I always thought the "we need guns to defend ourselves from the government" argument was a load of nonsense and a refuge for those who wanted to avoid a cost-benefit discussion centered on the real issues of crime and violence. In fact, the whole "no registration" position is based on this canard--keeping the government in the dark regarding personal gun ownership is perceived to be the only way to limit its over-reaching power. Obviously that isn't the case in Iraq.
Since I can think of no logical opposition to gun registration from a pure crime/self-defense perspective.
1 posted on
03/14/2003 5:35:36 PM PST by
Pitchfork
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
To: Pitchfork
And this balderdash convinces you that your mindless, unconstitutional, statist position is correct?
There is an additional requirement to possessing and knowing how to use your firearms and that is the balls to do so if the need ever arises. You will find that Americans gun owners are not sheep pal.
2 posted on
03/14/2003 5:40:04 PM PST by
jwalsh07
To: Pitchfork
What confirmation is there that most people in Iraq have at least one functional weapon, and ammunition for it? Sure the media like to show Iraqis and Palestinians shooting AK's into the air, but that doesn't mean most people have such weapons or ammo to burn in them.
3 posted on
03/14/2003 5:40:07 PM PST by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: Travis McGee; Dan from Michigan
Someone desperately wants attention.
4 posted on
03/14/2003 5:41:08 PM PST by
dighton
To: Pitchfork
Since I can think of no logical opposition to gun registration from a pure crime/self-defense perspective. True/false quiz:
- Criminals would like to have a list of who's armed with what, so they know which houses to target when occupied and which houses to target when empty.
- It would be better for everyone else if criminals did not have such information.
- There are no corrupt people in government who would share such information with criminals.
Three simple questions. Care to answer them?
5 posted on
03/14/2003 5:42:00 PM PST by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: Pitchfork
"Most Iraqi households own at least one gun."Sorry, I ain't buy'n it. Saddam has oppressed the Iraqi people for more than 20 years.....if they are ALLOWED to have guns, it is MOST definately WITHOUT bullets.
Do you really think Saddam would furnish guns WITH ammo to the very people who he's viciously oppressed for so long. In essence giving them the "chance", however remotely, to overthrow, or kill him?
6 posted on
03/14/2003 5:42:27 PM PST by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it.)
To: Pitchfork
Since I can think of no logical opposition to gun registration from a pure crime/self-defense perspective. That's because you have a basic misunderstanding of what the Second Amendment is all about, and what the original intent of the Framers was.
It had nary a thing to do with either crime or hunting, fundamentally. It had to do with preserving freedom.
And if you really believe that the Iraqi people generally are armed, you're really gullible.
I guess you didn't read the stories just today about Iraqi troops ransacking an entire city in an attempt to find and confiscate every weapon they could. Followed by arrest for anyone who had one, by the way. They also were taking away any young man they thought might be useful to draft into their services.
To: *bang_list
Bang
To: Pitchfork
The author of this piece is trying to prove the right to bear arms is invalid. The misuse of false data renders the whole effort swirling-in-the-bowl.
13 posted on
03/14/2003 5:50:52 PM PST by
Spruce
To: Pitchfork
Yeah, I saw a story the other night on a foxnews. Of course I also noted the only stock carried by the Iraqi gun dealer consisted of ancient shotguns and pistols. Oh...magazines too. They just about lined the walls with magazines.
14 posted on
03/14/2003 5:51:47 PM PST by
Woahhs
To: Pitchfork
Obviously that isn't the case in Iraq. Obviously?
You must got Pitchfork tines stuck in your eyes and ears.
To: Pitchfork
In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun." Poor Timothy based his whole article on believing something he read in the NY Times? What a dolt.
Here's the quote:
One gauge of that fear is the trade at gun shops. Most Iraqi households own at least one gun, so there has been no particular run on armaments. But some gun shop owners report as much as a 50 percent jump in ammunition sales.
Doesn't say what his home ownership info is base on. To me it sounds like Saddam propaganda.
21 posted on
03/14/2003 5:58:43 PM PST by
TC Rider
(The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
To: Pitchfork
Since I can think of no logical opposition to gun registration from a pure crime/self-defense perspective. Yeah, you're right. Why don't you'all come on down to my house in Texas and bring your registration form. Just come on in, about 3:00 AM or so.
To: Pitchfork
You are about to embark on an education. Are you honest enough and intelligent enough to RECEIVE such an education?
To: Pitchfork
The obvious question raised by MacFarquhar's piece is how Iraq got to be, and remains, one of the world's most repressive police states when just about everyone is packing heat.What proof is there that "everyone" is packing heat - other than a few Baath Party members in good standing? Does anybody in his right mind actually believe Saddam would allow an armed populace?
Besides, what has this got to do with our Constitution? Can you spell R-E-D H-E-R-R-I-N-G?
This is merely an attempt to discredit gun ownership in America by tarring and feathering it by association with Saddam!
24 posted on
03/14/2003 6:06:13 PM PST by
Gritty
To: Pitchfork
An armed society is only free as long as the government will not turn its power upon the citizens. A semi or AK cannot compete with gas or a tank division.
Would our military turn on its citizens. By law no. However if they did there's not much anyone could do to stop them.
Therein lies the difference. Saddam will use his military against its peoples.
I cannot concieve of the situation GW would turn the military on us.
To: Pitchfork
You must have missed the article from Northern Iraq today. Saddam's troops were making house to house searches for guns and Kurds. They are disarming the population and separating them into loyal Iraqis and potential revolutionaries. The military people doing the search have overwhelming firepower compared to a limited number of gun owners. Sort of "Krystal Nacht" lite.
I suspect the number of working firearms in the U.S. exceeds the actual population. It's a completely different situation.
28 posted on
03/14/2003 6:10:21 PM PST by
Myrddin
To: Pitchfork
Come back and play. It is pretty gutless of you to post and run. Especially when so many want to talk to you.
To: Pitchfork
"In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, 'Most Iraqi households own at least one gun.'"
Sorry, but believing this would violate my don't-believe-statistics-from-oppressive-dictators rule.
31 posted on
03/14/2003 6:11:42 PM PST by
Sofa King
(-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS!)
To: Pitchfork
Don't bring a pitchfork to a gun fight.
32 posted on
03/14/2003 6:11:45 PM PST by
Myrddin
To: Pitchfork
Since I can think of no logical opposition to gun registration from a pure crime/self-defense perspective. Who gives a f*ck what you think commie ?
33 posted on
03/14/2003 6:12:14 PM PST by
Centurion2000
(Take charge of your destiny, or someone else will)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson