Originally Posted by finestkind
However this raises a number of points. If you have a Government that is not safe and does not have checks and balance in the system to prevent the perversion of power than you are already a third world country waiting for the coup or the tyranny to occur.
Straw man. Every democracy is only one election away from tyranny.
Originally Posted by finestkind
A lot of the points made here about liberal gun laws are really based on that's its dangerous and can you not see that it is and the question is why do you do it. If you accept the danger and increased death rates that is your right but I am questioning the rational reason behind accepting this, in particular danger to innocents.
I don't follow your first sentence at all. But I see you trot out the red herring of "danger to innocents". The "if it saves one life" mantra is getting tired. Human life is precious, and should be considered as such, but not precious enough to sacrifice the liberty of 325 million for one.
Originally Posted by finestkind
To justify by saying its in my rights doesn't really justify it (see post 181).
I believe those who say this really mean to say that you don't understand the American Constitution. As someone else already wrote, rights are not granted to us, they are acknowledged and the government is specifically prohibited from compromising them. It is a concept foreign to most, but ingrained in the American psyche - if you cannot accept that, that's fine, but don't play 'holier than thou' because you don't understand our rights.
Originally Posted by finestkind
To justify it by saying I don't trust my Government or the people voted in, which than infers nor the voters, which happens to be you, really appears irrational
Borderline straw man & ad hominem - two for one! I never said I didn't trust my government. To borrow a phrase from Reagan, trust but verify. They are elected, but as you concede up front power corrupts and good intentions often end poorly. It is not mistrust of the government, per se, rather, it is a wariness of human nature.
Originally Posted by finestkind
And I must question the rationale behind the belief that if a majority of the population have guns they can stop the rot. Really, again it would not be musket and cannon against musket and cannon or are you guys hiding something like you own little thermo nuclear device.
I've been waiting for this one. This is straw man and red herring all rolled into one. First, if our government won't use nukes on terrorists, rogue nations, or anyone else, what makes you think they'll point them inwards? That's irrational and proves the fallacy of "what will you do against nukes" silliness. Secondly, if it were to get to the insurrection point, or even a catastrophic failure/collapse of the entire system due to financial/energy/terrorism/natural disaster/whatever, an unarmed populace is far easier to control than an armed populace. After hurricane Katrina, they did confiscate guns, so there is recent precedent right here in our own back yard. And the battle of Athens is another incident in our history where it was necessary for the populace to rise up. Had they been unarmed, it wouldn't have turned out as it did. So your straw man and red herring also include a wee bit of inferred ad hominem.
Originally Posted by finestkind
To diverge slightly further, it is difficult to believe any non dictatorial Government actually runs a country. Money is the power and given the amount of money that is held by companies and individuals, Governments do as they are told. So perhaps you do have something there with the aspect of threatening the power brokers.
There are theories that are exactly opposite of this. Molyneaux posits that we're all captured in invisible cages of our own making and nobody is free. We are being cultivated by human farms on the plantation of greed. Or some such. Regardless, we've delved into philosophy at this point and for this specific posting, not quite germane.
Originally Posted by finestkind
Well who does decide. Is the police watching an armed person indiscriminately shooting at people going to wait for approval to take this person down.
Straw man. Nobody said that and it's not comparable to the al-awlaki case insofar as when in the midst of a shooting, there are exigent circumstances. Al-alwlaki cruising in his car in Yemen with his family, not so much. And you're trying to compare instruments of state power projection with local law enforcement. There is a deep chasm of difference between the two. The question the FBI director was answering was can the state pick citizens for assassination, not if a cop can stop a felony in progress using the continuum of force up through lethal. Improper comparison.
Originally Posted by finestkind
The abuse of the legal system negates any logical action (see post 231).
I have no idea what post 231 has to do with your statement, so cannot comment.
Originally Posted by finestkind
If you don't trust the person's in charge from the President to the police and you wish to see tyranny behind every action,, well you don't have a country. You have already achieved tyranny through you own "well-intentioned" actions. If your actions are to be able to say I have a gun and others do and we will stop tyranny by force if necessary begs the questions what makes your right the right right?????
You seem to assume I'm just headed out the door to start an armed insurrection and that I trust nobody. Trust, but verify. Elect and monitor. Process and review. Nobody has "actioned" the insurrection, well-intentioned or otherwise. I will concede that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and whose side is right may be subject to interpretation. Best you leave that for the Americans to figure out for the Americans. If it should ever come to pass, and I sincerely hope it does not, history will judge the actors and outcomes. No sense in you trying to prejudge for everyone.
AR1 - suggest you lay off the drink for a bit, then post. While I find it difficult to follow some of your nonsensical rambling, I will attempt it nonetheless.
Originally Posted by AR1
If only (they said to me) Concealed permits were in that theater, the folks there would have dealt with him. Oh really? pitch dark, your engrossed in a movie and a shot rings out. Do you A: Hit the deck or B: stand up with the other 40 or so guns in the room and shoot who?
A valid question. However, you don't understand gun culture because you don't live it. You also concede you don't "get the gun thing". So let me explain. When used to stop a crime, it is not always necessary to use your weapon to kill or even shoot anyone. Typically, these types of drug-crazed miscreants cower or quit when faced with deadly force. This is why they choose gun free zones. The Colorado movie shooter had 13 cinemas to choose from - he chose the only one that was a gun-free zone. Chance? Perhaps. As soon as the cops showed up, he gave up - no further shots fired. The Oregon mall shooting a few days after Sandy Hook - the guy offed himself once a CCP holder identified himself and showed his gun - no shots fired. And the list goes on. So, no, 40 people wouldn't have been firing blindly in the dark. The training required to acquire a concealed carry permit varies by state, but all require use of force training.
Originally Posted by AR1
That tells you all you need to know. The land of the free is a country haunted by fear - fear of itself. We can talk statistics all we like but it doesn't change that, and until it does, everyday we await the next nutjob who wants his inevitable death on the front pages with his victims.
You need to teach PTT statistical analysis. Your lone conversation with a single woman tells you "all you need to know". Now you're using an ad hominem attack on 322 million people. Nicely done. But you're wrong.
I don't have a gun because I'm fearful. I have a gun because I know I live in a world that is not perfect and there are bad guys with guns. I am responsible because I wish to equip myself with the tools to protect my family and myself. It is out of duty, not fear, that I do this. It is for the love of my family that I protect them.
And even if the bad guy didn't have a gun, I'm not going to let him get close enough to my family to use a knife, a club, a brick or any other imaginary weapon in your Utopian land of make believe. I'm not going to count on my cunning or strength, I'm going to count on the great equalizer that is the most superior weapon I can legally obtain.