First be armed

[Lark]

Its not so much about guns but I've always thought the saying that "God didnt make men equal, Colonel Colt did" is interesting, firearms can be an equaliser between people who would otherwise be hopelessly out matched when it comes to a physical force confrontation.

Although most aggression and confrontation which is spontaneous is kind of a "forward panic" and weapons are as liable to used against whoever possesses them as used by them to any effective degree.

 

[New Dawn Fades]

Why did you post that second part in a colour that kind of blends in?

Because you said this:

What is your view on this and I'm also interested in how you formed it too, I appreciate this could descend into a "gun control" topical thread but that's not my intention at all to be honest, its about attitudes towards weapons in a broadest possible sense.

 

[the]

Because you said this:

Yeah but why the color change?

 

[muir]

Or knives, rocks, and stairs. Point?

The point being that if you as a society are going to resist a coup by the globalists you will stand a better chance doing it with military grade weapons than you would armed with golf clubs or wrenches

 

[muir]

I do not think that individual gun ownership curbs government intrusion.

Well you won't know that until the guns are gone (and the government start physically forcing you to do things)

government intrusion is happening at an informational level.

Government intrusion is happening at every level

you want to hurt someone, wreck their credit rating, keep their kids out of school, make it so they get incompetent medical attention. This notion that gun owners are protecting the freedoms of Americans is just advertizing for gun manufactures.

If you think they are bad now imagine how bad they would be if you guys had no guns!

I like guns, they are cool and powerful. If people are out to harm you physically there is nothing better to have your hands on. Given the inherent violence in American society I truly doubt we will ever give up our weapons, or that we should. I am not so convinced that the number of rounds a clip can hold is as strong a right as is the right to own a fire arm. Fully automatic weapons also don't seem to have a strong foothold in the American psyche.

You can't form very convincing militias with hand guns or shotguns. Even rifles can't lay down very good fire in a built up area

I would not keep a gun in my house nor would I live in an area that made me believe I should. Perhaps this is wishful thinking as I am sure many of my neighbors are gun owners. I think they are too dangerous. there is a saying in Ireland "The devil puts a bullet in an empty gun every seven years".

Yeah but don't forget that the reason the irish have their freedom is because they used guns to get it

A good friend's father was a retired Judge, very nice man, excellent company and a keen intellect. He had been a capt. in the army during the 50s and 60s. In the end of his life his mind degraded to the point that he took out his guns and died in a battle with the local police. There was no crime committed, he sent his wife out of the house and barricaded himself in side, This was in one of the big cities on the East Coast. It was not long before there was a stand off. My friend told me that he was out of his mind....he was back in combat mode and there was no reasoning with him.

Our right to firearms is like our right to vote, it is conditional.

The problem is that if a corrupt government set the conditions they will set conditions favourable to them

 

[New Dawn Fades]

Yeah but why the color change?

Because I thought it was kind of OT since he mentioned at the start that he didn't intend to speak about the Gun law in the US specifically.

 

[the]

Because I thought it was kind of OT since he mentioned at the start that he didn't intend to speak about the Gun law in the US specifically.

What is OT?

 

[Stu]

.

 

[muir]

thank you for quoting me, it is always a pleasure to be noticed.

Like the quote of mine in your signature?

I was only stating what i think,

So was I

 

[Lerxst]

Did Machiavelli intend for freak-shows to be parading around children with weapons?

[video]http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/man-with-gun-causes-scare-during-childrens/vCYXxm/[/video]

Welcome to Second Amendment Tea-Partyville...

There's also something to be said for the weapons back in Machiavelli's days and guns today. A person had to make a very calculated, deliberate action to use a sword, dagger or even a flint-lock pistol. Just carrying one yourself would deter many people, but having one also meant you'd be able to defend against a person coming at you since you would have fair warning.

Guns today are nearly instantaneous. In fact, it will take you longer to read this sentence than it would to fire a gun and kill a person. How many police shootings have taken place because someone was reaching for a wallet or cell phone? Today, there's almost no way to tell if an action is harmless or will result in gunfire in a situation like that.

This also means, the first person to draw their weapon becomes the aggressor, not the defender. And how do you know if your defense is going to be against someone reaching for a pen, or someone reaching for a gun?

 

[muir]

Did Machiavelli intend for freak-shows to be parading around children with weapons?

[video]http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/man-with-gun-causes-scare-during-childrens/vCYXxm/[/video]

Welcome to Second Amendment Tea-Partyville...

There's also something to be said for the weapons back in Machiavelli's days and guns today. A person had to make a very calculated, deliberate action to use a sword, dagger or even a flint-lock pistol. Just carrying one yourself would deter many people, but having one also meant you'd be able to defend against a person coming at you since you would have fair warning.

Guns today are nearly instantaneous. In fact, it will take you longer to read this sentence than it would to fire a gun and kill a person. How many police shootings have taken place because someone was reaching for a wallet or cell phone? Today, there's almost no way to tell if an action is harmless or will result in gunfire in a situation like that.

This also means, the first person to draw their weapon becomes the aggressor, not the defender. And how do you know if your defense is going to be against someone reaching for a pen, or someone reaching for a gun?

Guns are dangerous there's no doubt about it and it would be good if society can get to a point where they don't need em

But before they can think about that they need to deal with the immediate threat of a government that wants to make them do things that will not be in their interests or the interests of their families

If that can be overcome and if crime can be reduced (ie through reduction of poverty) THEN i think society could be thinking about stepping down the whole gun thing

But at the moment we're at war. The big money interests behind the US government and intelligence agencies have declared war on the US public and the US public are for the large part not yet fully cogniscant of that

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Sections 1021 and 1022, authorizes the indefinite military detention, without charge or trial, of any person, including an American citizen, and applies the “Law of War,” to U.S. soil, making the United States legally a battlefield.
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/04/ndaa-dont-want-know/#ihKdWdtDC3OIqoJ5.99


​

Passage taken from some guys (who is fighting the NDAA's) blog: http://joeforamerica.com/2014/04/ndaa-dont-want-know/

 

[Average]

I am for stabbing the oppressors...I can imagine how convenient that attitude would have been in such ages.

The world has changed, but people haven't changed much i don't think.
As a human being, I think oppression is the worst thing you can do to someone. When you are excising authority unjustly...you're basically bullying.... And i dont like bullies.

So be armed and ready to stand for your rights. Not necessarily with a weapon....I think thats just the symbolism behind the struggle against oppression, or more generally, evil.

So yeah.

 

[sprinkles]

Did Machiavelli intend for freak-shows to be parading around children with weapons?

[video]http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/man-with-gun-causes-scare-during-childrens/vCYXxm/[/video]

Welcome to Second Amendment Tea-Partyville...

There's also something to be said for the weapons back in Machiavelli's days and guns today. A person had to make a very calculated, deliberate action to use a sword, dagger or even a flint-lock pistol. Just carrying one yourself would deter many people, but having one also meant you'd be able to defend against a person coming at you since you would have fair warning.

Guns today are nearly instantaneous. In fact, it will take you longer to read this sentence than it would to fire a gun and kill a person. How many police shootings have taken place because someone was reaching for a wallet or cell phone? Today, there's almost no way to tell if an action is harmless or will result in gunfire in a situation like that.

This also means, the first person to draw their weapon becomes the aggressor, not the defender. And how do you know if your defense is going to be against someone reaching for a pen, or someone reaching for a gun?

Try playing one of the SWAT simulators. It isn't real life but gives a vague idea about how difficult this stuff is without putting real lives at risk.

The SWAT series is interesting because unlike most shooters it discourages you from deadly force. You lose points for killing people with lethal weapons, even in complete self defense when they are actually shooting at you.

This gets crazy and intense because the simulator does not consist of set piece fights like games usually do. You have to go through office buildings and such where the placements of unarmed civilians and armed suspects is randomized. So no matter how many times you do it, it's a completely different scenario. Armed suspects could be anywhere ready to shoot you or civilians, and they also don't stay put, they move around the building especially once they know you have entered.

You have to walk a razor fine line between having your own guys or civilians get killed vs. worrying about mistakenly shooting somebody who isn't a threat. You can mitigate this by giving everybody less-lethal weapons to force compliance, but that is a risk because some times the suspects randomly have body armor or face masks which limit how much you can disable them without lethal force. Some times they fake you out and kill one of your people.

Yet if you were to go in and eliminate everyone who is a legitimate threat, even though they were really a threat with obvious guns and shooting at you, if you kill too many of them you still fail the mission. So it's like damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[Lerxst]

But I also think Stu's right and also that people in modern society who think that being armed relates to guns, aren't living entirely in the 21st century. Want to declare war? Call in a debt. Want to kill someone? Feed them McDonalds for the rest of their life. No traditional weapon will save you from any of that. Guns/weapons just turn you into that kid in the schoolyard who throws a punch if someone calls you a name.

A traditional firearm will also do almost nothing against professionally trained soldiers with high-tech, military grade weapons. The situation with Cliven Bundy shows what will really happen when people go up against the government with firearms. Did they win? Well... sorta... maybe... Had the government pushed, there would be a whole lot of dead Rednecks in Nevada right about now... But they didn't and that, right there is their weapon. Why go face-to-face with someone wielding a gun when the real battle is taking place behind the scenes.

If they pushed, there may very well have been an open rebellion started. The fact that they backed down, shows the government isn't fighting this war using conventional weapons. They can just as easily call in his debt, repossess his land or run a highway through his front yard and anyone who takes up arms against a bunch of construction workers in hard-hats, or bankers in suits, proves to the public how inept they really are in today's society.

 

[just me]

To a collector, a gun is an object hunted for and sought after to cherish when it is found. Same with a knife or sword collector.

 

[muir]

But I also think Stu's right and also that people in modern society who think that being armed relates to guns, aren't living entirely in the 21st century. Want to declare war? Call in a debt. Want to kill someone? Feed them McDonalds for the rest of their life. No traditional weapon will save you from any of that. Guns/weapons just turn you into that kid in the schoolyard who throws a punch if someone calls you a name.

A traditional firearm will also do almost nothing against professionally trained soldiers with high-tech, military grade weapons. The situation with Cliven Bundy shows what will really happen when people go up against the government with firearms. Did they win? Well... sorta... maybe... Had the government pushed, there would be a whole lot of dead Rednecks in Nevada right about now... But they didn't and that, right there is their weapon. Why go face-to-face with someone wielding a gun when the real battle is taking place behind the scenes.

If they pushed, there may very well have been an open rebellion started. The fact that they backed down, shows the government isn't fighting this war using conventional weapons. They can just as easily call in his debt, repossess his land or run a highway through his front yard and anyone who takes up arms against a bunch of construction workers in hard-hats, or bankers in suits, proves to the public how inept they really are in today's society.

The government has to keep up the pretence of being 'democratic'. They will break that rule if they feel they can maintain plausible deniability. They killed the people at Waco and then lied to everyone about it. Eye witnesses saw the feds shooting flames into the compound though

Also bare in mind that the government has to get soldiers to do their dirty work. Not every soldier will join their fight.

If it comes to the crunch you will get soldiers turning against the government all over the place. You'll get an officer ordering his men to round up civilians and the next moment one of the officers own men will shoot him in the back of the head

Not every soldier is ready to burn the constitution and they will only be really tested if they are ordered to fight armed civilians. if the civilians are unarmed they are far more likely to follow orders and round them up because it will all feel a lot less serious (their officers could even lie to them about why they're doing what they're being told to do)

But if soldiers around the country are sent to war against their own armed people...how many do you think are going to help round up their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts and so on?

How many do you think are ready to start gunning down their own people?

No...the government want to take peoples guns first

 

[Stu]

But I also think Stu's right and also that people in modern society who think that being armed relates to guns, aren't living entirely in the 21st century. Want to declare war? Call in a debt. Want to kill someone? Feed them McDonalds for the rest of their life. No traditional weapon will save you from any of that. Guns/weapons just turn you into that kid in the schoolyard who throws a punch if someone calls you a name.

A traditional firearm will also do almost nothing against professionally trained soldiers with high-tech, military grade weapons. The situation with Cliven Bundy shows what will really happen when people go up against the government with firearms. Did they win? Well... sorta... maybe... Had the government pushed, there would be a whole lot of dead Rednecks in Nevada right about now... But they didn't and that, right there is their weapon. Why go face-to-face with someone wielding a gun when the real battle is taking place behind the scenes.

If they pushed, there may very well have been an open rebellion started. The fact that they backed down, shows the government isn't fighting this war using conventional weapons. They can just as easily call in his debt, repossess his land or run a highway through his front yard and anyone who takes up arms against a bunch of construction workers in hard-hats, or bankers in suits, proves to the public how inept they really are in today's society.

I also agree with [MENTION=1939]Stu[/MENTION]

 

[LucyJr]

I don't think to be armed is possible only in a physical sense. What about cautiousness, having your back covered, reliance, self-reliance, calculated confidence. There are alot of things to be armed with.

 

[muir]

I also agree with @Stu

You're both mistaken

 

[muir]

I don't think to be armed is possible only in a physical sense. What about cautiousness, having your back covered, reliance, self-reliance, calculated confidence. There are alot of things to be armed with.

A person in the US, in this day and age, hearing about all the stuff coming out in the media, who is armed with self reliance, calculated confidence and cautiousness would likely be armed with a gun