<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ifmRgQX82O4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It's completely relevant in the respect that some people can't let live and let live. They feel the need to force feed others their point of view and won't stop until every one is assimilated. I don't try to force my beliefs on others and I don't believe other people should either. At the end of the day isn't that what freedom is about? My freedom to choose what is right for me as well as your freedom to choose what is right for you. Not your right to choose for both of us without consideration of my beliefs or situation.
Who is doing that? I'm usually arguing with the gun-nuts on gun issues because it seems pretty plain to me that the right to guns is guaranteed by the Constitution. But, this thread was asking if I thought the right was a good idea, and I don't. But, I don't think I'm force-feeding my POV to others when I'm asked point-blank what my opinion is. Long ago, a handful of New World oligarchs got a chance to decide what was right for us long after they were dead and buried. They chose to force upon us an armed society. Some people like it, some don't. But, it really isn't an issue of freedom vs oppression. We make a contract with each other (which is binding whether we sign it or not) in Government where we agree to grant or deny the rights to do things. Enough people are okay enough with the right to arms that we continue to allow that right to be extended. Same with religion. By the same token, animal cruelty is a right we've denied one another. No one will say that's an oppression; it's just sensible. Likewise, if we were to come to a concensus to get rid of guns, that wouldn't be an oppression either -- just the Will of the People. So, I don't have much sympathy for the live-and-let-live argument. Especially when someone's gun might not let me live. The decisions we make as a society affect everyone, even if they choose not to partake. Am I supposed to abstain from the public discourse and not let my political voice be heard so that you won't feel as though I've stepped on your toes? That's true for guns, religion, and everything else in that document.
My argument was in no way directed at you on a personal level. I just believe that in the world of Religion and Politics (Gun Rights, Abortion Rights) etc, too many people have the "my way or the highway" attitude and have to force their will on others. My right to own a gun, if I choose to exercise it, will not affect your life just like my right to the god of my choice will not effect your salvation, if there is such a thing. We have laws on the books to prevent some people from owning guns. Those laws, while not perfect in every case, work. People should focus on the criminals, not on taking rights away from law abiding citizens. Taking away responsible peoples right to own guns for protection and or pleasure, in my opinion, is one step away from taking away peoples freedom of speech and freedom or religion. That was the point of my first post. Not directed at you personally or your actions. I just used your choice of words. Anti-Religion zealots (or believers of a different god than yours) could use the same words if asked "You OK with religion?"
”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” -George Washington Although his 18th c. perspective of blunderbusses and muskets as effective weapons to limit a tyrannical govt might seem unrealistic now against the firepower and discipline of the US military, I'd think he would still advocate having guns versus none at all per JuanValdez.
With all due respect, I think you're way off base with this idea. Yamamoto did fear going to war with the United States. He hoped that an early devastating defeat at Pearl and our other Pacific territories might cause us to sue for peace, because he feared a long war with us. Why? Not because we had millions of Americans with millions of firearms, but because we had a huge industrial infrastructure sitting idle because of the Great Depression, and because our natural resources, something Japan had little of, were the envy of the world. He feared the States because he saw that slumbering might while living in our country attending Harvard University and from two stints as his country's naval attaché in the US. His fears proved to be well grounded in reality.
Everybody that chooses to exercise this right lives in this encapsulated reality where nobody else in fantasy land is affected. What a beautiful fallacy.
so when the aliens come and try to eat us all, we're supposed to just let them!!?!?!?! I need my guns for the possible zombie/alien/anything apocalypse
Didn't mean to sound offended, if I did. But, I think it is a fairy-tale for you to think that you employing -- or even having -- a right to own a gun (or free speech or religion or whatever) doesn't affect others. It influences the way our society is built and the way people interact with one another, for good or ill.
I've just skimmed through this thread and I really hope people don't seriously believe the Japanese in WWII didn't launch a land invasion because they feared personal arms in the hands the US population. The size of the Pacific and the fact that the Japanese were already engaged in a major land battle in China were the main reason why they never tried an invasion of the US mainland. Also for the old arguments about personal arms are there to protect individual liberty from a tyrannical state had a lot more relevance in the 18th C. than it does now ever since warfare got highly mechanized and industrialized. Consider that Libyan rebels armed with small arms, many like fully automatic assault rifles and RPG's that are not legally available in the US, cannot defeat a third rate Gadaffi army and if not for international airstrikes would've been crushed in Benghazi. Citing the Soviet and US experiences in Afghanistan and the US experience in Vietnam consider that the insurgents have the home court advantage of knowing the terrain and particularly in Afghanistan a terrain that is very difficult to fight in using heavy armor. A battle of "patriots" versus the Fed in the US there wouldn't be such a home court advantage as Federal forces would know the land as well as the insurgents. Also consider that the Mujahadeen against the Soviets couldn't make any more progress than the Taliban are now until we gave them stinger missiles to shoot down Soviet helicopters. Finally while both the Soviets and the US now have had a tough time in Afghanistan in terms of sheer body count its not comparable. The Soviets killed more Mujahadeen than they lost, and the US has killed far far far more Taliban than US troops have been. Same with Vietnam, far far more NVA and Vietcong were killed than US troops (not too forget that the NVA and Vietcong weren't just limited to small arms.)
Well considering half of the population in the states that owns pistols think that turning the gun sideways makes it more deadlier... No doubt a somewhat decently trained, organized army will make short work of them.
Some idiot at UT brought a toy replica shotgun (2 of them) to campus today. Emergency texts went out and people got a quick scare before officials found out they weren't real lol
With that being said, guns on campus is never good idea. No to concealed handgun permits on campus...
Defending themselves from what? Another "law abiding" student with a gun? I'm all for gun rights, but certain places there should be some caution exercised with that right.
I was hoping somebody would try to argue against me, I'm glad you did. What makes you think that when somebody pulls outs a gun on campus (they have a handgun license), that the students around them will stop to think "maybe they have a handgun license?" instead of running for their lives and causing a panic/frenzy? If I saw a gun on campus, I would run immediately. What if somebody who is "defending" themselves pulls out a gun and then another person who has a handgun license sees this and pulls out their handgun? What happens then? Can you tell me the statistics of people being in life threatening situations at public universities that justify the means of pulling out a gun in front of everybody on campus? What situations on campus really provides a justifiable reason to pull out a gun? Have you been to campuses around Texas? Majority of them have their own police/security, and various others have cameras and emergency call booths. What if somebody's room on campus gets robbed? A missing gun is a BIG issue as well. College is way too stressful and these are people who are just living on their own for the first time. too many risks...
