# The world, as it's seen through the eyes of anti's



## Grenadier (Sep 22, 2009)

It's rather interesting to see the other side's viewpoint, regarding the destruction of the Second Amendment:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/gun-control

Warning: contains little logic


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 22, 2009)

To summarize:



> WHARRGARBL


----------



## jamz (Sep 23, 2009)

One thing that always gives me a little tiny bit of hope is that at least half of the comments, (Huffington Post readers, even!) for most of those hysterical, hyperbole-ridden articles are pro-gun.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 23, 2009)

"blah, blah, blah...guns are bad...blah, blah, blah...only our masters should have arms...blah blah blah...NRA evil...blah, blah, blah."


----------



## Deaf Smith (Sep 23, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> "blah, blah, blah...guns are bad...blah, blah, blah...only our masters should have arms...blah blah blah...NRA evil...blah, blah, blah."


 
Yea. The Japanese took up weapons from the serfs way back in the Shogun era. Europe in middle ages didn't let serfs have weapons either. Even one Pope (and I'm Catholic) banned crossbows cause they could defeat a knights armor (and the knights were the enforcers.) Hitler banned guns from all but the party members. So did Lenin. So did Pol Pot. So did Ida Amin.

When you think about it, every nation has tried to disarm their citizens throughout history.

Even in American history we took away the Indian&#8217;s guns to!!!! And you see what happened to them!

Unlike Obama's flowery speeches, the world is a dangerous place (just look at Mexico!) It's no time to disarm oneself cuase there never is a time to disarm yourself.

Deaf


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 24, 2009)

I have to say that I am ever struck by the lack of common sense in the American Anti-Gun lobby.

The genie cannot go back in the bottle, no matter how hard you wish it. Prevelence of fire-arms means that the percentage of the population that are 'wicked' will have them. If the virtuous are not likewise armed then control is ceded to the wicked by default.

If a society was structured to be un-armed from the start and had a central ethos of non-violence, then maybe a "No guns!" stance might have a prayer. In a country that set out to make the right to bear arms an important freedom, a drive to criminalise weapon ownership just seeks to make criminals of the majority of otherwise law-abiding people.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 24, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> just seeks to make criminals of the majority of otherwise law-abiding people.



Wouldn't be the first time, "the war on drugs" does this as well, which oddly enough gains it support from the other team. 

Copyright violations in the age of the Internet also criminalize a huge part of the population, if they ever start adding prison sentences for copying music there will be more people in jail then out.

I think you can license owners, restrict where people can take them (ex airports), but trying to remove them is going to fail, and a gun registry will fail (as Canada can testify to)


----------

