US to sign UN Arms Treaty- Goodbye 2nd Ammendment?

Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:20 am

PostSat Jan 26, 2013 1:59 am » by ConspiracyDetective


Gun control will cause nothing but death, China and North Korea are making Nuke threats to the USA, Obama has signed the NDAA so he is allowed to strike first, (how many children do you think will die if this happens? yet he says he cares)

With all this going on wouldn't you rather keep you guns? when will people learn that politician are nothing more than professional liers

some good reasons not to hand over your guns here

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 6271
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:03 am
Location: FEMA SECTOR V

PostSat Jan 26, 2013 2:06 am » by Seahawk


ConspiracyDetective wrote:Gun control will cause nothing but death, China and North Korea are making Nuke threats to the USA, Obama has signed the NDAA so he is allowed to strike first, (how many children do you think will die if this happens? yet he says he cares)

With all this going on wouldn't you rather keep you guns? when will people learn that politician are nothing more than professional liers

some good reasons not to hand over your guns here




Welcome Conspiracy Detective. :cheers:

Good site.

You're in good company here. :flop:

Put that link to your site in your signature, and you'll be abiding by DTV rules. Then, no issue will be made of it.

:hiho:


Upload to Disclose.tv



We gather knowledge faster than we gather wisdom. - William Bell

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2244
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:56 am

PostSat Jan 26, 2013 2:24 am » by Iwanci


Ok.. I said 'nuff said' on this topic.. but when I read stuff like ConspDet... makes me wonder...


just how deluded are people, when they make a connection between Nukes and Gun ownership??

Imagine this...


Image

against this...

Image



yup... guns are gonna do a lot for ya there.....

Ok now.. nuff said.... :mrgreen:
Fortes fortuna iuvat

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 6271
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:03 am
Location: FEMA SECTOR V

PostSat Jan 26, 2013 2:30 am » by Seahawk


I inferred that he was talking about being able to be "behind every blade of grass," in case of foreign retaliation on our home soil, but maybe I'm wrong.


Upload to Disclose.tv



We gather knowledge faster than we gather wisdom. - William Bell

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2244
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:56 am

PostSat Jan 26, 2013 2:56 am » by Iwanci


an argument could be made that you would be well advised to have a gun after the initial 'bombing' and the insueing aftermath.. to this I agree, however, I think it will be needed for survival against your kin (in any country).. would an army venture into a zone that has been nuked? doubt it.... and if, after a nuke attack, a foreign army storms the shores.... a gun (weapon) will offer little if any true protection against an army hell bent on taking you out... Only an army can ward off another army... this is evident in history and indeed in matters currently unfolding on our planet.. see Mali, Syria, etc etc... many people with many weapons and who is winning? The army is.. unless there is intervention from another army or the threat of same...

So, yep, a gun will protect you from yourselves, this is true and important, but not from an invading army... only your army can help you here.. IMO...
Fortes fortuna iuvat

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:18 am
Location: Southern California

PostSat Jan 26, 2013 4:23 am » by SUKHOV


Personally, I don't think Nuclear weapons will be used on a scale like that. Yes, they do a lot of destruction, Yes, fallout is a long time, But the land mass ratio to nuclear weapons is higher. So a gun might do some good in the aftermath.


Obviously if you're at ground zero or in the direct vicinity, nothing is going to save you...
The True Sons of Liberty are alive and well.
Мое сердце, мой спаситель, да будет свет.
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Flight 815

PostSat Jan 26, 2013 9:11 am » by Jet17


Lowsix wrote:
Iwanci wrote:tighetning the gun control laws will in no way diminish that which you so proudly and justifiably hold dear.


Examine all of the cities with the TIGHTEST "gun control" laws on the books, and then we can talk about what will or not be diminished.

One thing that is NEVER diminished in the areas that have the strictest legislation on the books: Crime and criminal activity...the things that the additional, stricter legislation was intended to address or fix.

This is a fact, it will be up to you to "be objective" and look at what im telling you.... Look into Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington DC. Strictest laws in the books, not a BIT of good stopping gun crime...or insane people.


Iwanci wrote:But the reality is that even a great citizen is prone to faults, and from an outside perspective this is seen as a major flaw in your country... sometimes a third eye will reveal things that two eyes cannot see.


Well, what MY biased eye sees when i read your words..along with the rest of the worlds..(who have no stake in our domestic bliss whatsoever) is that you all tend to misappropriate and misapply words like..."fault"..an "Flaw"...and attempt to stick the "flaw" context onto something sacred like.."The Right of Self Determination and Protection".

Neither of which are faults..in any examination of the words.

NEITHER will any self-respecting, law abiding, constitution backing American will EVER just "hand over"..those rights because of some sense of bandwagon 'outrage" as you put it...from the rest of the world.

The controls in place work to the extent they are able in the face of INSANE, criminal minded persistance.

For instance, it seems to get LOST on people that the lanza kid was TURNED AWAY and rejected in his attempt to buy that gun himself. The laws in place DO work. You could stick the entire stack of gun-restriction requirements proposed onto that situation, and the outcome would be EXACTLY the same.. THAT logic seems to get lost on people as well. The stricter laws couldnt have stopped him any moer effectively at the gun store, and his mom wasnt insane, so she could still ostensibly own guns, the ONLY difference, was that he might have to change mags more often. And thats IT> No reduction or prevention of squat that is getting hung on it.

No, the flaw in your logic, is not recognizing that fact.
And attempting to smear our right to self protection with words like fault and flaw.

Its like getting me to agree that hey, since the world is falling apart, i should be helpless.

Thats ridiculous.



I have been through this a couple times with him, even posted statistics that doesn't support gun control working one iota.

He ignores it, and continues rehashing the same arguments.

Good luck though.
Image
*View my post history under former usernames: JetXVII, Epicfailure, Slamgunshark*

DJ Jesus died for your Spins!

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2286
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:16 am

PostSat Jan 26, 2013 9:23 am » by mediasorcery


Iwanci wrote:an argument could be made that you would be well advised to have a gun after the initial 'bombing' and the insueing aftermath.. to this I agree, however, I think it will be needed for survival against your kin (in any country).. would an army venture into a zone that has been nuked? doubt it.... and if, after a nuke attack, a foreign army storms the shores.... a gun (weapon) will offer little if any true protection against an army hell bent on taking you out... Only an army can ward off another army... this is evident in history and indeed in matters currently unfolding on our planet.. see Mali, Syria, etc etc... many people with many weapons and who is winning? The army is.. unless there is intervention from another army or the threat of same...

So, yep, a gun will protect you from yourselves, this is true and important, but not from an invading army... only your army can help you here.. IMO...



thats funny, because[australian of course] civilians with 2 weeks basic training held off the mighty japanese army in new guinea in beginning of ww2, they took heavy casualties and were criticised by usa general macarthur but they stopped the japs reaching port moresby and they were CIVILIANS!!!!! :clapper: :clapper: :clapper:


so you are wrong about that, a determined malicia can equal anyones army with dedication and will to succeed. :clapper:


so now you know
the story of life is quicker than the blink of an eye, the story of love is hello and goodbye, until we meet again my friend.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8418
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm

PostSat Jan 26, 2013 10:04 am » by Noentry


:lol:
Solders with guns do not win wars no more.
There is no civilian population that can win or stand up to a modern day army.
If so why is NATO creaming the ME?

The real power is in technology.

Yes 60 years ago solders with guns won wars.

:alien51: Leave the past in the past, guns no longer win wars.

An army can destroy you from 30'000 ft.

I watched a film on Iraq war. Jarhead I think, the solder the story was based around never fired his weapon once, drove him insane.

:flop:
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2244
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:56 am

PostSat Jan 26, 2013 10:12 am » by Iwanci


Nope Media.. at best a determined militia can slow down an onslaught.. there were many facets in WW2 that you cannot simply gloss over in a forum like this... so you are right about what happened, but there is more to that story.

Jet.. I am NOT an advocate of gun control, nor am I against it.. I do believe that there is a limit however on what is acceptable in society in terms of weapon ownership. I have never said that gun control per se eliminates the crime.. and YES I am aware of the crime statistics... but I ask you this and answer this HONESTLY..

If there were NO guns in the world, how many gun related deaths would there be?


I know its a fanciful question and misleading... but the answer (as simple as it may appear) has some logic..

follow this..

0 guns = 0 gun death potential
1 gun = ?? gun death potential
2 guns = ???? gun death potential

millions of guns = ????????????????????????? gun death potential

Deny the fact that the more weapons are out there the more potential there is for gun related deaths.. go ahead deny that one.

The truth of the matter (as I have said before but you seem to discount) is NOT that guns can ever be eliminated nor gun deaths stopped.. the real question is how do you LIMIT the associated gun deaths that we/you are currently experiencing?

Further, please don't give me the horse shit argument about 'in the event of a war', or 'what if a nuke falls on us' or 'what if, what if what if'... these are ALL cop outs when you are confronted with a REAL life situation, what you see happening around the globe is actually happening NOW, not maybe, not what if... happening now.

Further again... you have a thing called a military and another thing called a police force.. what is there job exactly and why do you pay them? Somehow the only argument I am hearing for the retention of fully automatic weapons is for self preservation in the time of war, a small fire arm or riffle should suffice for the day to day home burglary no? or do you think you need an AK47 to ward off criminals in your country? If YES then I would be asking some serious questions of my police force, like what the fuck are you doing when I need to arm myself with an AK47?


Like I said, the arguments flow both ways on this.. but no matter which way you swing.. the truth is.. YOU WILL GET GUN CONTROL IN THE US regardless of what YOU or I say. The issues are far greater and more political than anything we can ever right in a post.

Right or wrong, more crime or less crime, stop death or cause death.. these are all mute points, the imbiciles in your country who committed these crimes against your school children and your innocent neighborshave cast the die for you, so if you are agreived, pay these dudes a visit and let them know that you will not tolerate their crap in your schools.. oh wait, that's what the court and police are for right? The very courts and police that you believe are scheming to control you and want to take away your liberties and cant be trusted cos they are all rogues and all corupted... you cant have it both ways.. you either turst them or you do something about it.. screaming that you want to keep your guns and then doing nothing about it is like farting alone in a lift.... no fun.

:mrgreen:

anyhow that's my rant for the day... and I couldn't care less whether or not you keep your guns (and you will keep em, just lose the biggish ones that most of you don't even own).. at the end of the day, I live in Australia and my mate Media lives down the road, if the shit goes down, I am running to his place...

and to you Noentry :flop: spot on... guns do NOT win wars.. but they may offer some sollace during it, but probably just to ward off your own neighbours..

:cheers:
Fortes fortuna iuvat


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook