Quote by Exakta66
A machine that can see under clothes...where can I get one of those machines???
Quote by RemingtonQuote by DamonXQuote by bikebum1975Quote by DamonX
Americans seem to always bitch about "civil liberties" almost as a reflex. Seriously.
Cause our country has fought long and hard to keep those liberties you talk about us bitching about that's the reason we "bitch" about them as you put it.
Haha, let me guess...you'd probably be up in arms if the government took away your "right" to own a machine gun or a grenade launcher too?
Seriously though, what are the negative consequences of getting scanned at the airport? (Besides spouting outdated rhetoric about freedom.)
We don't have the right to own machine guns and grenade launchers unless you have a special license. That process is not fun and easy.
Now, I do support the full body scans. Like some others have said, if it helps keep us all safe, by all means do it.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin
Quote by Playmale
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Quote by Playmale
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Quote by thepainter
Guns don't make sense to me at all.
Quote by MrNudiePantsQuote by thepainter
Guns don't make sense to me at all.
Historically, one of the first things a tyrant does when he takes power is make it against the law for the general public to be armed. When the the Japanese invaded Okinawa in the 1600's, they removed ALL metal implements from the hands of the peasants, leaving each village with just one knife chained to a block in the village center. Hitler disarmed the Jews and Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizenry, using the idea that in order for people to be safe, only the police should be allowed to have guns.
The spark that touched off the American Revolution came when British soldiers came to Concord to confiscate the colonists' store of arms and ammunition. The founding fathers lived in a time when guns were used to feed families, and keep them safe from wild animals and "savage" Native Americans. They feared invasion by a vengeful crown, but they feared their own government more. They wrote the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to ensure that the government should never be able to wield absolute power over it's citizenry.
That said... guns are neat. They're finely wrought instruments of precise mechanical engineering, and the ability to use one as precisely as it's makers intended is a challenge not everyone can meet. I, for one, enjoy that challenge.
Quote by MrNudiePants
Hitler disarmed the Jews and Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizenry, using the idea that in order for people to be safe, only the police should be allowed to have guns.
Quote by thepainter
Well guys we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I could get a license and a gun and go practice all that mighty fine precision stuff you're talking about. But the fact is that guns don't attract me at all. I got plenty things I love doing and have fun with. I don't see how something so destructive in nature is "neat".
Quote by thepainter
And I don't buy all that right to protect yourself argumentation either. Can't bring your gun on the plane and if some clever fucko figures out a new inventive way of blowing up the plane then you're still fucken toast.
Anyway, agree to disagree.
Quote by SheQuote by MrNudiePants
Hitler disarmed the Jews and Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizenry, using the idea that in order for people to be safe, only the police should be allowed to have guns.
I am pacifist, I really dislike the power of guns and I really didn't want to interfere into this thread..
..but this what you are saying are not historical facts at all.
And no I have no intention to lecture about history here, my English is too weak for that, you will have to learn about it by yourself.
Quote by MrNudiePants
We hear about all these mass shootings that take place - some psycho gets a gun, or several guns, and decides to go on a rampage. They happen all over, but generally, they all have two things in common. One: the shooter chooses his locale based on the fact that private citizens are forbidden to arm themselves there. Schools, Army bases... so-called "gun-free" zones. Two: They all end when armed responders approach the shooter and either take him out, or he takes himself out. The most basic answer is NOT to make it harder for decent law-abiding people to carry guns, but to make it easier, so that this armed response will take place that much sooner, ending the terror that much sooner.
There's an old cliche that gun-owners use: "Trying to fight crime by banning guns is like trying to fight drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to buy cars."
Quote by MrNudiePantsQuote by SheQuote by MrNudiePants
Hitler disarmed the Jews and Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizenry, using the idea that in order for people to be safe, only the police should be allowed to have guns.
I am pacifist, I really dislike the power of guns and I really didn't want to interfere into this thread..
..but this what you are saying are not historical facts at all.
And no I have no intention to lecture about history here, my English is too weak for that, you will have to learn about it by yourself.
I would enjoy hearing your rationale for making that statement. The historical facts are clear. Tyrants prefer a populace that can't fight back.
I just don't feel safe around people carrying guns. Fortunately none of my friends, regardless of their nationality, don't feel the need to carry a gun.
Having said all that, I do respect your right to love/own guns. Just don't be offended if I wouldn't sit next to you on the bus.
Quote by She
[
Well you didn't rationale. You cannot just take some parts of history and put it into your sentence just because you feel like it and it is appropriate for your statement.
And I really don't want/like to promote guns in any way and now ..
Hitler as German chancellor since1933 did not disarmed Jews before or during 2.World War. Jews never had any guns, thay hade gold and money and he robbed them, then he started with their money gun industry manufacures , he become very popular among citizant because the job he gave them and for thank you to Jews he murdered them.
Plot Pot (Cambodia), Stalin (Russia), Mao (China) all comunist country. Do you really think that those leaders at that time would let their citizant to have guns at home like you in USA have? so they can oppose them with guns, no I dont think so. These countrys were very poor, people didn't have for rice/potato and you think they had guns? No, they didnt. They got ones(if) after or during the war. Army and Police had them.
» Tyrants prefer a populace that can't fight back.« Massive populace get their guns when the war is getting closer, you know in those 40(I am not sure if I memorized the right number, could be 30 or 50) days after onet country announce a war to another country..when the war is allready existing, it does not mean that people are all the time with guns, well at least not the ones you are saying they were.
Quote by Dancing_DollQuote by She
[
Well you didn't rationale. You cannot just take some parts of history and put it into your sentence just because you feel like it and it is appropriate for your statement.
And I really don't want/like to promote guns in any way and now ..
Hitler as German chancellor since1933 did not disarmed Jews before or during 2.World War. Jews never had any guns, thay hade gold and money and he robbed them, then he started with their money gun industry manufacures , he become very popular among citizant because the job he gave them and for thank you to Jews he murdered them.
Plot Pot (Cambodia), Stalin (Russia), Mao (China) all comunist country. Do you really think that those leaders at that time would let their citizant to have guns at home like you in USA have? so they can oppose them with guns, no I dont think so. These countrys were very poor, people didn't have for rice/potato and you think they had guns? No, they didnt. They got ones(if) after or during the war. Army and Police had them.
» Tyrants prefer a populace that can't fight back.« Massive populace get their guns when the war is getting closer, you know in those 40(I am not sure if I memorized the right number, could be 30 or 50) days after onet country announce a war to another country..when the war is allready existing, it does not mean that people are all the time with guns, well at least not the ones you are saying they were.
Very well said!
! I was really concerned about language (this topic deserves up level English) ha I didn't kow if I will make any sense to anybody. Thanks for undrstanding it
Quote by She
Well you didn't rationale. You cannot just take some parts of history and put it into your sentence just because you feel like it and it is appropriate for your statement.
And I really don't want/like to promote guns in any way and now ..
Hitler as German chancellor since1933 did not disarmed Jews before or during 2.World War. Jews never had any guns, thay hade gold and money and he robbed them, then he started with their money gun industry manufacures , he become very popular among citizant because the job he gave them and for thank you to Jews he murdered them.
Plot Pot (Cambodia), Stalin (Russia), Mao (China) all comunist country. Do you really think that those leaders at that time would let their citizant to have guns at home like you in USA have? so they can oppose them with guns, no I dont think so. These countrys were very poor, people didn't have for rice/potato and you think they had guns? No, they didnt. They got ones(if) after or during the war. Army and Police had them.
» Tyrants prefer a populace that can't fight back.« Massive populace get their guns when the war is getting closer, you know in those 40(I am not sure if I memorized the right number, could be 30 or 50) days after onet country announce a war to another country..when the war is allready existing, it does not mean that people are all the time with guns, well at least not the ones you are saying they were.
Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938
With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:
§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
Quote by chefkathleenI just don't feel safe around people carrying guns. Fortunately none of my friends, regardless of their nationality, don't feel the need to carry a gun.
Having said all that, I do respect your right to love/own guns. Just don't be offended if I wouldn't sit next to you on the bus.
If you were near a responsible gun owner you wouldn't know he/she had it on them. With a license to carry concealed weapons, one of the rules you must follow is that it truely is hidden. My husband, more so than I, has a gun on him at all times. You would never know it is there.
Just sayin
Quote by thepainter
So let's arm private citizens with guns??
Of course from my end it's the easy access to guns that allows the shooters to go on their rampage.
With so many people living/acting on their emotions easier access to guns will only increase the body count. Is that acceptable if it takes away a subjective sense of "terror"?
Also, the so-called psychos are often neighbors that never seemed to do anything suspicious. People often just snap. Having a gun within reach makes it worse. One can say carrying a gun comes with responsibility and empowers you. My stance is that most people are not able to deal with that. I just don't feel safe around people carrying guns. Fortunately none of my friends, regardless of their nationality, don't feel the need to carry a gun.
Having said all that, I do respect your right to love/own guns. Just don't be offended if I wouldn't sit next to you on the bus.
Permit holders are not angels, but they are an unusually law-abiding collection of citizens. In Florida, for example, permit holders are about 300 times less likely to perpetrate a gun crime than Floridians without permits. Florida's experience has been copied nationwide.
