Jump to content

Colorado Shooting during the Dark Knight Rises


msj

Recommended Posts

Yeah, that's what I'm doing. :rolleyes: Try responding to what I said, or is this the best you can do?

Then what is your position then?

The right to own guns and ammunition goes hand in hand with their sale and distribution.

Or can you own but still not purchase or still not be able to sell?

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 555
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So you are saying that it is legitimate use of force to overthrow the currently elected (or Romney if he wins) government? The 2nd amendment can be used every time someone simply does not like the government. Interesting take....

The 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms, it doesn't give you the right to go out and kill people in an attempt to overthrow government. The only thing that gives you that "right" (retroactively) is being victorious over the government.

And the only way you are gonna be victorious is if you have enough people and equipment and resources on your side to have a real chance against the government. And if that is the case, that means there is substantial popular support against the government, enough to warrant an armed uprising by a large fraction of the population (including mass defections from the military), then the government probably did something to piss the populace off pretty bad.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but they could have had a better chance at escaping, taking out some Nazi bastards with them, or at least going down fighting with a bit of dignity rather than having their humanity ripped from them in the horrors of the industrial slaughterhouses.

They did in the Warsaw Ghetto. Didn't make any difference in the end.

No, parliament is definitely one of Canada's organs of government.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet constitute the government. They are accountable to Parliament. That's the whole point. Any government could not suspend elections without the approval of Parliament and the GG.

Things can always get worse. No nation, no matter how long and stable its history, can be certain that it will remain free and democratic forever.

And no amount of guns among the general popluation can guarantee it. I would submit the opposite is more likely. Anyone who thinks they could only be used to safeguard democracy and the constitution is a fool.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

And no amount of guns among the general popluation can guarantee it. I would submit the opposite is more likely. Anyone who thinks they could only be used to safeguard democracy and the constitution is a fool.

Then what safeguards democracy and the constitution? The police and army correct? They have guns correct? Are members of the police and army not citizens of said state or better put, made up of the general population? What is the difference between a police officer and a citizen in a democracy? One has state sanction to use firearms to guarantee the laws/policies/dogma etc of the state………..

Do private firearms ensure a democracy remains democratic? Maybe, maybe not………But you can name a 20th century tyrant and I’ll provide the corresponding nation without legal private ownership of firearms……..

All levels of Government within Canada posses roughly 6-700K firearms………There’s an estimated 16-21+ million private firearms within Canada (No one really knows, but these are estimates done by the RCMP in the 70s)……..In the United States, between military and police owned firearms, there’s just under 4 million with over 260-70 million owned by private citizens……

“Gun Control” is a liberal fallacy in North America, fore the genie has long since been let out…………..After the Colorado shooting, gun sales spiked to near the same level as when President Obama won the White House………

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what safeguards democracy and the constitution? The police and army correct? They have guns correct? Are members of the police and army not citizens of said state or better put, made up of the general population? What is the difference between a police officer and a citizen in a democracy? One has state sanction to use firearms to guarantee the laws/policies/dogma etc of the state………..

The difference is a police officer is selected according many factors including his life experience and education. He is trained in many areas and takes an oath to uphold the law. The other is just a dude with a gun.
Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

The difference is a police officer is selected according many factors including his life experience and education. He is trained in many areas and takes an oath to uphold the law. The other is just a dude with a gun.

Though anecdotal, the recent stories associated with the RCMP tend to suggest their members don’t even qualify as mere “dudes with guns”………….The police, like the military, are made up of mere mortals……….With the same problems and pleasures, the same weaknesses and strengths, as everybody else……..Like I said, the only difference, they implement and enforce the laws and policies deemed fit by the state and in doing so, are sanctioned to use firearms (And tasers and pepper spray) if so required……..Quite simply, who rubber stamps their actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though anecdotal, the recent stories associated with the RCMP tend to suggest their members don’t even qualify as mere “dudes with guns”………….The police, like the military, are made up of mere mortals……….With the same problems and pleasures, the same weaknesses and strengths, as everybody else……..Like I said, the only difference, they implement and enforce the laws and policies deemed fit by the state and in doing so, are sanctioned to use firearms (And tasers and pepper spray) if so required……..Quite simply, who rubber stamps their actions?

Yes they are mortal but there are fundamental differences between the police/military and regular citizens. They are sanctioned to use firearms for reasons that have nothing to do with being able to qualify for a license to own a firearm. You ain't a cop just because you own a gun. They are an organization selected, trained and sworn to uphold the law. An ordinary gun owner is none of those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Yes they are mortal but there are fundamental differences between the police/military and regular citizens. They are sanctioned to use firearms for reasons that have nothing to do with being able to qualify for a license to own a firearm. You ain't a cop just because you own a gun. They are an organization selected, trained and sworn to uphold the law. An ordinary gun owner is none of those things.

Did I say different? I agree fully that they are “tools of the state”, and as such, meet the states requirements……..No argument here.

But when if a state, and by extension the police/military, start doing unpleasant things to the population, would you not agree it would be more beneficial being armed? Also, if said state desires to implement unpleasant policies, would you reckon disarming the citizens prior being a prudent move?

Edited by Derek L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say different? I agree fully that they are “tools of the state”, and as such, meet the states requirements……..No argument here.

But when if a state, and by extension the police/military, start doing unpleasant things to the population, would you not agree it would be more beneficial being armed? Also, if said state desires to implement unpleasant policies, would you reckon disarming the citizens prior being a prudent move?

I think you either believe in your system or you don't. If the state decides to disarm you they will most likely do it by passing a law in a freely elected Parliament. What are going to do then?

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

I think you either believe in your system or you don't. If the state decides to disarm you they will most likely do it by passing a law in a freely elected Parliament. What are going to do then?

I believe fully in our current system of Government, as I also believe (having lived, worked and possibly retiring to) in the American system, as such, I lose very little sleep over a “possible rise of tyrannical government” in either nation………..With that said, if such a Government went into that territory in a move to disarm the public, like Chuck Heston said: “From my cold, dead hands”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe fully in our current system of Government, as I also believe (having lived, worked and possibly retiring to) in the American system, as such, I lose very little sleep over a “possible rise of tyrannical government” in either nation………..With that said, if such a Government went into that territory in a move to disarm the public, like Chuck Heston said: “From my cold, dead hands”

So you only believe in the system if it suits you. This not the US, you don' t hav a constitional right to be armed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

So you only believe in the system if it suits you. This not the US, you don' t hav a constitional right to be armed.

Damn straight this isn’t the United States….we don’t even have property rights enshrined within the Charter….Does that somehow make it right? Should the Government be able to take your property away from you and/or change the law to make State sponsored theft “legal”…………..Damn straight I only believe in the system when it suits me……….You can go right along and be subservient to the Government if you like……

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn straight this isn’t the United States….we don’t even have property rights enshrined within the Charter….Does that somehow make it right? Should the Government be able to take your property away from you and/or change the law to make State sponsored theft “legal”…………..Damn straight I only believe in the system when it suits me……….You can go right along and be subservient to the Government if you like.

[/quote

So would you use a firearm against a police officer carrying out his sworn duty enforcing a law that is constitutional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

So would you use a firearm against a police officer carrying out his sworn duty enforcing a law that is constitutional?

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn straight this isn’t the United States….we don’t even have property rights enshrined within the Charter….Does that somehow make it right? Should the Government be able to take your property away from you and/or change the law to make State sponsored theft “legal”…………..Damn straight I only believe in the system when it suits me……….You can go right along and be subservient to the Government if you like……

you obviously live in the wrong country, hey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

They did in the Warsaw Ghetto. Didn't make any difference in the end.

They were armed with a small supply of weapons that had been smuggled in - and the German troops did retreat. The German troops and police returned heavily armed, yet the Jews managed to hold them off for a month. You don't think that if they had been armed with more than a just small supply of weapons that had been smuggled in, it might have made a difference? You don't think if all of the Jews had been fully armed, everywhere, not just in the Warsaw Ghetto with a small supply of weapons that had been smuggled in, it might have made a difference? Of course it would have. If nothing else, it would have taken more German troops and police and ammunition to march them to their deaths, and more German troops and police would have lost their lives, and the Jews could have lost their lives fighting instead of in a gas chamber or starving to death doing the bidding of the state.

And no amount of guns among the general popluation can guarantee it. I would submit the opposite is more likely. Anyone who thinks they could only be used to safeguard democracy and the constitution is a fool.

Anyone who thinks it couldn't make a difference is a fool. The Americans overturned the British government. Why are you so afraid to allow your citizens to have guns? Don't you trust them? - as you trust police officers and government officials completely?

As I pointed out, Germany was a Democratic Republic and Hitler was elected - and the Jewish Germans never thought that their government, their police force, their friends and neighbors would do what they did. It's naive to the point of sheer ignorance to believe nothing could ever change in Canada from now until the end of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were armed with a small supply of weapons that had been smuggled in - and the German troops did retreat. The German troops and police returned heavily armed, yet the Jews managed to hold them off for a month. You don't think that if they had been armed with more than a just small supply of weapons that had been smuggled in, it might have made a difference? You don't think if all of the Jews had been fully armed, everywhere, not just in the Warsaw Ghetto with a small supply of weapons that had been smuggled in, it might have made a difference? Of course it would have. If nothing else, it would have taken more German troops and police and ammunition to march them to their deaths, and more German troops and police would have lost their lives, and the Jews could have lost their lives fighting instead of in a gas chamber or starving to death doing the bidding of the state.

This was only possible because the Germans confined them in Ghettos. Otherwise, the Jews were not organized. The Poles were far better armed and organized during the Warsaw uprising but still suffered the same fate.

Anyone who thinks it couldn't make a difference is a fool. The Americans overturned the British government. Why are you so afraid to allow your citizens to have guns? Don't you trust them? - as you trust police officers and government officials completely?

They did not overturn the British government, they fought a war of independence. We are already independent.

As I pointed out, Germany was a Democratic Republic and Hitler was elected - and the Jewish Germans never thought that their government, their police force, their friends and neighbors would do what they did. It's naive to the point of sheer ignorance to believe nothing could ever change in Canada from now until the end of time.

Nothing ever remains the same but why do you think arming everyone to the teath is going to lead to a better world? Paranoia run amok.

You don't trust your government, police or military. I get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is a police officer is selected according many factors including his life experience and education. He is trained in many areas and takes an oath to uphold the law. The other is just a dude with a gun.

So why don't they uphold the law? And who's laws are they upholding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...