Do you pack heat on your 250 beast?

[massacremasses]

reasons now one wants to invade Canada.

Its sucks. The end.


although youve got some hotties up there, thats about the only thing you really have going for you. Of course most of my knowledge of Canada and its traditions come from South Park...


(that was a joke, Im not sure if Canadians have a sense of humor)

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

10,000+ civilians dead, massive economic set backs, destruction of social structures, massive damage to infrastructure. The international community sits back while the government kills the people.

Why is this? Because all governments have access to tanks, missiles, helicopters, war planes, etc and merely grabbing a gun does nothing.

Your average untrained civilian does not become an effective fighter against oppression just by giving him a gun. That's why they civilians still go out in protests and expatriates continue to lobby external governments because speaking out is more effective then shooting at a tank with a hand gun.

with some good leadership John Q will do just fine just like in centuries past.
military vets can be a big help as well. you guys just need to keep on fighting and vet your leaders. might take years but the long term peace and prosperity, will be worth it.

there are ways to fight technology, you just have to think about it.
why limit yourself to a handgun after a full blown rebellion... your logic confuses me...use everything available at the time.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

"It's timeless because it is."

"It's not timeless because we abolished it."

So if the second amendment was removed by the American government you would accept that it isn't "timeless"? No you wouldn't.

they won't remove it, its part of the bill of rights.
politicians might try to limit it at the local level, but it will be for nothing since the courts will overrule them.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Yeah I guess you're right. One of my favorite moments in American history is when Martin Luther King Jr. started a violent revolution against the state to secure the rights of minorities. I also enjoyed when women took up arms against against men to secure their personhood.

martin luther king, jr did not need to use violence, he was a great orator and his personality got along with everyone. he may not have liked it because if his position, but he did not question the need for it.even as a pacifist, he knew the importance of a gun for self protection.

universal suffrage was already gaining popularity after world war 1, since a lot of the men died during the war and women were running things around town and representing the community.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

What? Lower socioeconomic communities are better targets for crime because security is low, fear is high, they are easier targets, and they are less likely to report crimes. They always have been. Here's the American justice department's documentation on it.

This is from 2010, the gap was bigger in the 2000 report:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv10.txt

who would have thought living in the ghetto was dangerous...

i would support sponsoring low income families with guns, if they sent their kids to military boarding school instead of a public school.
i taught some "low income" kids kick boxing and setup a shooting team, it turned out great and they turned out to be some of the most grateful and dedicated individuals.
you could probably eliminate most crime by giving them some good leadership.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

I've lived/spent time in Canada, Syria, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates where I received medical care on different levels.

I've had plenty of experience with foreign systems and I can give you my opinion on each one, but lets just say that the United States health care system isn't as stream lined as you make it out to be. It's as "slow" as Canada's and a lot more expensive and greedy.

Plenty of countries have better general medical care and specific medical care than the USA does. That's why medical tourism exists and why the USA isn't number one in health care.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad system. It's just not the "best in the world".

nobody i know goes overseas for surgeries.
the system here is not linked to taxes, the cost may seem high but the our taxes are much lower than other countries with universal healthcare. most decisions are based on the individual.

i never experienced healthcare in the other places you mentioned.
i would like for you to give opinions on the other systems.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

It's all over the place with crime relatively high in both gun friendly states and states that heavily restrict.

That's what leads me to believe gun laws should be restrictive (or open) based on the cultures and societies that they are in and that their use does not guaranty or achieve it in some cases.

i believe most gun friendly states have lower crime rates.

if your statement were true, and it was a wash no matter what.
then its actually ineffective and waste of time to regulate guns.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

It's very possible to fix your system through grass roots efforts and political processes. The only real issue in the United States is campaign finance reform. If you can stop the wholesale buying of politicians for the use of the wealthy interests groups then you'd see a massive and fundamental change in the American system of government.

special interest groups are a double edged sword.
they are capable of both great and horrible things, but they are ineffective compared to determined local constituents.

i think the main issue with our system is voter fraud.
it has been ramping up recently in several states.
they need to change the punishment to death instead of prison time.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Redgeneral

I'm assuming you have good insurance/health benefits?

i didn't have health insurance until i was 28.
i have good coverage now, but the costs are comparable to when i didn't have it.

i guess i'm the guy they love to insure, since i don't have any problems/issues with my health.

everytime i went in, it was quick and i was treated even when i had no insurance.
i just had to make payments afterward.

comparing the tax rates of other countries, i made out like a bandit even when paying out of pocket, lol.

[imataiwanezz]

I've heard Canada's insurance is broke as hell... with crazy waiting room times and crap. Talked to some of the Canadian Marines that came down here to train with me for RIMPAC, they were all complaining about it as well just saying...

[imataiwanezz]

Just ran across this and thought it was appropriate for this thread

[Monkeytofu]

Originally Posted by lgk

with some good leadership John Q will do just fine just like in centuries past.
military vets can be a big help as well. you guys just need to keep on fighting and vet your leaders. might take years but the long term peace and prosperity, will be worth it.

there are ways to fight technology, you just have to think about it.
why limit yourself to a handgun after a full blown rebellion... your logic confuses me...use everything available at the time.

Because Tanks, heavy artillery, and useful military equipment aren't just lying around for the taking.

You must be one of those people who thinks that billy bob's local militia would stand a chance against the strength of a trained, technologically advanced force with intelligence that has been conditioned to kill other human beings.

If you gave every military age male not in the US military a gun and, assuming they were properly trained in its use, any modern fighting force would still take a giant dino dump on them with drones, airplanes, and other systems you will never gain access to or know how to use.

Originally Posted by lgk

they won't remove it, its part of the bill of rights.
politicians might try to limit it at the local level, but it will be for nothing since the courts will overrule them.

You can change the bill of rights like any other amendments created in the history of the United States... The "Bill of Rights" is just a name given to the first 10 amendments.

Originally Posted by lgk

universal suffrage was already gaining popularity after world war 1, since a lot of the men died during the war and women were running things around town and representing the community.

Woman were able to vote in many states before WW1 and the effort to achieve equality for them was started in the late 18th century.

You are giving me explanations of situations where guns were not even a factor or at all influenced fundamental changes in society.

Originally Posted by lgk

martin luther king, jr did not need to use violence, he was a great orator and his personality got along with everyone. he may not have liked it because if his position, but he did not question the need for it.even as a pacifist, he knew the importance of a gun for self protection.

No.

Originally Posted by Martin Luther King, Jr.

By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim… we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes.

Referenced from:

King Jr., Martin Luther and Clayborne Carson (2001) The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Grand Central Publishing. p. 147. (page 243 if you look at the amazon ebook)

Originally Posted by lgk

who would have thought living in the ghetto was dangerous...

Not you.

Check your previous post. Apparently you thought that the rich and well off citizens are the ones being mainly targeted by criminals. It was weird to me as well.

Originally Posted by lgk

i would support sponsoring low income families with guns, if they sent their kids to military boarding school instead of a public school.

This is probably the worst idea I have ever heard. Not only do most poor people not have the adequate facilities to store weapons, they probably do not have the time or money to invest in training.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Originally Posted by lgk

nobody i know goes overseas for surgeries.
the system here is not linked to taxes, the cost may seem high but the our taxes are much lower than other countries with universal healthcare. most decisions are based on the individual.

If you hadn't realized, your health insurance (which I assume you have or you'd be swamped in health bills) does not make decisions based on your individual wants. They decide what doctors you see, what medical operations you need and don't need, and how much extra to charge you if you start costing the pool more than you're worth.

Originally Posted by lgk

i never experienced healthcare in the other places you mentioned.
i would like for you to give opinions on the other systems.

In terms of accessibility, I found the Canadian one to be the best. Saudi Arabia, America, Canada, and the UAE generally have the same level of care and attention that you would expect from a doctor. Wait times aren't different between Canada and America. I've had family go to the ER and have to wait for a while or go in immediately for non-life threatening things in America.

All my experiences with Canadian healthcare has been pretty much the same with the American system, except that I didn't have to see my friends who weren't as lucky as me pass on getting medical attention/going to the doctor because they couldn't afford it but weren't poor enough to qualify for government aid.

Originally Posted by lgk

i believe most gun friendly states have lower crime rates.

If your statement were true, and it was a wash no matter what.
then its actually ineffective and waste of time to regulate guns.

Nevada is pretty open (at least in my opinion) when it comes to owning guns. It seems they only require to take a course to learn about guns then you purchase guns, open carry, and you don't even have to register. They have the worst crime rate in the United States according to organizations.


And no, it would be smarter to let states and countries continue regulating based on the needs of those within its state and in respect to those place's cultures.

Originally Posted by lgk

i think the main issue with our system is voter fraud.
it has been ramping up recently in several states.
they need to change the punishment to death instead of prison time.

Voter fraud is almost non-existent in the United States. I don't know where people get this myth, because it's so easy to catch, easy to prosecute, and and has been shown to be a non-issue. The fact that your politicians are bought wholesale through campaign contributions is much more important.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Because Tanks, heavy artillery, and useful military equipment aren't just lying around for the taking.

if your life depended on it, you would find a way to to seize it, or reduce its effectiveness. happens all the time.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

If you gave every military age male not in the US military a gun and, assuming they were properly trained in its use, any modern fighting force would still take a giant dino dump on them with drones, airplanes, and other systems you will never gain access to or know how to use.

you would be conditioned to kill, if you experienced things as bad you said in syria.

fighting against an enemy with the technological upperhand does suck but people can overcome anything... don't discount them, negativity never won a battle. ingenuity creates victories.

if your saying fighting for freedom is too hard.
then we really have nothing else to discuss here.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

You can change the bill of rights like any other amendments created in the history of the United States... The "Bill of Rights" is just a name given to the first 10 amendments.

could and would are too different things, there is no chance of it ever happening. it would solve nothing and the next thing to go would be the first amendment. then all the others.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Woman were able to vote in many states before WW1 and the effort to achieve equality for them was started in the late 18th century.

You are giving me explanations of situations where guns were not even a factor or at all influenced fundamental changes in society.

your the one who started talking about them...

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Referenced from:

King Jr., Martin Luther and Clayborne Carson (2001) The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Grand Central Publishing. p. 147. (page 243 if you look at the amazon ebook)

didnt stop him from trying to get concealed weapons permit, and bodyguards.
maybe he didn't like carrying but like i said he understood the importance of it.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Not you.

Check your previous post. Apparently you thought that the rich and well off citizens are the ones being mainly targeted by criminals. It was weird to me as well.

obviously you glossed over what i said.
i think you should read it over.

if you don't understand risk/reward drive of most criminals then you just won't get it. the risk of getting killed interferes with their OODA loop...

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

This is probably the worst idea I have ever heard. Not only do most poor people not have the adequate facilities to store weapons, they probably do not have the time or money to invest in training.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

the only facility they need to store a gun is their holster and belt.
i would fund training as well, just like the DCM did for the longest time.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

If you hadn't realized, your health insurance (which I assume you have or you'd be swamped in health bills) does not make decisions based on your individual wants. They decide what doctors you see, what medical operations you need and don't need, and how much extra to charge you if you start costing the pool more than you're worth.

i decide what doctors i see, and the doctor recommends the operations.
my insurance has never disapproved anything.

health insurance is a company, they charge whatever the market can bear.
i honestly don't care about how much it costs, as long as i receive the best care.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

In terms of accessibility, I found the Canadian one to be the best. Saudi Arabia, America, Canada, and the UAE generally have the same level of care and attention that you would expect from a doctor. Wait times aren't different between Canada and America. I've had family go to the ER and have to wait for a while or go in immediately for non-life threatening things in America.

All my experiences with Canadian healthcare has been pretty much the same with the American system, except that I didn't have to see my friends who weren't as lucky as me pass on getting medical attention/going to the doctor because they couldn't afford it but weren't poor enough to qualify for government aid.

that does not reflect the experience of my Canadian friends.
they moved here to make more money, and get better medical treatment.

if they weren't pleased with the situation, they would have move back to canada.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Nevada is pretty open (at least in my opinion) when it comes to owning guns. It seems they only require to take a course to learn about guns then you purchase guns, open carry, and you don't even have to register. They have the worst crime rate in the United States according to organizations.

Clark county is an anomaly.

washington DC is also an anomaly but has a far higher crime rate than any state, and forbids guns.

ill pick the semi dangerous place with a gun over an extremely dangerous place and unarmed.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

And no, it would be smarter to let states and countries continue regulating based on the needs of those within its state and in respect to those place's cultures.

the US as a whole needs less regulation.
ASIA and Europe, people pass through borders regularly, most people here just travel inside the US.
concealed carry should be consistent between all states, and follow vermonts model for ease.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Voter fraud is almost non-existent in the United States. I don't know where people get this myth, because it's so easy to catch, easy to prosecute, and and has been shown to be a non-issue. The fact that your politicians are bought wholesale through campaign contributions is much more important.

the issue is not national races its small local elections, and not so easy to catch. some absentee ballots get "lost" here and there, and voting machine gets hack, etc. most fraud is not found.

soft funds will be worked around no matter what. you just have to promote honest candidates and get them on the ballot. its the only way to be sure...

[ninja_thresh_hold]

Originally Posted by lgk

that's a mature stance i can appreciate.
i respect you for understanding.

HAHA yeah, i dont understand people who are affraid of guns, when its not the guns that people should be affraid of, its what people who are too ill tempered/ immature to handle a fire arm do that they SHOULD be affraid of lol

[lgk]

Originally Posted by ninja_thresh_hold

HAHA yeah, i dont understand people who are affraid of guns, when its not the guns that people should be affraid of, its what people who are too ill tempered/ immature to handle a fire arm do that they SHOULD be affraid of lol

you know what they say, uncontrolled fear is the enemy of understanding.

they simply concentrate on the wrong thing when they are afraid.

good example is riding a motorcycle.
rider1 looks at the turn, locks up and crashes.
rider2 looks through the turn and completes it.

both guys know what it takes to complete the turn.
the difference is the rider2 did not let fear take control of his actions.

even worst is if rider1 blames the bike, this means the fear controls his thoughts as well.
then his logic is eroded, and any thought or action he makes afterward is suspect.

[Monkeytofu]

Originally Posted by lgk

if your life depended on it, you would find a way to to seize it, or reduce its effectiveness. happens all the time.


fighting against an enemy with the technological upperhand does suck but people can overcome anything... don't discount them, negativity never won a battle. ingenuity creates victories.

Yeah, it doesn't happen. You apparently have no grasp on how lop sided modern conflicts are even with civilian access to guns. Did you even pay attention to Libya? Even in third world countries where a conflict wouldn't be as lopsided (if the army defects in mass) it's almost impossible with the the overwhelming assistance of foreign powers with real money.


Your guns will never be useful against any sort of tyranny in the United States. Your hand guns and pistols will never defeat the strength of the US army and your untrained combat "ingenuity" won't prevent a drone from turning you into a small crater. Your only hope would be to pray for some sort of unlikely event where everything goes perfectly and the US military decides to side with you.

Being "positive" in your case is planning and obsessing over one improbable event happening, with an even more improbable result.

Originally Posted by lgk

you would be conditioned to kill, if you experienced things as bad you said in syria.

No, you wouldn't. That takes dedication and proper military training.

Originally Posted by lgk

if your saying fighting for freedom is too hard.
then we really have nothing else to discuss here.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying fighting it peacefully with civil disobedience and has shown itself to be fundamentally more useful and effective in established and stable countries like the United States. It's even worked out in politically repressive countries like Tunisia and Egypt.

Originally Posted by lgk

could and would are too different things, there is no chance of it ever happening. it would solve nothing and the next thing to go would be the first amendment. then all the others.

I'm not arguing that it would happen. It probably won't and I wouldn't want it to happen but I'm just pointing out you it's not some holy, untouchable object like you've been making it out to be.

Originally Posted by lgk

your the one who started talking about them...

And you're the one who explained how they effectively changed society without guns.

Originally Posted by lgk

didnt stop him from trying to get concealed weapons permit, and bodyguards.
maybe he didn't like carrying but like i said he understood the importance of it.

A lot of gun-restrictive governments will give gun permits to people who are high risk or work for security. I can't speak for MLK but I'm sure he wouldn't be to sad to see restrictive gun laws on that level.

Originally Posted by lgk

obviously you glossed over what i said.
i think you should read it over.

if you don't understand risk/reward drive of most criminals then you just won't get it. the risk of getting killed interferes with their OODA loop...

There is a high level of crime in Texas, Nevada, and other states even though the people here are stereotyped to be covered in guns. More guns does not mean less crime and we've already seen that by looking at the crime rates in European Union countries in one of my previous posts. Whether or not you want to continue ignoring that because some countries weren't included is up to you.

I'm going to point back to my opinion that this has more to do with the culture and society that these crimes happen in and in some of those, restricting guns does prevent crime.

Originally Posted by lgk

the only facility they need to store a gun is their holster and belt.
i would fund training as well, just like the DCM did for the longest time.

If you think that's the only way you need to store a gun then you are pretty irresponsible gun owner or you have no small children. Even after all this discussion I'm going to assume you're not grafting pistols to each person's arm so it wouldn't be out of the question a lot of people who don't know how to operate or respect a fire arm will come into contact with them.

Also, you probably don't want to fund training. That would require people sign up for it to get a gun and you'd need to increase taxes! Don't tread on me!

Originally Posted by lgk

i decide what doctors i see, and the doctor recommends the operations.
my insurance has never disapproved anything.

health insurance is a company, they charge whatever the market can bear.
i honestly don't care about how much it costs, as long as i receive the best care.

No, you don't if you want to pay reasonable medical costs. It seems like you haven't had much experience with your own health care system since all doctors, hospitals, and medical practitioners accept only certain insurance plans.

Insurance will often not pay for many procedures they would end up losing money on or only pay part of it. You're not an individual anymore under private insurance than "universal" health care.

Originally Posted by lgk

that does not reflect the experience of my Canadian friends.
they moved here to make more money, and get better medical treatment.

if they weren't pleased with the situation, they would have move back to canada.

My family moved here because of the job. We're only speaking from anecdotal evidence when I talk about the Canadian system here. The previous reports I've linked it's been shown that the American system is far from number one in the world and many universal systems do far better.

Canada is #30 on the list previously discussed.

Again: America has a great healthcare system but don't fool yourself into thinking you're the best in the world.

Originally Posted by lgk

Clark county is an anomaly.

washington DC is also an anomaly but has a far higher crime rate than any state, and forbids guns.

ill pick the semi dangerous place with a gun over an extremely dangerous place and unarmed.

Clark County is an anomaly in that it's more strict. Nevada has the highest crime rate in the entire United States.

the US as a whole needs less regulation.
ASIA and Europe, people pass through borders regularly, most people here just travel inside the US.
concealed carry should be consistent between all states, and follow vermonts model for ease.

Originally Posted by lgk

the issue is not national races its small local elections, and not so easy to catch. some absentee ballots get "lost" here and there, and voting machine gets hack, etc. most fraud is not found.

soft funds will be worked around no matter what. you just have to promote honest candidates and get them on the ballot. its the only way to be sure...

It's easy to catch and local elections are monitored just as much as state-wide/national elections since many of them coincide with each other. It's a non-issue drummed up by politicians looking to remove people from the voting pool so they can win through electioneering. For the sake of your country focus on removing the power of money from your politics.

Yes, they will be worked around no matter what. But that's something we call straight out bribing, which isn't legal.

[Gurk]

I carry a crossbow.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Gurk

I carry a crossbow.

[ai4px]

Originally Posted by lgk

you know what they say, uncontrolled fear is the enemy of understanding.

they simply concentrate on the wrong thing when they are afraid.

good example is riding a motorcycle.
rider1 looks at the turn, locks up and crashes.
rider2 looks through the turn and completes it.

both guys know what it takes to complete the turn.
the difference is the rider2 did not let fear take control of his actions.

even worst is if rider1 blames the bike, this means the fear controls his thoughts as well.
then his logic is eroded, and any thought or action he makes afterward is suspect.

Even better.... bystander #1 tells bystander #2 that motorcycles are dangerous and people should not be allowed to ride them. #2 agrees but neither have ridden nor understand why rider #1 wrecked.

[ai4px]

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Yeah, it doesn't happen. You apparently have no grasp on how lop sided modern conflicts are even with civilian access to guns. Did you even pay attention to Libya? Even in third world countries where a conflict wouldn't be as lopsided (if the army defects in mass) it's almost impossible with the the overwhelming assistance of foreign powers with real money.


Your guns will never be useful against any sort of tyranny in the United States. Your hand guns and pistols will never defeat the strength of the US army and your untrained combat "ingenuity" won't prevent a drone from turning you into a small crater.

A small group of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto held off German troops from 19 April 1943 until 16 May 1943. Yes in the end they were overwhelmed but it might just surprise you what you can accomplish with a few small arms.

[massacremasses]

I agree the civil disobedience is usually the best course of action, but Im afraid we are approaching the end of that. Our police are militarizing, as if they are preparing for a war at home. And they just may be. We should also be prepared for when/if that happens as well.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Yeah, it doesn't happen. You apparently have no grasp on how lop sided modern conflicts are even with civilian access to guns. Did you even pay attention to Libya? Even in third world countries where a conflict wouldn't be as lopsided (if the army defects in mass) it's almost impossible with the the overwhelming assistance of foreign powers with real money.

well they killed quaddafi didnt they?
they held territory with partisans, and overwhelmed military defenses through numbers.
once it seemed possible for victory, they had support from international forces.

did they lose people sure, but it seems like success to me.
the real question now is if they can create a lasting republic...

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Your guns will never be useful against any sort of tyranny in the United States. Your hand guns and pistols will never defeat the strength of the US army and your untrained combat "ingenuity" won't prevent a drone from turning you into a small crater. Your only hope would be to pray for some sort of unlikely event where everything goes perfectly and the US military decides to side with you.

Being "positive" in your case is planning and obsessing over one improbable event happening, with an even more improbable result.

ask any NCO if they would order arms against on American Citizens after the federal government became tyrannical. they would be the first to become insurgent, since they will have lost every ideal they fought for.

absolute tyranny is currently impossible in the US, because people wont let it happen. it won't be that way forever, when the time comes my hope is people will be ready.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

No, you wouldn't. That takes dedication and proper military training.

thats your opinion,
if you lost everything you will change.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying fighting it peacefully with civil disobedience and has shown itself to be fundamentally more useful and effective in established and stable countries like the United States. It's even worked out in politically repressive countries like Tunisia and Egypt.

i never said civil disobedience was ineffective, there are times for both.

the leaders of the movements have to decide whats best, but the option to fight when the time comes is much more effective with armed population.

if not then logistics of getting small arms, will be another problem.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

I'm not arguing that it would happen. It probably won't and I wouldn't want it to happen but I'm just pointing out you it's not some holy, untouchable object like you've been making it out to be.

if you think its never going to happen, then its basically untouchable...

its Sacred to me, because i believe in it.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

And you're the one who explained how they effectively changed society without guns.

they did not need armed rebellion in those scenarios, the federal government was already moving in the same direction. those are bad examples.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

A lot of gun-restrictive governments will give gun permits to people who are high risk or work for security. I can't speak for MLK but I'm sure he wouldn't be to sad to see restrictive gun laws on that level.

i'm sure he would have a problem, since his philosophy promotes equality. the government segregating whether or not someone can exercise a right based on their job and status, should not sit right with any civil rights leader...

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

There is a high level of crime in Texas, Nevada, and other states even though the people here are stereotyped to be covered in guns. More guns does not mean less crime and we've already seen that by looking at the crime rates in European Union countries in one of my previous posts. Whether or not you want to continue ignoring that because some countries weren't included is up to you.

I'm going to point back to my opinion that this has more to do with the culture and society that these crimes happen in and in some of those, restricting guns does prevent crime.

places like vermont, alaska, the dakotas, etc. have no regulation of carry, but have low crime.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

If you think that's the only way you need to store a gun then you are pretty irresponsible gun owner or you have no small children. Even after all this discussion I'm going to assume you're not grafting pistols to each person's arm so it wouldn't be out of the question a lot of people who don't know how to operate or respect a fire arm will come into contact with them.

Also, you probably don't want to fund training. That would require people sign up for it to get a gun and you'd need to increase taxes! Don't tread on me!

there is elitism in thinking poor people are dumb.
they just had some back luck, i used to be poor too but i broke out of the cycle.

funding this is cheap, the public school system and DCM used to promote marksmanship, $50/student/year. the safety lessons and discipline they learned from shooting, were worth every penny.

creating future protectors of society is a legitimate role of government.
the US, Switzerland, and Israel follow this model and subsidize training.

socialist healthcare isn't imo, people are responsible for their own welfare.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

No, you don't if you want to pay reasonable medical costs. It seems like you haven't had much experience with your own health care system since all doctors, hospitals, and medical practitioners accept only certain insurance plans.

Insurance will often not pay for many procedures they would end up losing money on or only pay part of it. You're not an individual anymore under private insurance than "universal" health care.

i picked my doctor, and specialists, i guess my insurance is good.
the hospitals around here are good with all insurance. every private practice i went to, accept all insurance as well.

even if it wasn't i would research what the best options for my individual situation. oh wait that's exactly what i did....

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

My family moved here because of the job. We're only speaking from anecdotal evidence when I talk about the Canadian system here. The previous reports I've linked it's been shown that the American system is far from number one in the world and many universal systems do far better.

that's kind of what my family came to the US for, jobs.
we came here penniless, and work to success.

from what i gather, universal systems are for suckers...
the high tax rate and rationing outweigh any advantages it may offer. the insurance company may deny coverage in certain situations, but the government will do the same. the government is harder to sue.

using frances tax rate most would be down over $300000 extra in taxes in their lifetimes. that's a lot of buying/investing power wasted...

nonworking people are the only ones who have an advantage with the universal system. it does not fit well with capitalistic society.

besides, we already subsidize medical treatment for the poor.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Canada is #30 on the list previously discussed.

Again: America has a great healthcare system but don't fool yourself into thinking you're the best in the world.

that list does not weight the real cost and quality of healthcare correctly.
they quit making the comparison for a reason...

its not accurate, the results are subjective.

considering all the factors i listed before and the size of the country, we should be in the top five easily.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Clark County is an anomaly in that it's more strict. Nevada has the highest crime rate in the entire United States.

its stricter and the crime rate is worse than the rest of the state.

washington dc is not even a state but crime rate is much higher, even though there is no guns.

gun control simply don't work, its a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
people got along pretty good without it.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

It's easy to catch and local elections are monitored just as much as state-wide/national elections since many of them coincide with each other. It's a non-issue drummed up by politicians looking to remove people from the voting pool so they can win through electioneering. For the sake of your country focus on removing the power of money from your politics.

Yes, they will be worked around no matter what. But that's something we call straight out bribing, which isn't legal.

the inspectors general do a great and thorough job but sometimes they are not fast enough catch offenders, and slow to prosecute. make the punishment more serious, and the fraud will stop.

correct the problem from the get go, thoroughly vet your candidates. you'll have less trouble in the long run. the only way corruption is eliminated is having candidates with integrity.

[Monkeytofu]

Originally Posted by lgk

well they killed quaddafi didnt they?
they held territory with partisans, and overwhelmed military defenses through numbers.
once it seemed possible for victory, they had support from international forces.

did they lose people sure, but it seems like success to me.
the real question now is if they can create a lasting republic...

They only got help when Benghazi was about to be taken over. They were about to be completely obliterated had the international community not stepped in.

Go read up about it; Gaddafi's forced had pushed them all the way back to eastern Libya when NATO stepped in and started turning his forces into glass patches. That's when the Libyan rebels were able to push back.

Originally Posted by lgk

thats your opinion,
if you lost everything you will change.

It doesn't mean that you'll suddenly transform into an optimal fighting force. It seems like you've never had experience or talked to a person who has lost family members or seen their entire city raised by their own military and government as punishment for the actions of a few.

It changes people in ways you wouldn't expect or understand. This isn't a movie, this is real life where millions of different factors affect how you react to situations access to guns or not.

Originally Posted by lgk

ask any NCO if they would order arms against on American Citizens after the federal government became tyrannical. they would be the first to become insurgent, since they will have lost every ideal they fought for.

absolute tyranny is currently impossible in the US, because people wont let it happen. it won't be that way forever, when the time comes my hope is people will be ready.

Of course he's going to say no, because that situation will never happen like that. The united states will not declare itself a dictatorship, it will not outright attack American civilians for no reason, and it's not going to be as clear cut as that.

It's will justify its actions, attempt to garner support, and it's not going to be even close to the fantastic and naively patriotic image of a bunch of morally pure Americans fighting purely evil government. You are just having boyhood fantasies if you really think that's how conflicts are played out.

Originally Posted by lgk

if you think its never going to happen, then its basically untouchable...

its Sacred to me, because i believe in it.

All I'm saying is it's possible to change and it could change in the future. I was just correcting you since it seemed from what you were saying you thought it was unchangeable.

Originally Posted by lgk

thats your opinion,
if you lost everything you will change.

It doesn't mean that you'll suddenly transform into an optimal fighting force. It seems like you've never had experience or talked to a person who has lost family members or seen their entire city raised by their own military and government as punishment for the actions of a few.

It changes people in ways you wouldn't expect or understand. This isn't a movie, this is real life where millions of different factors affect how you react to situations; access to guns or not.

Originally Posted by lgk

i never said civil disobedience was ineffective, there are times for both.

the leaders of the movements have to decide whats best, but the option to fight when the time comes is much more effective with armed population.

if not then logistics of getting small arms, will be another problem.

Originally Posted by lgk

they did not need armed rebellion in those scenarios, the federal government was already moving in the same direction. those are bad examples.

The civil rights movement has a long history of work starting back when the first abolitionists wrote and fought (peacefully) against the institution of slavery. Women had fought for their rights to participate in government and public life since the United States existed. They are perfectly good examples of tyranny fought through political activism and peaceful action.

These movements have long historical backgrounds that you should be fully aware of as American citizen as they are some of the most long fought battles in your political history that are still being fought today.

They didn't need armed rebellion because they had hope that they could change things through peaceful means instead of being politically inactive and hoping for some apocalypse level event where the entire united states would devolve into civil war.

Originally Posted by lgk

i'm sure he would have a problem, since his philosophy promotes equality. the government segregating whether or not someone can exercise a right based on their job and status, should not sit right with any civil rights leader...

You can look at the previous quote I gave you where it's obvious he wouldn't have an issue with gun regulation and more strict gun laws. I don't even need to argue for the possibility that he might want it when he says that he does.

Originally Posted by lgk

there is elitism in thinking poor people are dumb.
they just had some back luck, i used to be poor too but i broke out of the cycle.

funding this is cheap, the public school system and DCM used to promote marksmanship, $50/student/year. the safety lessons and discipline they learned from shooting, were worth every penny.

creating future protectors of society is a legitimate role of government.
the US, Switzerland, and Israel follow this model and subsidize training.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the poor were dumb and I was pointing to the fact that they have neither the time or money to properly train themselves in the use of firearms.

Switzerland and Israel have stringent and strict guidelines when it comes to gun ownership compared to the United States. They are three countries where it may make sense to have gun friendly laws.

I am not arguing for universal gun bans. I am arguing for consideration of gun laws based on each country and state's people and culture.

Originally Posted by lgk

socialist healthcare isn't imo, people are responsible for their own welfare.

i picked my doctor, and specialists, i guess my insurance is good.
the hospitals around here are good with all insurance. every private practice i went to, accept all insurance as well.

even if it wasn't i would research what the best options for my individual situation. oh wait that's exactly what i did....

Well I'm glad it worked out all perfect for you! I guess that means the system is perfect and has no issues since it totally worked out for you and your buddies. Guess all those statistics and facts about how America spends massive amounts of money on health care that mostly ends up being wasted were all wrong!

Like the gun laws, I am not arguing for universal applications of healthcare. I am arguing that America is far from number one and that many other countries do it better. Some of those follow "socialist systems" (someone's been watch fox news huh?) and some of them don't.

Originally Posted by lgk

nonworking people are the only ones who have an advantage with the universal system. it does not fit well with capitalistic society.

besides, we already subsidize medical treatment for the poor.

Yes, I'm sure Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom and other terrible anti-capitalist societies are just flooded with nonworking people.

Originally Posted by lgk

that list does not weight the real cost and quality of healthcare correctly.
they quit making the comparison for a reason...

its not accurate, the results are subjective.

considering all the factors i listed before and the size of the country, we should be in the top five easily.

The only analysis you've offered is highly subjective and anecdotal stories so I don't think you can really begin to criticize the methodology that the United Nations used to compile statistics on health care law.

Originally Posted by lgk

its stricter and the crime rate is worse than the rest of the state.

washington dc is not even a state but crime rate is much higher, even though there is no guns.

gun control simply don't work, its a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
people got along pretty good without it.

One county doesn't make an entire state the one with most crime. Again, we can look at Texas which has a relatively high crime right and open gun laws if you want. It's still the same case of high crime with pro-gun laws.

Gun control does work in some countries because it's been shown gun related violence has gone down some countries where it's been applied. It's also gotten worse in some places where its been applied so gun friendly laws work in some countries.

You're still stuck on universal applications of your ideologies and laws, which is the exact same you're criticizing anti-gun advocates for. I haven't argued for mass regulation of guns but you seem to stuck in a mindset where you expect the other side to do that.

Originally Posted by lgk

the inspectors general do a great and thorough job but sometimes they are not fast enough catch offenders, and slow to prosecute. make the punishment more serious, and the fraud will stop.

correct the problem from the get go, thoroughly vet your candidates. you'll have less trouble in the long run. the only way corruption is eliminated is having candidates with integrity.

There is no major issue of voter fraud in the United States. If you go look at how many people have been prosecuted in the last 10 years it's something like 100 people. Even if 2000 people committed voter fraud in the US it would still be absolutely nothing and wouldn't touch on being a major issue.

Your candidates have no integrity because American elections require mass amounts of money to support and big companies, interest groups, etc have the money to do so. If you think a person, let alone a politician, isn't going to favor those helping them you're hopelessly naive.

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

[B]Switzerland and Israel have stringent and strict guidelines when it comes to gun ownership compared to the United States. They are three countries where it may make sense to have gun friendly laws.

Both Israel & Switzerland have conscription, in Switzerland you are given your full auto Sig 5.56 assault rifle to bring home with you, and on completion of service you may pay a small administrative fee to have the weapon converted into to semi auto & legally transferred to you.
Look at the crime rate there

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Yes, I'm sure Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom and other terrible anti-capitalist societies are just flooded with nonworking people.

20% youth (U25s) unemployment in the UK at the minute.

Originally Posted by BBC

The number of 16-24 year olds looking for work fell by 29,000 in May, but still remains over one million, or 21.9% of the workforce. Excluding those in full-time education, the figure is closer to 20.5%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117
there is a pretty serious problem with gangs of gun & knife wielding drug dealing scumbags in certain parts too.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Gun control does work in some countries because it's been shown gun related violence has gone down some countries where it's been applied. It's also gotten worse in some places where its been applied so gun friendly laws work in some countries.

In gun control countries (e.g. in the UK you can get a good few years in prison for possession of a single bullet) there are more 'hands on' methods of killing people, and the organised & semi organised criminals have guns anyway.

The disorganized scum can still have lethal weapons (knives, syringes filled with blood ect. both of these scare me more than a handgun in the hands of an untrained individual)

[lgk]

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

They only got help when Benghazi was about to be taken over. They were about to be completely obliterated had the international community not stepped in.

Go read up about it; Gaddafi's forced had pushed them all the way back to eastern Libya when NATO stepped in and started turning his forces into glass patches. That's when the Libyan rebels were able to push back.

thats what happens to most rebellions, you will lose a lot of the time.

i'm not disputing it, but the initial battle has to be made while the people still have the will for it. otherwise you will not gain support at all and the tyranny remains.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

It doesn't mean that you'll suddenly transform into an optimal fighting force. It seems like you've never had experience or talked to a person who has lost family members or seen their entire city raised by their own military and government as punishment for the actions of a few.

It changes people in ways you wouldn't expect or understand. This isn't a movie, this is real life where millions of different factors affect how you react to situations access to guns or not.

it happened during the revolutionary war and many other times.
people may react differently depending on the culture, but when their back is against the wall, they become fighters.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Of course he's going to say no, because that situation will never happen like that. The united states will not declare itself a dictatorship, it will not outright attack American civilians for no reason, and it's not going to be as clear cut as that.

It's will justify its actions, attempt to garner support, and it's not going to be even close to the fantastic and naively patriotic image of a bunch of morally pure Americans fighting purely evil government. You are just having boyhood fantasies if you really think that's how conflicts are played out.

it can be gradual, and we will be able to postpone it for a while, but the reality is there will be a time when the fighting will occur if all else fails. that's why our government is setup this way

most revolutionary wars are not immediately started it was drawn out over decades of outrage and all other avenues have been exhausted. the revolutionary side will be doing the same amount of propaganda and garnering support during this time. they will be planning scenarios, planting spies and such as well.

nobody is morally pure but hopefully the freer side wins.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

All I'm saying is it's possible to change and it could change in the future. I was just correcting you since it seemed from what you were saying you thought it was unchangeable.

if your agreeing with me now, that's great.
it seems that we were arguing semantics.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

The civil rights movement has a long history of work starting back when the first abolitionists wrote and fought (peacefully) against the institution of slavery. Women had fought for their rights to participate in government and public life since the United States existed. They are perfectly good examples of tyranny fought through political activism and peaceful action.

These movements have long historical backgrounds that you should be fully aware of as American citizen as they are some of the most long fought battles in your political history that are still being fought today.

They didn't need armed rebellion because they had hope that they could change things through peaceful means instead of being politically inactive and hoping for some apocalypse level event where the entire united states would devolve into civil war.

nobody hopes to shed blood, but they were prepared to.
slaves did fight up fighting a battle before civil war and winning against the us army. they were free after the battle.

i forget which exact battle but it was during the seminole war...

regardless of how peaceful the legal portion of the movement was, the country ended up fighting the civil war anyway.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

You can look at the previous quote I gave you where it's obvious he wouldn't have an issue with gun regulation and more strict gun laws. I don't even need to argue for the possibility that he might want it when he says that he does.

you need to look past the quote, he supported non violence as his method, but understood self defense as a human right. he was just conflicted in his vision at that time.

he also knew that gun control was written primarily against blacks.
him being turned down for a permit illustrates the unfairness of the whole situation.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the poor were dumb and I was pointing to the fact that they have neither the time or money to properly train themselves in the use of firearms.

just sounded like you were saying that poor people are not responsible enough own guns... i know plenty of poor people who carry and practice with guns.

they have enough free time to watch tv. they can spend a couple of hours practicing. costing a lot of money to practice shooting is a myth. guns and ammo are readily available and cost effective. all guns come with a lock for free, and a case and chain can be brought for $30.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

I am not arguing for universal gun bans. I am arguing for consideration of gun laws based on each country and state's people and culture.

i'm arguing for the consideration of a citizens rights within their country.
the US should be consistent in concealed carry reciprocity at the minimum.

an individuals rights should not be marginalized by each and every local and state government. imagine if your


if a culture doesn't support the rights of citizens, then i really cant respect their culture. i'm sorry i just can't support that...

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Well I'm glad it worked out all perfect for you! I guess that means the system is perfect and has no issues since it totally worked out for you and your buddies. Guess all those statistics and facts about how America spends massive amounts of money on health care that mostly ends up being wasted were all wrong!

Like the gun laws, I am not arguing for universal applications of healthcare. I am arguing that America is far from number one and that many other countries do it better. Some of those follow "socialist systems" (someone's been watch fox news huh?) and some of them don't.

The only analysis you've offered is highly subjective and anecdotal stories so I don't think you can really begin to criticize the methodology that the United Nations used to compile statistics on health care law.

the study doesn't compare anything really, it just complains about pharmacists being pill counters, and tort reform.
and a 2% disparity in record keeping costs.

i do agree that we need tort reform and it would help to decrease costs but otherwise it seems they were as satisfied as me

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

One county doesn't make an entire state the one with most crime. Again, we can look at Texas which has a relatively high crime right and open gun laws if you want. It's still the same case of high crime with pro-gun laws.

Gun control does work in some countries because it's been shown gun related violence has gone down some countries where it's been applied. It's also gotten worse in some places where its been applied so gun friendly laws work in some countries.

you could say states that border mexico have a high crime rate.
then i would say the people there have more of a need for guns.

In the US its mostly a wash, but wherever there is gun control there is always a high crime rate. thats why deregulation is logical here.

other countries with gun control and high crime, have societal issues that cant be solved with gun laws... the gun control does not work here either, and only hurts the honest citizen.

gun control is a lose/lose ideal.
it not even a band aid fix, its rubbing manure into a wound.

Originally Posted by Monkeytofu

Your candidates have no integrity because American elections require mass amounts of money to support and big companies, interest groups, etc have the money to do so. If you think a person, let alone a politician, isn't going to favor those helping them you're hopelessly naive.

most voter fraud isn't prosecuted because it is never caught.
adding a couple of measures helps eliminate it completely.

if you think a couple of laws will stop campaign finance issues you are as naive as me.

[imataiwanezz]

Time for me to unsubscribe from this thread lol

[RdrChRy]

Always....every single time, ZERO exceptions. Full leathers always, boots, gloves, full face helmet always, .38 Special always. The .38 is every bit as important a safety item as everything else.

[lgk]

Originally Posted by RdrChRy

Always....every single time, ZERO exceptions. Full leathers always, boots, gloves, full face helmet always, .38 Special always. The .38 is every bit as important a safety item as everything else.

Being prepared for any situation, makes life so much easier.

[ai4px]

So, when you carry concealed on your bike in the summer, how do you prevent your sweat from making your weapon rust?

[lgk]

Originally Posted by ai4px

So, when you carry concealed on your bike in the summer, how do you prevent your sweat from making your weapon rust?

When i carry my glock i dont do anything special. The finish is very corrosion resistant.
I just use a silicone cloth an give a quick wipedown.

I have heard of some people with acidic sweat that duracoat or armor coat the external surface as an extra measure.
Caught a deal on some armor coat and applied it all the weapons i carry to prevent rust even if stainless.

When i get rained on, i'll field strip it and apply wd 40 and clean. Then apply an oil in all the normal surfaces.
Your weapon may gain a slight patina over time but it will be perfectly preserved.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Kristofferzero]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

/drool





I'll save you a seat in the USA

US is just as bad in many ways.