The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (2 Viewers)

[Slidey]

You're the moron who can't even read the sentence directly following that. Where did you learn to read? Or are you just that damn ignorant? I suspect it is the latter.

As touched on by David Spade, if your farming methods rely on the acquisition of guns for their success, you deserve the failure that's coming to you.

 

[0bs3n3]

As touched on by David Spade, if your farming methods rely on the acquisition of guns for their success, you deserve the failure that's coming to you.

He said they were ineffective. What do you propose in their place?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

He said they were ineffective. What do you propose in their place?

Trapping, fumigation, baiting and prevention are the main methods used - obviously with fumigation being more suitable for things like grain stores.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Whether they are needed on farms is irrelevant. If in some cases they are, gun control advocates can just argue that special licenses should exist so that only farmers (less than 1% of the population) can own guns.

This is about our right to protect ourselves from other human beings who do have guns, in particular, our own governments who like to have a dangerous monopoly over the supply of weapons.

 

[philphie]

forget the guns man how about the LAAAZZZEEERRRRSS!!!!!!!!!

 

[loquasagacious]

Haha yeah nice quote mining bud.



Thanks for playing.

Ghandi's quote still touches on the issues which jennyfromdabloc is raising. By refusing to allow/conscript Indians into the army the British maintained a racial monopoly on the access to guns, gun laws in Australia serve a similar purpose of maintaining a monopoly on access to guns.

To take this argument to it's logical conclusion the British deprived the Indians of guns to avoid the possibility of rebellion. Jennyfromdabloc and others conclude that our Government is doing the same thing.

Thanks for playing

 

[SnowFox]

Ghandi's quote still touches on the issues which jennyfromdabloc is raising. By refusing to allow/conscript Indians into the army the British maintained a racial monopoly on the access to guns, gun laws in Australia serve a similar purpose of maintaining a monopoly on access to guns.

To take this argument to it's logical conclusion the British deprived the Indians of guns to avoid the possibility of rebellion. Jennyfromdabloc and others conclude that our Government is doing the same thing.

Thanks for playing

Some of the shit this government and Abbot wants is enough to warrant a bloody rebellion.

Internet censorship and forced bible classes.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Some of the shit this government and Abbot wants is enough to warrant a bloody rebellion.

Internet censorship and forced bible classes.

Exactly. Rights can be stripped from us so easily.

History shows us that millions of disarmed people are routinely rounded up, enslaved and slaughtered by those who have a monopoly over the control of guns.-

 

[loquasagacious]

Some of the shit this government and Abbot wants is enough to warrant a bloody rebellion.

Internet censorship and forced bible classes.

Not especially helpful to conflate the two.

 

[Planck]

Which is why I don't get in MW2 why the Russians would invade America.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Everyone being armed is a major deterrent against external threats as well. A well armed and well trained populace has so many knock-on advantages it's foolhardy to use the argument "IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE NOT TO HAVE GUNS".

If your main argument is that, what do you honestly think you would require to change your mind on this issue?

 

[Slidey]

Which is why I don't get in MW2 why the Russians would invade America.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Everyone being armed is a major deterrent against external threats as well. A well armed and well trained populace has so many knock-on advantages it's foolhardy to use the argument "IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE NOT TO HAVE GUNS".

If your main argument is that, what do you honestly think you would require to change your mind on this issue?

This is probably the most salient point in defence of gun ownership in this entire thread.

 

[SnowFox]

Which is why I don't get in MW2 why the Russians would invade America.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Everyone being armed is a major deterrent against external threats as well. A well armed and well trained populace has so many knock-on advantages it's foolhardy to use the argument "IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE NOT TO HAVE GUNS".

If your main argument is that, what do you honestly think you would require to change your mind on this issue?

Im not sure what you are getting at?

How Russia invaded America in a Fiction game, or why Russia invaded America in a fiction game?

 

[David Spade]

Dats y da japs didnt invade us in ww2 guyz cos of all da .303s we had and no food/water

 

[Sprangler]

Misquoting Yamamoto | FactCheck.org

 

[SnowFox]

Misquoting Yamamoto | FactCheck.org

Even with a misquote, the meaning behind it is true.

 

[loquasagacious]

Which is why I don't get in MW2 why the Russians would invade America.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Everyone being armed is a major deterrent against external threats as well. A well armed and well trained populace has so many knock-on advantages it's foolhardy to use the argument "IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE NOT TO HAVE GUNS".

If your main argument is that, what do you honestly think you would require to change your mind on this issue?

Afghanistan also had a well-armed populace...

While an armed populace can engage in insurgency they are simply no match for a modern military force. They can not stop attacks or invasions. They can make occupations an incredibly bloody affair and eventually after a great deal of time they may force an occupying force to withdraw.

This however is an exceedingly poor justification for an armed populace because it is far more preferable to actually repulse on attack than get slaughtered in an insurgency for 10 years. And of course the other consideration is that we (and indeed the rest of the developed world) have 0% risk of being invaded let alone occupied - for now at least those days are past.

For example we might invade/occupy states/areas in the developing world but they aren't going to invade us developed countries have neither the motive nor the means to do it either.

 

[David Spade]

afghanistan is different, they didnt have a functional government to form a viable militia and shit

 

[Senator111]

I do not agree with gun rights in Australia! In the USA I would be as pro gun as they came, as it is a constitutional right (that is a debate in itself) but Asutralia has never accept that, therefore that should stay the same!

The other argument is, that in Sweden or Switzerland (forget which one) it is mandatory to own a gun, and it has the lowest crime rates in the world!

 

[David Spade]

lol

 

[abbeyroad]

I do not agree with gun rights in Australia! In the USA I would be as pro gun as they came, as it is a constitutional right (that is a debate in itself) but Asutralia has never accept that, therefore that should stay the same!

The other argument is, that in Sweden or Switzerland (forget which one) it is mandatory to own a gun, and it has the lowest crime rates in the world!

yes I guess you're right!!!!11!!!!oneone1!11one!11!!1`@11!! you should be running for the senate1!!11!11!1! I will vote 4 u Senator111!!11!!one11!!!