Jump to content


Photo

UN GLOBAL GUN BAN JULY 27TH


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#41 Nova Force Nova

Nova Force Nova

    Deadpan Snarker

  • CBUB Character Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A couch near you.
  • Interests:Interesting stuff.

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:21 PM

Yes, it is possible.

#42 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:22 PM

Do you think the events in Syria, Egypt or Libya would have been possible without guns? They put the power in the hands of the people. You need that safeguard. Just like a guy is less likely to bring a bomb on a plane if he sees a metal detector at the door, it deters a certain kind of thinking by those who run this country.


Oh, absolutely not and I support what happened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. However, do you think people in Syria, Egypt, and Libya had the 2nd Amendment? No, I bet they didn't. So I think that with or without the 2nd Amendment, the American people will be able to revolt if we enter into a tyrannical state.

#43 DamagingRob

DamagingRob

    The Light In The Darkness

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,740 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Lincoln
  • Interests:See About Me page.

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:28 PM

...I'd imagine this topic will be getting moved.

#44 comic_book_fan

comic_book_fan

    Believes Han shot first

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,273 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:tennessee

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:34 PM

I'm sorry, I thought this was a place of intellectual debate. If you want one of those, learn how to spell scary right and some basic grammar.

right aka i have nothing better to say about the debate so i am calling you out on grammer lol i win.

#45 LoneWolf

LoneWolf

    Believes Han shot first

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oceanside, Ca.
  • Interests:Comics from the 90's. Movies. RPG's.

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:37 PM

Better if they stay legal. The ability to gather and communicate without being tapped or spied upon is valuable as well. I really, really have no faith in the media. I feel like their entire purpose is to misdirect attention to meaningless things. Always going on about Iran or terrorism. They need a common enemy for us to rally against (keeping the U.S. strong and cohesive). While they allow complete blackouts on certain events.

#46 ThePhenomenalOne

ThePhenomenalOne

    Way too drunk to care

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 729 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh
  • Interests:Doing butt naked cartwheels

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:47 PM

Yes, it is possible.


Highly, highly improbable though. Do you think it will ever happen?

#47 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:22 PM

Then you're learning some weird history. Power corrupts in shit like Star Wars and Russia. America's been pretty good with keeping good Presidents. I hate Ronald Reagan and almost everything he did, but he stuck to his guns on his conservative bullshit. Andrew Jackson, another hated President, was corrupt and evil long before he made it to the White House. Again, Hayes, you're ignoring people. You continue to think that this act is taking away civilian guns. IT IS NOT.

See that is the thought process I was talking about. Power doesn't just corrupt in Russia, it can corrupt anyone anywhere. We want to believe America is pure, but it isn't.

Saddam was put into power by the US, it's not a secret that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were friends with Saddam. So we get attacked on 9/11 by guys hiding in caves in Afghanistan, yet we invade Iraq? We put Saddam in power as long as he did what we told him, then he started to follow his own agenda so we decided to take him out. This was a man that was friends with two very powerful people in America, so instead of doing it peacefully, we kill over 1 million civilians.

Gaddafi is another one that started to call out America. The western media told us all he was evil because he was attacking his own people in his capital. Yeah, that's cause he had rebels attacking him. Don't you think if Barack was getting shot at in D.C. he'd defend himself. Gaddafi went through his streets in a convertible, our president hides in bullet proof vehicles. The people of Libya were pissed at our media because we made it seem like the hated Gaddafi, when really they did not. The UN supported the rebels, and guess who else did. AL-Qaeda. The reason we are in the middle east is because of them, yet we are fighting for them? That is a point Ron Paul was bringing up but FOX news cut him off.

Mainstream media is all bullshit.

The world is run by old men who only care about themselves and money. That is the reality, everything is for money and power. It disgusts me that a piece of paper can drive people to commit these acts.

#48 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:29 PM

Saddam was put into power by the US, it's not a secret that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were friends with Saddam. So we get attacked on 9/11 by guys hiding in caves in Afghanistan, yet we invade Iraq? We put Saddam in power as long as he did what we told him, then he started to follow his own agenda so we decided to take him out. This was a man that was friends with two very powerful people in America, so instead of doing it peacefully, we kill over 1 million civilians.

Gaddafi is another one that started to call out America. The western media told us all he was evil because he was attacking his own people in his capital. Yeah, that's cause he had rebels attacking him. Don't you think if Barack was getting shot at in D.C. he'd defend himself. Gaddafi went through his streets in a convertible, our president hides in bullet proof vehicles.


Last President to go through town in a convertible got his face blown off. Just a thought. Also, America is not pure. It wasn't until Nixon that we finally accepted the fact that China was China and Taiwan wasn't China. They put Diem into power in Vietnam despite knowing he was a dictator. They were just dumb enough to choose that over the popularly elected Communist guy.

right aka i have nothing better to say about the debate so i am calling you out on grammer lol i win.


Not at all, you made a very ignorant post. My mindset scares you? Maybe because you're an idiot. If you reread what I posted, I definitely did not say that freedom was outdated. I said the Constitution still has some things right, quoting the "life, liberty, and property" and the first amendment. Want to know what those things are, smart guy? The most freedom espousing words in the god damn Constitution. So look, if you aren't even smart enough for reading comprehension and real debate, at least try to get halfway there with real grammar and correct spelling.

Fucking dumbass.

#49 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:35 PM

Look, I really hope I am being overly paranoid. The thing is, history teaches otherwise. During the peak of the Roman Empire, they thought they were invincible. We all know what happened to them.

I didn't post this thread to be like "haha I called that this would happen" I made it because I am concerned for the future of my country. I want to spread the information as much as I can, knowledge is power. I hope we all unite when the time comes, it is hard when our leaders want us to hate each other. Just look at all the bullshit in the Trayvon Martin case. They lied about so much of it because they want racial tension.

This is what the media kept showing us. http://www.wagist.co...n2012-wide1.jpg

Here is the reality http://sadhillnews.c...-hill-news2.jpg

Obama said if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon Martin. Really Mr. President, this is how you'd want your son to be like.

#50 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:36 PM

I'm pretty sure Obama was just talking about how his son would be black...like his daughters.

#51 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:39 PM

I'm pretty sure Obama was just talking about how his son would be black...like his daughters.

I don't think so, I think saying his kids would be black goes without saying.

#52 comic_book_fan

comic_book_fan

    Believes Han shot first

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,273 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:tennessee

Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:41 PM

Last President to go through town in a convertible got his face blown off. Just a thought. Also, America is not pure. It wasn't until Nixon that we finally accepted the fact that China was China and Taiwan wasn't China. They put Diem into power in Vietnam despite knowing he was a dictator. They were just dumb enough to choose that over the popularly elected Communist guy.



Not at all, you made a very ignorant post. My mindset scares you? Maybe because you're an idiot. If you reread what I posted, I definitely did not say that freedom was outdated. I said the Constitution still has some things right, quoting the "life, liberty, and property" and the first amendment. Want to know what those things are, smart guy? The most freedom espousing words in the god damn Constitution. So look, if you aren't even smart enough for reading comprehension and real debate, at least try to get halfway there with real grammar and correct spelling.

Fucking dumbass.

oh snap you sure showed me but tell me how is banning guns supposed to stop criminals from getting them? ther on drugs that we spend millions on every year seems to be working lol . all banning guns would do is take them away from normal people. crime would increase because the criminal that still has his gun would assume you didn't have one would more likely rob you.

#53 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:43 PM

oh snap you sure showed me but tell me how is banning guns supposed to stop criminals from getting them? ther on drugs that we spend millions on every year seems to be working lol . all banning guns would do is take them away from normal people. crime would increase because the criminal that still has his gun would assume you didn't have one would more likely rob you.


Oh snap, you sure showed me, but tell me how this UN Global Ban affects the domestic ownership of guns in America.

#54 sirmethos

sirmethos

    A Man of the People

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 06 July 2012 - 06:23 PM

First of all, thanks for the laughs, all of you. The amount of ignorance and stupidity in this thread is mind boggling. I haven't laughed this hard in a while.

Now, to address a few specific things:

1. The government wouldn't need to break the amendment to effectively take away the guns. The constitution gives the right to bear arms. The government could simply make it illegal to use them. That would be an effective gun ban, without breaking the constitution. If I can think of that, I'm sure the government can as well.


"Guns don't do anything. People do. A person can pick up a rock and kill someone. Guns are the scape goat for human action."

While it's true that a gun, in and of itself, doesn't do anything, it makes it a lot easier. Just like it's possible to tear down a building with just hand tools, but having some explosives makes it a lot easier.

The very thought that people need to have access to guns, is just as stupid as thinking that making them illegal would solve anything.


"I think the 2nd amendment is *extremely* important. I have been to some 3rd world countries and the idea of being locked up and tortured for speaking up against my government doesn't sound fun."

Well, tortured probably won't happen, but you can already be locked up for speaking up against your government. Check out a little something called "free speech zones". Try protesting at a presidential rally, or something similar, outside of those zones.


"Do you think the events in Syria, Egypt or Libya would have been possible without guns?"

Without guns, no. Without legal guns, definitely. Even if guns are banned, it doesn't really take much effort to get a hold of one. Just more money.


"The ability to gather and communicate without being tapped or spied upon is valuable as well."

This one in particular made me laugh. You do realize that the internet is effectively "tapped and spied upon" right? I know for a fact, that in Denmark, any information on the internet, going in or out of the country, goes through the PET(PET is the danish security and intelligence service) routers and servers, where certain keywords will put up a flag. I'm fairly certain that the same thing goes in the U.S. Primarily because it would be plain stupid for the government not to do it.

The same thing goes for telephone lines. Key words raise flags. Again, it would be completely brainless for the government not to do so.



To end for now, I give you a speech from a tv show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwDAbVqQqv0

#55 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:37 PM

See that is the thought process I was talking about. Power doesn't just corrupt in Russia, it can corrupt anyone anywhere. We want to believe America is pure, but it isn't.

Saddam was put into power by the US, it's not a secret that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were friends with Saddam. So we get attacked on 9/11 by guys hiding in caves in Afghanistan, yet we invade Iraq? We put Saddam in power as long as he did what we told him, then he started to follow his own agenda so we decided to take him out. This was a man that was friends with two very powerful people in America, so instead of doing it peacefully, we kill over 1 million civilians.

Gaddafi is another one that started to call out America. The western media told us all he was evil because he was attacking his own people in his capital. Yeah, that's cause he had rebels attacking him. Don't you think if Barack was getting shot at in D.C. he'd defend himself. Gaddafi went through his streets in a convertible, our president hides in bullet proof vehicles. The people of Libya were pissed at our media because we made it seem like the hated Gaddafi, when really they did not. The UN supported the rebels, and guess who else did. AL-Qaeda. The reason we are in the middle east is because of them, yet we are fighting for them? That is a point Ron Paul was bringing up but FOX news cut him off.

Mainstream media is all bullshit.

The world is run by old men who only care about themselves and money. That is the reality, everything is for money and power. It disgusts me that a piece of paper can drive people to commit these acts.


First of all, the idea that Bush went to war in Iraq for oil is stupid.

Second of all, no one in this thread said that the American government is pure.

Third, it's extremely amusing (and kind of sad) to see Hayes say that "knowledge is power" while spouting complete ignorance. You need look no further than the title of the topic for evidence.

Fourth, I've never seen such a hilariously oversimplification of the Iraq War since I stopped watching Fox News. Here I thought the Iraq War was an immensely complicated and volatile situation with many warring religious factions, here I thought that a guy had to write a 60+ page report to adequately explain reasons for US intervention and its ramifications and reasons with the political situation in Iraq. But no, I guess we just went in there to kill civilians. For what? Shits and giggles? Because we enjoy killing people? The US' placement of a dictator in Vietnam was done to contain communism. The support of the Panamanian rebels was to gain access to the Panama Canal. I know our government has done some unsavory things as far as unilateral interventionism, but they usually have a solid political, or economic reason for doing so.

Fifth, the reason why we are supporting rebels has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Al-Qaeda is also supporting them. To stop supporting a noble cause because an enemy of the state is also supporting it is stupid. Also, I suggest you actually read something about Gaddafi's reign other than "Dudez, he rodez in carzz with no roofxors, obviouslie every1 in Libya L0v3zzz him!!!"

Sixth, what point are you trying to make? That international relations are extremely complicated and can't be oversimplified down to "shoot these people" and "don't shoot these people"? Yeah, thanks genius.

Seventh, I agree with you, a lot of mainstream media IS bullshit, but not because they're covering up some government conspiracy. They try to sensationalize everything at the cost of information accuracy, which I find infuriating.

Eighth, and this is towards Lonewolf, Arab Spring succeeded because people were willing to go unarmed against the army with nothing, KNOWING that they would die. Knowing this, and still fighting, still believing in the principles of nonviolent protest. Still having the courage and moral strength to fight when they see their brothers getting gunned down every day is what drew media attention and popular support. Not guns. People. Courage. If you just have guns, you end up with the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

#56 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 July 2012 - 12:17 AM

Everything force_echo has said is correct.


Here's an idea. Before the Constitution, before America became Uhmerka, in good ol' 1774, the American people had no guns, no power, nothing but love of freedom and hope for a better America. They went out and took it with help from outside forces (read: France). Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, every country involved in the Arab Spring are doing the exact same thing.

If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then the same goes for defense. Guns don't defend people from tyranny, people defend people from tyranny.

#57 LoneWolf

LoneWolf

    Believes Han shot first

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oceanside, Ca.
  • Interests:Comics from the 90's. Movies. RPG's.

Posted 07 July 2012 - 05:42 AM

Eighth, and this is towards Lonewolf, Arab Spring succeeded because people were willing to go unarmed against the army with nothing, KNOWING that they would die. Knowing this, and still fighting, still believing in the principles of nonviolent protest. Still having the courage and moral strength to fight when they see their brothers getting gunned down every day is what drew media attention and popular support. Not guns. People. Courage. If you just have guns, you end up with the Israel-Palestine Conflict.


Ok. So... the arab spring was fighting a single 'army'? I guess you think that Arabia is a country somewhere. It is actually composed of quite a few successful and unsuccessful (so far) uprisings through quite a few countries. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen also have fighters trying to overthrow their governments.

Gaddafi has been an enemy of America's for decades. This is much more likely why there was interest in supporting the Libyan rebels against him. Those rebels would have acchieved nothing if they couldn't win the fight themselves. You can march against gunfire all day. Examine certain countries in Africa where there is less public attention. Dying helplessly against an oppressive government only helps if a more powerful government sees something of interest in your struggle (like they want to replace your current leadership with one more receptive to their interests).

In Egypt the 30-year regime of Mubarak pretty much bowed to public pressure. He was extremely unpopular (I know, I lived there for a year). He was held up by the military and propaganda and would hold faux elections in which nautrally he always won. He knew he was at the end of his rope, so he gave up. As strategically important as Egypt is, you can guarantee major powers want that place in stable hands.

The point is this: Walking toward soldiers unarmed and singing songs works only if someone big is willing to step in for your side. Even then, if you want the government to change, someone with guns is going to have to MAKE that happen.

@Surfer92
"If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then the same goes for defense. Guns don't defend people from tyranny, people defend people from tyranny."

Very idealistic. If you look a few years back in history you can see that this is indeed true... of course the condition to this is that MONEY must be gained as well. No money (minerals, strategic positions, oil etc..) - No help.

Either that or an interest in replacing the current regime with a more receptive one, like I said earlier.

A perfect example of where your idealism fails is found in the Rwanda genocide. One group was armed, the other wasn't. No one stepped in to help since there was little value ($$$) to be found in doing so.

#58 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:07 AM

@Surfer92
"If guns don't kill people, people kill people, then the same goes for defense. Guns don't defend people from tyranny, people defend people from tyranny."

Very idealistic. If you look a few years back in history you can see that this is indeed true... of course the condition to this is that MONEY must be gained as well. No money (minerals, strategic positions, oil etc..) - No help.

Either that or an interest in replacing the current regime with a more receptive one, like I said earlier.

A perfect example of where your idealism fails is found in the Rwanda genocide. One group was armed, the other wasn't. No one stepped in to help since there was little value ($$$) to be found in doing so.


Okay, so you misinterpreted my entire post. Nice to know.

#59 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 07 July 2012 - 12:08 PM

Ok. So... the arab spring was fighting a single 'army'? I guess you think that Arabia is a country somewhere. It is actually composed of quite a few successful and unsuccessful (so far) uprisings through quite a few countries. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen also have fighters trying to overthrow their governments.

Gaddafi has been an enemy of America's for decades. This is much more likely why there was interest in supporting the Libyan rebels against him. Those rebels would have acchieved nothing if they couldn't win the fight themselves. You can march against gunfire all day. Examine certain countries in Africa where there is less public attention. Dying helplessly against an oppressive government only helps if a more powerful government sees something of interest in your struggle (like they want to replace your current leadership with one more receptive to their interests).

In Egypt the 30-year regime of Mubarak pretty much bowed to public pressure. He was extremely unpopular (I know, I lived there for a year). He was held up by the military and propaganda and would hold faux elections in which nautrally he always won. He knew he was at the end of his rope, so he gave up. As strategically important as Egypt is, you can guarantee major powers want that place in stable hands.

The point is this: Walking toward soldiers unarmed and singing songs works only if someone big is willing to step in for your side. Even then, if you want the government to change, someone with guns is going to have to MAKE that happen.

When did I say anything about Arabia being a single country? Or anything about there being one army? I was mainly using the revolutions of Syria as a starting point, because it's the freshest right now in everyone's minds, but I don't need you to tell me that there are multiple countries making up the middle east, with multiple revolutions. The whole concept behind the term Arab Spring is that there are common social, economic, and political conditions in these countries that motivate these rebellions in similar manners. So yes, I know that there are multiple revolutions in multiple countries, you just fail for not understanding a simple concept.

Yeah, that's the damn point. Nonviolent protest creates sympathy with big powers. You want to tell me to examine situations? Examine South Africa. Examine India. Examine the freaking United States of America. If you pick up guns and start shooting the shit out of people, no matter what your cause, you don't gain sympathy, and you're operation doesn't get international support. Examine Israel. Examine certain countries on the West Coast of Africa.

#60 LoneWolf

LoneWolf

    Believes Han shot first

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oceanside, Ca.
  • Interests:Comics from the 90's. Movies. RPG's.

Posted 07 July 2012 - 12:29 PM

Eighth, and this is towards Lonewolf, Arab Spring succeeded because people were willing to go unarmed against the army with nothing, KNOWING that they would die.


Here you imply that the Arab Spring is fighting a singular army. Naturally this would mean a singular country as well, since countries do not normally share armies (the exception being U.N. members).

I am pretty familiar with the region actually. Sympathy with the 'Big Powers' is great to have, but mere non-violent protest will not necessarily achieve that

For example. The U.S. supports Israel, despite that country's questionable dealings with Palestine (to say the least, not trying to open this can at the moment).

Our support of Israel is used against us by countries like China and Russia during negotiations. For example, they can point out this support at times when we ask them to stop supporting Syria. It is often a trade-off.

Quite often throughout history a population has been decimated as a reward for being unable to defend themselves. I once again point out ethnic cleansings, such as those in the Bosnian-Serbian conflict, the Turkish-Armenian genocide and the previously mentioned Rwandan killings.

These ALL make rock-solid cases for having an armed population. It will not prevent a war perhaps... but it might prevent an out-right massacre.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users