American Government Question!

[First Crusader]

What do you want out of society?

Gun Control advocates and others with similar ideas want safety and comfort. NRA people and others with similar ideas tend to prefer freedom over security.

Unfortunately, measures for safety and comfort negatively affect freedom. In order to assure more safety, the government needs to be active in our lives, meaning less freedom.

Good example: the Patriot Act. Funny that this bit of liberal tripe was passed by a *republican* president.

This bill offers more safety and security, but threatens freedom.

EDIT: perhaps that was a little harsh on liberals...

[Atheist Peace]

Its too bad that people like NRA nuts and others have to ruin freedom for others.

[First Crusader]

Its too bad that people like NRA nuts and others have to ruin freedom for others.

What? Does the NRA FORCE you to buy a gun?!

[Atheist Peace]

No, but people like them force the government to regulate things. I'm one of the most anti-big government people you'll find on here, but when something is that potentially dangerous, something really needs to be done.

[Mack Daddy]

Freedom over saftey definatly. Ya gotta die sometime.

[First Crusader]

No, but people like them force the government to regulate things. I'm one of the most anti-big government people you'll find on here, but when something is that potentially dangerous, something really needs to be done.

Dude, the NRA wants DEREGULATION of guns. If you don't like big government, set your crosshairs on the Million Mom March (Not literally, you know what I mean. )

[Atheist Peace]

I know what the NRA wants, but what im saying is that when people need to own tons of unnecessary weapons, that causes governments to have to regulate things.

[Fenris]

I voted freedom, however I advocate gun control.

Mainly because I don't think it works against one's freedom in anyways. I think it's the inverse.

[Tom Paine]

Good example: the Patriot Act. Funny that this bit of liberal tripe was passed by a *republican* president.

This bill offers more safety and security, but threatens freedom.

Liberal... right... liberal=personal freedom. Conservative=return to old governments of the past which pryed into every area of life (eg homosexuality).

Anyway, gun control is a bad example, because it is uneccessary whereas other liberties are more important and that security is more important than the liberty to buy guns.

[Fenris]

Liberal... right... liberal=personal freedom. Conservative=return to old governments of the past which pryed into every area of life (eg homosexuality).

Anyway, gun control is a bad example, because it is uneccessary whereas other liberties are more important and that security is more important than the liberty to buy guns.

Politics in USA are very ironic.

[First Crusader]

Liberal... right... liberal=personal freedom. Conservative=return to old governments of the past which pryed into every area of life (eg homosexuality).

Anyway, gun control is a bad example, because it is uneccessary whereas other liberties are more important and that security is more important than the liberty to buy guns.

Think of a good two party system as an ox with a yoke on its neck.

If the yoke is removed from the ox, the beast will simply run off into the horizon, and the fields won't get plowed. Remove the ox, and the yoke will just sit on the ground and the fields still won't get plowed. Both parties are needed to "check and balance" eachother to keep the system working.

Actually, gun control is a fine example, as gun control offers security at the expense of a liberty the founding fathers valued. (If nobody had guns, we would still be an opressed British colony )

[Atheist Peace]

Actually, gun control is a fine example, as gun control offers security at the expense of a liberty the founding fathers valued. (If nobody had guns, we would still be an opressed British colony )

Are you actually suggesting that we face a threat from Britain today?

[First Crusader]

Are you actually suggesting that we face a threat from Britain today?

Yes! We must launch a preemtive strike immediately! No!

I was saying we would STILL be an English colony. In other words, the revolution would not have been possible if there was no widespread gun ownership.

You think owning a gun is more important than being able to marry the one you love?

You think marrying her is more important than defending her from a rapist after the ceremony?

EDIT: thanks for merging those posts. Sorry about that!

[Atheist Peace]

Yes! We must launch a preemtive strike immediately! No!

I was saying we would STILL be an English colony. In other words, the revolution would not have been possible if there was no widespread gun ownership.

So, you're trying to justify widespread unnecessary gun ownership today by saying that if people didn't own guns in the 1700's we'd still be a british colony. Right, I see a real connection there.

[Fenris]

You think marrying her is more important than defending her from a rapist after the ceremony?

First of all, the chances for it to happen doesn't justify having a gun.
Secondly, if your wife gets raped, you won't be there to defend her.

And I think he was referring to gay marriage.

[First Crusader]

Thanks Justinian, this was really getting out of hand! You're my hero now

I wish I was a mod...

[Justinian]

I wish I was a mod...

It's not all fun and games. It's booze, too. Oh, and chicks. Yeah.

To make an ON TOPIC post:

Freedom is far more important then security. The Gun Control issue raised previously is interesting because you're getting actually more security with the right to bear arms, plus freedoms. Not only are your freedoms being taken away if you get the right to bear arms, you're losing some security too. An example:

Why is so much money stored in Swiss banks?
Because no one robs Swiss banks.
Why doesn't anyone rob Swiss banks?
Because military service is compulsory in Switzerland. (Ergo, Swiss have guns)

[Fenris]

It's not all fun and games. It's booze, too. Oh, and chicks. Yeah.

To make an ON TOPIC post:

Freedom is far more important then security. The Gun Control issue raised previously is interesting because you're getting actually more security with the right to bear arms, plus freedoms. Not only are your freedoms being taken away if you get the right to bear arms, you're losing some security too. An example:

Why is so much money stored in Swiss banks?
Because no one robs Swiss banks.
Why doesn't anyone rob Swiss banks?
Because military service is compulsory in Switzerland. (Ergo, Swiss have guns)

Well that shows ignorance. There is a lot of money stored there because their banking system is totally different, and most importantly, leaves no traces of the transactions unlike other's country's banks. And I really fail to see what is the link between bank security and the military service or the fact that people have guns. If someone is going to steal a bank, you won't see the army mobilizing or people chasing the robbers with their guns. Swiss banks are highly safe, but it has to do with their internal security system.

Your argument use the same logic as:

I eyes.
Dogs have eyes.
Thus I am a dog.

[Justinian]

If someone is going to steal a bank, you won't see the army mobilizing or people chasing the robbers with their guns.

Picture this scenario:

Robber walks into a bank, pulls out his pistol, yells "This is a hold up!" or somesuch cliche. Everyone in the bank pulls out their pistol and shoots him.

Rapist threatens a girl. The neighbor gets his shotgun and blows the rapist's head off.

[Fenris]

Picture this scenario:

Robber walks into a bank, pulls out his pistol, yells "This is a hold up!" or somesuch cliche. Everyone in the bank pulls out their pistol and shoots him.

Rapist threatens a girl. The neighbor gets his shotgun and blows the rapist's head off.

Hahahahaha... you cannot expect to come in a swiss bank and steal money that way, even if no one has a gun. You'd need to take hostages and go through negociations, etc. And be VERY well organised with enough ressources to hold a siege.

Oh, and as for the rapist, the neighbor HAS to be alerted (which is not likely to happen because the rapist will most likely take precautions) and the neighbor can always call the police or help the girl even without a gun. The rapist would most likely run away if he saw that someone else's there.