Fred[OZ75] wrote:
MurPHy...
If I came across you in the middle of nowhere and I have a big gun and you don't what rights do you have except to do what-ever I say or die?
Following along with your theoretical situation, I would either:
A: Kill you
Or the more likely outcome
B: Die.
Then again, the proof's in the pudding, so to speak. I'm being Mr. Tough Guy on the Internet here. Who's to say that I won't break down crying like a little girl, begging for my life? Who's to say you've got too much self-respect and pride to kill an unarmed man? Neither of us can answer those questions unless we are put to the test.
=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
MurPHy wrote:
As for your example, you're forgetting that the Militia is already present. Every capable man who owns a firearm is part of the militia. Would they win against Bush overtaking the government? If the Army does not support him, yes. I believe the majority of the armed forces would not support such a manuver, and would defend the People.
So, let me get this straight. You're basing your pro-guns argument on the basis that you might have to overthrow you government one day? That's nearly as bad as the "Dog ate my homework" excuse I used when I was at school.
I mean, can you seriously tell me that is why you own a gun? For a country that bangs on about liberty and freedom all the time (land of the free and all that...), that is a very paranoid stance to take.
Besides if Tony Blair decided not to step down, the Police would just throw him out and the same would happen to George Bush. You see the flaw in your argument is that if Bush were to mount any kind of serious threat he would need to control the army and the police (this is how dictators work and keep power) but you just said they would support the people, so what would happen? Would Bush just lock himself in the White House and refuse to leave? How exactly would he retain any power over you if he did go mad and refuse to step down?
If on the other hand, if the army/police did follow orders from Bush, then you're pissy little Magnums aren't gonna do anything against the army.
You know you're argument is bollocks and I'm convinced it is a wind-up....
Firstly, I don't even own a firearm, unless you count paintball guns, in which case, I have three. If I ever did buy one (or more...), it would be for sporting or collecting purposes (I am a student of history).
From your perspective, I can understand why you would consider such a state of mind to be paranoid, if not downright dangerous. Then again, the long history your country has indicated that personal freedoms and liberty never was very high on the "to-do" list.
However, you make a very valid point! Despots cannot gain and keep power politically without first having it militarily. That is the major flaw in my scenario. With the current state the United States of America is in, IF Bush attempted a coup, at the most the local police and higher echelons of the military would support him. It would be enough to tear the country asunder, and possibly even spark another Civil War. Am I paranoid? Perhaps. Honestly speaking, I highly doubt any such thing will occur anytime soon. What worries me is that we are slipping closer and closer to the brink, ever so slowly. Vigilance is our burden.
Pissy little Magnums? Ho ho! You've been watching too much American television. Most have good collections of longarms. One friend of mine would no doubt be more than happy to lend me his M1 Garand...
=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Murphy, how would you feel about a Muslim building a bomb in his US home and saying he won't use it unless he is attacked (thus, for his protection). Would you defend his right or would you support him being thrown in Guantanamo.
P.S Any punk can shoot a gun, it's takes a real man to use his bare hands...grow a spine America.
I would be against it, and so would the BATF. Explosives are in a whole 'nother realm from firearms, don't try to pervert this discussion into something else entirely.
PS: Keep thinking that way, and you'll bring a knife to a gunfight one day. Guess who'll win?
Jinto-sk wrote:
Loving the debate peeps Keep it comin
The argument about a gun for protection against invasion, sorry load of rubbish - that is what the armed forces are for, US has one of the larger armies of the world so that argument doesn't sit with me
Against invasion yes, but not merely a foriegn one.