Thread: Americans, Write Your Congressman

Originally Posted by taltho

I belive all of us peaceful people have hte right and obligation to hurt these people who act out on society if they can. If not how many more people will they harm and keep harming until there stopped, give those girls guns and teach them how to use them properly and confidently so they can put these people in place. I'm not suggesting to kill them just let them know they cannot act that way.[/b]

That's why I think tazers are a much better option! Fact is it's as easy to tazer someone as shooting a gun, without the maiming and killing etc.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

That's why I think tazers are a much better option! Fact is it's as easy to tazer someone as shooting a gun, without the maiming and killing etc.[/b]

Yes, I can see it now. "U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division rolling across Europe armed with tazers during WWII and the Nazis laughing their ass off at them."

As a matter of fact, I think we should arm our entire military with spitwads and straws.
I'll buy one myself. A Glock 9mm Spitwad. Our enemies will tremble in fear, and they wouldn't dare attack us.



And our cops should carry Whiffleball bats.
I'm sure criminals would be more than willing to turn in their weapons knowing cops and citizens did not have lethal weapons. To level the playing field, of course.
We should revamp the Second Amendment, beginning with
-The right of the people to bare Spitwad Shooters and Whiffleball bats shall not be infringed upon.

That'll make the liberals and people who live in la-la land happy.

Originally Posted by Sagea

Yes, I can see it now. "U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division rolling across Europe armed with tazers during WWII and the Nazis laughing their ass off at them."

As a matter of fact, I think we should arm our entire military with spitwads and straws.
I'll buy one myself. A Glock 9mm Spitwad. Our enemies will tremble in fear, and they wouldn't dare attack us.



And our cops should carry Whiffleball bats.
I'm sure criminals would be more than willing to turn in their weapons knowing cops and citizens did not have lethal weapons. To level the playing field, of course.
We should revamp the Second Amendment, beginning with
-The right of the people to bare Spitwad Shooters and Whiffleball bats shall not be infringed upon.

That'll make the liberals and people who live in la-la land happy.[/b]

LOL Cant stop laughing.

Originally Posted by Sagea

Yes, I can see it now. "U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division rolling across Europe armed with tazers during WWII and the Nazis laughing their ass off at them."

As a matter of fact, I think we should arm our entire military with spitwads and straws.
I'll buy one myself. A Glock 9mm Spitwad. Our enemies will tremble in fear, and they wouldn't dare attack us.



And our cops should carry Whiffleball bats.
I'm sure criminals would be more than willing to turn in their weapons knowing cops and citizens did not have lethal weapons. To level the playing field, of course.
We should revamp the Second Amendment, beginning with
-The right of the people to bare Spitwad Shooters and Whiffleball bats shall not be infringed upon.

That'll make the liberals and people who live in la-la land happy.[/b]

Oho! Yes! Your sharp wit is a perfectly valid argument! I see it all now.
Why don't you work out what we're actually talking about before making yourself look a fool yeah?

Why don't we write our Congressmen and woman to suggest that all nice peaceful woman who want, be given guns and trained to use them in self defense to aid in the stopping of crime? If criminals knew these woman where not so vulnerable then hte criminal, or would be attacker, might think twice about targeting the weak and some may even get jobs.

That's why I think tazers are a much better option! Fact is it's as easy to tazer someone as shooting a gun, without the maiming and killing etc.[/b]

Anything helps. but you cant argue with a gun at any close range distance that teasers don't reach.

Originally Posted by taltho

Why don't we write our Congressmen and woman to suggest that all nice peaceful woman who want, be given guns and trained to use them in self defense to aid in the stopping of crime? If criminals knew these woman where not so vulnerable then hte criminal, or would be attacker, might think twice about targeting the weak and some may even get jobs.[/b]

Really? How come gun-free countries aren't rape-mad orgies then?

I don't live there so I don't know. The Sudan reminds me of a rape fest killing field. It's another country.

I've lived in Mexico and there is a lot of crime there they just rely on their family's when they can and those people if caught are terribly brutalized or sometimes even castrated by the victims brothers dad's uncles etc, and no one says anything about it. In America those relitives are sentenced for their retribution sometimes harder than hte criminal. Even if the victim lies in a coma, the perpetrator is then given a chance to defend themselves and they still live in luxury that thy don't deserve, and my get away with the crime, case our legal system sucks. The perpetrators don't have enough to fear. Armed people are scary to attack in a violent crime.

Originally Posted by taltho

I've lived in Mexico and there is a lot of crime there they just rely on their family's when they can and those people if caught are terribly brutalized or sometimes even castrated by the victims brothers dad's uncles etc, and no one says anything about it. In America those relitives are sentenced for their retribution sometimes harder than hte criminal. Even if the victim lies in a coma, the perpetrator is then given a chance to defend themselves and they still live in luxury that thy don't deserve, and my get away with the crime, case our legal system sucks. The perpetrators don't have enough to fear. Armed people are scary to attack in a violent crime.[/b]

Which means the violent criminals get more violent to combat it!

My point is the criminals need to have more fear than guts. This may cause them to think about it.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

Many people in here seem to have extreme cases of paranoia. I'm not sure what the hell kind of fascist dictatorship towns you're from, but most places dont usually have people who want to hunt you down and kill you, unless you've done something very wrong in the first place. The argument of killing someone before they kill you is completely stupid when it's never gonna happen anywhere that you're storing a gun in the first place.[/b]

If it happens in my house, out in the woods, or (sometimes) my car, it's not stupid. It's because we don't live in "fascist towns" that we are able to have guns.

Why didn't you answer me about why you don't you want to ban the much more lethal car?

Any American who wants guns to be outlawed should be ashamed of themselves. If you dont understand why you should be ashamed, then that is proof enough.

This whole debate is a perfect example that the liberal movement is redundant. You want to abolish the 2ND AMMENDMENT to protect people who havent died yet? So, let me get this right. You want to DIRECTLY limit one persons rights to deter a POSSIBLE rights violation of somebody else. You want to trade a 100% rights violation for an imaginary rights violation. Give yourself 10 seconds to let that sink in..... Its not just counter-rights preservation, its PRE-counter-rights preservation! Or, counter-rights preservation in a time machine, if you will. I dont know about the rest of you, but i am DEFINATELY anti-pre-counter-rights preservation. Arent I cool!!!

The transitive property in algebra doesnt work in real life. Those who want guns outlawed see it like this. Gun=Death. Death=Bad. Gun=Bad. How about The Right to Self Protection=Good. Gun=The Right to Self Protection. Gun=Good. Both are true, but there is a whole lot more involved. \"People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people\". You guys know the movie. Guns must stay to preserve the rights of the commoner.

Now do you see why you should be ashamed? You cant strip inalieable rights from the individual to protect the majority. This was the philosophy of the makers of this country.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

If it happens in my house, out in the woods, or (sometimes) my car, it's not stupid. It's because we don't live in "fascist towns" that we are able to have guns.

Why didn't you answer me about why you don't you want to ban the much more lethal car?[/b]

You're missing the point of the 'fascist town' thing. Everyone kept claiming they needed guns to protect themselves from the insane government agents running riot and apparently opressing everyone, and criminals raiding everyone's houses en masse. You only still have guns because of your archaic laws still in place, purely because of sentimentality and patriotism to the point that no one wants them gone.

About the cars; they're not designed to kill people, they're designed to provide fast transport. The deaths due to them are near-completely accidental, and by the people using them. By that logic we should ban medicine and surgery, because they sometimes kill people too? Guns are designed for the sole-purpose of killing, and Im sure legal or illegal, that they kill a lot more innocent, good people than anyone else.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Any American who wants guns to be outlawed should be ashamed of themselves. If you dont understand why you should be ashamed, then that is proof enough.

This whole debate is a perfect example that the liberal movement is redundant. You want to abolish the 2ND AMMENDMENT to protect people who havent died yet? So, let me get this right. You want to DIRECTLY limit one persons rights to deter a POSSIBLE rights violation of somebody else. You want to trade a 100% rights violation for an imaginary rights violation. Give yourself 10 seconds to let that sink in..... Its not just counter-rights preservation, its PRE-counter-rights preservation! Or, counter-rights preservation in a time machine, if you will. I dont know about the rest of you, but i am DEFINATELY anti-pre-counter-rights preservation. Arent I cool!!!

The transitive property in algebra doesnt work in real life. Those who want guns outlawed see it like this. Gun=Death. Death=Bad. Gun=Bad. How about The Right to Self Protection=Good. Gun=The Right to Self Protection. Gun=Good. Both are true, but there is a whole lot more involved. \"People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people\". You guys know the movie. Guns must stay to preserve the rights of the commoner.

Now do you see why you should be ashamed? You cant strip inalieable rights from the individual to protect the majority. This was the philosophy of the makers of this country.[/b]

For one arguing that his own government was inarguably in the right, using People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people" isn't convincing.

To go back over what others have said hundreds of times already, the guns just give a false sense of security, with everyone sitting in their homes thinking 'if the commies/terrorists/criminals/fascist agents come through that door, Ill be ready to blow them apart!', and completely ignore any other security precautions; and if the government were going to corrupt even more than it already has, it'd be controlling you through your TVs and bank accounts, not at gun point.

Owning/buying a gun isnt helping anyone, particularly the individual. Quite the opposite, as proven by VT, since the only one owning a legal gun on the campus was the killer himself. The masses may have been content owning their own guns, but the individuals who got killed were the ones who suffered because of the legality.

It's a shitty right, and with the increase of legal concealed weapons, especially promoted by some groups since the VT thing, America is just gonna end up like a modern spaghetti western

Originally Posted by Wolffe

You're missing the point of the 'fascist town' thing. Everyone kept claiming they needed guns to protect themselves from the insane government agents running riot and apparently opressing everyone, and criminals raiding everyone's houses en masse. You only still have guns because of your archaic laws still in place, purely because of sentimentality and patriotism to the point that no one wants them gone.[/b]

No, I said earlier I wasn't talking about revolutions and protection from the government (yes that's part of it, but a much more remote possibility and I don't really spend much time thinking about, only as a hypothetical situation); I've been talking about personal protection. You are wrong about why we have guns. Maybe sometime in your life you will be sleeping in a dangerous place, and then you will realize what we are talking about. Until then, you really just can't judge us and our situations.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

About the cars; they're not designed to kill people, they're designed to provide fast transport. The deaths due to them are near-completely accidental, and by the people using them. By that logic we should ban medicine and surgery, because they sometimes kill people too? Guns are designed for the sole-purpose of killing, and Im sure legal or illegal, that they kill a lot more innocent, good people than anyone else.[/b]

*sigh* I don't feel like looking up the statistics (mistake, see below) So what if cares aren't designed for killing? In a way, that makes it worse. At least some people killed by guns is because they deserved it, while a car victim is always innocent. Cars are merely a convenience, yet they kill huge numbers of innocent people. It almost sounds too horrible to be true when you think about it. Most people know someone killed by a car, but not by a gun. Most people have been in a car wreck and had a close call; most people haven't almost been shot. Think of all the animals killed by cars too. And the indirect effects of pollution, etc. It goes on and on.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

To go back over what others have said hundreds of times already, the guns just give a false sense of security[/b]

It's not false! It's real! Try it next time you're sleeping in a crappy apartment in a bad neighborhood! Or in a house out in the country away from any effective law enforecement! Or out in the woods! You can only depend on yourself in some situations.

I give up. I don't think you're going to change your mind. I guess it doesn't matter; people who are against guns don't have to have one, so everyone can do what they think is best. There's lots of gun-free zones for you to stay in if you hate them so much, so you shouldn't want to take away others' rights to defend themselves.

(OK, I looked up the stats: Cars: deaths = 41,611/year; injuriees = 3.4 million. Guns: deaths = 30,000/year; I didn't find injuries. So I guess cars aren't as way more lethal than guns as I thought. That doesn't change the rest of my arguement.)

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

No, I said earlier I wasn't talking about revolutions and protection from the government (yes that's part of it, but a much more remote possibility and I don't really spend much time thinking about, only as a hypothetical situation); I've been talking about personal protection. You are wrong about why we have guns. Maybe sometime in your life you will be sleeping in a dangerous place, and then you will realize what we are talking about. Until then, you really just can't judge us and our situations.
*sigh* I don't feel like looking up the statistics (mistake, see below) So what if cares aren't designed for killing? In a way, that makes it worse. At least some people killed by guns is because they deserved it, while a car victim is always innocent. Cars are merely a convenience, yet they kill huge numbers of innocent people. It almost sounds too horrible to be true when you think about it. Most people know someone killed by a car, but not by a gun. Most people have been in a car wreck and had a close call; most people haven't almost been shot. Think of all the animals killed by cars too. And the indirect effects of pollution, etc. It goes on and on.
It's not false! It's real! Try it next time you're sleeping in a crappy apartment in a bad neighborhood! Or in a house out in the country away from any effective law enforecement! Or out in the woods! You can only depend on yourself in some situations.

I give up. I don't think you're going to change your mind. I guess it doesn't matter; people who are against guns don't have to have one, so everyone can do what they think is best. There's lots of gun-free zones for you to stay in if you hate them so much, so you shouldn't want to take away others' rights to defend themselves.

(OK, I looked up the stats: Cars: deaths = 41,611/year; injuriees = 3.4 million. Guns: deaths = 30,000/year; I didn't find injuries. So I guess cars aren't as way more lethal than guns as I thought. That doesn't change the rest of my arguement.)[/b]

Well it's not that I cant see your point moonbeam. Its gonna sound odd, but I personally love guns, and would like nothing more than to have a massive stash of guns; but I'm trying to say what I think would be ideal for everyone's safety. Yes, bad neighbourhoods have jusitification, but legal guns just make it easier for the criminals running around these places to do what they do; I think people should have the right to defend themselves, but I think guns are a step too far. Sure, own all the swords and such, because they require both parties to engage eachother, but guns are kinda cheap. I spose they also are a reason that bad lawenforcement stays bad, since if the guns werent there for self defence, 'these lawless people are lawless even though everyone has a gun' isnt a decent scapegoat for larger government parties, and they'd probably get round to sorting it out, as well as the criminals having less force to fight back against blooming law enforcement. Meh, I dunno *shrug*

Originally Posted by Wolffe

For one arguing that his own government was inarguably in the right, using People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people" isn't convincing.[/b]

How else is the government going to fear us? "Oh my god, they have tazers... We're scared."

To go back over what others have said hundreds of times already, the guns just give a false sense of security, with everyone sitting in their homes thinking 'if the commies/terrorists/criminals/fascist agents come through that door, Ill be ready to blow them apart!', and completely ignore any other security precautions; and if the government were going to corrupt even more than it already has, it'd be controlling you through your TVs and bank accounts, not at gun point.[/b]

False sense of security, my ass. So the old Miss America lady recently, who drove off her attackers with a .38 was given false sense of security? And thousands of others who defend themselves with guns.

Owning/buying a gun isnt helping anyone, particularly the individual. Quite the opposite, as proven by VT, since the only one owning a legal gun on the campus was the killer himself.[/b]

Dude, this is just retarded. Many of the people on campus had legal firearms, but couldn't bring them into campus because of fear of expulsion. I don't hear of many gun crimes happening at anywhere but gun-free zones. I remember two news stories where a campus shooting was stopped by people running to their cars to get their guns...

The masses may have been content owning their own guns, but the individuals who got killed were the ones who suffered because of the legality.[/b]

By that logic, we should also ban tazers and pepper spray and several other defense weapons. You know, they aren't "un-lethal". They are just "less lethal". You also know, as I've said before, that law enforcement and military recommend having your own gun, right?

It's a shitty right, and with the increase of legal concealed weapons, especially promoted by some groups since the VT thing, America is just gonna end up like a modern spaghetti western[/b]

You know how much stuff you have to do to get a conceal carry license? A lot. Criminals aren't going to bother with it. Also, the percent of people's CCW licenses revoked because of a crime involving guns is less than one percent. Law-abiding people...

So many other people have said what I've wanted to say about why guns need to be legal (I said NEED not should).

All I can say now is that everyone can think what they want, just quit trying to take the right away from the rest of us who are good Americans just because you are afraid them of yourselves.

Originally Posted by taltho

All I can say now is that everyone can think what they want, just quit trying to take the right away from the rest of us who are good Americans just because you are afraid them of yourselves.[/b]

:bravo:

The picture the advocates of gun illegality seem to believe in is of some very violent criminals sitting in a living room and talking about how to rob people where one of them says, "How can we do this more effectively? Well, if we had guns, we could do it much better. But dammit! Guns are illegal! We can't get our hands on them because there is no underground market for them. Who would ever try to have a big market for something that is illegal? So much for the armed bandits idea. It's going to be much harder to break into houses and rape women too since guns no longer exist. Let's go to medical school instead." How realistic is that idea?

Originally Posted by Sagea

How else is the government going to fear us? "Oh my god, they have tazers... We're scared."
False sense of security, my ass. So the old Miss America lady recently, who drove off her attackers with a .38 was given false sense of security? And thousands of others who defend themselves with guns.
Dude, this is just retarded. Many of the people on campus had legal firearms, but couldn't bring them into campus because of fear of expulsion. I don't hear of many gun crimes happening at anywhere but gun-free zones. I remember two news stories where a campus shooting was stopped by people running to their cars to get their guns...
By that logic, we should also ban tazers and pepper spray and several other defense weapons. You know, they aren't "un-lethal". They are just "less lethal". You also know, as I've said before, that law enforcement and military recommend having your own gun, right?
You know how much stuff you have to do to get a conceal carry license? A lot. Criminals aren't going to bother with it. Also, the percent of people's CCW licenses revoked because of a crime involving guns is less than one percent. Law-abiding people...[/b]

The government doesn't fear you full-stop. Most of the country are passive-sheep-spongey things, absorbing everything they tell you, just because you were born in a world where your government is accepted as 'right' and this is a more 'enlightened age' when barbaric things like Nazis, Huns and Romans could never exist anymore.

The false sense of security comes from the fact that people aren't careful, because they think they're safe, in the knowledge that they have a gun that they dont take any other precautions

The only reason the gun-free zones have problems is because guns are widely available outside, with no security precautions protecting residents from incoming gun-carriers.

The military recommend a lot of moronic stuff; doesn't mean it's a good thing, it means its in their best interests to say it, like increasing gun, license, etc. sales

Originally Posted by Sagea

So many other people have said what I've wanted to say about why guns need to be legal (I said NEED not should).

All I can say now is that everyone can think what they want, just quit trying to take the right away from the rest of us who are good Americans just because you are afraid them of yourselves.[/b]

Jesus... that's all I can say to this one.

Originally Posted by Sagea

:bravo:

The picture the advocates of gun illegality seem to believe in is of some very violent criminals sitting in a living room and talking about how to rob people where one of them says, "How can we do this more effectively? Well, if we had guns, we could do it much better. But dammit! Guns are illegal! We can't get our hands on them because there is no underground market for them. Who would ever try to have a big market for something that is illegal? So much for the armed bandits idea. It's going to be much harder to break into houses and rape women too since guns no longer exist. Let's go to medical school instead." How realistic is that idea?[/b]

Universal Mind, as has been stated thousands of times before, the amount of crime in gun-free areas is not like some extreme, violent dystopia like you seem to think.

Americans have the right to bear arms. Get over it.

33 humans is not a big tragedy. Humans deserve to die anyway.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

Universal Mind, as has been stated thousands of times before, the amount of crime in gun-free areas is not like some extreme, violent dystopia like you seem to think.[/b]

That was not my point. My point was that a ban does not make things safer. It makes things more dangerous than otherwise, but that does not mean a drug free zone will automatically be a nightmare. Banning guns in an area that is not violent in the first place will not turn the place into a horror movie. It will just make things more dangerous than otherwise and will deny a fundamental right to the innocent. The more violent an area is, the worse a gun ban will be. If guns were banned in Detroit today, there would be a major rise in gun violence tomorrow. If every person in Detroit were forced to own a gun today (which I don't agree with doing, but this makes a point), there would be a major decrease in gun violence tomorrow.

A ban on guns would only take guns away from people who obey the law and are terrified of prison. That's all it could possibly do. A war on guns would be symbolism over substance, something that just makes people rationalize that something is being done about a problem when it really isn't, just like the war on drugs.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

33 humans is not a big tragedy. Humans deserve to die anyway.[/b]

I hope you are joking. If one of those 33, or 33 of those 33, were your family members, you would have a different view, I hope. If people deserve to die, why are you still sitting there?

Originally Posted by Universal

:bravo:

The picture the advocates of gun illegality seem to believe in is of some very violent criminals sitting in a living room and talking about how to rob people where one of them says, "How can we do this more effectively? Well, if we had guns, we could do it much better. But dammit! Guns are illegal! We can't get our hands on them because there is no underground market for them. Who would ever try to have a big market for something that is illegal? So much for the armed bandits idea. It's going to be much harder to break into houses and rape women too since guns no longer exist. Let's go to medical school instead." How realistic is that idea?[/b]

They'd probably be thinking about tazers and spit wads. Anyway they'd at least be thinking of how to use crude weapons of some device or another. They're criminals for christs sake that's what they do. They figure out how to exploit others for what they have. Also these people after being caught and if found guilty have no right to own a gun legally.

Hey people. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BARE ARMS. For you that are, STOP TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS. If you people don't like your rights go sell yourselves as slaves to some African scum regime so the rest of us don't have to suffer with you.

Instead of making them illegal, why not teach firearms in our public schools to insure a nation of gun owners that can deter these criminals. And also evaluate early on who is capable of responsibly using a firearm. At least the common criminal would know their pray most likely has a gun and they'd hopefully think twice about committing a crime.

Oh yah what would you do if the mafia was to bare down on us as a nation after we lose our gun rights? And they use guns illegally to subdue the commoner, and then they don't let their crimes show on hte TV because they bullied hte broadcasters into not showing that news? Then it only looks like we have no crime cause the criminal gangsters took over and hid their actions from the world. Is anyone thinking of Russia, where people are killed by the mafia and no one hears about it?

THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO FREEDOM.

Eliminating the 2nd amendment will only give the criminal the ability to organize and take over. then all we'll have is the criminal and the state powers combating for the total control over hte commoner. Meaning hte common person would get screwed or they'd be forced to join either the gangsters or the state.

One of the Death Wish sequels had a scene where the cops went to somebody's house in the Bronx or some other very rough area of New York and told him he was illegally in possession of a gun and had to confiscate it. The cops left with the guy's gun. Right after that, some people broke in and the guy was helpless. He was robbed by the intruders at gun point. I haven't seen it in a long time, so I don't remember if they killed him. The definitely could have. That illustrates how things would work, except the innocent guy would be treated like a criminal and put in prison if the anti-gun lobby gets their way. It would be a despiccable infringement on the rights of the innocent.

Taltho, I like your idea about teaching gun use in schools. One of the major arguments the anti-gun crowd uses is that kids get killed when they find them and play with them. Teaching the kids about guns would take care of that. I learned to shoot a gun when I was a kid, so I knew what to do with them. I knew where the safety button was, I knew not to ever point it at myself or anybody else except in self-defense, and I took them very seriously. Something ironic is that the the pro-ban people despise the NRA and speak against them by saying that kids play with guns and get killed, but the kids of NRA members don't play with guns and get killed. I think the number of such cases is very close to zero, if not all the way at zero.