Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


Gun Control: Why do Americans oppose it religiously?

Discuss issues related to government, politics, and law.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

dreamofarakis
Freshman Poster
Posts: 25
Joined: July 27th, 2016, 11:03 am

Re: Gun Control: Why do Americans oppose it religiously?

Post by dreamofarakis » August 1st, 2016, 11:36 am

it doesnt seem like an unrealistic goal to me to attempt to preserve gun rights. That's why I wrote here what I wrote. It was in the hope that my arguments, if read by other people, may maybe give them reasons why they should try to preserve their rights.




Check out our Dating Sites and International Romance Tours!



User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6207
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: Whats wrong with Gun Control? Why do Americans hate it?

Post by Adama » August 1st, 2016, 11:43 am

Winston wrote:
Adama wrote:
Winston wrote:You guys arent answering my questions. Why should i feel safe about every random person around me having guns?

Remember in old west movies when bar brawls turned into gunfights and someone got killed? Why do you support that? A fist fight should be just that, not turned into a gunfight.

Also how come theres gun control in China yet no government tyranny or mass killings by the army?
That's because you are not paying attention. They have gun control in China and no one is dead because guns are still legal elsewhere in the world. The genocide can not start if half the world still has weapons. Those who have weapons will see that government is evil and therefore how necessary guns are. Is this so hard to comprehend? When gun rights in the USA are finished, that is when they can proceed with culling the herd of humanity. Until then they are working piecemeal to get things done. This is done so slowly that people do not notice.

Also, the majority of the mass shootings are fake. From Elliot Roger, to the Boston Bombing, to Virginia, to Sandy Hook. They are faked by the government to introduce legislation to take away rights on an incremental basis. It is a slow, steady march.

Now if you are not ready to accept that truth, then stop asking those questions.
This doesn't make sense. If the government wanted to genocide people, they'd do it with chemical warfare, electromagnetic weapons, chemtrails, food poisoning/GMO's, spreading deadly germs and viruses, etc. Having guns doesn't prevent any of that. The government also has tanks and bombs and drones. People with guns are no match for that.

Why do I need a gun? Rock and Ladislav have been to many dangerous countries with high crime, yet they never needed a gun. All they needed was good common sense and they were safe. Also, why is this a big issue in the patriot/conspiracy movement? It's not like all freedom hangs on this issue. Yet they act like it's big central issue. I don't get it.
Did Stalin bomb the peasants out in the farms in Russia? By what means has mass murder by the hands of government taken place? Has it ever been by bombs or by air assault? As far as I know, mass murder has very commonly taken place by using guns.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.

User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6207
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: Whats wrong with Gun Control? Why do Americans hate it?

Post by Adama » August 1st, 2016, 11:49 am

Winston wrote:
zboy1 wrote:Guns are needed in the States because the culture is violent, the people are mostly a**holes, and crime is very high. Also, it's a dysfunctional, multicultural mess-of-a-society, with a tyrannical, war-mongering government. So, it would make sense for innocent people to be armed. Now, in peaceful societies such as Japan, guns aren't really needed, so it depends on the situation and the country.
But if you allow guns, then all the assholes and crazies in the US will get the guns too. Why do you want that? Why is that a good thing? Plus a normal person in the US could go crazy or psycho at any moment, because he or she could lose it in the toxic US culture. Or maybe demons could suddenly possess them. Etc. I don't think the average asshole or prick or hot tempered person in the US knows where to go in the black market to get a gun, if guns became illegal.

Besides if there was gun control, and everyone turned in their guns, if the US government wanted to, it could shut down all the black markets where people get guns too. Just like how the US government could shut down all the drugs coming in if they wanted to, hence the drug war is phony. Think about it. If the US can organize something as elaborate and efficient as D-Day and war operations, then it could easily shut down all black markets in America, if it really wanted to that is. But the US has to allow some crime to exist, otherwise it could not justify law enforcement funding, and bigger government with more laws. That's why crime and black markets for drugs and guns are DELIBERATELY allowed to exist.
That just says something about your thinking right there, Winston. You admit that they could stop the war on drugs if they wanted. Yet somehow you use THAT to back up your assertion that they would shut down gun black markets. Doesn't that seem absurd to expect them to enforce something in the people's favor when you already know they are intentionally screwing over the people? You basically just admitted that they are against the people, yet you turn around and use that same statement as evidence of how good they could be. That's just mind blowing, Winston.

Also, "turning in guns" will always be voluntary. Sure the penalty will be steep if they catch them with guns. However that doesn't guarantee that everyone will turn them in.

You also accept the news as real. The news is fiction. It is made up by the same people who own Hollywood. Go psycho? Even if that is true, it is rare despite all the media hype.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27177
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Whats wrong with Gun Control? Why do Americans hate it?

Post by Winston » August 1st, 2016, 11:50 am

Adama wrote: Did Stalin bomb the peasants out in the farms in Russia? By what means has mass murder by the hands of government taken place? Has it ever been by bombs or by air assault? As far as I know, mass murder has very commonly taken place by using guns.
No, he starved people to death by engineering a famine remember? Didn't the Nazis allegedly gas millions of Jews during the Holocaust too? Also, Allied air bombing during WW2 killed many German civilians. And the atomic bomb dropped on Japan killed a lot of people too.

Anyway, these are extreme examples. Not typical ones. Anyone can cherry pick the worst examples. I can name many more governments that never did those things.

Btw, some say that AIDS and cancers are created by black ops government too. Supposedly, AIDS was created in a US government bio weapons lab. Have you looked into that?
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6207
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: Gun Control: Why do Americans oppose it religiously?

Post by Adama » August 1st, 2016, 11:53 am

Winston wrote:I don't understand something. Can someone explain? Why is gun control such a big deal in the conspiracy/truth/patriot movement? They act like having the right to bear arms is the most important freedom that we have, and that the loss of it means the end of freedom. The patriot movement acts like this is the biggest issue and most important freedom we have. It's like a religious issue to them, one beyond any reason or logic. Anyone who questions it is seen as a heretic to the patriot movement and is anti-freedom. I don't see the logic or the reality behind their gun craze at all. In fact, I don't see why this is even an important issue at all. It seems like the least important issue, and definitely has no relevance to my life. But let's be logical and think about it for a moment. This idea that "gun ownership = freedom" is highly fallacious and very easy to debunk. Let me explain why. Here are several logical reasons why I disagree with it. (I hope any patriot or truther reading this hears me out with an open mind.)

1. First, I've never needed a gun in my life. Neither have my closest expat friends who have been to 30 or 40 countries, including dangerous ones with high crime rates. As long as we have street smarts and exercise good common sense, we've been fine. We've never had a need for guns. So I cannot relate to this need at all. It seems that only psychotic or paranoid people think they "need" guns. Rational people who use common sense street smarts never seem to need one.

In fact, if you ask police officers in America, most of them will tell you that they've gone their whole careers without ever having to fire a shot from their guns. That alone speaks volumes and should tell you how "necessary" they are.

2. Second, having a gun would probably do more harm than good. Not only do I not need one, as mentioned above, but I would not trust myself with one. Having a gun would give me a false sense of power, one that I might decide to abuse. Remember that humans, especially Americans, are prone to having power trips and can abuse it easily. Now, I happen to be a mild mannered person. But think of what a hot tempered person could do with a gun! Any little argument, and they could pull it out and use it or threaten others with it! Why would that be a good thing? We've all seen those wild west movies where two guys get into a trivial argument in a saloon, and then it escalates into a quick draw match, which then ends up with someone getting killed. Would you want to live in a society like that? I believe that fights should be resolved with fist fights or clean boxing matches, not with guns. That way, no one has to get killed during a fight. Thus I don't think a society where every random person has a gun, including nutcases and crazy people, is necessarily a good idea. Why would it be? The patriot movement has not convinced me that that would be a good thing.

3. Third, we all know that gun violence in America is higher than in the other industrialized nations. A lot of people have been killed by guns in America, including innocent people. So why would giving more guns to more people be a good thing? Wouldn't that just make it worse? In Switzerland, for example, people are more rational and nonviolent compared to Americans, so even though most people there own guns obtained from their military service, they do not have gun violence there. But that's not true of Americans, who are more violence prone than Europeans are in general.

In fact, many good US leaders and politicians have been needlessly killed by guns, from Alexander Hamilton, to President Abraham Lincoln, to President William McKinley, to President John F. Kennedy. And many more US Presidents have been shot at in attempted assassinations. Thus America is a violent nation, not only in terms of its government, but its people are as well. Ask yourself this: How many US Presidents have been killed or shot at with guns? How many British Prime Ministers or Monarchs in England have been shot at with guns? There is no comparison. This speaks volumes. Why give guns to such a violent nation as America?

Furthermore, many people who commit suicide do so with guns. American movies seem to encourage this too, because they always show men putting a gun to their heads or in their mouths and killing themselves. I don't know why American movies love to show suicides by guns, as though it were a glorious way to go that the media encourages. It's really sick. So if you have a gun and one day feel depressed, you may be tempted to end your life with your own gun. Why make suicide easier to do, especially since its morally wrong in most cases? I think without guns, people would be less inclined to stab themselves with a knife. Knife suicides are less likely to succeed, since people sometimes survive them, so they are less efficient as suicide weapons. The point is, I don't think making suicide easy and quick is a good thing. Thus having a gun is a danger even to its owner, after all one never knows when one could become depressed and feel suicidal. Or a demon could possess you and make you feel like killing yourself or others too. You never know. Why take the risk, especially if it's unnecessary?

4. Fourth, guns don't preserve freedom. Maybe it did in 1776, but not today. Today the government has tanks, chemical weapons, drones, bombs, and other technological weapons they can use. Perhaps even lasers, ray beams and electromagnetic weapons too. So guns stand no chance against them. Also, militia armies and revolutions only work when they are UNITED and ORGANIZED. That won't happen in America, because the elite have everyone too segregated and distracted. Multiculturalism, fear, paranoia, individualism, the high need for privacy, etc. have divided people too much. And mass entertainments and smart phones have distracted people too much, along with consumerism. Thus the population has been successfully divided, distracted, preoccupied and pacified by the powers that be. So there is virtually no chance of Americans ever organizing into a serious revolution, even if they all have guns.

5. Fifth, I don't see how gun control automatically leads to tyranny. I was in China last year for 6 or 7 months. In China, one cannot buy guns, not even on the black market (as far as I know). Yet I did not see any tyranny there at all. In fact, I felt FREER than in the US. I was free to go wherever I wanted to in China, free to go out and buy whatever I wanted and needed, and free to make friends, talk to strangers and date beautiful girls, without feeling like a creep -- which is a lot more than I can say for the socially isolating lonely USA and its "no talking to strangers unless its for business" social culture. So what freedom did I lack in China that was taken away by China's "no guns allowed" policy? Did I miss something? lol. By the way, the ban on guns in China means that there is no gun violence in China. Isn't that a good thing? Even the criminals there don't manage to get guns in any black markets. Why is that?

Also, in China I didn't have to be politically correct on social issues. I could talk about gender differences and racial differences, without offending people, because mainland Chinese tend to be very down-to-earth and genuine themselves -- unlike fake Americans who are politically correct -- and therefore are not bothered by such things. Therefore, I could be honest and be myself, whereas I can't in the US because everything in the US nowadays has to be politically correct, especially on social issues. And since I'm not into political correctness, I felt freer in China than in America in that area. Moreover, I am a very down-to-earth person that's real, without any BS. But American culture is highly fake and based on flash rather than substance, so BSing a lot is part of its culture. So being a down-to-earth person, I am freer to be myself in China (and Russia too), than in America.

Furthermore, I like flirting with girls, picking up girls, talking strangers, etc. which is considered creepy and inappropriate in America, as well as a violation of social boundaries. But it is accepted as natural male behavior in China, Russia and many other countries. So again, in this area, I am much freer in China and Russia than in the US. You see, countries like China and Russia do not deny human nature or men's needs and rights, like America does, so as men we feel freer in such pro-male cultures like China, Russia and many others, than in America which places women's needs and rights far above men's, which we all know about (yet it is taboo in America to complain about this).

So you see, the prohibition of guns in China did NOT take away any of my freedoms. Am I missing something here? Or is the patriot movement in the US totally wrong and delusional? Now, it is true that in China, you are not given the right to criticize the government there. We all know that. However, this is a trivial matter which really doesn't matter. Think about it. Why is being free to criticize your government the most important freedom? In America, people criticize their government all day, and have throughout all of its history. Now they do it on the internet all the time. And popular conspiracy/patriot talk show hosts like Alex Jones, host of Info Wars, criticizes their government all the time and has been for many years, to an audience of approximately 4 million.

Yet what has that accomplished? What has that changed? Has Alex Jones been able to change government policy? Or lead to the arrest of any conspirators in government? NO! NOTHING! All he's done is raised awareness among many Americans about government conspiracies and crimes, which has pissed off many people sure. But he hasn't changed anything. So what's the use? Besides, the corporate media in both China and the US is controlled anyway. So even in the US mainstream media, dissenting opinion is not often heard. The conspiracy and patriot movements complain about this all the time. Therefore, the right to criticize your own government hasn't made any difference in America, and thus it's inconsequential, just like gun control.

In fact, there are freedoms that are far more important and directly affect our lives, such as:

1. Freedom to have the free time to do what you want and love.
2. Freedom to be yourself and to be honest.
3. Freedom from loneliness and social isolation.

These are far MORE important than the freedom to have guns or criticize your government. These freedoms directly affect my life and health and sanity greatly. My happiness and well being depend on these freedoms. Gun control is totally inconsequential compared to these. Fortunately though, there are two solutions to achieving these freedoms:

1. Moving abroad to a country with a much lower cost of living, thus greatly reducing our economic enslavement. Also for a better social life and dating life.
2. Making money through self employment, online websites or other forms of portable income. That way you can be free from the system and live off the grid.

These are very logical and sensible solutions, for all the reasons explained at HappierAbroad.com. Yet the conspiracy/patriot movements and the alternative media, NEVER mention these solutions for some reason. It's as if they have a blind spot to them, and a hive mind in which they all repeat each other's mistakes and lack any solutions. For a freethinker's movement to have a hive mind, is sort of an oxymoron. lol. Yet these solutions make sense and are logical. Already 2 or 3 million Americans live overseas, so solution #1 is very achievable and possible. Now I know that solution #2 is not easy, otherwise everyone would be doing it. Not everyone can do self-employment successfully. But some can and do. So it's a possibility for some people. And thus these solutions should at least be mentioned, even if only occasionally.

But the conspiracy/truther talk shows, podcasts and videos NEVER EVER mention them for some reason. Not even once. You can listen for thousands of hours to their stuff and learn a lot of interesting things, but they will NEVER mention these solutions for some reason. They act like these solutions don't even exist. It's really weird. Even the alternative media such as Russia Today or Info Wars doesn't mention them. You gotta wonder if they are all retarded or something. Not one of them mentions it. I'm the only guy in the conspiracy/truther movement that mentions these solutions, and thus I'm the only one in their camp that HAS solutions. That makes me the most unique and useful person in their movement probably. LOL. So I hope they will talk to me and put me on their talk shows so I can break new ground with them and clear their blindspots. We will see. I will contact them about all this and see how they react and how open these "truth seekers" are to such obvious truths.

So what do you all think? Why is all this craze and fervor about guns and the right to bear them so important to all these patriots and truthers? Why do they irrationally base their notion of freedom on it? Why does this seem like a religion to them? I can't see the logic behind it. And I disagree with them about it. Am I missing something? Am I right and everyone else is wrong? Or vice versa? How can one man be right and everyone else be wrong? What have I got wrong? Or am I the only sensible one and the rest of the truthers are retarded? What do you all think? I'd like some logical rational answers and explanations, not religious or delusional ones please.
With your writing skills and your acting skills, Winston maybe you should become an undercover communist operative. Maybe you can change America into that utopia by brainwashing a few idiots with how dangerous and useless guns are.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27177
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun Control: Why do Americans oppose it religiously?

Post by Winston » August 1st, 2016, 8:01 pm

Great point from ethan_sg about this topic:

"@Winston I think your posting on gun control on the forum is spot on. I fully agree. Another point is: if being in possession of guns made us all safer, then why doesn't air transport authorities allow passengers to bring guns onboard planes? According to the logic of the NRA, we would all be safer with guns right? So shouldn't we be allowed to bring them onboard at least domestic flights in America? Especially if the flight is between 2 states with no gun control? But no one would even consider that because it's obvious to everyone that we would not be safer on planes if everyone who boarded had one. So why would we be in real life? I may not be a liberal but it doesn't mean I will indiscriminately reject everything a liberal supports without using logic to evaluate it. But of course I know there are those in this group who would disagree including zboy1 and ghost, but it's okay, I agree to disagree."
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27177
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun Control: Why do Americans oppose it religiously?

Post by Winston » August 1st, 2016, 10:55 pm

I have some basic questions about guns that I don't understand. Anyone care to enlighten me?

1. Why is it that when you pick up a real gun, it's very heavy in your hand, almost as heavy as a brick? The metal in the gun is very heavy indeed. But in movies and TV shows, people run with guns and move around with them as though they were weightless objects or very light. How can that be? Also, if you carried a handgun, and it was heavy as a brick, wouldn't that make walking around difficult? Wouldn't it make your body lean on the side? So then how do people carry handguns and conceal them as if they were weightless or light objects?

2. How come at shooting ranges for target practice, and in indoor shooting training areas at police academy, and in outdoor shooting practice for the US marines, the person shooting has to wear an ear muff to protect their ears from the loud sounds of the gunfire. But when people are in a gunfight or shootout, they don't need ear muffs. And soldiers on the battlefield don't wear ear muffs either. How come?
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6207
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: Gun Control: Why do Americans oppose it religiously?

Post by Adama » August 1st, 2016, 11:12 pm

Winston wrote:I have some basic questions about guns that I don't understand. Anyone care to enlighten me?

1. Why is it that when you pick up a real gun, it's very heavy in your hand, almost as heavy as a brick? The metal in the gun is very heavy indeed. But in movies and TV shows, people run with guns and move around with them as though they were weightless objects or very light. How can that be? Also, if you carried a handgun, and it was heavy as a brick, wouldn't that make walking around difficult? Wouldn't it make your body lean on the side? So then how do people carry handguns and conceal them as if they were weightless or light objects?

2. How come at shooting ranges for target practice, and in indoor shooting training areas at police academy, and in outdoor shooting practice for the US marines, the person shooting has to wear an ear muff to protect their ears from the loud sounds of the gunfire. But when people are in a gunfight or shootout, they don't need ear muffs. And soldiers on the battlefield don't wear ear muffs either. How come?

:shock:
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.

User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6207
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: Whats wrong with Gun Control? Why do Americans hate it?

Post by Adama » August 1st, 2016, 11:18 pm

Winston wrote:
Adama wrote: Did Stalin bomb the peasants out in the farms in Russia? By what means has mass murder by the hands of government taken place? Has it ever been by bombs or by air assault? As far as I know, mass murder has very commonly taken place by using guns.
No, he starved people to death by engineering a famine remember? Didn't the Nazis allegedly gas millions of Jews during the Holocaust too? Also, Allied air bombing during WW2 killed many German civilians. And the atomic bomb dropped on Japan killed a lot of people too.

Anyway, these are extreme examples. Not typical ones. Anyone can cherry pick the worst examples. I can name many more governments that never did those things.

Btw, some say that AIDS and cancers are created by black ops government too. Supposedly, AIDS was created in a US government bio weapons lab. Have you looked into that?
Winston. Bombing the world will destroy the infrastructure, wouldn't it? Whereas if you pluck everyone out of their homes and round them up in one spot, you can murder them in any way you choose. However, in order to round them up, first they must be disarmed. Then they can be murdered in any way. They will have a harder time rounding everyone up when it has become obvious what they are doing, because the people with guns who know what's going on might fight back. This is why they should be disarmed first.

You don't just go bombing the place to hell unless that is the absolute last resort. And Hitler and Stalin were not the only mass murderer (and there is doubt cast upon whether the holocaust stories are true at all). There's the China genocide by Mao, Cambodian by Pol Pot IIRC, the Armenian genocide by the Turks, and more.

Even in war time the Soviets didn't bomb their Allied war prisoners to death. They used guns. Why wouldn't they just bomb them? Apparently using guns is more efficient somehow. Otherwise they would have just bombed everyone by now. We already know they want to murder everyone by their track record.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27177
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun Control: Why do Americans oppose it religiously?

Post by Winston » August 1st, 2016, 11:21 pm

Another thing. Someone told me that guns are a crucial part of American history. That may be true, but I would argue that they are a NEGATIVE part of American history, not a positive one. Consider the following:

1. Guns were used to massacre American Indians from the 1600's up to the late 1800's. So that settlers could STEAL their lands and force them onto reservations!

2. Guns were used to fight Mexican armies so that American settlers could STEAL states belonging to Mexico, such as Texas, California, and the Southwest states. So basically, guns helped America STEAL land from others.

And in fact, virtually ALL the land that America owns was STOLEN from someone. The east coast lands were stolen from the Indians, the Southwestern States and California were stolen from Mexico, and Hawaii was stolen from the Hawaiian tribes and their queen (which the US Congress admits). Thus the liberal "free Tibet" crowd ought to be campaigning to "free Hawaii" too, otherwise they are hypocrites.

3. Guns were used to kill many innocent animals and wildlife, and hunt the buffalo, which used to roam in the millions, to near extinction.

4. Guns have killed many good and innocent people in American history. Robbers have used them to hold up banks, rob trains and stage coaches, used in highway robberies, etc. And even good politicians and leaders have been killed by guns, such as Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, etc. They also made killing a lot easier during the Civil War, which would probably have had less casualties if it had been fought with swords. Just watch American action films and wild west films, and you will see that Americans LOVE to settle any small dispute or argument by pulling out guns and pointing them at others aggressively. It's crazy, insane, sick and overkill.

5. Guns were used to fight the British during the American war for independence. Now I know that is portrayed as a good thing, but I don't think it is. Here's why. The British Empire was one of the most benevolent empires in history, if not the most benevolent. They certainly did not massacre millions, like the Roman Empire, Mongolian Empire and Russian Empires did. Or like Americans did in the Vietnam war, when they killed 3 million Vietnamese, many of whom were civilians. And the British Empire had more honor, principle and virtue than other Empires. In fact, the 1800's British Empire set the trend for honor, principle, virtue and morality in the Western World, which was what the Victorian Era is noted for.

The British treated the American Indians better and were more likely to honor treaties and pacts with them, than Americans were. In contrast, Americans broke nearly ever single pact and treaty they ever made with the Indians. The British were anti-slavery before the Americans were and stopped using slaves.

The British tend to be too nice. For example, if they wanted to play dirty, they could have hired mercenaries and bounty hunters to kill all the Founding Fathers of America and ended their revolution. But they didn't. They were too much into civilized codes of honor to do that.

Another example: British General William Howe, during the Battle of New York in 1776, could have massacred or captured George Washington and his army on two occasions, using his huge armies of British, Hessian and Scottish troops. But Howe didn't for some reason. Instead he let them cross the river and escape. This happened TWICE!

To give you yet another example: The British could have killed Gandhi to stop his mass resistance movement against British control in India. But they didn't. Instead they just jailed him for a while and let him go. Other empires would have just had him executed. But the British were too nice and humane to do that.

The British are also more refined and have better manners than Americans too, hence they are more civilized, as well as more honorable and sane. They did not shoot officers during the war with the American colonies, whereas American continental soldiers did shoot British officers, which was against European civilized codes of conduct. The British do not hunt animals down to extinction, as the Americans did with the buffalo.

Also, during the railroad constructions of the 1800's, the British treated their railroad workers far better and more humanely and fairly, than the Americans did with the Chinese railroad workers, who were treated like shit as if they were animals, and dealt with inhumanely with no respect.

The British also provides affordable healthcare to all its citizens today, which America does not. Furthermore, Americans would be shocked to know that British cops and policemen traditionally do not carry guns, only batons, contrary to the gun crazed cops in the US. This indicates that Britain was a lot more civilized and peaceful, if it didn't need their cops to carry guns. You definitely can't say that about America.

So you see, in every respect, the British are more sane, benevolent, rational and honorable, than the Americans are. So I'd definitely rather live under British rule than American rule. Therefore, I would argue that the American War of Independence was a negative thing, not a positive one.

Besides, the American government today is FAR FAR more oppressive and have higher taxes than the American colonies ever did under King George, by far. So Americans are worse off today in that regard than the colonies were in the 1700's. So what did the revolutionary war accomplish? All America has today in typical towns are Walmarts and fast food franchises with depressed looking people and no social connection. Is that what American soldiers died for?! Go figure.

So you see, I view American history a bit more negatively, especially concerning guns, than the patriots do. I think the above are good reasons for doing so. What do you think?
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27177
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Whats wrong with Gun Control? Why do Americans hate it?

Post by Winston » August 1st, 2016, 11:36 pm

Adama wrote:
Winston wrote:
Adama wrote: Did Stalin bomb the peasants out in the farms in Russia? By what means has mass murder by the hands of government taken place? Has it ever been by bombs or by air assault? As far as I know, mass murder has very commonly taken place by using guns.
No, he starved people to death by engineering a famine remember? Didn't the Nazis allegedly gas millions of Jews during the Holocaust too? Also, Allied air bombing during WW2 killed many German civilians. And the atomic bomb dropped on Japan killed a lot of people too.

Anyway, these are extreme examples. Not typical ones. Anyone can cherry pick the worst examples. I can name many more governments that never did those things.

Btw, some say that AIDS and cancers are created by black ops government too. Supposedly, AIDS was created in a US government bio weapons lab. Have you looked into that?
Winston. Bombing the world will destroy the infrastructure, wouldn't it? Whereas if you pluck everyone out of their homes and round them up in one spot, you can murder them in any way you choose. However, in order to round them up, first they must be disarmed. Then they can be murdered in any way. They will have a harder time rounding everyone up when it has become obvious what they are doing, because the people with guns who know what's going on might fight back. This is why they should be disarmed first.

You don't just go bombing the place to hell unless that is the absolute last resort. And Hitler and Stalin were not the only mass murderer (and there is doubt cast upon whether the holocaust stories are true at all). There's the China genocide by Mao, Cambodian by Pol Pot IIRC, the Armenian genocide by the Turks, and more.

Even in war time the Soviets didn't bomb their Allied war prisoners to death. They used guns. Why wouldn't they just bomb them? Apparently using guns is more efficient somehow. Otherwise they would have just bombed everyone by now. We already know they want to murder everyone by their track record.
Adama, be realistic here. If the US government ordered the national guard to shoot millions of Americans and massacre them, they would refuse. American troops don't do that. Even in the Vietnam War, many American soldiers refused to comply with the Mai Lai massacres. When it comes to shooting civilians in cold blood, Americans troops have a problem with that. So it's not as easy as you think for the US government to kill millions of people. If they wanted to do that, they'd have to resort to covert methods, like chemical warfare, biological weapons like germs and viruses, or spraying chemtrails, or poisoning people, or through drugs and vaccinations.

You are paranoid and have no common sense. You assume the worst, but in reality, the worst doesn't usually happen most of the time. People who always assume the worst are wrong most of the time and are rarely right. Their predictions almost always fail.

Also, even dictators and tyrants are not the mass murderers that you think. Hitler tried his best to avoid civilian casualties during war. He didn't start bombing London until the British started bombing civilian German cities FIRST. And he let 300,000 British troops escape at Dunkirk when he could have massacred them all. So not even dictators are as bad as you imagine, Adama.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

Moretorque
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 4620
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 3:00 pm
Location: USA,FL

Re: Gun Control: Why do Americans oppose it religiously?

Post by Moretorque » August 2nd, 2016, 12:24 am

Winston please don't be so stupid. Just look at the crime spree the ruling elite have been on world wide since 9/11.

Up to 90% of all deaths in war are civilians and most are unarmed.

Governments with unchecked amassed power have proven to be the biggest killers in history.

The anti federalist insisted on the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights because they knew this.

Don't be such and FN clown............
Time to Hide!

User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6207
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm

Re: Whats wrong with Gun Control? Why do Americans hate it?

Post by Adama » August 2nd, 2016, 12:36 am

Winston wrote:
Adama wrote:
Winston wrote:
Adama wrote: Did Stalin bomb the peasants out in the farms in Russia? By what means has mass murder by the hands of government taken place? Has it ever been by bombs or by air assault? As far as I know, mass murder has very commonly taken place by using guns.
No, he starved people to death by engineering a famine remember? Didn't the Nazis allegedly gas millions of Jews during the Holocaust too? Also, Allied air bombing during WW2 killed many German civilians. And the atomic bomb dropped on Japan killed a lot of people too.

Anyway, these are extreme examples. Not typical ones. Anyone can cherry pick the worst examples. I can name many more governments that never did those things.

Btw, some say that AIDS and cancers are created by black ops government too. Supposedly, AIDS was created in a US government bio weapons lab. Have you looked into that?
Winston. Bombing the world will destroy the infrastructure, wouldn't it? Whereas if you pluck everyone out of their homes and round them up in one spot, you can murder them in any way you choose. However, in order to round them up, first they must be disarmed. Then they can be murdered in any way. They will have a harder time rounding everyone up when it has become obvious what they are doing, because the people with guns who know what's going on might fight back. This is why they should be disarmed first.

You don't just go bombing the place to hell unless that is the absolute last resort. And Hitler and Stalin were not the only mass murderer (and there is doubt cast upon whether the holocaust stories are true at all). There's the China genocide by Mao, Cambodian by Pol Pot IIRC, the Armenian genocide by the Turks, and more.

Even in war time the Soviets didn't bomb their Allied war prisoners to death. They used guns. Why wouldn't they just bomb them? Apparently using guns is more efficient somehow. Otherwise they would have just bombed everyone by now. We already know they want to murder everyone by their track record.
Adama, be realistic here. If the US government ordered the national guard to shoot millions of Americans and massacre them, they would refuse. American troops don't do that. Even in the Vietnam War, many American soldiers refused to comply with the Mai Lai massacres. When it comes to shooting civilians in cold blood, Americans troops have a problem with that. So it's not as easy as you think for the US government to kill millions of people. If they wanted to do that, they'd have to resort to covert methods, like chemical warfare, biological weapons like germs and viruses, or spraying chemtrails, or poisoning people, or through drugs and vaccinations.

You are paranoid and have no common sense. You assume the worst, but in reality, the worst doesn't usually happen most of the time. People who always assume the worst are wrong most of the time and are rarely right. Their predictions almost always fail.

Also, even dictators and tyrants are not the mass murderers that you think. Hitler tried his best to avoid civilian casualties during war. He didn't start bombing London until the British started bombing civilian German cities FIRST. And he let 300,000 British troops escape at Dunkirk when he could have massacred them all. So not even dictators are as bad as you imagine, Adama.
Actually I don't think Hitler mass murdered any civilians in any camps. The only reason why I mentioned him is because you made reference to Nazis. As proof of this, see this clause which I wrote above: "there is doubt cast upon whether the holocaust stories are true at all."

Not all dictators are as bad as I think? Well I still don't think Hitler was a good man because he wanted to eliminate Christmas and replace it with a Nationalist Socialist holiday. He also was an anti Christ in that he allowed the German children to be brainwashed that he is their savior instead of Christ. As far as mass murder though, I don't believe there was any other program besides work programs and exportation to places like Palestine.

But that just proves the point. Those Jews were still rounded up and herded. Were they not? Was it not at the hands of the government? See the very fact that he could round them up for no reason proves that if he had wanted to, he could have.

However, it is certain the Soviets did murder their own people by direct murder using guns, not just starvation, and Russian soldiers were more than willing to murder other Russians.

You think there is some strong barrier between killing one stranger versus another? All they have to do is give the people the appropriate label, probably unpatriotic or subhuman, then it becomes easy.

Psychological studies also prove that most people will do things to harm other people if they are given orders to do so by superiors, even if they normally wouldn't do so on their own.

Winston, I don't know how you are so willfully ignorant of history, but it indicates a very strong bias that you simply refuse to let go of.
A good man is above pettiness. He is better than that.

momopi
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 4824
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 5:44 am
Location: Orange County, California

Re: Gun Control: Why do Americans oppose it religiously?

Post by momopi » August 3rd, 2016, 5:30 pm

Before we get into the firearms debate, let me first say that the current gun control debate, along with many gun makers and gun stores, will be rendered obsolete once 3D milling technology becomes cheap and affordable. By then folks can simply download plans from internet and click to print their own firearms at home:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot1vTf9BcO4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a1SC2vBGM4


Winston wrote: 5. Fifth, I don't see how gun control automatically leads to tyranny. I was in China last year for 6 or 7 months. In China, one cannot buy guns, not even on the black market (as far as I know). Yet I did not see any tyranny there at all. In fact, I felt FREER than in the US. I was free to go wherever I wanted to in China, free to go out and buy whatever I wanted and needed, and free to make friends, talk to strangers and date beautiful girls, without feeling like a creep -- which is a lot more than I can say for the socially isolating lonely USA and its "no talking to strangers unless its for business" social culture. So what freedom did I lack in China that was taken away by China's "no guns allowed" policy? Did I miss something? lol. By the way, the ban on guns in China means that there is no gun violence in China. Isn't that a good thing? Even the criminals there don't manage to get guns in any black markets. Why is that?
Gun law in China: http://www.sd.xinhuanet.com/qdzfw/2006- ... 359961.htm

By authority of each province, sporting clubs, sporting organizations, hunters, herdsman, and wildlife management may obtain sporting or hunting firearms. Certain tribesman are also permitted traditional muzzle-loading rifles. As of 2007 there were approx. 680,000 registered firearms in China. If you have the money, it's possible to obtain sporting club license or membership, or if you're good enough, join an athletic/Olympic sporting organization. China has a pretty strong Olympic shooting team for both men and women.

There is no reliable estimate on the number of illegal firearms in China. Estimates have ranged from few millions to 40 million. Government sponsored gun amnesty where people can turn in illegal firearms under "no questions asked" rule can collect over 100,000 firearms and over 5 million rounds of ammo in few months.


Winston wrote: Many people who commit suicide do so with guns. American movies seem to encourage this too, because they always show men putting a gun to their heads or in their mouths and killing themselves. I don't know why American movies love to show suicides by guns, as though it were a glorious way to go that the media encourages. It's really sick. So if you have a gun and one day feel depressed, you may be tempted to end your life with your own gun. Why make suicide easier to do, especially since its morally wrong in most cases? I think without guns, people would be less inclined to stab themselves with a knife. Knife suicides are less likely to succeed, since people sometimes survive them, so they are less efficient as suicide weapons. The point is, I don't think making suicide easy and quick is a good thing. Thus having a gun is a danger even to its owner, after all one never knows when one could become depressed and feel suicidal. Or a demon could possess you and make you feel like killing yourself or others too. You never know. Why take the risk, especially if it's unnecessary?
If anyone reading this is considering suicide, please stop here and call 1-800-273-TALK (8255).

Knife (or razor blade) suicides have lower rate of success because people don't use the right tools and don't cut correctly. While I do not recommend suicide as a solution to most problems, I do believe that people have a right to die. Ideally we should have assisted and self administered suicide centers where people are given proper counseling against suicide, and when all else fails, they can be given the facilities to die without splattering their brains on the wall.

dreamofarakis wrote: 3. some of the most dangerous countries in the world have bans on guns: Russia, South Africa, Colombia, Venezuela, Guatemala, Mexico. Criminals know other people aren't armed so they go abuse with impunity. When you know anyone might have a gun, you will be less likely to think its a good idea to break into someones house or rob them.
Not familiar with South American gun laws, but here's Russia/SA/MX:

* Russians are allowed to purchase smoothbore (shotgun) and rifles for hunting, target shooting, and self defense.
https://www.rt.com/news/206703-russia-g ... f-defense/

* South Africa allows purchase of firearms for self-protection, hunting, sporting, and private collection. It used to take 2 years to buy a gun there, now the process takes 90 days or less:
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/ ... oW7JPmVOQ4

* Mexico's Constitution has "right to keep arms", per Article 10. Mexican citizens (and legal residents) are allowed to purchase firearms for purpose of home defense, hunting, target shooting, sporting competition, and collection. Handguns are restricted to 380/38/22, rifles no larger than .30 cal, and shotguns in 12/20/410. Penalty for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition can be harsh.

Winston wrote: Momopi,
What is it with you and hunting? Don't you feel guilty about killing unarmed animals? How would you feel if you were a deer or rabbit, and you were doing your thing out in nature, and suddenly a bullet hit you and ended your life painfully? Would you like that? If not, why would they? Animals do feel pain you know, it's well documented by science. And any pet owner will tell you that animals have emotions too.
<snip>
Also, isn't it unfair to hunt animals? Why don't you try to kill them with your bare hands? That would be more of a fair fight. I saw a T shirt once in Oregon that said "Fair is fair. Arm the animals." and then it showed angry animals holding guns and rifles. Great one. I bought that T shirt.
I do not currently hold a valid CA hunting license, and have not hunted for some years. But no, I don't feel guilty about hunting, dressing, cooking, and eating my dinner. Hypothetically, if scientists were to prove that plants have feelings and can feel pain, I don't expect vegetarians to starve themselves out of guilt. Most vegetarians never consider the absence of wildlife on farms with perfectly laid out rows of lettuce. They never see rabbits poisoned by diphacinone.

You can dispatch rabbits and fish by hand quickly, breaking the rabbit's neck or whacking the fish in the head with a stick. However this is not feasible with a 350 lb wild pig. Wild animals will generally not allow you to get close enough to be caught by hand, which is why our ancestors invented hunting weapons.

Image

Winston wrote:I have some basic questions about guns that I don't understand. Anyone care to enlighten me?
1. Why is it that when you pick up a real gun, it's very heavy in your hand, almost as heavy as a brick? The metal in the gun is very heavy indeed. But in movies and TV shows, people run with guns and move around with them as though they were weightless objects or very light. How can that be? Also, if you carried a handgun, and it was heavy as a brick, wouldn't that make walking around difficult? Wouldn't it make your body lean on the side? So then how do people carry handguns and conceal them as if they were weightless or light objects?

2. How come at shooting ranges for target practice, and in indoor shooting training areas at police academy, and in outdoor shooting practice for the US marines, the person shooting has to wear an ear muff to protect their ears from the loud sounds of the gunfire. But when people are in a gunfight or shootout, they don't need ear muffs. And soldiers on the battlefield don't wear ear muffs either. How come?

1. The weight of a handgun depends on the material and ammo (when loaded). A Ruger GP100 357 magnum steel framed 6" barrel revolver weights 45 oz without ammo, versus Ruger LCRX 38 special polymer and aluminum revolver with 2" barrel weights only 13.5 oz without ammo. The weight of the ammo will add up too. Revolvers typically only holds 5-6 rounds, versus semi auto handguns can hold 8-17 rounds (limited to 10 in CA). The advantage of heavier handguns is that the weight will offset the recoil. But for concealed carry purpose people tend to choose smaller/lightweight models.

A standard 8-inch by 2 1/4-inch by 4-inch red clay brick weighs about 5 pounds (80 oz). The S&W 44 magnum revolver carried by Clint Eastwood (Dirty Harry) weights 45 oz.


2. At the shooting range there are many other people shooting in the same confined area, each person is likely to shoot 50-100 rounds or more in a practice session. It's advisable to wear hearing and eye protection because of the prolonged exposure.

The military did not always have luxury of hearing protection in combat, because they can't afford to lose situational awareness. This lead to hearing damage and hearing loss. Recently they have developed "smart earplugs" that are adjustable to only dampen loud noises while permitting normal conversation:
https://www.army.mil/article/122669/Sol ... protection


dreamofarakis wrote: Enjoy the second amendment while we have it in America because it's not going to last much longer.
<snip>
if you win the lottery then you will need a gun. If that happens you will wish you had one. You will be dead after that it wont matter.
1. It's unlikely that the second amendment is going anywhere in our lifetime. To do so require 38 States (3/4) to vote on it.

What is more likely is the Supreme Court issue rulings that affect 2A, while anti-2A states and pro-2A states continue to go in opposite directions in the near future.

2. If you win the lotto, instead of staying in a location where you're known and might be robbed, wouldn't it be better to move somewhere that you can enjoy being anonymous?

User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
Posts: 27177
Joined: August 18th, 2007, 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun Control: Why do Americans oppose it religiously?

Post by Winston » August 4th, 2016, 12:44 pm

But Momopi,
You didn't answer my question. What if YOU were a deer grazing peacefully in the forest, and suddenly a bullet hits you and kills you in a very painful manner? Would YOU like that? Yes or not? If no, then why do you think it's right for hunters to do that to deer? I'd like to see you get out of this one and defend the indefensible.

Even if plants have feelings, they do not feel pain as sharply as animals do. Plus, you don't have to eat plants. You can just pluck carrots or corn off the crops without killing the crops. Or pluck apples off of apple trees without killing the tree.

It is said before the fall of man in the garden of eden, that mankind used to derive his sustenance from sunlight alone. In India, some men claim to have been doing that for years or decade, not needing any food.

So if there are guns in China, then how come you don't hear about gun crimes there or mass shootings? How does China prevent that?

Btw Momopi, a lot of the news from western media are lies and exaggerations. You know that right? Western media has been caught lying many times.

They also claim that there is a shortage of women in China, yet in Chinese cities I've been too, I see more women than men. I don't see any shortage of women at all. So how do you explain that?

Btw, there's a thread directed to you about hunting here:
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=31432
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!

Join my Ukrainian/Russian Women Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Government, Politics, Law”