A Speech my Cousin will read in Highschool Tomorrow about Guns

[JoeB131]

No, most people don't KNOW about it. The only joke here is, well...look in a mirror, stupid.

Naw, it's pretty much unknown outside gun whack circles...

Only reason these goons weren't hunted down is because in their reckless shooting spree, no one died.

 

[rightwinger]

No, most people don't KNOW about it. The only joke here is, well...look in a mirror, stupid.

Naw, it's pretty much unknown outside gun whack circles...

Only reason these goons weren't hunted down is because in their reckless shooting spree, no one died.

For the gun nuts, Athens is their Lexington and Concord

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You can post all you want, everyone here knows your Authoritarian Allegiance and the fact that you endorse the Nazi Gun Control Laws, saying that its OK that Hitler deregulated guns (in general) even though he prohibited them to undesirables (like Jews), implying that you believe Gun Control is good.

You're a Loony.

Are you saying that Hitler armed Jews and other undesirables?

 

[t_polkow]

My seventeen year old cousin asked me for advice. His AP history class is going to have a series of debates and speeches in class concerning the right to bear arms. I helped him write the following speech:

When discussing the Second Amendment, it is necessary that we begin with the original intent and reasoning, that motivated the Founding Fathers to include this guarantee in the the Bill of Rights; and remember, that our Founding Fathers created such a Bill of Rights, so that these rights, would be beyond question, immune to popular opinion, for they viewed these as the natural rights of man.

We can start, by analyzing well documented history, so as to put the facts beyond refutation. The sole intent of the British, at Lexington and Concord, was to seize value munitions and arms of the colonists in that region. For the British knew, that it would be impossible, to continue abusing the colonists with their reprehensible and intolerable acts, if the colonists finally decided that the British government had become so destructive, that they may invoke their natural right to either alter, or abolish it, and form themselves a new government, responsive to the needs and desires of the people.

As a result, years later, when our current Constitution was being drafted, they decided, as a barrier to centralized tyranny, from either the federal, state or even local level, that it was necessary, that the people, the citizens themselves, retained the right to keep and bears arms. And this right, shall not be infringed.

During our history, our Second Amendment has played a passive role, in deterring tyranny. For no government, no matter how corrupt, would dare become so monstrous, as to provoke a rebellion by an armed population.

However, this assertion is too difficult to prove, so instead, it is best to analyze what has happened to certain minorities in United States history, when they were disarmed of their weapons by law.

The first example, of such a people who were disarmed, were African Americans. Shortly after the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Ku Klux Klan immediately passed laws in order to subdue and disarm African Americans. Shortly after the law abiding blacks consented to being disarmed, they found themselves under the reign of the Jim Crow Laws. Deprived of liberty, unable to vote, and often deprived of life itself.

Another such example, are the executives of private companies, using armed force, against unarmed members of Unions were striking. Many also question if the United States government would have detained and imprisoned the Japanese people in concentration camps had the Japanese been a gun possessing people.

Unfortunately, the worst examples, are found in global history, when entire minorities have been genocided by their government. The best known example, are the Jewish people of Germany. Hitler had moved immediately to disarm the Jewish people, and other undesirables in Germany. What followed shortly after, was the Holocaust. Everyone can agree, that had Jews been armed during the reign Hitler, that they would have been able to avert such a tragedy, or at the very least, been able to escape Germany before so many millions were killed.

It is also well known, that Stalin of the Soviet Union, and Mao of Communist China, and brutal dictators all throughout the 20th century, had disarmed their politically opposed minorities, and genocided over 350 million people total in the 20th Century.

History itself, proves that only an unarmed people, can be so easily controlled and often exterminated, once they are defenseless and without recourse.

However, there is one stellar example of the Second Amendment actually being used to overthrow tyrannical government. In 1946, in the city of Athens, Tennessee, the State government machine would send the police to the voting places, seize the ballot boxes, and bring them to the jailhouses, in order rig the election in favor of Democrats. The people of Tennessee had been petitioning the federal government for a decade, but FDR, a Democrat, wanted the State government to continue rigging the elections, in order to ensure that the State of Tennessee produced Democratic Senators and Congressman.

Finally, in the year of 1946, returning World War II veterans, well trained in military grade firearms, and well equipped, decided that they had enough of the voting process being rigged, had enough of being abused but the local police, and enough of being jailed for no reason. Over 200 veterans took up their arms, Semi automatic M1 Carbines, and battled it out with the police for over four hours. Eventually they prevailed, and the police surrendered. The Rule of Law was reestablished, the people of Tennessee had won their first victory, that was paramount to destroying the entire state political machine of Tennessee. Later on, the courts ruled that the Veterans were not guilty of rioting or murder, for they exercised their natural right to keep and bear arms in order secure a free State. This event known as the Battle of Athens.

Now, let us turn our attention away from government tyranny, and discuss the effect of the Second Amendment in relation to everyday crime. It can be easily seen, with a simple internet search, that every State that has little or no restrictions on firearms, such as Vermont and Utah, have the lowest crime and murder rates in the United States. Whereas, the states and cities that have the strictest gun control laws, are the opposite, such as Chicago, Detroit and Rochester.

One must not fall into the trap of comparing a country under a UNITARY form of government (The United Kingdom) directly to the United States, which is a Federal form of government.The laws and Constitution of each State are vastly DIFFERENT from the laws and Constitution of every other State. Also, within each State, the laws of each city and town are moderately DIFFERENT from the laws of every other city and town.
Also, keep in mind, that many federal laws (that govern the whole nation), are executed differently in different states, especially when significant devolution procedures have been written into that law.

As, previously mentioned, countries like the UK, are UNITARY governments. The variance in local laws are microscopic in those places. Moderate differences in law are only seen between rural and urban regions in a unitary government.

This means, when you compare the laws of a UNITARY government, to the laws of the United States, are you no better off comparing fruits to Chess Theory. They are different entities, and each entity has countless variations.

In order to compare a UNITARY government to the United States, you should only consider Cities and towns that are governed by the same or very similar laws. Sometimes you MIGHT be able to compare them to an entire State, however, you can NEVER compare them to the entire Union of the United States. Also, it is equally impossible to directly compare another Federal nation to the United States for the same reasons. Its' like comparing Chess Theory to Poetry.

Once we analyze and compare Gun Control laws in the United States and other countries, respecting the Federal and Unitary differences, we realize that we can only use such strict gun control locations, such as Chicago and Detroit, or other similar areas. Without question, they cities are known as Failed States, and are the most dangerous and violent places to live in the United States today.

Also, keep in mind, that there are some countries, such as Mexico, that have intense gun control laws, and rank top 10 is the most dangerous places to live.
This does seem hard to grasp, how could this be possible, you may ask.

The problem is that Gun Control Laws, assume that criminals are going to obey the law, and turn in their weapons. This is silly, because criminals do not obey the law. Thus, when these laws are passed, only the law abiding citizen turn in their guns, which encourages criminals to perpetrate even more violent acts. Even in the UK, the Telegraph, the main source of news in the UK, wrote an article that the UK has three times more violent crime that the United States, even though they have a vastly lower number of murders by guns.

Now some people, may attempt to make the following argument:

If criminals do not obey the law, then why bother passing any laws at all?

The reason we pass laws, is because the overwhelming majority of people are law abiding citizens. If there was no law against stealing, than many many law abiding citizens would be stealing. However, once the law is passed, only criminals will continue to steal.

Ask yourselves though, have criminals stopped stealing because there is a law against it?
So that is the problem with Gun Control. The law is specifically designed to disarm criminals, yet criminals are the only people who will not become disarmed. Only law abiding citizens will comply with the law, and become disarmed --- sheep among the wolves. Thus, the violent crime rate increases greatly once such laws are passed.

On this issue of the mentally ill:

Who decides who is mentally ill or not? The government? They can already declare you a terrorist with no evidence and lock you up forever without a trial or lawyer. In fact, although it cannot be proven, they probably just kill them ... how would you know if they don't?

Keep in mind, that in order to to bar mentally ill people from buying a gun, there must be a NATIONAL REGISTRY of mentally ill people. Such a registry could be used to force mentally ill people to be sterilized. Later it could be used to force mentally ill people to be "euthanized." Also, since the government can decide who is mentally ill, and who is not, without evidence, it is most likely they would use this against anyone who could or has resisted them.

Do this sound like crazy talk, well we know that every major fascist or communist power of the 20th century actually did what was described above. So don't be fooled into thinking this is just crazy talk.

On the issue of civilians stopping mass shooting:

The reason no civilian has stopped a mass shooting, because if you prevent someone from performing a mass shooting, then no mass shooting had occurred, thus it doesn't' get reported in the news, because no one died, or only a small amount had died.

Once such instance is a mall in Oregon, where a legally armed civilian took out a potential mass murderer, who only managed to slaughter two civilians. There's only one way to stop a bad guy with a gun, and that's a good guy with a gun, and more often than not, the police are minutes away, while the victims are only seconds away from death.

Do not be fooled by the forces of evil and corruption that seek to disarm you, for only the evil and corrupt shall benefit.

EDIT: forgot the two quotes to read at the end (the quotes from my sig!)

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

I take it that he will be joining the military maybe go Afghanistan before the war is over to get a taste what guns can really do to people in what they are intended to do? Get a close up look at bodies blown apart,that's what you gun nuts fantasize about isn't it.

 

[bodecea]

You can post all you want, everyone here knows your Authoritarian Allegiance and the fact that you endorse the Nazi Gun Control Laws, saying that its OK that Hitler deregulated guns (in general) even though he prohibited them to undesirables (like Jews), implying that you believe Gun Control is good.

You're a Loony.

Are you saying that Hitler armed Jews and other undesirables?

Are you saying that the ONLY two options is that Hitler handed guns to the Jews or else took them away? I see that you prefer life in a black and white world...beats thinking, eh?

 

[rightwinger]

You can post all you want, everyone here knows your Authoritarian Allegiance and the fact that you endorse the Nazi Gun Control Laws, saying that its OK that Hitler deregulated guns (in general) even though he prohibited them to undesirables (like Jews), implying that you believe Gun Control is good.

You're a Loony.

Are you saying that Hitler armed Jews and other undesirables?

It would have made no difference. There were no instances of any armed civilians stopping the Nazis. Even the French Resistance, who were armed did not prevent the Nazis from meeting their objectives

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You're a Loony.

Are you saying that Hitler armed Jews and other undesirables?

It would have made no difference. There were no instances of any armed civilians stopping the Nazis. Even the French Resistance, who were armed did not prevent the Nazis from meeting their objectives

Are you saying the French Resistance had no effect?

Sometimes WINNING isn't the sole object of resistance. Sometimes simply being a RESISTANCE is considered a victory.

For instance, the Taliban has at no time ever won a battle against the United States. But hell, they sure a major fucking thorn in the side. And they aren't half a well armed as civilians are in the United States.

--------------------------

In the United States the civilian population could win a revolution by simply shutting down the economy, even if they don't win a single battle.

"They won battle, but lost the War."

 

[JoeB131]

[

It would have made no difference. There were no instances of any armed civilians stopping the Nazis. Even the French Resistance, who were armed did not prevent the Nazis from meeting their objectives

Are you saying the French Resistance had no effect?

Sometimes WINNING isn't the sole object of resistance. Sometimes simply being a RESISTANCE is considered a victory.

For instance, the Taliban has at no time ever won a battle against the United States. But hell, they sure a major fucking thorn in the side. And they aren't half a well armed as civilians are in the United States.

--------------------------

In the United States the civilian population could win a revolution by simply shutting down the economy, even if they don't win a single battle.

"They won battle, but lost the War."

Actually, the reality of WWII is more Frenchmen supported the Vichy Government than the resistance. They happily turned in their Jewish neighbors and did what the Nazis told them to do.

Yeah, after the war, they hung a few leaders and shaved the heads of a few gals who prostituted themselves to the Wehrmacht, but for the most part, they all tried to forget who did what during the war.

According to my Dad, who was with the First Army in WWII, the French Resistance were little more than bandits, who would rip off the Allied supply trains if they thought they could get away with it.

This is what makes you gun nutter so nutty. If you actually did fight any protracted war against the hypothetical evil government, eventually, your neighbors would turn you in for no other reason than you were making their lives more difficult.

 

[rightwinger]

Are you saying that Hitler armed Jews and other undesirables?

It would have made no difference. There were no instances of any armed civilians stopping the Nazis. Even the French Resistance, who were armed did not prevent the Nazis from meeting their objectives

Are you saying the French Resistance had no effect?

Sometimes WINNING isn't the sole object of resistance. Sometimes simply being a RESISTANCE is considered a victory.

For instance, the Taliban has at no time ever won a battle against the United States. But hell, they sure a major fucking thorn in the side. And they aren't half a well armed as civilians are in the United States.

--------------------------

In the United States the civilian population could win a revolution by simply shutting down the economy, even if they don't win a single battle.

"They won battle, but lost the War."

Which negates your repeated assertions of "if only the Jews were armed the holocaust wouldn't have happened"

The Nazis would swarm a neighborhood. Any resistance, armed or otherwise, was met with brutal response. Armed Jews, firing at Nazis would have just resulted in the entire neighborhood being wiped out in response

Your silly 2nd amendment fantasies are worthless

 

[rightwinger]

Are you saying that Hitler armed Jews and other undesirables?

It would have made no difference. There were no instances of any armed civilians stopping the Nazis. Even the French Resistance, who were armed did not prevent the Nazis from meeting their objectives

--------------------------

In the United States the civilian population could win a revolution by simply shutting down the economy, even if they don't win a single battle.

"They won battle, but lost the War."

The best thing you have ever written. You should have had your cousin put THAT in his speech

Shows how useless the 2nd amendment is ....doesn't it?

 

[ArmyCowboy]

It would have made no difference. There were no instances of any armed civilians stopping the Nazis. Even the French Resistance, who were armed did not prevent the Nazis from meeting their objectives

--------------------------

In the United States the civilian population could win a revolution by simply shutting down the economy, even if they don't win a single battle.

"They won battle, but lost the War."

The best thing you have ever written. You should have had your cousin put THAT in his speech

Shows how useless the 2nd amendment is ....doesn't it?

You're spoiling their silly Red Dawn fantasies.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The same old gang bangers come on here spewing shit. Provide some facts

 

[rightwinger]

The same old gang bangers come on here spewing shit. Provide some facts

Get your cousin on the thread

He will do a better job of debating the issue than you do

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The same old gang bangers come on here spewing shit. Provide some facts

Get your cousin on the thread

He will do a better job of debating the issue than you do

I've defeated you three so many times in other threads (even this one earlier) that it's no longer worth my time. When you guys are proven wrong, you don't even acknowledge, you ignore the argument and spit out two fallacious arguments, with a very good initial spin to make them look as if they are good arguments. The sad thing is you even know they are false/faulty arguments as you're typing them. You're hatchet men with an agenda. If there was an ignore button so I didn't have to see your posts, I would press it.

I have two videos for you to watch:

Our message to Hatchet Men:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xcJT7F_BXo]2013 Epic DUBSTEP REMIX Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan [HD720p] Edit by Alex Totterdell - YouTube[/ame]

What Hatchet Men sound like to reasonable people:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrmPehlHK3w]Batman ualuealuealeuale - YouTube[/ame]

The best Visual Representation of Hatchetmen, and why they are NOT worth fighting with (verbally) conventionally online or even in on TV or any other form of media:

When you cut off one of their heads, they grow two more, completely unharmed.

 

[rightwinger]

The same old gang bangers come on here spewing shit. Provide some facts

Get your cousin on the thread

He will do a better job of debating the issue than you do

I've defeated you three so many times in other threads (even this one earlier) that it's no longer worth my time. When you guys are proven wrong, you don't even acknowledge, you ignore the argument and spit out two fallacious arguments, with a very good initial spin to make them look as if they are good arguments. The sad thing is you even know they are false/faulty arguments as you're typing them. You're hatchet men with an agenda. If there was an ignore button so I didn't have to see your posts, I would press it.

I have two videos for you to watch:

Our message to Hatchet Men:

What Hatchet Men sound like to reasonable people:

Self declared victories are so shallow.......don't cha think?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Get your cousin on the thread

He will do a better job of debating the issue than you do

I've defeated you three so many times in other threads (even this one earlier) that it's no longer worth my time. When you guys are proven wrong, you don't even acknowledge, you ignore the argument and spit out two fallacious arguments, with a very good initial spin to make them look as if they are good arguments. The sad thing is you even know they are false/faulty arguments as you're typing them. You're hatchet men with an agenda. If there was an ignore button so I didn't have to see your posts, I would press it.

I have two videos for you to watch:

Our message to Hatchet Men:

What Hatchet Men sound like to reasonable people:

Self declared victories are so shallow.......don't cha think?

Let em give you an example of the 500 factual things I've posted that were so STRONG you guys couldnt' even rebuke it, you simply ignored its existence:

2nd Amendement -

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no
resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Can we see a link for this study?

You are far more likely to survive
a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 60
Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey 61
U.S. Department of Justice 62
U.S. Department of Justice 63
British Home Office – no a pro-gun organization by any mean

From these same studies.

Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women
defending themselves against sexual abuse.
Fact:
When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes are
successful, compared to 32% when unarmed.

Fact:
The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no
resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the
benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than
resisting with a gun.

Fact:
27% of women keep a gun in the house.

Fact:
37.6 million women either own or have rapid access to guns.

Fact:
In 1966 the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms
training classes to women. The number of rapes dropped by nearly 90%.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/55878NCJRS.pdf

 

[rightwinger]

I've defeated you three so many times in other threads (even this one earlier) that it's no longer worth my time. When you guys are proven wrong, you don't even acknowledge, you ignore the argument and spit out two fallacious arguments, with a very good initial spin to make them look as if they are good arguments. The sad thing is you even know they are false/faulty arguments as you're typing them. You're hatchet men with an agenda. If there was an ignore button so I didn't have to see your posts, I would press it.

I have two videos for you to watch:

Our message to Hatchet Men:

What Hatchet Men sound like to reasonable people:

Self declared victories are so shallow.......don't cha think?

Let em give you an example of the 500 factual things I've posted that were so STRONG you guys couldnt' even rebuke it, you simply ignored its existence:

You are far more likely to survive
a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979 60
Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey 61
U.S. Department of Justice 62
U.S. Department of Justice 63
British Home Office – no a pro-gun organization by any mean

From these same studies.

Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women
defending themselves against sexual abuse.
Fact:
When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes are
successful, compared to 32% when unarmed.

Fact:
The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no
resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the
benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than
resisting with a gun.

Fact:
27% of women keep a gun in the house.

Fact:
37.6 million women either own or have rapid access to guns.

Fact:
In 1966 the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms
training classes to women. The number of rapes dropped by nearly 90%.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/55878NCJRS.pdf

I have never had a problem with someone having a gun for self defense

I just mock those who have guns who think they are somehow defending themselves against an evil government

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Rightwinger, you wont' expect this to come from me, but it will give me an idea if you are sincere:

I believe that National Health is a must. It it one of the few industries that should be nationalized, but done in a way to prevent the slippery slope towards communism. The middleman (insurance companies/malpractice insurance/crazy court fees/crazy defensive tests and procedues) jack the cost of healthcare through the roof. However, Healthcare must be nationalized in a way that is still HIGHLY profitable to the DOCTORS/NURSES/TECHNICIANS, ie. the actual caregivers, in order to promote an incentive to be a doctor/nurse/etc.

The middleman needs to go. Health Care is a right that should be protected under the Ninth Amendment in a modern society.

However, this CANNOT be construed to deny wealthy people the access for more/better healthcare if they can afford it themselves out of their own pockets. Also, well independently 100% transparent audited "Death Panels" will actually be necessary (for extreme cost prohibitive cases that will only extend life by a few months anyway) in order for the system to remain SOLVENT for everyone else. If was funny to see Republicans get hemorrhoids over it. Also, Democrats didn't even propose death panels, it was simply End of Life advice; I actually am proposing death panels and I'm no rich man myself.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/283372-the-national-debt-mortgaging-our-future.html

 

[bodecea]

Get your cousin on the thread

He will do a better job of debating the issue than you do

I've defeated you three so many times in other threads (even this one earlier) that it's no longer worth my time. When you guys are proven wrong, you don't even acknowledge, you ignore the argument and spit out two fallacious arguments, with a very good initial spin to make them look as if they are good arguments. The sad thing is you even know they are false/faulty arguments as you're typing them. You're hatchet men with an agenda. If there was an ignore button so I didn't have to see your posts, I would press it.

I have two videos for you to watch:

Our message to Hatchet Men:

What Hatchet Men sound like to reasonable people:

Self declared victories are so shallow.......don't cha think?

He's the Black Knight. "Come here! I'll bite your knee caps off!"

 

[koshergrl]

Take out about half the flowery language. It's just time killer.