Shreding of TT and PM pistols in Estonia

[trench]

It seems if Denmark taxes internet usage any more then the people might wish they had guns.
Just joking - puts on Nomex suit anyway...

 

[GonzoX]

Gonzo, I wouldn't call two countries, one of which is run by a fascist dictator, in a time of war, "stable".

Also, how would civilians having guns in WW2 have helped? More people would have died? Oh, awesome. No, really, fantastic.

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Yes. Meaning we shouldn't let wars break out in the first place, and we shouldn't vote for fascists, and we shouldn't give in to xenophobia and racism and reactionary bull***** because look what that has done in the past.

FFS.

Well current day China is basically a Communist dictatorship. Would you call them unstable? FYI, Germany was very stable at that time otherwise they would not have been able to boost their wartime economy like they did.

And you are still not getting it. If every other person in a country owns a firearm, this sends a message of deterrence to either inside or outside would be dictators. Whereas a country of unarmed peasants can be easilly crushed and / or controlled.

For example: The Japanese never invaded the continental U.S because they feared "a rifle behind every blade of grass".

And you still do not understand that the deterrence that gun ownership provides have kept this country free. We are not just talking about external threats but also internal.

Who you vote for does not guarantee anything. Marxism looked good on paper but look what Stalin did to his own people. Do they even teach history in Europe? Makes me wonder.

Anyway, the point is moot. For most of Europe, firearm freedom has been sacrificed at the alter of political correctness and there is no going back. That's too bad. I remember how Great Britiain's crime rate almost doubled when private ownership was outlawed. Same thing in Australia. Those are lessons to be learned. Im just glad I live in the U.S.

 

[Lizardhands]

My the way, when I was talking about "stability" I meant social stability, and was mainly talking about civil war. China is not socially stable.

Do they teach history in America? I'm pretty sure the Bolsheviks got into power via revolution, not democracy.

There's obviously no point in arguing with you because you clearly believe that guns are important for a healthy society, and there's no reasoning with someone with beliefs as crazy as that.


P.S. Any idiot can see that China is not a communist country in anything but name.

 

[GonzoX]

My the way, when I was talking about "stability" I meant social stability, and was mainly talking about civil war. China is not socially stable.

Do they teach history in America? I'm pretty sure the Bolsheviks got into power via revolution, not democracy.

There's obviously no point in arguing with you because you clearly believe that guns are important for a healthy society, and there's no reasoning with someone with beliefs as crazy as that.


P.S. Any idiot can see that China is not a communist country in anything but name.

So Germany did not have social stability in the 30s??
You lost me there sparky. How was it not socially stable?

Bolsheviks got into power with the backing of the majority of it's people. i.e. Democracy. That was my whole point. It started off being "for the people" but ended up existing "for the state". Clear now?

DING DING DING and now you finally get it. I got through to you finally.

You: "guns are important for a healthy society"

This is exactly right. Ownership of firearms is crucial to a free society and to its preservation.

Finally you are starting to understand. There is hope for you yet. Or maybe not.

And BTW, is it really necessary for you to start getting personal.
Calling a person an idiot is not very civil. Especially when you know they are right.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

Guys, seeing the third thread degenreating into a pro/contra arms thread really gets tiresome. So stop it.

 

[Lizardhands]

We do not live in some insane gun-centric world where everything revolves around guns and guns are the only reason anything of importance happens in the world. We just don't.

 

[MkH^]

Sorry but you are simply wrong.

Guns are not that expensive. What is your life worth? What is peace of mind worth to you?

Guns appreciate in value so you do not really lose any money. You are investing it.

More people are killed by cars than guns. Should we outlaw cars. And what about the lives that are *SAVED* by guns or the woman who were NOT raped because they were armed? People never count those numbers because the liberals own the media.

And what should we use for self defense? A shovel? Don't be ridiculous.

The argument that guns kill is ignorant. It's people that kill. Don't blame the guns. They are simply tools. And most importantly, they are an important deterance.

By expensive, I meant that most of the time there are one, or more lives at stake. Besides, if I knew every other crook was carrying a firearm, there would be hardly any peace of mind to speak of.

Should we outlaw cars? No. The world moves on rubber tires. What about guns then? No. I'm an avid shooter and a gun owner myself - I don't see why they should be banned.

The amount of guns in Finland is around 35 per 100 people, still, we have very few gun related deaths and the crimes involving firearms are quite low in numbers. Same with Canada, Switzerland.. you name it. It's obviously not the number of firearms, but the attitude towards them and what they are used for.

 

[Nimsky]

Why do you keep mentioning the wars? As if the European civilian had any control over them. The world wars have nothing to do with this discussion, because we are discussing civilian gun ownership, and its impact on society. So please, stick to the subject.

Look, I acknowledge that every country can't go without a decent military, or at least a peace keeping force. Leave the weaponry to the military. Civilians simply don't need them. Or do they?

GonzoX, let me ask you a few questions. I hope you can answer them.

1. Given the choice, in which society would you rather live: in a peaceful, gun-free society where people can get along just fine (doing away with the "right to bear arms") - or an unsafe society in which it's possible to get assaulted, but WITH the right to bear arms?

2. Speaking about freedom, would you vote for a party like this? They would give people several more freedoms. More freedom is good, right?

3. Do you need guns in order to feel save and free in life? Why / why not?

 

[trench]

We can all take our opinions and vote people into office that share the same
values - in that way we can create of societies in which we all want to live.
To each their own self determination.

Its good we have that ability to vote for or against change.
I feel for those with no such freedom.

 

[KrazyKraut]

The point is to not increase the numbers, unwanted old guns have a bad habit of turning up in the hands of people who should not have them.

qft

I know it's sad from a collectors point of view, but i rather see them scrapped than in the hands of gangs or the mafia.

 

[Lizardhands]

We can all take our opinions and vote people into office that share the same
values - in that way we can create of societies in which we all want to live.
To each their own self determination.

Not really. Because politicians want to get into power, they shift towards the middle -- basically in an average Western election you get to choose between two near-identical guys. It's NOT democracy. I don't know when people will realise that this Western concept of "democracy" is a load of cow ****.

 

[Nimsky]

We can all take our opinions and vote people into office that share the same
values - in that way we can create of societies in which we all want to live.
To each their own self determination.

Its good we have that ability to vote for or against change.
I feel for those with no such freedom.

You do realise we have that in Europe as well, right? And you do realise that we get a whole lot more parties to choose from rather than two guys battling to win a popularity contest, right? *



* note the smiley.

EDIT: in case you're interested, these are the parties we get to choose from in The Netherlands.

 

[GonzoX]

We do not live in some insane gun-centric world where everything revolves around guns and guns are the only reason anything of importance happens in the world. We just don't.

Never said that so don't put words in my mouth there bud!

No matter which way you want to spin it, guns have always and always will remain instamental in determining world events either good or bad. Regardless of whether it feels good to you or not. That is simply a fact you will have to come to terms with.

If everybody thought like you then only criminals and politicans would have guns. And that is a world I would not want to live in my friend.

 

[Lizardhands]

Yeah, I've already acknowledged that guns can have a large bearing on world events, and have pointed out that just because something is important it is not automatically good.

Something I'd like to know, Gonzo, is this:

Where do you draw the line?

So you think civilians should be allowed to own guns.

Pistols?
Shotguns?
Assault rifles?
Machine guns?
Heavy machine guns?
If they're allowed guns, why not explosives?
Tanks?
Bombs?

You yourself say people should be allowed to own guns in case of some sort of conflict, but if none of a countries people had weapons, how would a violent conflict start in the first place?

Let me guess, criminals will always have guns? Not if governments worked together to police gun trafficking. They wouldn't be able to get enough weapons to start a civil war.

 

[trench]

Lizard - I long for the day of a viable 3rd party in the US.
You correct there is only the tiniest difference between the 2 parties we have.

It will take a monumental political movement to get third party with a chance of sucess.

I am curious - what do see as the limiting factor for us having a third choice?

Nimsky - Oh yes , I know that you have the right to vote in Europe.
I was talking dictator type goverments in general.

 

[Lizardhands]

I think the real problem is not the number of viable candidates but the system itself -- I think the way, in most supposedly democratic countries, the people vote for other people to represent them, is a poor excuse for democracy.

Apart from the fact that only about half the people who can vote do so, due to the fact that they have to choose someone who best matches their beliefs and put their trust in them, people will always have to make large compromises with their beliefs. And I'm sure you'll agree that nobody trusts the average politician. ^_^

It would be difficult to implement, but in true demcracy everybody would vote on all decisions made by the country, and anyone could have their voice heard.

 

[GonzoX]

Yeah, I've already acknowledged that guns can have a large bearing on world events, and have pointed out that just because something is important it is not automatically good.

Something I'd like to know, Gonzo, is this:

Where do you draw the line?

So you think civilians should be allowed to own guns.

Pistols?
Shotguns?
Assault rifles?
Machine guns?
Heavy machine guns?
If they're allowed guns, why not explosives?
Tanks?
Bombs?

You yourself say people should be allowed to own guns in case of some sort of conflict, but if none of a countries people had weapons, how would a violent conflict start in the first place?

Let me guess, criminals will always have guns? Not if governments worked together to police gun trafficking. They wouldn't be able to get enough weapons to start a civil war.

OMG, No No No No, you still do not understand.

I draw the line at whatever keeps the Government in check. In other words, just enough to be an effective detterent. Simply put, enough to make any would be dictator think twice about snuffing out our freedoms.

It's odd that you would trust your life to a goverment official with a gun that you have never met but you don't trust yourself with a gun????? What about your friends? You family? Your neighbor? What kind of untrusting society do you live in?

Gun confiscation would never happen in this Country. If it did, there would be bloodshed everywhere and the politicians would be hanging from trees the next day. The American Revolution would never have happened if the colonists had submitted to Gun Control Laws.

Also, it's not always about what weapon, it's more about how many. Example: Three guys with tanks would not be considered a threat but if every other citizen in the entire country had a semi automatic or automatic weapon, that would stop any inclination at destroying our Constitution in a heart beat guaranteed.

That is why your "less guns is good" attitude is back asswards. It's not the numbers so much as it is "WHO" owns them. If you keep the power in the peoples hands, the people can and will regulated their own will because they have the power to do so.

And you once again appear to be totally confused over what I am saying to you. Let me make this very clear: NEVER, EVER Trust any Government. Including your own. This is what our Constitution is all about. An armed man is a Citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

You seem to have this absolute 100% Trust in the Govermental Powers that rule over you and influence what you can and can't own. THIS IS DANGEROUS thinking. I am not talking about just petty criminals. I am talking about your BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to self preservation.

You live in a Plutocracy that dictates it's will over you and you agree with it.
That is not the case in this country. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

In most of Europe you have gun control and gun control is not about guns; it's about control (period). So don't fool yourself. When a basic human right is taken away from you, you are being controlled then you are no longer a free man. I still do not comprehend how you can not grasp that.

If I lived in Europe I would pettion, plead etc and do whatever I could to bring those rights back to my countrymen.

"The 2nd Amendment is a doomsday provision... for ... where all other rights have failed.... However improbable these contingencies may seem.., facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

 

[GonzoX]

I think the real problem is not the number of viable candidates but the system itself -- I think the way, in most supposedly democratic countries, the people vote for other people to represent them, is a poor excuse for democracy.

Apart from the fact that only about half the people who can vote do so, due to the fact that they have to choose someone who best matches their beliefs and put their trust in them, people will always have to make large compromises with their beliefs. And I'm sure you'll agree that nobody trusts the average politician. ^_^

It would be difficult to implement, but in true demcracy everybody would vote on all decisions made by the country, and anyone could have their voice heard.

The real problem is that for the most part, we as Americans are basically happy and conent with the way things are. It is human nature to complain.

What would bring about a third party would be something like a catastrophic even like say 9/11 or say Democrats trying to dissmantle the 2nd Amendment or other parts of the Constitution etc.

Since both parties are basically mirroring each other, now is a good time to either form a third party or vote independently. My guess is the later will more likely happen with most active voters.

Right now Immigration is the #1 issue. Or at least is should be as the War on Terror is second as far as I am concerned. The Immigration problem is more of a threat to our security, soverignity and economical well being than any terrorist hiding in some hole will ever be.

 

[{YBBS}Sage]

Not that I want to get dragged into this argument but I thought I'd pull you up on this one. I think thats a silly statement, from what Ive seen so far in this thread, Lizard has conducted himself well with reason and logic and carries his own argument very well.

That particular statement you just made is quite ignorant if you ask me. That's like saying that someone who has never driven a car cannot comment in an argument about their impact on environmental issues or something. One does not have to have neccessarily held a gun to understand their purpose, use, design and ultimately the imapct they have.

Anyway, just wanted to say that one bit. Carry on gents

Actually, I'm calling him out for some things he said on another gun-related thread. He stated that guns were bad and shouldn't be around. I told him that owning them is my right (I'm an American) and that if he argues that, I'll always be there to fight it... at which point he said that my choice to fight about it "proved his point." He also said something about how he wished everybody could be social, after (this was a gun-rights thread) some of the anti-gun advocates on this board had made slanderous statements about gun owners.

You know, the usual ignorance that the anti-gun community always drags up, starting with "Guns are made to kill" and after I pointed out that not all are, the usual jokes about gun owners all being inbred rednecks who marry their cousins and listen to bluegrass music?

He hasn't argued the environmental issues or any other real issues about gun ownership. Not once. He HAS however made many statements on the validity of gun ownership.

This is more like "Cars are so dangerous, and people who drive them speed, so nobody should have one" than "Cars pollute too much."

Anybody who argues the first had better have a lot of time behind the wheel on public roads to back up that opinion. The second is facts and research-based, and I wouldn't argue that a non-driver doesn't have the right to that opinion.

If we want to combat violence, banning/destroying the TOOLS of violence (show a US Marine a pic of him holding his rifle... ask which is the weapon. He'll point to himself.) isn't going to get rid of the violence. We'll just revert to spears or bare fists. What is needed is to fix the CAUSE of the violent crimes. In most cases these have roots in economics. Anybody can look at these maps... Look up "Megan's law california" in Google, and check any major city (San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, etc). See all the blue dots? Those are sex offenders. Now, in MOST cases, the sex offenders have wound up pooling in bad neighborhoods. Very bad neighborhoods (again, see Oakland.. pretty much one HUGE bad neighborhood.) Those neighborhoods are POOR as hell. They're also crime hotspots thanks to gangs warring over turf to sell drugs on among other things. Selling drugs is a way to get money, and money is about the only cure for being poor.

The "People who lived in Europe in the early 30's" would not have been safer carrying guns. In the case of war a gun only makes you a target, carrying weapons as a civilian in a war zone is a very bad idea.

I can think of about 15 million people that would have been safer armed. They were called "Jews," I think... but then, I'm new to this "history" stuff.

Edit, gotta add something:

This'll just get locked if you do the gun argument that never gets resolved anyway.


My qualm is more with the fact that you guys are talking about them as if they are artworks or something, when they're, well, guns. I just don't get it.

Then why did you among others bring up the gun argument? And why persist? You know we'll defend ourselves.

You don't see industrial design as art? They ARE, especially back then. There was less ergonomics, more "that looks right, and everything works." Less science, more spirit. In many cases much more craftsmanship. Old guns are often way more beautiful than new ones.

 

[GonzoX]

Sage, I could not have said it better myself.

As you noted, this WAS a civil discussion among collectors who were disturbed by seeing those Tokarevs destroyed.

I knew it would be just a matter of time before the unarmed tree huggers would start a flame war.

My guess is that most if not all of these folks have never even been to the the U.S. or anywhere else for that matter.

I also think that most of them are simply just kids with too much time on their hands. Most European countries (like Germany for example) have mandatory military service time requirements for all males.

So we could very well be arguing with a bunch of 13 year olds LOL.

Anybody with at least a few years of military service under their belt would not have such a liberal gun hating attitude Im sure.

Then again I could be wrong on that.

How about it Lizardhands? Did you serve the Government that you trust so much or do you expect others to do that for you?

Update: OMG, I just read Lizardhands profile. He is 16 years old and gay according to him.

That explains everything.

Next time I read one of his posts I will do it with a "Sylvester the cat" monologue.