2043: Rock of Ages

[Sad Onion]

Originally Posted by lizsquiz

Fuuuuuuck you, welcome to the forums!

Thank you, I'm feeling the love already.

Originally Posted by ghauck

Does Merica realize that many countries view it's gun culture as ridiculous. It's your choice and all, but realize many of us view it as bass ackwards as pooping in a hole in the ground.

Merica says "It's our 2nd Amendment right to own guns"

We hear "Everything said from 1789 still applies!" "Well, except for voting laws, slavery, prohibition, alchemy, bloodletting, 98% of known physics, atomic chemistry, medicine, horse buggy traffic rules, lobotomy, agriculture, and witchcraft"

I understand you view it as backwards. You can see it however you like, but at the end of the day, if my neighbor down the street doesn't like the color I've painted my house, it doesn't really matter much to me.

When we say "It's our 2nd Amendment right to own guns" You know what it really means? It means it's our second Amendment right to own guns. It's in our law. Our country was formed from the conflict of fighting tyranny, the forefathers placed this law in the constitution, because they knew history repeated itself, and an armed people has a far greater chance of fighting tyranny than an unarmed people.

The basic message I take from your post, is that you view Guns as something archaic, and something society doesn't need any more. I've just researched a bit to see if there were any truly unarmed countries. Even the countries without a military seem to have a small armed force for the enforcement of laws. So it seems that our civilized society is formed on the foundation of firearms, society exists because governments can apply force in order to keep their populous in line, and they use guns as a tool to implement that.

And as far as our gun culture goes, can you say 100% without a doubt, that every government in power at this moment can be completely trusted to be the only ones with guns? The American forefathers said no, and this is the basis of the need for our second amendment.

[Enunciated Piffle]

Originally Posted by Sad Onion

The American forefathers said no, and this is the basis of the need for our second amendment.

If only the forefathers could have predicted drones. It may have prevented the mass paranoid delusion that things like militias and civilians pretending to be freedom fighters is a good thing. It's nothing more than silly and ultimately narcissistic behavior.

Hunting is an important skill that should be encouraged. People do it a great disservice however when they announce guns are a tool to fight government injustice. You want to hunt for food? Protect your home and family? Fine.

Advancements in technology have made it impossible for the common citizen to 'fight tyranny' with a gun. This is why quoting the Constitution and declaring rights will never have the intended effect. It's 2014 for chrissakes. Act accordingly.

[Sad Onion]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

If only the forefathers could have predicted drones. It may have prevented the mass paranoid delusion that things like militias and civilians pretending to be freedom fighters is a good thing. It's nothing more than silly and ultimately narcissistic behavior.

Hunting is an important skill that should be encouraged. People do it a great disservice however when they announce guns are a tool to fight government injustice. You want to hunt for food? Protect your home and family? Fine.

Advancements in technology have made it impossible for the common citizen to 'fight tyranny' with a gun. This is why quoting the Constitution and declaring rights will never have the intended effect. It's 2014 for chrissakes. Act accordingly.

Oh, great. You know, I've never been able to get a hold of the people that have made this argument. When I've encountered it, it's been made by someone who was Internet famous, and they were too large to notice my post. This gives me a chance to ask the question:

Whenever you perceive a power that has a great arsenal, they rule over you, and are unwilling to listen to your input, or objections (Like say a large North Korean Government) since you think it is entirely hopeless to engage them, and you can't change them by democratic means, do you simply give up? Do you live under the rule of oppression? Would you feel okay with the generations of children that came after you living under the oppression you might have been able to change?

All of that aside, I would like to point out that with all of the technological advantages the American military has, the mountains of Afghanistan it has been trying to clear for somewhere around ten years now is still heavily infested with the Taliban, who only wield simple explosive tech, and Ak-47's.

Lastly, I've always found it odd when people bring up the year. Greed and Hatred exist in men's hearts regardless of what the calender says. This was as true in 1000 CE as it will be in 3000 CE.

[da_ticklah]

9 is a bit young but if you told me a 12 yr old in a flyover state had a .22 rifle they were allowed to use (with supervision) I would not be shocked. It's all about how you train the child to respect that firearm.

Originally Posted by Sad Onion

For the Keithesque simple answer: No, absolutely not, what kind of moron would give a gun to a child?

A slightly more complicated, rational answer: You need to know the kid you're handing the gun to, and you need to give the kid proper instruction as to how to handle the gun properly. A 9 year old girl cannot handle an uzi, no question.

There are certain guns, however, a responsible child can handle under proper supervision. Eliminating all guns from all hands of children punishes the children who would treat their firearm responsibly. A gun is a tool, you need to instill within them respect for the tools they are given.

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by Sad Onion

I've never been able to get a hold of the people that have made this argument.

Based on your stream of bullshit, this is probably a good thing.

[Enunciated Piffle]

Originally Posted by Sad Onion

(Like say a large North Korean Government) since you think it is entirely hopeless to engage them, and you can't change them by democratic means, do you simply give up?

N. Korea is a horrible example. To my knowledge you don't fight; you just escape across the DMZ into S. Korea. Once safely there you know instantly: they've brutally murdered your entire family back home.

The US government is the polar opposite of North Korea and you can get fucked for suggesting otherwise.

[Enunciated Piffle]

Originally Posted by Sad Onion

Lastly, I've always found it odd when people bring up the year.

You're right. The tri-horn hat, (complete with tea bags a dangling) is always fashionable - regardless of year.

[Sad Onion]

I'll be prepared to continue the conversation when you've answered the question.

If pedantic snark is all you have, that's fine, I guess there's nothing else to say then. Have a nice day.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Sad Onion

I would like to point out that with all of the technological advantages the American military has, the mountains of Afghanistan it has been trying to clear for somewhere around ten years now is still heavily infested with the Taliban, who only wield simple explosive tech, and Ak-47's.

Because we need to worry about civilians. But if the US government was against the US civilians, I don't think it'd be a tough fight.

[Enunciated Piffle]

Originally Posted by Sad Onion

If pedantic snark is all you have, that's fine, I guess there's nothing else to say then. Have a nice day.

Pedantic confused me. So I looked it up. Pedant: a person who is excessively concerned with formalism and precision, or who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning. Good word. Thank you for that.

I'm very familiar with the seemingly patriotic declaration of gun ownership. I own them to hunt for food. You own them for your own reasons. That's fine. Just don't shoot anyone because Alex Jones told you to, is all I'm saying

Have a good one and again, welcome to the forums.