{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/21/2013 5:00:21 AM
17
Guns don't protect your rights.
I'm not to fond of Bill Maher but he brings up valid points.
Seriously why do gun nuts think their AR-15 is the thing stopping the government from taking their rights?
-
I'm not trying to be offensive here but I honestly think anyone who thinks it's "necessary" to own a gun, especially an assault rifle, is an arrogant fool. The only time you'd be able to use your gun for defense is when someone literally threatens you with deadly force and you happen to have your gun with you.
-
Bill Maher is forgetting something, the military is sworn to protect the constitution both foreign and [b]domain[/b] if there was any uprising i would hope that the soldiers wouldnt fire upon the citizens that they protect
-
1 ReplyI have the right to bear arms. Government takes any of my weapons away from me they are infringing on that right. So yes if my AR 15 gets taken away then the government is in fact taking away some of my rights. Op learn logic.
-
2 RepliesCivilian weaponry doesn't stop or prevent the government from taking rights. Civilian weapons do, however, provide civilians with means to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. The framers of the Constitution felt that civilian gun ownership was necessary to serve as a blockade between themselves and those who wish to do them harm. Those wishing to infringe upon the right to bear arms are seen as threatening the civilian population by slowly and methodically disarming it. Before you go and say, " [b] But guise, you can't do anything against tanks, and infantry,artillery, etc etc."[/b] We could , we can, and most likely will should such a government try to come to power. The US has arguably the mightiest military force the world has aver seen, and while greatly lethal against organized military installations like a normal country, it is highly ineffective against guerrilla warfare tactics. Want proof? Look no further than the Vietnam War. What a miserable failure that was.
-
Edited by Der Todesengel: 1/24/2013 1:54:13 AMWith an armed and defiant citizenry, tyranny can only occur at the barrel of at gun. Without, it can be done with a pen. Or as Ben Franklin put it: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Der Edit: and Bill Maher is an idiot...
-
We also dont need a whiny bitch but here you are. your right though, in a way, the first amendment gives us our protection from the government because we can speak out against it. The second amendment is there to protect the first. What Maher is forgetting though is that there is tyranny everywhere and the average citizen should be able to defend themselves from it
-
Not physically, but it's symbolic in that way.
-
A gun has helped protect my life and my property twice in my 21 year life. Try and take my gun away, I dare ya.
-
2 RepliesWhy do idiots think banning assault rifles will do anything?
-
3 RepliesEdited by Dustin: 1/21/2013 7:40:18 AMI think we should just enact strict licenses on guns, but open up the market to deadlier guns as a compromise. If you really are passionate towards guns, you wouldn't mind going through combat training and psychological testing to prove your ability (and to shake off the "noobs" and criminals). And as compensation, they (those passionate, skilled, and proven) can purchase bigger, more military oriented weapons.
-
6 RepliesGuns do protect your rights. Anyone can force someone into being submissive using force taking away their right to voice. If you have a firearm, then you can protect yourself against anyone trying to do that. It's not all about the government becoming tyrannical and taking all your rights away, it's about anyone trying to do that.
-
1 Replythey protect you and your rights. its more of a symbolic thing is all. yorkie
-
17 RepliesEdited by Quantum: 1/21/2013 6:37:41 AMIrrespective of the need for gun regulations/the current situation, I agree. Guns don't protect your rights, they never have, and generally those who have rebelled non-violently and violently to protect their rights have been on the wrong side of history (cough 1860s, 1960s). Edit: Let me clarify: civilian militias are not fighting for a universal right set, rather their own agendas.
-
But but I need my gun because the government will take my job!
-
In any society, it is ultimately the use of force that backs up the enforcement of rights.
-
I believe it's more of a matter of "Where do you draw the line."
-
Bump because insta-death.
