Tell me there's nothing wrong with America

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

What does this even mean?

If its semi auto, its legal.

Its its fully auto, its not.

So your willing to bet "that they are far more controlled in Canada?"

A semi auto AK 47 is "far more controlled" than the rest of the other 100% legal firearms in Canada? Whos controlling it? I dont understand why you think a legal firearm is more controlled in Canada when its legal and no more of a risk than the other firearms.

Do you know its possible to make a weapon outlawed by every G8 nation made only from a bic pen tube, pin, eraser, rubber band and a peice of string? Im willing to bet those bic pen tubes are far more controlled in Canada though.

Why so serious? Relax internet tough guy.

By contolled, I mean that it is harder for just anyone to obtain one. It's perfectly common for some things to be legal and still contolled (alcohol, drugs, driver's licenses, etc...).

Seriously, do you think it's just as easy to legally obtain an assault weapon in Canada as it is in the U.S., and walk around with it in public?

[Clarkey]

Interesting that it's a 'Brotha' holding the gun in the picture, I expected a 'Billy Bob' when I opened this.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

This.

The second amendment does not exist so people can go out and shoot bears. It exists so people can go out and shoot corrupt gov't.

More or less.

I dont get all warm and fuzzy seeing a guy pack around a automatic assault rifle, but it his his right. People can choose to exercise their rights if they feel compelled to do so. I dont see what all the fuss is here.

I'm sorry but you'll have to clarify.

So you support the fact that the 2nd amendment was created to support militias to protect themselves from government oppression and yet you say he is exercising his right by carrying an automatic weapon in public. How does that make any sense. You support the idea that the 2nd amendment DOES NOT mean the right to bear arms 24/7 and agree that it was created to keep the government honest or face revolt (far from a worry now in the US) but for some reason that guy is exercising his right? What right is that exactly? You just agreed that the so called "right" you support is not the right that is protected in the 2nd amendment. So I ask, What right exactly was this guy exercising?

So was he on his way to a militia meeting? I'm pretty sure he was at a presidential speech (if I've been following this thread correctly).

What part of that is exercising his rights? Do you really think he was sending a message to the corrupt tyrannical government?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by T@T

Whatever, you know we see these ######ed Muslim's carrying AK47's and there 12 year old kids with grenades in the middle east and we just think...well there ######in nuts.. but comeon, this is crazy. The day I see a dude with an assault rifle in Calgary is the day I ######ing move the f**& out of here.

You bring up a funny (but true) point.

Some of the most horrible and oppressive regimes in the world have some of the loosest gun control. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had one of the most armed civilian populations in the world, and it didn't exactly keep tyranny away.

One of the first things the Americans implemented in occupied Iraq was strict gun control (and universal health care).

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Why so serious? Relax internet tough guy.

By contolled, I mean that it is harder for just anyone to obtain one. It's perfectly common for some things to be legal and still contolled (alcohol, drugs, driver's licenses, etc...).

Intraweb tough guy? What part of my post insinuated aggression? I called you out on a blanket statement where you "imagine" a certain type of rifle to be more controlled than any other by our gov't based on its moniker and past history.

A semi auto AK-47 is no harder to obtain than any other firearm. Yes, its perfectly common for things to be controlled, yet legal. Yes, the AK is among those, but not to any more degree than say, a single shot bolt action .22.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Seriously, do you think it's just as easy to legally obtain an assault weapon in Canada as it is in the U.S., and walk around with it in public?

No, because their laws are vastly different from ours.

A fully automatic assault weapon is not legal to the average joe blow in Canada. However, a semi automatic AK 47 is not classified as an assault weapon.

Regardless, you cannot walk around with a gun in public in Canada unless you are an official with the rights to do so. Really the question you posed is so out to lunch I dont know how you can ask it. Unless of course you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since you are willing to classify a semi automatic rifle as an assault weapon means you have little to no knowledge of firearms and are stuck on the mystique of the AK-47 being some type of apocalyptic death machine only suited for terrorists, third world countries and psychopaths.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You bring up a funny (but true) point.

Some of the most horrible and oppressive regimes in the world have some of the loosest gun control. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had one of the most armed civilian populations in the world, and it didn't exactly keep tyranny away.

One of the first things the Americans implemented in occupied Iraq was strict gun control (and universal health care).

Guess who invented gun control and registry?

Adolf Hitlers regime.

Huh.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by flip

I'm sorry but you'll have to clarify.

So you support the fact that the 2nd amendment was created to support militias to protect themselves from government oppression and yet you say he is exercising his right by carrying an automatic weapon in public. How does that make any sense. You support the idea that the 2nd amendment DOES NOT mean the right to bear arms 24/7 and agree that it was created to keep the government honest or face revolt (far from a worry now in the US) but for some reason that guy is exercising his right? What right is that exactly? You just agreed that the so called "right" you support is not the right that is protected in the 2nd amendment. So I ask, What right exactly was this guy exercising?

So was he on his way to a militia meeting? I'm pretty sure he was at a presidential speech (if I've been following this thread correctly).

What part of that is exercising his rights? Do you really think he was sending a message to the corrupt tyrannical government?

Thats why I dont get all "warm and fuzzy" about it. I agree with you, he IS exercising his right, however, his right has been so misconstrued as to what the 2nd amendment means that it goes beyond what it was created for in the first place.

Yes, this guy by law has a right to carry that firearm in public. Is it needed or warrented? Of course not.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Guess who invented gun control and registry?

Adolf Hitlers regime.

Huh.

That's a pretty valid point. If every Jew in Nazi occupied areas had a firearm, I think the history books would read a little differently.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The problem isn't really the legal guns per se, however, having so many easily accessible avenues for legally obtaining assault weapons is bound to increase the number of "bad guys" who also get them. You basically create an arms race among the citizens and it would be really hard to convince me that makes for a safer country

I bet many weapons that were illegally purchased were at one time obtained legally.

The whole weapons thing seems to be cultural in America. I'd still live there just for the weather though...

This aint a scene, it's a god damn arms race.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by bcb

That's a pretty valid point. If every Jew in Nazi occupied areas had a firearm, I think the history books would read a little differently.

And what if every non-Jewish German civilian had gun as well?

Basically, if every Jew in Nazi Germany had a gun, the Holocaust would probably have been accelerated as the Nazi regime would fire back and would still out number them by a fair amount. It's not like Hitler would have said; "Oh, we better leave them alone. They also have guns!"

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by bcb

That's a pretty valid point. If every Jew in Nazi occupied areas had a firearm, I think the history books would read a little differently.

Totally.

Gun control was Hitlers way of stamping out rebellion before it ever happened. Canadians are foolish to think their registered guns are not gov't property.

Im on the fence in regards to gun control in this country. I think it has its merits, but at the same time I do not like the idea of a gov't agency having full legal rights to collect registered firearms at their discretion. That doesn't mean I worry about the second coming of satan controlling our nation and demanding our firearms, I just dont see how a registered gun has any less capacity to kill than a non registered one.

They are a tool. Nothing more.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

And what if every non-Jewish German civilian had gun as well?

Basically, if every Jew in Nazi Germany had a gun, the Holocaust would probably have been accelerated as the Nazi regime would fire back and would still out number them by a fair amount. It's not like Hitler would have said; "Oh, we better leave them alone. They also have guns!"

Yup. The Jewish community in Nazi occupied lands would be at even more risk had they had the means to fight back.

Many non-Jewish germans voted against the Nazi gov't, I suppose they too would say, "Hey, lets go shoot some armed Jews for the hell of it! Its what all the cool Nazis are doing these days!"

You honestly believe the jewish population in WW2 Germany would stand even less of chance against Nazi tyranny if every one of those said citizens had a valid way of fighting back?

The Nazi's would "fire back" if the Jews had guns? They already came out with both barrels blazing as the Jews had absolutley no means of defending themselfs reasonably.

Answer me this then. Is it not easier to incarcerate and murder someone holding a shovel, or someone holding a rifle?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Yup. The Jewish community in Nazi occupied lands would be at even more risk had they had the means to fight back.

Many non-Jewish germans voted against the Nazi gov't, I suppose they too would say, "Hey, lets go shoot some armed Jews for the hell of it! Its what all the cool Nazis are doing these days!"

But they were still overwhelmingly popular.

You honestly believe the jewish population in WW2 Germany would stand even less of chance against Nazi tyranny if every one of those said citizens had a valid way of fighting back?

No, I wouldn't say they'd stand less of a chance, because they already stood no chance. Can't get less than none.

The Nazi's would "fire back" if the Jews had guns? They already came out with both barrels blazing as the Jews had absolutley no means of defending themselfs reasonably.

Answer me this then. Is it not easier to incarcerate and murder someone holding a shovel, or someone holding a rifle?

Does it really matter when the other side has an army that outnumbers you 100-1 complete with armored vehicles and air support?

You could be holding an AK-47 or a shovel, but you're still dead.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

And what if every non-Jewish German civilian had gun as well?

Basically, if every Jew in Nazi Germany had a gun, the Holocaust would probably have been accelerated as the Nazi regime would fire back and would still out number them by a fair amount. It's not like Hitler would have said; "Oh, we better leave them alone. They also have guns!"

More likely it would have looked like two rebel groups in intense combat, as opposed to the carefully planned extermination it was.

Basically, there wouldn't have been a lot to lose.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Does it really matter when the other side has an army that outnumbers you 100-1 complete with armored vehicles and air support?

You could be holding an AK-47 or a shovel, but you're still dead.

"Yup, we're dead anyways, so lets just roll over and let them exterminate our creed instead of giving ourselves a chance."

Wow.

And when the SS crew was making its rounds door to door collecting and taking away Jewish civilians, they didnt do so with the use of armored vehicles and freakin air support.

If you think that the Jews stood no chance either way, then why would Hitler impose a gun registry on German citizens?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

There are fat people in Canada who don't have a clue where Ohio is.

Have we met somewhere before?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by bcb

More likely it would have looked like two rebel groups in intense combat, as opposed to the carefully planned extermination it was.

Basically, there wouldn't have been a lot to lose.

And the Jews would have lost their victim status to some degree as most of the world's nations turn a blind eye or even support it when countries stamp out armed rebellions.

Europe in general was very anti-Semetic and if the Jews were armed, they would have probably received less sympathy from neighbouring countries (who were hard enough to convince against complacency in the early years of the Nazi abuses).

I don't really see the point of trying to revise history when there are enough examples of tyranical governments in the world that have no gun control and still manage to use brutal tactics to suppress their people. There is no reason to think that Germany wouldn't have been the same.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

But they were still overwhelmingly popular.

So you believe the common German citizen would have started hunting down and shooting armed Jews because its what their government's army was doing?

Just because you vote for the guy doesnt mean you support everything they do, much less take it on yourself to go out and start murdering innocent civilians.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

No, I wouldn't say they'd stand less of a chance, because they already stood no chance. Can't get less than none.

If you truly believed that, then given the state of the world at that time, your line of thinking as a common denominator among the worlds populace would mean we would all be Nazis right now. Such a defeatist attitude is honestly sad to hear.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

"Yup, we're dead anyways, so lets just roll over and let them exterminate our creed instead of giving ourselves a chance."

Wow.

Did I say that they should have just rolled over and died? No... but that is still what would have happened in all likelihood.

And when the SS crew was making its rounds door to door collecting and taking away Jewish civilians, they didnt do so with the use of armored vehicles and freakin air support.

If they were facing an armed uprising, do you really think the SS would have just gone door-to-door without tanks and larger weapons? You can't change one variable without realizing that others that would change as result. If the Jews were armed, they just would gotten more extreme.

If you think that the Jews stood no chance either way, then why would Hitler impose a gun registry on German citizens?

Probably the same reason the U.S. has innitiated gun control in Iraq. Guns in civilian populations don't always make for peaceful situations. It's a tactical decision... do you diagree with gun control in Iraq? I'm guessing it's not the concept of gun control that bothers you, but where and when?

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

And the Jews would have lost their victim status to some degree as most of the world's nations turn a blind eye or even support it when countries stamp out armed rebellions.

Im pretty sure Europe at that time was more concerned with keeping their butt in the corner than rounding up global support for the extermination that was happening in Germany. The Jews, regardless of whether or not they were armed, wouldnt have lost one iota of victim status as their entire race was targeted based on nothing more than blind discrimination and hate. How would fighting back make them any less of a victim?

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Europe in general was very anti-Semetic and if the Jews were armed, they would have probably received less sympathy from neighbouring countries (who were hard enough to convince against complacency in the early years of the Nazi abuses).

How does this have anything to do with the validity of being able to fight certain death giventhe chance to do so with a firearm? Do you think the Jews facing the gas chamber/group furnace cared about their popularity in Europe?

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't really see the point of trying to revise history when there are enough examples of tyranical governments in the world that have no gun control and still manage to use brutal tactics to suppress their people. There is no reason to think that Germany wouldn't have been the same.

Give me one example of gov't led, systematic genocide against a different, specific race where said gov't had no gun control laws. Noone is trying to revise history, people are pointing out that the universally recognized man of upmost evil in human history pioneered gun control.