5 ms·

This is a really poor argument. First, what's "tyrannical" to you? There are various degrees of "tyrannical", just as there are various degrees of terrorism. Ca

by tomkin 14y ago

This is a really poor argument. First, what's "tyrannical" to you? There are various degrees of "tyrannical", just as there are various degrees of terrorism. Can you expect the entire country of gun owners to react all at once? Because I have some evidence that suggests otherwise. You're hoping for some "flipped switch" type of tyranny that never happens. Even Hitler's madness took place in phases and wasn't universally recognized as a threat. This idea of immediate revolt is a fairy tale. One that other gun-less countries watch in awe. Don't you think its time to move on and concentrate on more important issues?

tome 14y ago
To be fair to splat, he didn't mention tyranny himself.
notdrunkatall 14y ago
You're arguing that because people might not suddenly decide to revolt en masse that... what, exactly? That a revolution is therefore not possible, and that we should then give up the right to bear arms? How ironic that you would accuse him of making a really poor argument when yours is about as poor as they come. I hope no one upvoted that drivel.
- tomkin 14y ago
  Your right to bear arms is silly. Incredibly silly and archaic. You live in 2013, not in colonial times. While the amendment made perfect sense then, it makes no sense now. The pro-gun movement seems to be completely ignorant to the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst. Society: an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. As the above dictionary definition suggests, a society is based on a collective set of ideas, rules and order so that all within the society can live peacefully. Remove the guns and the strange associated chest-thumping, less people die. It's really that simple. You used to be able to drink and drive, until we all realized it was for the betterment of the society to change that. You lost that right, too. Guns are no different.
  - giardini 14y ago
    "... the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst." Not true. US citizens are more effective than police in handling firearms: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-t... http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml scroll down to "Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police"
    - tomkin 14y ago
      This doesn't prove guns solve problems. It just makes it clear that police can be incompetent. This is the most bizarre argument. You're argument is that police do a poor job, so average people should do the job? Here's an idea: spend some more money on creating a more competent police force. So silly! Let's see, my employee isn't doing his job well, so I'll just call in another developer to bring competency. Talk about spinning the tires. Please, America. Spend some time wondering how other modern countries get by. You'll have no choice but to conclude it is possible to get by without guns.
      - bmelton 14y ago
        That ignores the geographic disparity of our nation. It would be relatively easy to create a rapidly mobile police force in somewhere like New York City, but nearly impossible to create an efficient police force in Glendo, Wyoming. Houses are, at the closest, acres apart from each other. Going grocery shopping can be a half hour trip each way from a nearby farm. Police cannot be readily available in places like this (or in New York really, but for entirely different reasons).
        tomkin 14y ago
        Yes, the US is so special. Again, other countries have sub-urbs, country residents. Come on, really? This is your defence? That America has vast countryside? Jesus fucking Christ. Can't think of any other country that has this geography? REALLY?

by tomkin 14y ago

tome 14y ago

To be fair to splat, he didn't mention tyranny himself.

notdrunkatall 14y ago

You're arguing that because people might not suddenly decide to revolt en masse that... what, exactly? That a revolution is therefore not possible, and that we should then give up the right to bear arms? How ironic that you would accuse him of making a really poor argument when yours is about as poor as they come. I hope no one upvoted that drivel.

tomkin 14y ago
Your right to bear arms is silly. Incredibly silly and archaic. You live in 2013, not in colonial times. While the amendment made perfect sense then, it makes no sense now. The pro-gun movement seems to be completely ignorant to the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst. Society: an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. As the above dictionary definition suggests, a society is based on a collective set of ideas, rules and order so that all within the society can live peacefully. Remove the guns and the strange associated chest-thumping, less people die. It's really that simple. You used to be able to drink and drive, until we all realized it was for the betterment of the society to change that. You lost that right, too. Guns are no different.
- giardini 14y ago
  "... the staggering evidence that guns in citizen's hands are unnecessary at the least and dangerous at the worst." Not true. US citizens are more effective than police in handling firearms: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-t... http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml scroll down to "Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police"
  - tomkin 14y ago
    This doesn't prove guns solve problems. It just makes it clear that police can be incompetent. This is the most bizarre argument. You're argument is that police do a poor job, so average people should do the job? Here's an idea: spend some more money on creating a more competent police force. So silly! Let's see, my employee isn't doing his job well, so I'll just call in another developer to bring competency. Talk about spinning the tires. Please, America. Spend some time wondering how other modern countries get by. You'll have no choice but to conclude it is possible to get by without guns.
    - bmelton 14y ago
      That ignores the geographic disparity of our nation. It would be relatively easy to create a rapidly mobile police force in somewhere like New York City, but nearly impossible to create an efficient police force in Glendo, Wyoming. Houses are, at the closest, acres apart from each other. Going grocery shopping can be a half hour trip each way from a nearby farm. Police cannot be readily available in places like this (or in New York really, but for entirely different reasons).
      - tomkin 14y ago
        Yes, the US is so special. Again, other countries have sub-urbs, country residents. Come on, really? This is your defence? That America has vast countryside? Jesus fucking Christ. Can't think of any other country that has this geography? REALLY?