Michael Moore is a Moron.

[Ramp1311]

OK, fair enough.

We're not in America, now, we're in an unnamed European country, whose laws are fluid at best.

You own a gun.

Government man knocks on your door and says it's his now.

What do you do?

I will assume you would give it to him.

Ok, I would do what my grandfather and father did in Germany...... since I am alive, you can fill in the blanks....

The law would have already had to be passed, and I would be aware of it. Since I would be aware of it, I would not be there to be asked to give up my gun. So, I would not give up my gun.

I will not live in a society that is willing to give up their freedoms. I will not live in a society that allows a government to much power. It is dangerous.

 

[CHNOPS]

I will assume you would give it to him.

Ok, I would do what my grandfather and father did in Germany...... since I am alive, you can fill in the blanks....

The law would have already had to be passed, and I would be aware of it. Since I would be aware of it, I would not be there to be asked to give up my gun. So, I would not give up my gun.

I will not live in a society that is willing to give up their freedoms. I will not live in a society that allows a government to much power. It is dangerous.

So a person or government asking you to give up your guns is a threat, is that right?

 

[Ramp1311]

So a person or government asking you to give up your guns is a threat, is that right?

LOL.... I think you know that answer... no government breaks a law without intending to harm the population.

Look, you can play word games, and "what if" all night. However when it comes down to it, if your family and your life is threatened, you would leave. I know I would already be gone.

I know if it was coming down to it, where I would go, how I would get there, how I would support my family, etc......

 

[Ramp1311]

So you do NOT think that the government breaking a law is a threat?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Did it stand? No.....

You don't even know how the Constitution works do you?

And yes they did stand.

Here's one in California on the .50 cal. I was rather pissed, I was gonna buy one. Fortunately I can trot over to Arizona when I get around to really caring.

While not a full ban the amount of hoops set for you get a fully automatic weapon is sufficiently absurd that people simply can't get their hands on them.

Shall I start listing other military gear you can't own even though there are things that we don't even let the government own?

 

[CHNOPS]

LOL.... I think you know that answer... no government breaks a law without intending to harm the population.

OK, fine. Now follow me.

I asked how a government could ever take someone's gun, when the whole point of guns is to keep governments away. You said...

Because at that point the government is not a threat, and people will talk/believe like many of you who favor gun control.....

Now you are saying that a government that wants to take your guns is always a threat.

Which is it?

 

[Ramp1311]

OK, fine. Now follow me.

I asked how a government could ever take someone's gun, when the whole point of guns is to keep governments away. You said...


Now you are saying that a government that wants to take your guns is always a threat.

Which is it?

Like you said, "how a government could ever take someone's gun" and I answered how most of the populations in the world are disarmed. I did not say it was the way they would take my gun (if I owned one, and surprise, I do not)

You have not answered my question. If a government breaks their own laws, are they a threat? If you answer honestly, you have my answer......

 

[CHNOPS]

Like you said, "how a government could ever take someone's gun" and I answered how most of the populations in the world are disarmed. I did not say it was the way they would take my gun (if I owned one, and surprise, I do not)

You have not answered my question. If a government breaks their own laws, are they a threat? If you answer honestly, you have my answer......

I'm not sure I know which you're saying it is. Can you tell me directly?

Is a government that wants your guns a threat or not?

 

[Ramp1311]

You are asking two different questions by the way. One is how the population can be disarmed, two is how would I be disarmed. That is two different answers.

 

[CHNOPS]

You are asking two different questions by the way. One is how the population can be disarmed, two is how would I be disarmed. That is two different answers.

Follow me.

You said that if the population (not you) had been armed, the holocaust would have gone differently.

You said arms help people (not you) resist the government.

I asked why they didn't help people keep the government from taking their guns.

You said it was because when the government was taking their guns, they weren't a threat.

Now you are saying that when a government takes people's guns, they are a threat.

So, faced with this threat, why didn't people's (not your) guns help them stop the government from taking their guns?

 

[Ramp1311]

I'm not sure I know which you're saying it is. Can you tell me directly?

Is a government that wants your guns a threat or not?

According to history, a government can be a threat at anytime without an armed population (and that is from our founding fathers, most likely smarter than either of us).

According to what has happened to unarmed populations, you tell me, is a government that wants your guns a threat? If not, they why do they want the guns? It sure is not to make us safer, as criminals find other weapons to use, and are harder to stop.

 

[Sean Renaud]

According to history, a government can be a threat at anytime without an armed population (and that is from our founding fathers, most likely smarter than either of us).

According to what has happened to unarmed populations, you tell me, is a government that wants your guns a threat? If not, they why do they want the guns? It sure is not to make us safer, as criminals find other weapons to use, and are harder to stop.

It does make us safer however and criminals with other weapons are generally less dangerous. It's true they are harder to stop but they aren't impossible to stop by any means.

 

[Ramp1311]

Follow me.

You said that if the population (not you) had been armed, the holocaust would have gone differently.

You said arms help people (not you) resist the government.

I asked why they didn't help people keep the government from taking their guns.

You said it was because when the government was taking their guns, they weren't a threat.

Now you are saying that when a government takes people's guns, they are a threat.

So, faced with this threat, why didn't people's (not your) guns help them stop the government from taking their guns?

The NAZI's in other countries would have had to fight to take the Jews, thus making it harder or slowing them down.

You might have noticed that most of the unarmed countries that have unrest tend to have many casualties, the ones that are armed tend to end it far more peacefully.

Again, the people that the government was taking the guns from do not feel threatened (they should have.)

Actually many did resist turning in their guns. You do not see or hear from them.

 

[CHNOPS]

The NAZI's in other countries would have had to fight to take the Jews, thus making it harder or slowing them down.

You might have noticed that most of the unarmed countries that have unrest tend to have many casualties, the ones that are armed tend to end it far more peacefully.

Again, the people that the government was taking the guns from do not feel threatened (they should have.)

Actually many did resist turning in their guns. You do not see or hear from them.

So your position is that the people who died were the ones who were too stupid to see the government as a threat?

 

[Sean Renaud]

The NAZI's in other countries would have had to fight to take the Jews, thus making it harder or slowing them down.

You might have noticed that most of the unarmed countries that have unrest tend to have many casualties, the ones that are armed tend to end it far more peacefully.

Again, the people that the government was taking the guns from do not feel threatened (they should have.)

Actually many did resist turning in their guns. You do not see or hear from them.

Think perhaps there is a reason for that?

 

[Ramp1311]

It does make us safer however and criminals with other weapons are generally less dangerous. It's true they are harder to stop but they aren't impossible to stop by any means.

To a certain extent they can not be stopped, since they catch their victims unaware.

However without guns, at Sandy Hooks the death toll would have been larger. The shooter would know that nobody could stop him from shooting out the doors, and killing more children and teachers. Since he knew that there was a possiblity that he would be shot and stopped, he committed suicide.

 

[Ramp1311]

Think perhaps there is a reason for that?

Yes, the government is afraid of an armed population stopping them from imposing their will. That is the reason why you need an armed population. If the government is found to be trying to disarm everybody, there is no way they can get all the arms.

That is the very reason why our founding fathers thought it was so important to include that right.

 

[Ramp1311]

Good conversation about gun control, however history is on my side.

Have a good night my friend.......

 

[Sean Renaud]

To a certain extent they can not be stopped, since they catch their victims unaware.

However without guns, at Sandy Hooks the death toll would have been larger. The shooter would know that nobody could stop him from shooting out the doors, and killing more children and teachers. Since he knew that there was a possiblity that he would be shot and stopped, he committed suicide.

Without guns Sandy Hook would have ended the way it did in China. Twenty two wounded. Zero fatalities. Why didn't the crazy man in China use a gun? It's not an option.

Why do we have more school shootings in an average decade than most countries have had in the last century? I know, you're like many Americans believe we are uniquely evil.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Good conversation about gun control, however history is on my side.

Have a good night my friend.......

You too. Though both history and current events shit on your side.

 

[Ramp1311]

Without guns Sandy Hook would have ended the way it did in China. Twenty two wounded. Zero fatalities. Why didn't the crazy man in China use a gun? It's not an option.

Why do we have more school shootings in an average decade than most countries have had in the last century? I know, you're like many Americans believe we are uniquely evil.

One example, how many shootings have been prevent in the US or elsewhere because the population is armed?

How many reports come from China about death tolls in industrial accidents?
How many reports come from China about poisons killing their population?
How many reports of deaths in the school systems from other means?

No data on those........

Understandable, since a oppressive government controls the data being reported....

 

[Ramp1311]

You too. Though both history and current events shit on your side.

Yeah, Russia, Germany, China, Cambodia, Myanmar, Iran, Iraq, etc, are or were such garden spots......

 

[Sean Renaud]

One example, how many shootings have been prevent in the US or elsewhere because the population is armed?

How many reports come from China about death tolls in industrial accidents?
How many reports come from China about poisons killing their population?
How many reports of deaths in the school systems from other means?

No data on those........

Understandable, since a oppressive government controls the data being reported....

Probably very few, but lets say some shootings have been prevented. How many people wouldn't get shot if the guns were more difficult to get to? Of course it's impossible to know for sure.

Not that I really think China is supressing that particular bit of info, and if your argument is only in America does the press tell something that resembles the truth then fine. Otherwise we can use Canada, Australia, Japan, England, France, Italy. Hell the only places that really defy the rules are Mexico and Switzerland. Mexico because we have lax as shit gun laws and they just hop across the border (which contrary to your point has resulted in gangs that the military can't effectively fight. And Switzerland where the entire country is part of the military.

 

[Ramp1311]

Do you mean to leave this out?

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2010/08/four-killed-in-attack-on-kindergarteners-in-china/

 

[Ramp1311]

Probably very few, but lets say some shootings have been prevented. How many people wouldn't get shot if the guns were more difficult to get to? Of course it's impossible to know for sure.

Not that I really think China is supressing that particular bit of info, and if your argument is only in America does the press tell something that resembles the truth then fine. Otherwise we can use Canada, Australia, Japan, England, France, Italy. Hell the only places that really defy the rules are Mexico and Switzerland. Mexico because we have lax as shit gun laws and they just hop across the border (which contrary to your point has resulted in gangs that the military can't effectively fight. And Switzerland where the entire country is part of the military.

You miss the point. At anytime those governments can supress their popualtions without any problem. Like I have said before, our founding fathers having lived through such a time, thought it important to have the 2nd amendment.