Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your FatherQuote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
When we talk about the gun issue, there are two possible sides one can take: those who think the problem will be solved with more guns, those who think the problem will be solved with less guns. I belive the problem will be solved with LESS guns. I belive peace is the answer. If we arm everyone, the problem will NEVER go away, and therefore we are doomned to live in a world of chaos and violence forever. Violence is never the answer, NEVER. There is no need for wars if we chose to live in a cooperatively peace. If peace is an utopia, then we should all commit suicide right now, because it's pointles.
I totally agree. Unfortunately, this solution seems extremely unlikely to ever happen, but I still agree, and I will be the change I want to see.
So long as the criminals and tyrannical governments of the world would remain armed, I too would choose to remain armed. Peace is good, but it's not man's natural state. If the last 15,000 years have taught us anything, it's that peace is only the name for time between wars, and that man is a killer.
Yoda: What's the violent crime rate in UK now that almost all guns have been outlawed? The REAL rate, not the ones Labour was throwing around during the election...I'm genuinely curious, as I hear some pretty horrid stories. Do you feel that the criminals are more bold now?
There's been discussion about what to do in the event your home is broken into, including foolishly going for a wound instead of shooting to kill. Shooting to wound is almost laughable. Anyone who can hit a crook in the leg in a darkened room while still being half asleep themselves should get some type of medal. No, the rule is shoot the biggest thing you can see and keep shooting. As for the legal ramifications...where I live a law was passed a couple of years ago stating that a criminal breaking into someone's home is assuming the risk of being shot. Yes, for a while criminals shot in the act were actually suing the homeowners who shot them until this law was passed.
Does a person have the right to defend themselves? In Florida, people were actually required by law to either submit to their attacker, or run away. That is a joke, and it's a prime example of socialist thinking, ie: no value on individual lives. Thank God a few weeks ago a "stand your ground" law was passed, meaning a citizen could defend themselves with lethal force in public if required without fear of being arrested. The leftist media as always is predicting the rise of a new wild west in Florida, where the slightest provocation will lead to gun battles in the streets. As usual they'll be proven wrong.
The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is this: I will not cede the right to protect the lives or property of myself or my family to the state. They have proven time and time again that they are not willing or able to give us that protection. I will also not make it easier on them to sieze my firearms by cheerfuly cooperating with confiscation schemes or "buy backs" that never work. I have personally lobbied to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits that are being used to sue them out of existence, with tacit support from the US government.
While we're discussing legality: The law in the US used to be based on English Common Law, and English "Castle" Law, hearkening back to "a man's home is his castle". This has not been the case since the environmentalist movement began usurping our property rights ("You can't dig a hole there! There might be an environmental impact!!"). In it's never ending quest to garner more power, the Federal Government of the US has begun to assert itself more and more over property owners. In regards to gun control, the Clinton administration tried to make it mandatory that private gun owners store their weapons with trigger locks in their homes. My question is: Does a central government have the right to mandate how something is stored in my home?
Another issue was raised about whether or not regular citizens could actually succeed against a strong military. To this I say that history is repleat with examples of successful uprisings with help from other interested parties. For example: The uprising in Northern Ireland in the early part of the 1900's. They were given rifles by Germany (to strike at England) and they succeeded.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you..." Samuel Adams.