Well that's why nuclear weapons are a big deal, because that's exactly what they do. That's probably why the Cold War didn't become a real war. That's why Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs are a huge deal - not because we think they're suddenly going to launch them at us, but because once they have them, we basically can't depend on a military solution. i.e. they do what they want. If Iran suddenly becomes an Al Qaida hotbed and has nukes, what can we do about it? Certainly no one can invade and force a regime change. It's the game of Mutually Assured Destruction - the end result is always the protagonist has to back down, because pressing the button will result in your destruction as well. Nobody, not least a big, powerful, technologically advanced country, likes to back down to a smaller and supposedly weaker one.ProvenPracticalFlexible wrote:Could the same logic apply on a larger scale, how can a small country defend itself against a larger country if they don’t have same size army or same weapons? Should every country get their nuclear weapons, so they couldn’t be forced to do anything and they could defend their sovereignty?
that mirrors my friend's thoughts when i first stepped into arizona and he had his gun plain as day on a puhrty holster.Strong Eagle wrote:When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.
Actually that sounds like democracy to me.People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.
I have to assume two things here. One, you aren't an American and two, if you are an American, you are not old enough to remember Kent State.ProvenPracticalFlexible wrote: The army the government commands is made out of Americans, would they follow blindly and shoot other Americans if things got out of hand? Crime situation must also be really bad if an average citizen really needs a gun for self protection.
However, carrying a gun will not guarantee your safety or ensure you will be left alone. You could be shot in the back or a group of people could jump on you, disarm you and shoot you with your own gun!Strong Eagle wrote: When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
This makes no sense. My chances with a gun are much better than without, and having had a very nasty experience, I can tell you that if I had not had a gun on my person, two very large apes in a pickup truck would have whupped the $hit out of me. It was amazing how quickly they made a U-turn back to their truck and drove off as I began to pull my hand from my jacket pocket with a revolver in it.Plavt wrote:However, carrying a gun will not guarantee your safety or ensure you will be left alone. You could be shot in the back or a group of people could jump on you, disarm you and shoot you with your own gun!Strong Eagle wrote: When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
No, that would be anarchy and/or dictatorship. Majority rule does not alone make a democracy, for the majority will always take advantage of the minority. What is required are unassailable minority rights that cannot be abridged. Then you can have democracy. This is why the constitution is so revered by Americans and many others.banana wrote:Do we really need more ways to kill ourselves? Just like how every jackass on the road is everyone else but ourselves, everyone thinks that THEY are the ones that need protecting. Guns do not equalise anything. They just change the dynamics of any confrontation and speed up its resolution. Who's to say the octogenarian is not going to go postal and turn vigilante on ethnic kids he thinks are gang bangers?
Actually that sounds like democracy to me.People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.
No, I’m not American, and too young to remember Kent State incident. Just read about it and wondering what if the students had been carrying guns? It would have given even better reason for the trigger-happy national guardsmen to shoot more of them.sundaymorningstaple wrote:
I have to assume two things here. One, you aren't an American and two, if you are an American, you are not old enough to remember Kent State.
What is an Average citizen? Me living in my hometown farming community of 10K people or those 10's of millions who live in and around inner city gettos? Guess "average" would have to be relative wouldn't it.
Gun ownership is a religion because the right of self defense is the most fundamental right of all. Without that, all other rights become meaningless. The police cannot protect you; in fact the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no requirement to protect you.ProvenPracticalFlexible wrote:I just have an impression, that for some people carrying a gun is almost like religion. To justify this religion the good old NRA helps to create good arguments how guns make your life safer and better. But as said it’s up to Americans to decide on their guns and keep them at home and in car if they think that kind of protection is needed. It is just interesting how the right to carry a gun is such a fundamental value to many people. Cultural differences again I guess.
How does having firearms change that? You still end up with the group of people with the most guns having the loudest voice. Then with 'gun control' laws set up, you basically have the rich, the connected and the government dominating over everyone else. That's not any more democratic is it? Who is going to protect the rights of the poor, alternative thinker who cannot or choose not to purchase handguns?Strong Eagle wrote:No, that would be anarchy and/or dictatorship. Majority rule does not alone make a democracy, for the majority will always take advantage of the minority. What is required are unassailable minority rights that cannot be abridged. Then you can have democracy. This is why the constitution is so revered by Americans and many others.banana wrote:Do we really need more ways to kill ourselves? Just like how every jackass on the road is everyone else but ourselves, everyone thinks that THEY are the ones that need protecting. Guns do not equalise anything. They just change the dynamics of any confrontation and speed up its resolution. Who's to say the octogenarian is not going to go postal and turn vigilante on ethnic kids he thinks are gang bangers?
Actually that sounds like democracy to me.People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.
PS: Guns equalize a LOT! You have obviously never been in a situation where you were outnumbered and about to be beaten. You'd be seriously wishing for a gun to 'equalize' things.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests