Why do people want guns?

[minamoto]

They released the 64-bit processing expansion a while ago. Comes with expanded ram and some additional ARM cores to use. Send me your addy and I can send you one with a letter explaining the situation to whomever's electronics project you've decided to haunt.

send me ur's first....

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

The problem is "what is a right?"

In America, the concept of a right is not quite the same as what it is in other nations. A right is not seen as a privilege by a government, it is seen as a sort of immutable law of society. The reason why the government of the U.S. shall make no law regarding the exercise of free speech is not because a bunch of men in wigs 200+ years ago decided it would be a cool thing to give people, but because a society must be allowed to freely express ideas or it will eventually revolt against its government. A government isn't forbidden from hacking your head off from saying "I like my little pony" because it's mean, but because a government which does such things is going to face revolt and be replaced.

Likewise, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is, again, not because this is a cool little freedom thing to give to people - it's because the ONLY reason a government has to restrict armaments is in order to solidify its control over the population and render their consent to be governed null and void. It is not there so much as a real control against government, but as a canary in the coal mine. When the second amendment is abolished, the whole of the U.S. becomes a free-fire zone and the civilian population is at war with the politicians and any willing to enforce such policies.

This is, precisely, what is unfolding in Europe, currently. "Refugees" swamp a society and subjugate it to a will that is not of the people as police cover up crimes by 'refugees' and politicians arrest people for thought crimes. The governments of Europe do not serve the interests of the people they govern in the slightest. It has not evolved one step above the feudal system, which is still very much present.

To be fair, America has its own issues it is dealing with and an open, armed revolt is a can of worms of last resort; but we still have that option. Europe's population is literally being replaced. Those who do not want to go along with the new order are literally being replaced by imported sources of labor and skills while their own schooling and society is scuttled from within. Men are raised to be women and women raised to be men - where not ritualistically abused into being breed stock for the invaders.

It is unconscionable, to me, that people would trust the government to wield exclusive authority over arms and armament above their own citizenry. Citizens can be trusted to vote people into office, yet they can't be trusted to wield basic small arms while the officials elected by them wield nuclear arsenals. If people can't be trusted to have firearms, then they sure as hell can't be trusted to vote for their own leaders. Of course, who counts the votes, anyway?

Can you not remain on a subject without making an example of another obscurely related one? Paragraph One's

A government isn't forbidden from hacking your head off from saying "I like my little pony" because it's mean, but because a government which does such things is going to face revolt and be replaced.

Just sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy when combined with Paragraph Two's

When the second amendment is abolished, the whole of the U.S. becomes a free-fire zone and the civilian population is at war with the politicians and any willing to enforce such policies.

Seeing that you like history as much as you do, maybe you can imagine something like that coming out of nowhere, but I can't. Why our general politicians would huddle up to enact something of the sort and how it'd fly past the judicial system is bizarre to me. Would said civil war be due to the "revolts?"

The issue of a civilian war also runs into the last Paragraph's entirety and its

Citizens can be trusted to vote people into office, yet they can't be trusted to wield basic small arms while the officials elected by them wield nuclear arsenals.

If they're voting in SO many politicians with the mindset of "kill the rioters" or "kill the purple men who do 'x,' 'y,' or 'z'" that the politicians can feasibly enact such laws, then yes, I wouldn't trust those kinds of idiots voting let alone with a gun.

Then why wouldn't I hold the belief that they shouldn't have the right to vote on the basis of their perceived intelligence and/or character? The distinctions between the right to vote and the right to bare arms cuts me short there. America's government is ultimately to govern its people, I think putting nukes and sorts into the hands of those who we elected is a necessary part of that but don't feel the same to the right to bare arms. You can point out that the right may serve vital should there be a war on our soil, but, and it is my stubbornness that says this rather than reasoning, that's not something I feel weighs in too heavily.

 

[Edogawa]

America doesn't need to go down the China route. China practically has cameras set up everywhere in streets for surveillance.

Guns are a legalized individual's right, it i used for self defense. It gives a people a sense of empowerment while powerless. If you took guns away, the more rapes/crimes are likely to happen especially since America is not communistic. It might have communistic tendencies , but people's private right are still top priority.

Guns are needed in this world, people just have to learn how to control their emotions.

What you suggested is a common conservative point, which historically has not worked since the US foundation and still doesn't. If it's your individual right to own a gun for self-defense, then it is someone else's right to own a gun for offense infliction.

Firstly, you don't understand what rights are from a political philosophy. It is true you are free to own a gun just as you are free to hunt, just as free to drive a car and even free to commit crime, but the government doesn't create legalisations based on what your individual rights are - individual rights are enforced to a certain degree to ensure your individual rights do not cause harm to another person's safety or national security. Regulations and checks of balance exist to ensure the safety of society.

That is why you don't drive a car until you are eligible, even though it is your right to drive one. That is why you don't study/work until you complete certain processes. The examples of individual rights are endless, but all of them correlate to gun ownership. The problem with gun ownership safety checks is that they have all failed in preventing gun crimes to this day, and gun crimes are increasing more than ever, despite increased security checks in gun purchases signed by conservative law bills. If that solution didn't work, then it's only logical to ban guns totally.

It works in all of the developed world, it sure as hell will work in America.

Secondly, the Chinese method does work hence why crime rates are significantly lower there, even though population wise is +4x times bigger than the US.

 

[Aim64C]

Can you not remain on a subject without making an example of another obscurely related one? Paragraph One's
Just sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy when combined with Paragraph Two's

It ultimately comes down to philosophy. From where is a government's power gained? The consent of the governed? Or do the people who find themselves in authority over others have a divine right to wield that authority? Are leaders selected, or are they born? Are governments systems erected by the people, or are people a system managed by the government?

Ultimately, if you believe that those who are in the political caste have the privileged position to determine what course of action is best for people, then you believe that people are subjects of their government and that consent is not required to govern. In short - you believe the power of people in government is and should be to command the lives of others toward/along whatever ideals or goals they set forth, and it is the duty of those people to follow.

If power is derived from the consent of the governed, then there are things that no government can be permitted to do, or it risks invalidating that consent. If you allow me to chain you to the bed, then you are completely exposed to my willingness to not rape you - because at that point, the only thing that really determines whether or not *** happens is my decision - yours simply determines whether or not it's considered a crime.

When you allow the government to chain you to the bed, all is well and good when the government is doing things you want. When it's suddenly doing things you don't want... well... what are you going to do about it?

The Constitution exists to keep the government from placing those chains on people - to stand as a contract and standard for things we will not do to each other. We are not going to take your right to protect yourself away. We are not going to chain you to the bed. We are not going to strike at you with the law for speaking your mind. To do so is not just wrong because it's something we feel is over-the-top, but because allowing others to do this to you (not just ourselves), exposes you to undue risk. It removes your ability to enforce your own decisions and to genuinely give your consent to be governed.

It's not about a love for guns, a love for hunting - or even, really, a fear of the government. It is the belief that it is wrong for me to walk over and tell you that you can't carry that OC spray in your purse... trust me... all of me and my pals are good people who just like escorting young ladies through dark alleys.

I would rather get shot by a woman having a mental breakdown than to see a society where the good people are denied the ability to enforce their own free will.

Seeing that you like history as much as you do, maybe you can imagine something like that coming out of nowhere, but I can't. Why our general politicians would huddle up to enact something of the sort and how it'd fly past the judicial system is bizarre to me. Would said civil war be due to the "revolts?"

Contingencies. Pre-scripted plans set to trigger conditions. Operatives in place. Once triggered, decapitation. Burn the forest and rely on the seeds.

The issue of a civilian war also runs into the last Paragraph's entirety and its

If they're voting in SO many politicians with the mindset of "kill the rioters" or "kill the purple men who do 'x,' 'y,' or 'z'" that the politicians can feasibly enact such laws, then yes, I wouldn't trust those kinds of idiots voting let alone with a gun.

You're thinking in a rather narrow context.

Who is Laura Silsby? Woman arrested in Haiti for trying to smuggle children out of country. Promised parents would be adopted and given education. No official paperwork.
Member of Clinton network. Bailed out of jail by Clintons. Charges dropped.

U.N. Trafficking problems. Aid workers in any situation they get involved in. Real reason for involvement. Standard Hotels. How many "undocumented" inside western nations? Controlled. Fear of criminal conviction and deportation if escape and caught. Slaves.

You trust law enforcement to enforce the laws. When certain groups of them in key locations are in on the *** parties? Even those who escape and do properly go to authorities are recycled back into the system and severely punished.

Evil.

Standard Hotel. Yacht Clubs.

Allison Mack. NXIVM. Abramovic.

Sibyl System. These are the people who you entrust to rule over you.
Urubuchi has a keen intellect.

Then why wouldn't I hold the belief that they shouldn't have the right to vote on the basis of their perceived intelligence and/or character? The distinctions between the right to vote and the right to bare arms cuts me short there. America's government is ultimately to govern its people, I think putting nukes and sorts into the hands of those who we elected is a necessary part of that but don't feel the same to the right to bare arms. You can point out that the right may serve vital should there be a war on our soil, but, and it is my stubbornness that says this rather than reasoning, that's not something I feel weighs in too heavily.

The people who you vote into office are, as they continually seek to expand their authority over you, granted the ability to declare evil lawful and good criminal, given time. Who counts the votes? Why are there more registered voters in some districts than there are people living? How can voter turnout exceed the living population?

What about other phenomena, such as what happened in regard to the 2016 election? When people begin to conspire across state and regional lines to skew the vote? A person who is in a heavily democratic state may decide to vote republican if their friend in another state that is less certain will go out and vote democrat.

When large networks of out-of-state protesters are bussed in by various interest groups to protest within a community in an attempt to coerce people into believing their community wants a given policy or another - once again... is the ideal of voting living up to the reality of it?

The reason I choose to honor the decisions from the ballot box are because most of these issues are relatively minor. Very few of them substantially impact the way I live. They are decisions on where to put the community pool, what the design of the park should look like, who should water the flowers - these types of things. If I don't get my way, it's not a huge deal. If the offices of government are well constrained in what authorities they can take, then it is, again, not worth taking matters into my own hands and ending the government because someone a little less than honest got into the office this time around.

This is why the powers and authorities of government are constrained. When the judge, who was just voted in, has the authority to dismiss criminal charges against a local gang leader - then it becomes rather important to pick that judge. When the state legislature and governor have the power to make showering illegal and throw you in jail for using too much water.... becomes pretty damned important to make sure sensible people get into those positions.

The more powerful government becomes, the more unsavory types are drawn into its service, and the more untenable the system becomes as more and more groups are increasingly alienated from the policy decisions of an out of control government.

Europe has to live with it. They have very few options for recourse. They are going to house refugees. Those refugees are going to get special rights over them. They are going to continue to go to work to support these systems, and they are going to be replaced by the migrant populations, generation by generation.

Barring an exceptional display of patriotism from their military, or a foreign invasion to save them. It is game over, and all they can do is pray that their government miraculously chooses to reverse course.

 

[Narcissus]

I've hung around plenty of criminals. The kinds of guns they have are a higher grade than what a civilian is supposed to have. Uzi's, Tech 9's, rarely an AK-47, and a couple of Tommy Gun's. These people aren't going to admit they're in possession of these weapons and aren't giving them up either, so why should civilians forfeit their rights, when the lions are armed to the teeth waiting for a naive sheep.

If you honestly believe people don't need guns, you're in for a lot of trouble when the government and criminals get to work.