RE: CALLING ALL AR-15 OWNERS!!...
Fortnite is a great game. Quite enjoyable and i'm good with that. Me making such a ridiculous comparison is simply because what you want is equally ridiculous.
I would say it should be takin by non lethal acceptable force. Should you then decide that you will use lethal force to retain the weapon then I would respond in kind. Sure that leads to war but humanity will always have people who want to feel powerful verus people who want to feel safe (which are you?). Your solution to safety if give everyone a gun. That's just stupid. Your country is broke in so many ways for such a long time you are now in a place where you cant even see it. If a child has a gun and does not hurt himself then you should let him keep it? I say that because the average Americans intelligence is quite low. Just because a child doe's not know better doe's not mean we should let them put themselves and others at risk due to the simple fact they don't know any better.
If you want to do what ever you like regardless of how it makes other people feel then just live alone away from society .
"Your country?" What tax farm are you a subject of, for you clearly have no idea about America's foundational principles?
The right to bear arms? Poor joke but meh. I am from Ireland by the way. I have a basic understanding. Why do you say other wise?
Hah! Green or orange? The Irish understand very well why staying armed is important. LOL
Armed people are free. Unarmed people are not free. You should know that as an Irishman.
You live in the past and prove my point again. I am from the Republic of Ireland and my grandfather fought in the 1916 rising.
Your still wrong..
Those who don't study their history are doomed to repeat it. The reason why private citizens should have guns is because history has shown time and time again that governments can't be trusted with an unarmed citizenry. It gives them too much power without repercussions. I hope that governments won't do what they've always done (genocide, murder, corruption) but I think we should keep the citizens armed just in case. In the last hundred years there have been many "civilized" nations that began murdering their own people after taking away their weapons. Let's not take that risk. I belong to a group that is often targeted in those situations.
Also as a side note. School shootings in the USA have been on a steep decline ever since 1995. It is just good propaganda to say "save the children." But like I said before even if school shootings are on the rise, disarming the citizenry is not a smart idea. It has never ended well. You can look at my last post if you actually care about stopping school shootings, there are much more logical solutions to explore.
Smart cookie :)
Sorry bud I have not forgot about this, just quite busy. Will get back to you soon enough.
What did he use to fight? Answer the question. Orange or green? You're a loyalist, ehh? You're either a loyalist, or you're a conquered subject. Again, you are the one that doesn't understand my demand to live free. May your chains rest lightly upon you.
I said republic of Ireland, that only leaves one answer of course. I thought you understood that. I am Irish not British.
There are tons of Irish loyalists. My first name is Finnian, and my father's mother's maiden name was McBride. I'm also a supporter of the Fenians. How do you think resistance against tyrants works? You plead with them using words? No, you shoot them. Sic semper tyrannis is Virginia's motto for a reason. See the ruler with his crown cast aside in the image? It's a clear message. Well, it's clear to me, but you probably won't understand.
Why do you feel the need to insult me? It does not help anything. I don't see the image you are talking about? Please just tag your reply onto the other post..its hassle swapping between them.
Do us all a favor and look up democide. I'd never feel safe when disarmed. No, I don't want to give a gun to everyone. All I want is people who wish to have a gun should have one. Then it levels the playing field a bit, and it allows peaceful people to defend themselves. The government has no mandate to defend us, so we have to defend ourselves. The concept is foreign to you of course, but a militia is defined as the whole body of people trained to arms. The Swiss model works pretty well as one example. America's model also works. Since you're not in the USA, let me help by sharing Virginia's Declaration of Rights, written many years before the US Constitution and 2A:
Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
You won't understand that though because you are probably a subject to a crown and support the idea of some ruling others.
I support the idea of live and let live. I do speak English so saying I won't understand it is kind of dumb. I think you have missed my point. Just because you have things written in your Constitution does not make them the ideal solution. Einstein said that "I do not know which weapons will be used for world war 3, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones". It's a self fulfilling prophecy because people are obsessed with their own needs rather than the needs of the many. Giving someone the ability to destroy multiple lives is not fair on the whole, it only suits the part.
Would you not consider peaceful protest and the right to not have to worry about getting shot because someone missed there meds or got drunk and forgot to lock the cabinet.
Have you even considered different options?
Governments, agents of governments, and predators do not support the idea of live and let live. Therefore, good people need to remain armed.
Obviously you understand English. You clearly don't understand my natural right to use deadly force in defense of my life and the lives of others though as a last resort when all else fails.
Einstein was talking about nuclear weapons, and he may be proven correct. In the mean time though, I'm going to keep my firearms to defend myself. Even if there is a full nuclear exchange, I will still need my rifles.
The government is obsessed with controlling people and keeping them afraid. Predators seek the same thing. Governments can destroy multiple lives, have done it countless times, and will continue to do it. Government is the top killer in fact from recent history. You haven't looked up democide yet, right?
Peacefully protesting doesn't do much. You can't stop predators and mentally ill people from doing harm to others either. If they don't get a gun by murdering their family member or robbing a neighbor, they will use a truck, bat, knife, or bomb.
If your different options involve me disarming, I will not consider them.
Thinking Einstein was talking about Nuclear weapons is a common misconception. He understood how little he knew which is why he said "I do not know which weapons will be used in world war 3"
"Governments, agents of governments, and predators do not support the idea of live and let live. "
Will always be bad people. You know we actually agree about the the root problem, just not the solution. Violence only creates more violence. More readily available weapons means more people get shot, easy enough to understand.
We are talking though a few different threads so can we just keep to this one?
EDIT: "if they don't get a gun by murdering their family member or robbing a neighbor, they will use a truck, bat, knife, or bomb."
Its not about the abilty to kill someone is about the scale at which they can kill many people. That is why giving civilians a weapon that can cut down a crowd in 10 seconds is obviously not a great idea
It's a common misconception? He helped build the first ones. You don't really know your history about him then do you?
More weapons means more people get shot? My weapons and millions of weapons like them in the USA today shot no one. For the number of guns in America, very few people are shot by them. Of the ones who are, a lot are suicides and victims of police.
I'm not violent either, but I will be if someone tries to disarm me. I know history, and I will not help repeat it.
I have a NFA trust. Do you even know what that is? In the early days of America, private individuals owned fleets of warships, the most powerful weapons in existence at the time, and you're worried about my rifles?
I can already own a machine gun, and I can own fully automatic weapons. That's how it should be too. If an agent of the state can carry it, I should be able to carry it too. Again, you are blinded by an acceptance of double standards.
Free people do not have double standards between them and the agents of the government. They are equal under the law, and they have the same consequences for using unjustified violence.
Here in America the violence being used against us by the state is already out of control, and the agents of the government are protected by numerous double standards and countless special protections.
Allowing ourselves to be disarmed will NOT help the situation either.
A weapon that can cut down a crowd in 10 seconds is not the same as a truck or bomb? Are you going to outlaw everything that could potentially be used as a weapon of mass murder?
That's no possible. You're intelligent, or you wouldn't be here. What are you then? An agent of a government perhaps? Someone who promotes some ruling over others? What you are writing makes no sense otherwise.
Democide. Looked it up? Orange or green? You are not answering because why?
"It's a common misconception? He helped build the first ones. You don't really know your history about him then do you?"
Einstein also knew it was possible for more terrible weapons to be created which is why again I will quote him for you. These are the words he said. " I do not know which weapon will be used in world war 3"
Can you see the words "I do not know which weapon" which means he doe's not know which weapon. Understand?
OK that's that.
"More weapons means more people get shot? My weapons and millions of weapons like them in the USA today shot no one. For the number of guns in America, very few people are shot by them. Of the ones who are, a lot are suicides and victims of police."
Far too many school shootings etc. You surely cant argue with that. I have no problem with hunting rifles and pistols either to be honest. But giving people assault rifles is overkill...it is cruel to use for hunting and only purpose is to kill, not to protect.
"Here in America the violence being used against us by the state is already out of control, and the agents of the government are protected by numerous double standards and countless special protections."
I agree completely. Your country is very broken, I have said that from the start. But your solution only hurts people it does not help anyone really. You are just selfish and only consider your own feelings rather than the damage that can be done.
"That's no possible. You're intelligent, or you wouldn't be here. What are you then? An agent of a government perhaps? Someone who promotes some ruling over others? What you are writing makes no sense otherwise."
Honestly im just bored. Literally have not been on steemit in months and this post was my first comment in as long. I just like having intelligent conversations, its how I learn.
"Democide. Looked it up? Orange or green? You are not answering because why?"
Good call on Democide I will look it up now. Green of course. But to me that means Michael Collins was right just to be clear.
Semi-auto hunting rifles and pistols are fine, ehh? There's very little difference in my 30 round magazine AK and an 18 round tube 22 LR rifle. Both are semi-automatic. Both can kill a lot of people very quickly. Pistols are the same. If you mean full auto, most people already do not have access to them. The few of us who do have to jump through a lot more hoops to get them. There are special protections and requirements to have and keep them too.
There could be a school shooting every day, and I still wouldn't give up my military style weapons. How about we stop giving SSRI mind altering doctor prescribed drugs to people instead? How about we focus on the one thing that is always in common with these shooters, and it isn't the guns they use?
Einstein implied nuclear weapons, or he wouldn't have said the next war would be with sticks and stones. He meant we'd wipe each other out, and nuclear weapons is the most likely weapon to do that. He knew there would be more powerful weapons, sure, so perhaps that is why he said he didn't know which weapon in particular. There are other weapons than nukes that can take out an entire city for example.
We can agree to disagree on his quote though, for neither of us know for sure what he was talking about. He was one of the principle people working on the nuclear program for the USA though, so I highly suspect he meant nuclear weapons or something just as or more destructive as them. Today we are closer to them being used than ever before too.
Fun times, ehh? Let's talk about disarming governments perhaps and not individuals. My rifles cannot cause a 10 year nuclear winter. I'm not going to kill millions of people either.
"We can agree to disagree on his quote though, for neither of us know for sure what he was talking about. He was one of the principle people working on the nuclear program for the USA though, so I highly suspect he meant nuclear weapons or something just as or more destructive as them. Today we are closer to them being used than ever before too."
You are very liberal about agreeing to disagree. I am making a point of wanting you to admit you were wrong, we can both suspect whatever we want but what I said was right. I am that petty that I want you to acknowledge it. I think it will make you a better person. Then I promise I will argue with you some more and learn some stuff and probably you will too
Sorry to be a bit more specific. About Einsteins quote...it has been a long argument so id like to win it and be done
"I support the idea of live and let live." Says the guy who just advocated the use of DEADLY FORCE against ME if I don't hand over an inanimate object that I've never used to threaten or harm anyone. The Stockholm Syndrome is strong with this one.
I advocated non deadly force unless otherwise needed. Just because you want something doe's not make it your god given right. You just going to use petty insults or actually try to convince me otherwise?
Using insults instead of logic or common sence is a common theme here. Why do you think your own selfish wants are more important than what is better for all.