3 Pittsburgh Police Officers Murdered

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Far more crime is committed with computers than firearms. What right does anyone have to an internet connection? And obviously only the government needs compilers.

Perhaps, if you can explain why you should have the right to own something that has the primary purpose of killing people?

The purpose of firearms is to accelerate projectiles. The far, far, far majority in the US are not used for killing. Are they being misused? (Perhaps that's a good reason to confiscate them from anyone outside of the government.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Perhaps, if you can explain why you should have the right to own something that has the primary purpose of killing people?
Don't say because it's in the constitution, had I made that constitution, it might not be in there.

Can you explain why you feel that safety is more important then someone else's freedom?

[Husar]

Can you explain why you feel that safety is more important then someone else's freedom?

Yes, because if i die for my freedom I don't exactly have much from that freedom, except if i believe that only death will make me truly free but in that case I can just kill myself right away instead of fighting for my freedom. What good is freedom when you're dead?
Despite that please tell me why firearms are necessary to be free? And just because it's so much fun, do you feel any less free as long as you're not allowed to have nuclear warheads?

Come on, their main purpose is to create a chain reaction of nuclear fission and release energy, everyone needs energy to be truly free!

Next up someone tells me an AK-47 is a hunting rifle.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes, because if i die for my freedom I don't exactly have much from that freedom, except if i believe that only death will make me truly free but in that case I can just kill myself right away instead of fighting for my freedom. What good is freedom when you're dead?
Despite that please tell me why firearms are necessary to be free? And just because it's so much fun, do you feel any less free as long as you're not allowed to have nuclear warheads?

Come on, their main purpose is to create a chain reaction of nuclear fission and release energy, everyone needs energy to be truly free!

Next up someone tells me an AK-47 is a hunting rifle.

If you die for your freedom then you are living with a purpose. What good is life without freedom? The idea of "safe" is a pipe dream in the first place. You will never, ever, be safe. There is always at any moment in your life a chance of dieing. So why would you reduce the quality of your life just for a preconceived notion that somehow it will make you safe when you will never be safe anyway?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yes, because if i die for my freedom I don't exactly have much from that freedom, except if i believe that only death will make me truly free but in that case I can just kill myself right away instead of fighting for my freedom. What good is freedom when you're dead?
Despite that please tell me why firearms are necessary to be free? And just because it's so much fun, do you feel any less free as long as you're not allowed to have nuclear warheads?

Come on, their main purpose is to create a chain reaction of nuclear fission and release energy, everyone needs energy to be truly free!

Next up someone tells me an AK-47 is a hunting rifle.

The freedom to own an automobile works the same way. Heck, you're far more likely to die in an auto accident than be shot with an AK-47. We accept the thousands of deaths in auto accidents for... a little convenience. Certainly a far smaller price should be payed for a far greater value - liberty.

[Ironside]

If you die for your freedom then you are living with a purpose. What good is life without freedom? The idea of "safe" is a pipe dream in the first place. You will never, ever, be safe. There is always at any moment in your life a chance of dieing. So why would you reduce the quality of your life just for a preconceived notion that somehow it will make you safe when you will never be safe anyway?

You mean by carrying around a consealed firearm all the time?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

To increase the quality of life would be to never bother about the issue in the first place.

[Husar]

If you die for your freedom then you are living with a purpose. What good is life without freedom?

Except I'm not living anymore after I died for my freedom.
How can I live with a purpose after I died for my freedom?
Despite that I thought I live to work for a company and make someone else rich, complete freedom is a pipe dream as well, if it's not I challenge you to spread your wings and come over flying to prove it.

The idea of "safe" is a pipe dream in the first place. You will never, ever, be safe. There is always at any moment in your life a chance of dieing. So why would you reduce the quality of your life just for a preconceived notion that somehow it will make you safe when you will never be safe anyway?

And how does perceived "freedom" improve the quality of your life? There is no absolute freedom either, this is all about degrees.
And I certainly don't feel any less free here just because we cannot own guns, in fact, when no guns are involved one can feel more relaxed and thus even freer because there are less objects of physical violence around. I can ring the neighbor's doorbell to ask for some salt without having to fear that I might look down a barrel or something like that, certainly for me that means I have more freedom while in the US those NIMBY guys might shoot me just for accidentally touching their property.

I still don't see how owning guns is essential for being free.

The freedom to own an automobile works the same way. Heck, you're far more likely to die in an auto accident than be shot with an AK-47. We accept the thousands of deaths in auto accidents for... a little convenience. Certainly a far smaller price should be payed for a far greater value - liberty.

I don't like automobiles a lot and enjoy the freedom of taking the train or subway, that argument falls on infertile ground in my ears. As a free human I also have feet to move around, cars are also not really a symbol of freedom as people become dependant on them for their jobs etc. That's like saying a heroin addict has a free mind.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Except I'm not living anymore after I died for my freedom.
How can I live with a purpose after I died for my freedom?
Despite that I thought I live to work for a company and make someone else rich, complete freedom is a pipe dream as well, if it's not I challenge you to spread your wings and come over flying to prove it.

You're not living in the first place if you're not free.

And how does perceived "freedom" improve the quality of your life? There is no absolute freedom either, this is all about degrees.
And I certainly don't feel any less free here just because we cannot own guns, in fact, when no guns are involved one can feel more relaxed and thus even freer because there are less objects of physical violence around. I can ring the neighbor's doorbell to ask for some salt without having to fear that I might look down a barrel or something like that, certainly for me that means I have more freedom while in the US those NIMBY guys might shoot me just for accidentally touching their property.

I still don't see how owning guns is essential for being free.

I know some guys who go around with guns on their hips at their apartment most of the time. But I don't feel the slightest hesitation to knock on their door and ask to burrow a pan of some sort. It's pretty obvious you're just making this up.

As for being essential to being free-
Guns are a tool that provide a person with greater force. This means that such an empowered person can't be forced around by an armed government like an unarmed person can be. Why do you think so many authoritarian governments banned guns?

I don't like automobiles a lot and enjoy the freedom of taking the train or subway, that argument falls on infertile ground in my ears. As a free human I also have feet to move around, cars are also not really a symbol of freedom as people become dependant on them for their jobs etc. That's like saying a heroin addict has a free mind.

That, sir, is quite a stretch. "Freedom" of using a form of transportation that had its own schedule and doesn't wait for you? People become dependent on cars but not, say, subways? It must be because all the European countries are so small (relatively).

CR

[rory_20_uk]

You're not living in the first place if you're not free.
As for being essential to being free
Guns are a tool that provide a person with greater force. This means that such an empowered person can't be forced around by an armed government like an unarmed person can be. Why do you think so many authoritarian governments banned guns?

You're not free. There are constraints on everything you do. Many are so ingrained you're not even aware of them any more.

Odd the number of people in America who are shot as "they had a gun" (or phone / sandwich - depending on skin colour). I never hear that groups of armed men have any more latitude with the law than anyone else. There is no evidence that guns help curtail the state.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There is no evidence that guns help curtail the state.

So the American Revolution would have still worked if they threw rocks instead?

[Husar]

You're not living in the first place if you're not free.

So basically if you own a dog, then that dog is not a living being?
What you say there sounds just like some overblown heroic propaganda to me and has absolutely no relation to reality.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So basically if you own a dog, then that dog is not a living being?
What you say there sounds just like some overblown heroic propaganda to me and has absolutely no relation to reality.

What does a dog have to do with anything? We are talking about humans and the rights they have. Inherent human rights because only humans have such a high level of intelligence to be able to think and reason.

Freedom isn't a pipe dream. You can have total freedom up till the point where you interfering with another person's freedom. At that point it is called tyranny not freedom.

[Husar]

Freedom isn't a pipe dream. You can have total freedom up till the point where you interfering with another person's freedom. At that point it is called tyranny not freedom.

And what would guns have to do with it?
Total freedom would include being allowed to have nukes, so that's what you want?
And why do you want to deny that freedom to iranians if not being free means not being alive?
You're basically calling for genociding the entire iranian population, surely that is also tyranny if I go by your and CR's statements.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And what would guns have to do with it?
Total freedom would include being allowed to have nukes, so that's what you want?
And why do you want to deny that freedom to iranians if not being free means not being alive?
You're basically calling for genociding the entire iranian population, surely that is also tyranny if I go by your and CR's statements.

Just like CR said, you are making stuff up and putting words in my and CR's mouth. When have I mentioned not letting Iran have nukes? When have I even talked about Iran? Never. Thanks for saying I want genocide, you obviously are running out of arguments and now you are just trying to portray me as some promoter of violence.

Guns provide the freedom of having your government respect you and leaving you alone. This has been said a thousand times already, if there is no guns among the citizens, there really is nothing to stop the government from doing whatever they want.

[Veho Nex]

This sounds a lot like the recent shooting here in the bay area. A man shot and killed 2 motor cycle cops then 2 more cops as they were going to arrest him. When they finally up and killed the guy, there was major outrage in the community for police brutality.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/oa...olice-shooting
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/oa...ng/ci_12018993

The news reports claim it to be the most officers killed in the line of duty since 9/11 Though I do not know how true that is.

[Husar]

Just like CR said, you are making stuff up and putting words in my and CR's mouth. When have I mentioned not letting Iran have nukes? When have I even talked about Iran? Never. Thanks for saying I want genocide, you obviously are running out of arguments and now you are just trying to portray me as some promoter of violence.

Well, you're right about the Iran argument but you probably missed the uhm, sarcasm.
The Iran argument I drew from the fact that at least Cr and probably you are american and you Americans in general seem to have a problem with Iran having nukes. couple that with the fact that when your president bows to a king it means all of america bows so when your predsident is against iranian nukes I can assume so are you....
Well, and then CR said if you are not free you do not live, you defended that argument so I guess you agree with it. I combined it all to make some really outrageous argument and put in the word genocide just to be sure you would respond to it.
I still haven't seen any substantial proof that slaves were undead or anything like that so my point stands that CR's argument that when you are not free you do not live is just propaganda and rhetoric.
And I also maintain that there is not just black and white when it comes to freedom but there are shades of grey, there are quite a few countries where not everyone is allowed to have guns and we are neither undead zombies nor slaves of our governments and certainly not both.

Guns provide the freedom of having your government respect you and leaving you alone. This has been said a thousand times already, if there is no guns among the citizens, there really is nothing to stop the government from doing whatever they want.

It has also been said a thousand times already that your guns won't stop the government's tanks from doing whatever they want, neither will they stop your government's nukes or bombers etc.
there are also enough countries without gun toting populations where the government respects it's citizens, just like there are countries where the government suppresses all the guys with guns or even worse, countries where all the guys with guns constantly fight over who is the government.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, you're right about the Iran argument but you probably missed the uhm, sarcasm.
The Iran argument I drew from the fact that at least Cr and probably you are american and you Americans in general seem to have a problem with Iran having nukes. couple that with the fact that when your president bows to a king it means all of america bows so when your predsident is against iranian nukes I can assume so are you....
Well, and then CR said if you are not free you do not live, you defended that argument so I guess you agree with it. I combined it all to make some really outrageous argument and put in the word genocide just to be sure you would respond to it.
I still haven't seen any substantial proof that slaves were undead or anything like that so my point stands that CR's argument that when you are not free you do not live is just propaganda and rhetoric.
And I also maintain that there is not just black and white when it comes to freedom but there are shades of grey, there are quite a few countries where not everyone is allowed to have guns and we are neither undead zombies nor slaves of our governments and certainly not both.



It has also been said a thousand times already that your guns won't stop the government's tanks from doing whatever they want, neither will they stop your government's nukes or bombers etc.
there are also enough countries without gun toting populations where the government respects it's citizens, just like there are countries where the government suppresses all the guys with guns or even worse, countries where all the guys with guns constantly fight over who is the government.

I think you might be taking the "Without freedom you are not really living." a bit too literally.

Also, for your second paragraph I would like some examples please.

[Tribesman]

Guns provide the freedom of having your government respect you and leaving you alone. This has been said a thousand times already, if there is no guns among the citizens, there really is nothing to stop the government from doing whatever they want.

Bollox , guns don't stop the government from doing anything , and if you think your government repects you in any way beyond some empty lip service around election time then you must be dreaming .

[Crazed Rabbit]

So basically if you own a dog, then that dog is not a living being?
What you say there sounds just like some overblown heroic propaganda to me and has absolutely no relation to reality.

Heroic? Nothing to do with that. And -surprise!- maybe you shouldn't interpret "living" quite so literally.

The way I see it, if you're not free, it's because other people are forcing you to do something against your will. You are not able to choose freely what to do with your life; instead the course of it is decided by others. You're not living because you're not making the choices that affect your life.

It has also been said a thousand times already that your guns won't stop the government's tanks from doing whatever they want, neither will they stop your government's nukes or bombers etc.

-> ->

Well DUH, but maybe the people fighting the government wouldn't run directly at the tanks, screaming all the while. Maybe they'd skip fighting the soldiers and military altogether and just go after government officials.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Bollox , guns don't stop the government from doing anything , and if you think your government repects you in any way beyond some empty lip service around election time then you must be dreaming .

I fear that the argument from Americans that gun ownership underpins their right of refusal against government is but a romantic fiction. One indeed, that their governments allow to ensure docility.

Firstly, I can't see the correlation.

The United States citizenry is armed to the teeth, and that country has developed some of the most intrusive, controlling, rights-denying government of recent times and each election, this trend gets worse. I see lots of bellyaching, but little defence of rights on the streets. Heck, they are not even allowed to have unions that aren't controlled by vested interests. (Note: the government doesn't allow, yet somehow that's fine).

On the other hand, Afghanistan is also armed to the teeth and they have their tiny rump of a government absolutely terrified. So terrified in fact, that they invite foreign powers with enormous guns into their country to impose the government will onto the people.

Finally on the spectrum, we have the Somalians who are armed to the teeth and have successfully dispensed with government. Somalia must therefore be a US conservative's wet dream?

Secondly, The United States likes to see itself as a revolutionary country with a restless citizenry resentful of government. But history shows that they are in fact, British. One revolution, which, barely had the dust settled, was consigned to romance and the old order restored under a slightly different set of grace and favour. Jefferson and Cromwell safely retired to resentful oblivion while the vested interests got back to business. The fiction that gun ownership frightens the government is not remotely borne out by a supine citizenry who don't protest corrupt policemen, interfering courts, massive and generational indebtedness, foreign adventures, warrantless wire-taps, and endless political pork and corruption, to name just a few. Where are the citizens on the streets? Opposition to the government seems to comprise less of armed rebellion and more of switching on a radio and listening to a fat man shout.

Only the French understand revolution. They understood that first you have to behead the aristocracy, literally, not figuratively. Having made that statement, the citizens have to go on frightening their government, not with guns, but by being ungovernable.

Liberty is a revolution that happens every day, in every citizen's mind, the moment they sip their coffee.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Finally on the spectrum, we have the Somalians who are armed to the teeth and have successfully dispensed with government. Somalia must therefore be a US conservative's wet dream?

I believe that's false on both counts - I'd like to see some numbers on personal firearm ownership in Somalia, and I would like to point out that between the warlords, clan system, and Islamic courts, Somalia has plenty of government. It's simply not a centralized state.

I fear that the argument from Americans that gun ownership underpins their right of refusal against government is but a romantic fiction. One indeed, that their governments allow to ensure docility.

Probably. I'd like to cling to my fiction as other nations cling to theirs.

[Tribesman]

I'd like to see some numbers on personal firearm ownership in Somalia

For that you would need a government and some sort of firearms regulation in Somalia so they can compile figures .
But as they don't exist you will just have to go with John R. Boltons description of Mogadishu as probably the most heavily armed city in the world .

Good post Banquo , revolutions just replace on bunch of idiots that won't respect the people with another bunch of idiots who are just the same .
BTW are you doing any of the revolution celebrations tomorrow ?
I will take the kids down to the statue of that English fella in town to watch all the clowns have their little slot one after another in the "we are the revolutionaries" pantomime . With any luck the SF RSF and 32SC muppets might end up having a fight .

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

For that you would need a government and some sort of firearms regulation in Somalia so they can compile figures .
But as they don't exist you will just have to go with John R. Boltons description of Mogadishu as probably the most heavily armed city in the world .

And if the firearms are owned and controlled by the warlords/clan leaders/courts and not individuals...

But as you say there is no government there (), we can't actually know what's going on in Somalia.

[Tribesman]

But as you say there is no government there (), we can't actually know what's going on in Somalia.

Which is why your statement was so silly .
Though of course you can get some information like from the Ethiopian Ugandan AU and UN presence . That John Bolton fella had something to do with the UN didn't he

[KukriKhan]

I fear that the argument from Americans that gun ownership underpins their right of refusal against government is but a romantic fiction. One indeed, that their governments allow to ensure docility.

I hope you're wrong about that. But I admit, the more I look about for support, or like-minded opposition to my government, the more eyes I see glazed over. So I wonder: when the day comes, will I be alone?

Castro's "successful" revolution seems to have entailed constantly reminding his subjects that America was their enemy, out to get them at every turn; never stop keeping a watchful eye on the evil Yanqui.

To revive our revolution, maybe we should blame everything bad on King George and his successors.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I hope you're wrong about that. But I admit, the more I look about for support, or like-minded opposition to my government, the more eyes I see glazed over. So I wonder: when the day comes, will I be alone?

I wish I was wrong as well, but look at the development of this topic. Lots of US posters angry at blatant misuses of power by gestapo-like policemen, but not even a mention of citizens out on the streets protesting, let alone armed insurrection.

And the efficacy argument seems to be doomed by history as well. The only time I can see where citizens of the United States collectively took up arms against the interference of a government they felt had overstepped its powers, they got stamped into the ground by that government. It took a few years, but they comprehensively lost.

The wonderful thing about the US is of course that which was noted some posts before. Incredible changes in the fabric of society have been effected, but via peaceful marches, protests, and the ballot box. The only guns brought to those parties were carried by the government, and proved ineffective against the will of people prepared to die for their beliefs.

[Husar]

There, Banquo explained it all, better than I ever could I might add.

[Husar]

And the efficacy argument seems to be doomed by history as well. The only time I can see where citizens of the United States collectively took up arms against the interference of a government they felt had overstepped its powers, they got stamped into the ground by that government. It took a few years, but they comprehensively lost.

Does that count? Was it individual gun ownership?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I fear that the argument from Americans that gun ownership underpins their right of refusal against government is but a romantic fiction. One indeed, that their governments allow to ensure docility.

Firstly, I can't see the correlation.

The United States citizenry is armed to the teeth, and that country has developed some of the most intrusive, controlling, rights-denying government of recent times and each election, this trend gets worse. I see lots of bellyaching, but little defence of rights on the streets. Heck, they are not even allowed to have unions that aren't controlled by vested interests. (Note: the government doesn't allow, yet somehow that's fine).

On the other hand, Afghanistan is also armed to the teeth and they have their tiny rump of a government absolutely terrified. So terrified in fact, that they invite foreign powers with enormous guns into their country to impose the government will onto the people.

Finally on the spectrum, we have the Somalians who are armed to the teeth and have successfully dispensed with government. Somalia must therefore be a US conservative's wet dream?

Secondly, The United States likes to see itself as a revolutionary country with a restless citizenry resentful of government. But history shows that they are in fact, British. One revolution, which, barely had the dust settled, was consigned to romance and the old order restored under a slightly different set of grace and favour. Jefferson and Cromwell safely retired to resentful oblivion while the vested interests got back to business. The fiction that gun ownership frightens the government is not remotely borne out by a supine citizenry who don't protest corrupt policemen, interfering courts, massive and generational indebtedness, foreign adventures, warrantless wire-taps, and endless political pork and corruption, to name just a few. Where are the citizens on the streets? Opposition to the government seems to comprise less of armed rebellion and more of switching on a radio and listening to a fat man shout.

Only the French understand revolution. They understood that first you have to behead the aristocracy, literally, not figuratively. Having made that statement, the citizens have to go on frightening their government, not with guns, but by being ungovernable.

Liberty is a revolution that happens every day, in every citizen's mind, the moment they sip their coffee.

I wish I was wrong as well, but look at the development of this topic. Lots of US posters angry at blatant misuses of power by gestapo-like policemen, but not even a mention of citizens out on the streets protesting, let alone armed insurrection.

And the efficacy argument seems to be doomed by history as well. The only time I can see where citizens of the United States collectively took up arms against the interference of a government they felt had overstepped its powers, they got stamped into the ground by that government. It took a few years, but they comprehensively lost.

The wonderful thing about the US is of course that which was noted some posts before. Incredible changes in the fabric of society have been effected, but via peaceful marches, protests, and the ballot box. The only guns brought to those parties were carried by the government, and proved ineffective against the will of people prepared to die for their beliefs.

These posts made me sad, because I know they're true....
Except for the French, I don't believe to have a revolution you need the mindless killing of aristocracy. I would just like to point out, that if the French did it right and the US did it wrong, how did we end up with a successful Republic and the French got Napoleon?

Also, guns are not the cure all and end all to resisting government, but they sure as hell make things a lot easier. And I think that an ungovernable mod with guns will have fewer casualties against the gov. troops then just an ungovernable mob.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Well, Citizens don't need to be armed with Assault Rifles. They are to be used by Miltiary/SWAT/Policemen. When you start giving normal people Assault Rifles, you asking for touble.


But people still can't give me a logical reason why you need an Assault Rifle.