution is NOT limited to Citizens on that issue.
4. Targeted murders without due process? That's an Obama thing. The Obama drone program is not just Constitutionaly suspect (if it involves American citizens abroad) but it also messes with the rules of war (but with Yamamoto as precedent) and is strategically unsound. Me, I want those bastards captured so they can have the opportunity to freely confess all they know.

Guess my coat is browner then yours....

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 1:25 PM

AGENTROUKA

Hero,

of all the reasons millions of Russian soldiers died, having little previous private gun ownership experience was probably among the extremely minor ones.

It's kind of deeply disrespectful of their suffering and historical fact to minimize every other aspect by giving undue importance to that one fact.

Less than stellar leadership, having a large part of their experienced officers eliminated previously for political reasons, less than fantastic equipment and just generally being considered limitless canon fodder by their own military while facing a majority of the German war machine? Maybe slightly more important?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 4:12 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"Hero" is just...simply...cringeworthy. I apologize for his ignorance and his attitude on the part of all thinking Americans, Magons; thank gawd you know he doesn't represent us. The statements he makes...

By the way, someone might tell him we have Brenda, who writes from Canada, as well as KPO, Peacekeeper and (if he ever returns) Citizen, all writing from Britain. Let's hope he doesn't embarrass us about their countries, too...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 12:43 PM

Hero, your post is kind of hilarious, if it wasn't about tragedy on an unimaginable scale. To attribute WW2 outcomes with private gun ownership or lack of is one of the most incredibly ridiculous arguments that someone has ever come up with.

Firstly, a little about the Russians. The eastern front war was fought on a scale that makes the western arena look like schoolboy spat. It's just that most americans are unaware of what was involved because your country was not much involved in that arena. Of all the deaths in WW2, the vast majority were on the eastern front, which was where the most brutal, most catastrophic battles and whole sale slaughter took place. By far the greatest German casualties were on the eastern front, far far greater than the western front.

from wiki

Quote:

The battles on the Eastern Front constituted the largest military confrontation in history. They were characterized by unprecedented ferocity, wholesale destruction, mass deportations, and immense loss of life variously due to combat, starvation, exposure, disease, and massacres. The Eastern Front, as the site of nearly all extermination camps, death marches, ghettos, and the majority of pogroms, was central to the Holocaust. Of the estimated 70 million deaths attributed to World War II, over 30 million,[6] many of them civilians, died on the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat.[7][8][9] It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany for nearly half a century and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower.

So those poor old Soviets dying like flies actually managed to both repel German invasion and were instrumental in defeating the Third Reich.

Whatever the strength of the US military at the beginning of the war, it had increased exponentially by the end of the war, both in personnel size (300,000 in '39 to 12 million in '45) and armaments. Importantly, the US developed nuclear weapons - and used them at the end of the war. Not much use for the Japanese whether they possessed guns or not at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. To say that the success of US forces was due to individuals know how with weaponry and attitude is one of the most embarressing statements of hubris I have encountered during internet discussions.

Quote:

That nonviolence is an option is a byproduct of American gun culture. In the old days...the people who nonviolently resisted would be killed. Now...because America changed the rules...they are not killed. Nonviolence only works if the people you are resisting restrain themselves.

I never mentioned non violence actually. What I said that conflict and peace are much more complicated that you seem to be able to imagine, and I think that is because your view of war and tyranny is very much coloured by your own patriotic thinking as well as an outdated view on how power manifests itself throughout the world. It is an interesting fact that modern Germany is the most powerful nation in Europe, and yet has gained its position of power through economics without recourse to any military action. Personally, I find that somewhat ironic.

It's hard to sum up in a paragraph or two some of these complexities of the world arena, but economic strength, technological strength, military strength, alliances as well as the size, shape, proximaty of your land to others are all major factors in how likely you are to be invaded.

It seems unlikely in the near future that a wealthy technologically advanced country would be invaded by another wealthy technologically advanced country. The cost would be to high to warrant it, when markets are really what it is all about. Armed conflict tend to be fought in a proxy manner in less developed countries. Wealthy countries battle it out economically as far as I can see, using a whole host of market trickery to gain supremacy.

I guess the other major threat is nuclear, and in that type of conflict the only use for hand guns would be to shoot yourself t if you get radiation posioning rather than a direct hit.

A lot of this stuff has been kicked around in other threads and I don't really want to rehash much more. If you can remember reading any of them, I did actually say that I like the idea of militias and a reduction in standing army forces - much like the swiss model.

In any event, my replies to you are off topic. My initially point was simply in response to fears allayed by some gun advocates here that 'there are those on the board who want total disarmament of the population'. Perhaps I had not made myself clear, but my response was simply to say - I am probably the most anti gun person here, but I am from another country and my country's circumstances differ from the US. No American here appears to be calling for a weapon ban. In fact many posters who are calling for restrictions are in fact gun owners or have guns in their house ie Kwicko, Signy, Niki. And yet that argument is constantly and incorrectly put forward.

Edited: And Hero, I think if you want to talk about history, you'd do better to read some history books than watch old movies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
of all the reasons millions of Russian soldiers died, having little previous private gun ownership experience was probably among the extremely minor ones.

It's kind of deeply disrespectful of their suffering and historical fact to minimize every other aspect by giving undue importance to that one fact.

Less than stellar leadership, having a large part of their experienced officers eliminated previously for political reasons, less than fantastic equipment and just generally being considered limitless canon fodder by their own military while facing a majority of the German war machine? Maybe slightly more important?

Slightly more important? Sure. Hmm...why the less then stellar leadership, poor equipment (debatable later in the war), being cannon fodder, facing a large, organized, well-equiped force for whom they were unprepared? Because their culture was not one based upon liberty and freedom and watched over by a cadre of educated and industrious citizens with a history of capable service in times of war and national crisis and whose freedoms were preserved against the abuses of their own government by the codified freedoms of a Constitution including the right to keep and bear arms.

Russia had a military tradition and warrior culture, it made Russia a decisive player in every European war. They gave it up and lost it in the 20th Century.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:38 PM

AGENTROUKA

After claiming that having lots of guns in society automatically translates to fewer battlefield losses in wartime because of all that training and movie-watching, you haven't really done much to prove that point and instead shifted to making that "guns = free, strong country = fewer losses in wars" argument. This sweeps basically all complexities of Russian history off the table and undermines your initial "training"-angle.

I'm pretty sure there is no sense in continuing this tangent if you are going to ignore complexities and keep shifting your points. So I'll bow out of this one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Russia had a military tradition and warrior culture, it made Russia a decisive player in every European war. They gave it up and lost it in the 20th Century.

H

You do realise that the Soviet Union was a victor is WW2, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:50 PM

Everything "hero" knows about history, he learned from a John Wayne movie. John Wayne, who was really named Marion and who never served in the military, having been rejected by the Navy. A reject and coward - no wonder "hero" loves him!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 4:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I would like an answer to the question Mikey, I think you owe me that.

How is a statistically negligent percentage of firearms accidents cause enough to demand restrictions, while a statistically negligent percentage of vote fraud is not cause enough to demand restrictions in spite of historically votes being more dangerous, as more folk have been slaughtered via the stroke of a governments pen than any firearm ever ?

Explain to me how demanding restrictions on one right while fighting them on another despite both having the exact same justification is not absolutely hypocritical.

One also might, just maybe, consider my previous predictions track record when I go saying "This is a BAD idea..." as everyone else rushes in cheerleading, cause that's worked out oh so WELL in every other case like this, hasn't it now ?

But no, go on, push the issue, beg for a shorter, stronger leash if you like.
Remember what I always say is the absolute worst thing ever you can do to a person ?
Be careful what you wish for.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:18 PM

"Hero" and Rappy love to worship the military in this country.

Here's a picture of a Navy barracks where the SEALs stay:

Might wanna work on your salute there, mein Herren.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:43 AM

AGENTROUKA

Upon reflection, I wanted to add here that my arguing about Hero's WW2 tangent is not based on having a particular gun stance. I am not anti-gun, even though for me it's a purely intellectual exercise anyway, since I'm not in the US.

It's purely based in visceral anger when historical issues are distorted or trivialized. My family hails from both sides of the Russian-German conflict. My German grandparents were growing up as enthusiastic Hitler Youth members (aged 13 in 1945) and my maternal grandfather was a pilot in the Red Army, after being orphaned by Stalin's political persecutions. Totalitarian societies suffused that generation of my family, and it continued in the East German/Russian society that my parents grew up in. The bloody mess of the 20th century writ small informs my own family history in every generation.

I could probably agree more easily with Hero's basic view on gun rights if he didn't wrap it in this dismissive, simplistic, über-patriotic, unilateral American perspective on world history and his arrogant trivialization of historic complexities.

Hero, you should really just stop doing that because it undermines whatever sensible thing you might be trying to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And weren't you the bunch who accused people of hating America when we didn't support that Alliance torturing people, wiretapping them without warrants or cause, indefinitely imprisoning people without charges or evidence, and even targeted murders without due process?

Can't say I ever argued those issues the way you described.

1. Wasn't torture.

It has been used as a torture method against Americans in the past, and those who used it were tried and executed for war crimes - specifically, for the use of torture.

Strike one.

Quote:

2. There is no evidence, not one case, where Americans had their phones tapped without a warrant. Our program was listening in on overseas calls. Which is nothing new. Listening in on enemy communications is in the Army playbook going back the Sun Tzu.

Jewel v. NSA, 2008.

Al Haramain v. Obama

Amnesty International v. Clapper

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush

Shubert v. Obama

Not one case - SEVERAL. Not one instance of the federal government wiretapping American citizens and their domestic communications, but BILLIONS.

Strike two.

Quote:

3. I have always opposed holding people without charges, trial, evidence, or other due process...and I think I noted that the Constitution is NOT limited to Citizens on that issue.

Apparently you feel quite differently about the constitutional provisions against "cruel and unusual punishment", though.

Strike three. Quoth Kenny Powers, "You're fuckin' OUT!"

Quote:

Guess my coat is browner then yours....

Your nose is not a coat.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 12, 2013 2:09 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

"Hero" and Rappy love to worship the military in this country.

Here's a picture of a Navy barracks where the SEALs stay:

Might wanna work on your salute there, mein Herren.

OMG! It sorta looks like a SWASTIKA!!

Hate Amerika! Burn the flag!!

good grief.

so, " support " = " worship", in your world ?

Makes sense, as you're a fully indoctrinated member of the Obama cult.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 12, 2013 5:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nicely done, Mike.

We really should save Rap's

Quote:
"so, " support " = " worship", in your world ?

That is absolutely PRICELESS, given his perpetual use of "worship", "god", "savior" and all his other absurd phraseology about anyone who supported Obama!

He's not doing so well the last couple of days, is he? Talk about being hoist on your own petard...

Consider it saved for posterity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 12, 2013 5:44 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

He's not doing so well the last couple of days, is he?

Does he ever?

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:54 AM