Poland had very liberal gun laws after independence in 1918 and a large part of the population was armed.Pol Pothead wrote: I try to place myself in the position of a Polish Jewish farmer who was faced with the individual decision to take defensive action or take none, knowing full well the odds of success being next to nil. That farmer doesn't care abut 20 million dead or 6 million dead. He might care about the number 5...being his wife and 4 kids. Can he possibly delay the inevitable and give his family one small chance to get away while he stands next to his fellow villagers and takes a stand...a stand not remotely possible without firearms.
11-year old boy shoots 8-year old girl over puppies
- Lucky Lucan
- K440 Knight Captain
- Reactions: 761
- Posts: 22525
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:24 pm
- Location: The Pearl of the Orient
Romantic Cambodia is dead and gone. It's with McKinley in the grave.
It's evidently clear that this entire thread is about gun control, I made four points for gun control in the USA, you counteracted it with a comparison to Nazi Germany, spin on whatever you want.Pol Pothead wrote:No I didn't. As i already told you, I responded separately to two different comments you made in your post. Your first quote said citizens "can't fight governments or armies or a police force because they will die". I responded to that claim by saying what you said might be true, but using Nazi atrocities in WW2 as an example, that sometimes you are going to die anyway, and it's worth the fight, even if the result is unquestionably inevitable.Jock Jock wrote: You did, you used an example of NAZI Germany to attempt to forge a valid argument against gun control in modern day USA.
The next quote of yours I responded to was not related to the first. You said you "would never have a gun in your home". I said that is your decision to make but I have the right to defend my family and will not hand that God-given responsibility over to some police force and hope they arrive in time if a couple raging meth-heads choose my residence.
Only a desperate person who can't argue logically would try to tie those together with the very lame "you are comparing the USA today with Nazi Germany?" crap. I'm done arguing with you, as it's like pistol whipping a retarded child. Sure it's fun for a minute or two, then you just have to move on.
Preferably, and you'd be doing humanity and your country a favour, on one of your guns.
-
- I Fap to 440
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 4952
- Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:39 am
*favor, spell it correctly.Jock Jock wrote:It's evidently clear that this entire thread is about gun control, I made four points for gun control in the USA, you counteracted it with a comparison to Nazi Germany, spin on whatever you want.Pol Pothead wrote:No I didn't. As i already told you, I responded separately to two different comments you made in your post. Your first quote said citizens "can't fight governments or armies or a police force because they will die". I responded to that claim by saying what you said might be true, but using Nazi atrocities in WW2 as an example, that sometimes you are going to die anyway, and it's worth the fight, even if the result is unquestionably inevitable.Jock Jock wrote: You did, you used an example of NAZI Germany to attempt to forge a valid argument against gun control in modern day USA.
The next quote of yours I responded to was not related to the first. You said you "would never have a gun in your home". I said that is your decision to make but I have the right to defend my family and will not hand that God-given responsibility over to some police force and hope they arrive in time if a couple raging meth-heads choose my residence.
Only a desperate person who can't argue logically would try to tie those together with the very lame "you are comparing the USA today with Nazi Germany?" crap. I'm done arguing with you, as it's like pistol whipping a retarded child. Sure it's fun for a minute or two, then you just have to move on.
Preferably, and you'd be doing humanity and your country a favour, on one of your guns.
Anyone who doesn't like Capitalism is a pathetic loser. God bless the USA and no place else.
Political ideology, not any objective measure of family endangerment is the best predictor of gun ownership. If that were the case urban blacks and Latinos would have the highest rate of gun ownership rather than the lowest. Seems to be older, white, conservative men with the greatest need for all this protection. Some would call it paranoia . They have a right to their paranoia but not an unlimited right to act out their Rambo fantasy endangering family, friends and neighbors (and themselves of course) as they await some imaginary enemy attack.
For Pol Pothead :
http://www.newsleader.com/story/opinion ... /73727948/
For Pol Pothead :
http://www.newsleader.com/story/opinion ... /73727948/
Last edited by jm on Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:01 am, edited 4 times in total.
Don't blame me I voted for Sanders
I'm thinking that the slogan 'Guns don't kill, people do' has a touch of credence when we look at how other countries with high gun ownership have low gun death figures. In the case of this boy shooting the girl neighbour, he was enraged because he wasn't getting what he wanted; if a gun wasn't available, then a stick or rock may have been used instead.
We really have not come that far from our primitive beginnings where we would wield a club over another to win an argument or to get our own way.
We really have not come that far from our primitive beginnings where we would wield a club over another to win an argument or to get our own way.
"Not my circus, not my monkeys" - KiR
-
- Stabby McStaberson
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:50 pm
Seems to be older, white, liberal people with the greatest need to have laws enacted telling others what they can and can't own for personal protection. Some would call it elitism. They have a right to their elitism but not an unlimited right to curtail the Constitutional rights of other Americans who actually face the apparently "imaginary threat" of violent crime because the same white liberals themselves never have to face that threat.jm wrote: Seems to be older, white, conservative men with the greatest need for all this protection. Some would call it paranoia . They have a right to their paranoia but not an unlimited right to act out their Rambo fantasy endangering family, friends and neighbors (and themselves of course) as they await some imaginary enemy attack.
..and if you disagree with me, you are one billion times WORSE than HITLER!!!
Surveys show blacks and young people have consistently been more in favor of gun regulation than whites and older people. Furthermore, urban areas, where crime is highest, you know where people face non-imaginary threats, show greatest support for gun controls.Pol Pothead wrote:Seems to be older, white, liberal people with the greatest need to have laws enacted telling others what they can and can't own for personal protection. Some would call it elitism. They have a right to their elitism but not an unlimited right to curtail the Constitutional rights of other Americans who actually face the apparently "imaginary threat" of violent crime because the same white liberals themselves never have to face that threat.jm wrote: Seems to be older, white, conservative men with the greatest need for all this protection. Some would call it paranoia . They have a right to their paranoia but not an unlimited right to act out their Rambo fantasy endangering family, friends and neighbors (and themselves of course) as they await some imaginary enemy attack.
Set aside your straw man, nobody is arguing the unlimited right to curtail the second amendment, merely to establish reasonable regulations as have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Don't blame me I voted for Sanders
We call it racism and cowardice.Pol Pothead wrote:Seems to be older, white, liberal people with the greatest need to have laws enacted telling others what they can and can't own for personal protection. Some would call it elitism. They have a right to their elitism but not an unlimited right to curtail the Constitutional rights of other Americans who actually face the apparently "imaginary threat" of violent crime because the same white liberals themselves never have to face that threat.jm wrote: Seems to be older, white, conservative men with the greatest need for all this protection. Some would call it paranoia . They have a right to their paranoia but not an unlimited right to act out their Rambo fantasy endangering family, friends and neighbors (and themselves of course) as they await some imaginary enemy attack.
- vladimir
- Feminist Watch List
- Reactions: 4
- Posts: 34235
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:43 am
- Location: mod edit
I'm certain most reasonable people don't want everybody to be banned from owning guns.jm wrote:Set aside your straw man, nobody is arguing the unlimited right to curtail the second amendment, merely to establish reasonable regulations as have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
What I want is a much stricter control of who is able to buy a gun, and storage and access control.
A psychological evaluation/ strict CRC would be a step forward, an inspected safe/cabinet, and home education on keeping guns away from children.
I can also see no reason why an individual should own an automatic weapon such as an assault rifle.
I would also be very much in favour of a module in conflict resolution being mandatory from K1 to 12 and in freshman year at university.
ירי ילדים והפצצת אזרחים דורש אומץ, כמו גם הטרדה מינית של עובדי ההוראה.
-
- Damn, I just saw my Internet Bill !
- Reactions: 4
- Posts: 4384
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:46 am
So because you see no reason that means no one should?vladimir wrote:I can also see no reason why an individual should own an automatic weapon such as an assault rifle.jm wrote:Set aside your straw man, nobody is arguing the unlimited right to curtail the second amendment, merely to establish reasonable regulations as have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
I believe at some stage you were a gun owner. If they had such psych tests as mandatory for you, you'd never have been allowed to own a weapon...
I'm waiting for the day when parents are slammed about their bad parenting for not having had their killed children wear a Kevlar vest constantly.
Hey, the rest of the world aren't gun owners in general, it's just you guys really, really, okay maybe the Yemenis too. And our kids don't die going to school, go figure.
And kevlar protective apparel has been around for about 20 years e.g. school satchels, umbrellas etc ... but hey, wouldn't it be more prudent to just simply get the fark away from that environment and be done with it?Joon wrote:I'm waiting for the day when parents are slammed about their bad parenting for not having had their killed children wear a Kevlar vest constantly.
"Not my circus, not my monkeys" - KiR
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
You're normally quite a lucid poster, but on this issue you've completely lost the plot as often seems to be the case when it comes to Americans and their beloved guns.Pol Pothead wrote:I would say SOME might have lived... or at the very least in the process have killed more German soldiers, leaving that many fewer to continue the war. When looking at history, it's easy to gloss over numbers of dead as a rounded 6 million or whatever. Historians really don't care whether the exact number is 6,000,005 or 5,999,995 in the overall context. I try to place myself in the position of a Polish Jewish farmer who was faced with the individual decision to take defensive action or take none, knowing full well the odds of success being next to nil. That farmer doesn't care abut 20 million dead or 6 million dead. He might care about the number 5...being his wife and 4 kids. Can he possibly delay the inevitable and give his family one small chance to get away while he stands next to his fellow villagers and takes a stand...a stand not remotely possible without firearms.jm wrote:[ I'd disagree with those who would argue the dead would be less dead or that gun control had anything to due with Hitter's rise or the Jews' destruction. I understand you are not arguing that but Carson and his supporters seem to be.
My question is, did that farmer want a gun in his hand when the Germans started to arrive? We both agreed that he most probably did. But the greater topic is about whether he should have the right to possess such a firearm...or more importantly, do other people who may or may not face the same persecution or threats of violence as this farmer get to make laws stopping him from owning a firearm because those privileged people don't fully understand the threat or give a rat's ass about his particular predicament. I think those questions are as valid in 1940 Poland, or for a black American protecting his family from violent KKK lynchers in 1947 Mississippi, or a man seeing the potential need to protect his family from violent criminals anywhere today.
By the way, for while at least, the Detroit police force was officially saying the response time for 911 (emergency calls) was averaging 55 minutes. Seems a few people who can't relate to such conditions are the ones bemoaning gun ownership by others.
There were practically no Jewish farmers - Jews were legally forbidden from owning land among other things. With the rise in Anti-Semitism experienced in Poland and elsewhere, what do you think would happen if they started to arm themselves? That would be the pretext needed for the onset of full-scale pogroms. Hell, they had to invent bullshit stories like killing Christian kids to get blood to make matzoh to get the local peasants to rise to the slaughter; the Jews arming themselves would have been suicidal. Furthermore, nobody was aware that they were about to be led to the gas chambers and the Nazis didn't actually announce to their victims that they were undertaking a program of genocide. They were being persecuted obviously, but that was hardly unusual to the Jews during those times. Who would have believed that someone was undertaking a massive program of genocide on an industrial scale? It is still almost inconceivable that it happened but obviously it did. Would people have behaved differently if they knew? Yes, they did and there were uprisings in the Concentration Camps which were NOT Extermination Camps when this became apparent. But would arming them have somehow changed anything? Of course not.
Anyway, I am hoping that the black population in the US take the NRA at their word and start arming themselves to the teeth while walking around open carrying. That will surely make everyone feel safer and prouder still to be 'Merican.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
6 year old student shoots teacher. America
by pickledpepper » Sat Jan 07, 2023 7:16 am » in 'Not' Cambodia - 19 Replies
- 1540 Views
-
Last post by Dylan Quint
Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:52 am
-
-
-
Amber alert for missing 13 year old Khmer/American girl
by Alexandra » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:08 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 31 Replies
- 9633 Views
-
Last post by GMJS-440
Tue Aug 25, 2020 10:22 pm
-
-
-
Must 'Employer' pay 1 year work permit for 150 hours/year 'Volunteer'
by U-Guest » Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:20 pm » in Careers in Cambodia - 19 Replies
- 6126 Views
-
Last post by PSD_Kiwi
Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:00 pm
-
-
- 10 Replies
- 1178 Views
-
Last post by Bong Burgundy
Fri Mar 31, 2023 5:56 pm