Man caught trying to enter Magic Kingdom with gun

aw14

Well-Known Member
Not having a go but can you explain to me why you want an armed populace . Not fishing just genuinly wondering ?
People need to be able to protect themselves against tyranny. I mentioned in an earlier post, I am in no way a gun person. I have never held and/or fired one in my life. However, our government has the potential for tyranny (not conspiracy stuff), and it is the right of every citizen to be armed.

I personally will never be, but it is not the right of the government to take it away. Our government has overreached too much as it is, and is too involved in so many facets of americans' lives. IMO
 

Mr Ferret 75

Thank you sir. You were an inspiration.
Premium Member
People need to be able to protect themselves against tyranny. I mentioned in an earlier post, I am in no way a gun person. I have never held and/or fired one in my life. However, our government has the potential for tyranny (not conspiracy stuff), and it is the right of every citizen to be armed.

I personally will never be, but it is not the right of the government to take it away. Our government has overreached too much as it is, and is too involved in so many facets of americans' lives. IMO
Thanks
 

Matthew

Well-Known Member
People need to be able to protect themselves against tyranny. I mentioned in an earlier post, I am in no way a gun person. I have never held and/or fired one in my life. However, our government has the potential for tyranny (not conspiracy stuff), and it is the right of every citizen to be armed.

I personally will never be, but it is not the right of the government to take it away. Our government has overreached too much as it is, and is too involved in so many facets of americans' lives. IMO

Seriously?
 

Mr Ferret 75

Thank you sir. You were an inspiration.
Premium Member
Seriously?
The first part of @aw14 s post is fair comment . There are a lot of european countries with heavily armed populaces and it does give themselves a chance to defend their rights if anything ever went too far the wrong way ( unlikely but it could happen)
The second paragraph i can't comment on .
 

Matthew

Well-Known Member
The first part of @aw14 s post is fair comment . There are a lot of european countries with heavily armed populaces and it does give themselves a chance to defend their rights if anything ever went too far the wrong way ( unlikely but it could happen)
The second paragraph i can't comment on .

This is the western world... Not the Middle East.. Or Eastern Europe.

And as an example the recent coup attempt In turkey was stopped purely by people filling the streets... Not by drawing guns.
 

Mr Ferret 75

Thank you sir. You were an inspiration.
Premium Member
This is the western world... Not the Middle East.. Or Eastern Europe.

And as an example the recent coup attempt In turkey was stopped purely by people filling the streets... Not by drawing guns.
I would hardly call Norway/Sweden Eastern Europe.
True but their laws allow them to bear arms. I just think tighter legislation is required as to where and how they bear arms.
 
Last edited:

Matthew

Well-Known Member
I would hardly call Norwat/Swedem Eastern Europe.
True but their laws allow them to bear arms. I just think tighter legislation is required as to where and how they bear arms.

Come on Norway and Sweden are totally different to the states... And the laws on guns are restrictive.

My point was that government tyranny that requires civilians to take up arms doesn't happen on the western world.
 

Mr Ferret 75

Thank you sir. You were an inspiration.
Premium Member
Come on Norway and Sweden are totally different to the states... And the laws on guns are restrictive.

My point was that government tyranny that requires civilians to take up arms doesn't happen on the western world.
Generally no but it could ... Just trying to see both sides of the argument
 

G00fyDad

Well-Known Member
People need to be able to protect themselves against tyranny. I mentioned in an earlier post, I am in no way a gun person. I have never held and/or fired one in my life. However, our government has the potential for tyranny (not conspiracy stuff), and it is the right of every citizen to be armed.

I personally will never be, but it is not the right of the government to take it away. Our government has overreached too much as it is, and is too involved in so many facets of americans' lives. IMO

I completely see your point and understand where you are coming from. However..... (No offense to you) that is one of the most ridiculous things I hear from NRA members. What do you think John Q. Public is going to do to the US Government if they were to become tyrannical? LOL The US military kicks the crap out of countries with far more firepower than any US civilian militia. And this is also not the 1700's. The US military doesn't line up in Colonial British fighting fashion any more. Guerrilla warfare the way the Colonial militias performed wouldn't work as well anymore. I am not having a go at you. Really. I just find the idea that "We need to be armed against the US Government" hysterical. That is not how you're going to make the government change any more.
 

Mr Ferret 75

Thank you sir. You were an inspiration.
Premium Member
Norwat and Swedem are two Muppets I built at home.

:p
images(41).jpeg
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Don't understand your question sir ?
Sorry, I misread your post where you said gun issue, I read gun problem. There is a difference and with a few minor safeguards, this country can cut down on accidental deaths from guns, but, if I want a gun to kill you with, I will find a way to get one, legal or not. It is that simple.
People need to be able to protect themselves against tyranny. I mentioned in an earlier post, I am in no way a gun person. I have never held and/or fired one in my life. However, our government has the potential for tyranny (not conspiracy stuff), and it is the right of every citizen to be armed.

I personally will never be, but it is not the right of the government to take it away. Our government has overreached too much as it is, and is too involved in so many facets of americans' lives. IMO
There is a difference between defending against tyranny and competing with the military gun for gun. The advantage that an armed populace would have over the military is sheer numbers. We don't need assault weapons, we need defensive weapons. I believe that one of the reasons why a ground attack has never happened is because the world believes that we all have loaded weapons in easy reach and are not afraid to use them. I've lived here for 68 years and have never been shot at even once, yet people from other countries are afraid that we are all pointing a gun at people 24/7. I want us to be an armed nation, but, I want us to not be a stupid nation at the same time. There are people that shouldn't have guns and there needs to be a significant screening to prevent unstable people from gaining access. The NRA is even wanting the issuance of weapons to be like buying a candy bar. Reach for it, pay for it and take it home. We are just asking for the crazies to come out of the woodwork and ventilate us. Why do we have to be so stupid. Is it just testosterone gone wild? We have a government to protect us. If you want them to ignore every danger to our lives it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just not have a government at all. It would be pretty scary, but, that is what people seem to want. I believe it's called anarchy.
 

DisneyDoug85

Active Member
that is one of the most ridiculous things I hear from NRA members. What do you think John Q. Public is going to do to the US Government if they were to become tyrannical? LOL The US military kicks the crap out of countries with far more firepower than any US civilian militia. And this is also not the 1700's. The US military doesn't line up in Colonial British fighting fashion any more. I just find the idea that "We need to be armed against the US Government" hysterical.

These are always my exact thoughts as well.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
You know what, that is a fair point, so let me link to an article that explains much better than I can how this works. This is how the Israelis handle their suicide bombers and how they prevent 80% of them from hurting anyone:

"A number of attacks have been foiled by police and observant bystanders or because the bombers were careless, acted suspiciously, had trouble with their explosives or backed out at the last minute.

...According to some estimates only about 20 percent of suicide bombers manage to kill or injure anybody and only 5 percent of the attacks kill more than five people.

...

Often times suicide bombers give themselves away. The same police official told Reuters “The terrorist who comes to carry out an attack, I don't want to say it's body language that sends the message because that sounds too far fetched, but it's true."

A number of attacks have been foiled by bus drivers who spotted bombers at bus stops and drove on or subdued the attackers before they could set off their bombs. One bus driver found a suspicious looking watermelon that turned out to be packed with explosives. A bus driver who wrestled an attacker to the ground told Reuters, “I Thought he going to a festival...because there were a lot of young guys like him on the bus. But when I asked him where he was going, he didn't answer, and came up the stairs slowly, cradling a large bag...he looked drugged and hypnotized. I grabbed him by the shirt and asked where he was going, but he still didn't answer. Then I saw a switch sticking out of his bag and I knew I dealing with a terrorist." He then pushed the bomber off the bus and sat on him until soldiers arrived."

From here: http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat58/sub385/item2363.html

So to those who think it so odd that you might be able to identify a bomber before they set off the explosive, there you have it, from a society much more familiar with suicide bombers than the good old USA.

Thank you for answering a fair point with a fair point. Allow me to continue the trend:

First, we have to acknowledge the greater level of familiarity with suicide bombers in Israel. The general public, and especially people like law enforcement, bus drivers, etc. will be the ones to notice patterns like this.

When I was in my early 20's and a manager at Service Merchandise, I experienced first hand so many customers trying to use stolen credit cards that I could almost tell when they walked in the front door.

If you're not familiar with the store, it was a catalog showroom, which meant you wrote down the items you wanted, went to the counter, and then you would meet your merchandise at a "pick-up" area. This provided the ideal scenario to have the would-be thieves wait for their package while the police showed up instead.

On my first day, I wouldn't have known right off the bat. I might have been excited to make a big sale. But when I learned the average behavior for a person buying an expensive TV or camera (ask a million questions, shop for best price, etc.) that made it easier to spot someone more likely to be a thief (they came in overdressed for a retail store, didn't ask ANY questions about how the items worked, what features they had, etc. and picked the more expensive items without flinching.)

So through experience and familiarity, I became something of an expert in that unique setting of picking out who was a thief before they even opened their mouths. I got many people arrested while they waited for their packages.

I would expect people living in an area where suicide bomber attempts are much more common than they are here are going to be better able to notice patterns of behavior.

However, nowhere in your article (at least the parts you posted) was it suggested the bus driver shoot the person, or that they did shoot the person successfully. I suspect even police would be cautious about shooting a person strapped with a bomb, because if you shoot just right (incorrectly) then you carry out the suicide bomber's wishes for him/her.

So I think you made my point that having civilians with unknown levels of training shooting because they didn't think it through and think they are Rambo is NOT preferable to screening and other methods (vs. shooting) of subduing or foiling the potential perpetrator.

I don't think the bomb squad would go in guns blazing.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
Seriously?
100% serious. I am not sure what your background is, but I have taught history at very high levels...there is a history in this country that is disconcerting. There is also a reason it was placed where it was in the founding documents. IMO
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
There is a difference between defending against tyranny and competing with the military gun for gun. The advantage that an armed populace would have over the military is sheer numbers. We don't need assault weapons, we need defensive weapons. I believe that one of the reasons why a ground attack has never happened is because the world believes that we all have loaded weapons in easy reach and are not afraid to use them. I've lived here for 68 years and have never been shot at even once, yet people from other countries are afraid that we are all pointing a gun at people 24/7. I want us to be an armed nation, but, I want us to not be a stupid nation at the same time. There are people that shouldn't have guns and there needs to be a significant screening to prevent unstable people from gaining access. The NRA is even wanting the issuance of weapons to be like buying a candy bar. Reach for it, pay for it and take it home. We are just asking for the crazies to come out of the woodwork and ventilate us. Why do we have to be so stupid. Is it just testosterone gone wild? We have a government to protect us. If you want them to ignore every danger to our lives it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just not have a government at all. It would be pretty scary, but, that is what people seem to want. I believe it's called anarchy.
let me address a few things...
1. I would never support "gun for gun" nor have I stated support here. I do not believe that there is a need for assault weapons, however, there is a right to bear arms.
2. A government to protect us? Curious how you see that in 2016. The overreaching of the last several administrations (dem and repub alike) would tell an entirely different story.
3. I never stated support for your candy bar analogy.

No offense, but you seem to write in extremes. What you wrote does not apply to anything I have stated.
 

Matthew

Well-Known Member
I believe that one of the reasons why a ground attack has never happened is because the world believes that we all have loaded weapons in easy reach and are not afraid to use them.

I'm guessing you mean a military ground attack and if that's the case don't you think it's because anybody who would want to attack you would have to cross oceans and a) that would take a crazy number of landing craft due to the sheer number of troops it would require to have even the remotest chance of been successful and b) you have the the strongest military in the world especially when it come to Navy and Airforce and would see them coming and sink them?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom