Twitch suspends streamer for discharging a firearm on air

[wiyosaya]

You have a fair point but that strengthens our need in protecting ourselves from governments. And that was the point in giving people the right to bear arms. Governments continued to strengthen as we were happy to only bear small arms. Small arms are the only thing we can use to defend ourselves from their overwhelming power growth.

I hope you can see how that question strengthens the need in gun ownership. Guns are a tool to help keep governments in check. And for the most part it is working. Just look at how hard they are working to take them away. Every little incident is compounded into a mountain. When in the end the person that usually gets hurt is the one that chose not to carry.

A few people in the Pacific Northwest thought that a few years ago when they decided that they could just take over a national wildlife refuge. All the government had to do, essentially, was wait them out; however, it is well-known that it did not work out at all well for at least one of those persons. Instead of him being a martyr, my bet is history is destined to remember him as some wacko with a gun who took his rights far too seriously. So far, anarchy is not prevalent in the US. If you would like something akin to this kind of action, you are welcome to consider moving to Afghanistan.

In the US, SWAT teams among police forces used to be rare. Not so much now. https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/police-militarization Heck, they even send SWAT teams to corral groups of visiting monks that accidentally overstay their visas. https://www.ketv.com/article/monks-arrested-in-swat-team-action/7601220

And then there's the National Guard if it is decided that its use is warranted.

Personally, even in the US, I think it is fantastical thinking to assume that a bunch of small-arms toting individuals are going to be able to successfully contain much more well-armed and substantially better trained forces like SWAT teams, even less so, the national guard.

You continually seem to think you're entitled to legislate for the US. And yes, it is quite annoying.

How about if I start legislating for Romania?

I think @Puiu was far from trying to legislate for the US as I see the comment made was phrased as a suggestion, a suggestion that makes sense to me - especially with an approximately 4,000 factor high of death rate from guns than Japan.

You are certainly welcome to suggest things for Romania, too. Its a public board and there are no signs up on TS that say citizens of any country are only allowed to comment on the pomp and circumstance within their countries.

I know why you think you need guns, Captain, and I empathize; however, I had a friend approach a police officer at a public forum on owning guns and he was basically told that it would make him less safe.

Research supports that assertion - https://psmag.com/news/keeping-a-gun-at-home-can-mean-a-higher-risk-of-being-killed-there
While the article likely does not apply to you specifically, there are other things like are you prepared to use it, will you hesitate, etc., that go into whether or not a gun will truly make you safer especially if you were to be confronted by a bunch, or even one, from your neighborhood who was in substantially better physical condition than you are.

Now hunting is a different story as is extensive training on the use of weapons rather than almost willy-nilly allowing anyone to own and carry a gun almost anywhere like Alaska - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Alaska Interestingly enough - and assuming it is correct - that page states that a law was enacted in Alaska which prevents any state funds from going to any state agency for the purpose of enforcing federal gun laws. That seems to fly in the face of what @cliffordcooley had to say about the constitution.

Facts do work, Chicago has the strictest laws but the highest incidence of gun violence. But I'm done arguing with you, what the world wants is irrelevant I do not care, the in can not seize my weapons, and if the rest of the world wants to be a victim it just means their easier to conquer.

A few exceptions, or even one exception, tend not to make a rule. - https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/...least-restrictive-gun-laws-in-america-594884/

 

[captaincranky]

A few people in the Pacific Northwest thought that a few years ago when they decided that they could just take over a national wildlife refuge. All the government had to do, essentially, was wait them out; however, it is well-known that it did not work out at all well for at least one of those persons. Instead of him being a martyr, my bet is history is destined to remember him as some wacko with a gun who took his rights far too seriously. So far, anarchy is not prevalent in the US. If you would like something akin to this kind of action, you are welcome to consider moving to Afghanistan.

In the US, SWAT teams among police forces used to be rare. Not so much now. https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/police-militarization Heck, they even send SWAT teams to corral groups of visiting monks that accidentally overstay their visas. https://www.ketv.com/article/monks-arrested-in-swat-team-action/7601220

And then there's the National Guard if it is decided that its use is warranted.

Personally, even in the US, I think it is fantastical thinking to assume that a bunch of small-arms toting individuals are going to be able to successfully contain much more well-armed and substantially better trained forces like SWAT teams, even less so, the national guard.

I think @Puiu was far from trying to legislate for the US as I see the comment made was phrased as a suggestion, a suggestion that makes sense to me - especially with an approximately 4,000 factor high of death rate from guns than Japan.

You are certainly welcome to suggest things for Romania, too. Its a public board and there are no signs up on TS that say citizens of any country are only allowed to comment on the pomp and circumstance within their countries.

I know why you think you need guns, Captain, and I empathize; however, I had a friend approach a police officer at a public forum on owning guns and he was basically told that it would make him less safe.

Research supports that assertion - https://psmag.com/news/keeping-a-gun-at-home-can-mean-a-higher-risk-of-being-killed-there
While the article likely does not apply to you specifically, there are other things like are you prepared to use it, will you hesitate, etc., that go into whether or not a gun will truly make you safer especially if you were to be confronted by a bunch, or even one, from your neighborhood who was in substantially better physical condition than you are.

Yeah but, there would be no reason for them to be at my door, whether I own guns or not. So, that's a moot point.

Now hunting is a different story as is extensive training on the use of weapons rather than almost willy-nilly allowing anyone to own and carry a gun almost anywhere like Alaska - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Alaska Interestingly enough - and assuming it is correct - that page states that a law was enacted in Alaska which prevents any state funds from going to any state agency for the purpose of enforcing federal gun laws. That seems to fly in the face of what @cliffordcooley had to say about the constitution.

A few exceptions, or even one exception, tend not to make a rule. - https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/...least-restrictive-gun-laws-in-america-594884/

You're of course right, and I of course, wrong.. Which exemplifies your idealistic and sheltered view about the golden goodness inherent in al mankind.

But, I can produce a thousand links, (or more), about man's inhumanity to man, at the governmental level, and about how those with weapons slaughtered those without, for the purposes of stealing their property, raping their women, and forcing them into slavery. You're thoroughly enamored with blinks that agree with you, aren't you

So, you maintain your views out the windows of your ivory, trend and I'll hold on to mine here in the gutter, where you angels fear to tread..

As far as an "anonymous friend asked an anonymous policeman his thoughts as to whether or not citizens should have guns?, of course he said no. But, you've taken a bunch of hearsay nonsense to a whole new level, thus rendering it completely irrelevant. Why in god's name, are you trying pass off 3rd hand information in what is an alleged "forum of fact", anyway?

But, I can produce a thousand links, (or more), about man's inhumanity to man, at the governmental level, and about how those with weapons slaughtered those without, for the purposes of stealing their property, raping their women, and forcing them into slavery. You're thoroughly enamored with links that agree with you, aren't you?

Not to mention, I made a blanket statement personality assessment without mentioning any names, and I don't need you to fill in the blanks.

So now, I'm off to breakfast. I have a suggestion for the rest of your day. Drop some LSD, and then count the puppies and unicorns on your lawn, while ,the biggest rainbow you've ever seen floats in a clear blue sky above.

PS, do let me know if you'd like me to PM you with links about how many species we've driven to the point of extinction, how much of the earth's resources we burned up, and how many wars going on at the moment, where soldiers with HIV are raping women to show their absolute power over them. So, my point being, if I pepper this thread with links substantiating my point of view, will that make me right?

Oh, and the store clerks with licensed firearms fighting back against the junkies created by big pharma, and killing them when they try to rob them. Those are the news stories which I bind heartwarming.

I usually tolerate your sheep in a pasture, far left "progressive" views, but trust me, your response on this issue, is a real friendship ender, That's "FWIW", if anything of course.

 

[cliffordcooley]

A few people in the Pacific Northwest thought that a few years ago when they decided that they could just take over a national wildlife refuge. All the government had to do, essentially, was wait them out; however, it is well-known that it did not work out at all well for at least one of those persons.

That is of course small scale compared with a potential coast to coast event. I'm certain if we go to war they will not have the luxury of "waiting it out". That is unless we are disarmed completely.

 

[captaincranky]

@wiyosaya Since you like links so much, this one proves that they've already sicced the national guard on unarmed civilians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

And some nice music to go along with it:

 

[wiyosaya]

@wiyosaya Since you like links so much, this one proves that they've already sicced the national guard on unarmed civilians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

And some nice music to go along with it:

Thanks. Though I am old enough know about Kent State, I was not quite old enough to know what Kent State meant at that time.

That is of course small scale compared with a potential coast to coast event. I'm certain if we go to war they will not have the luxury of "waiting it out". That is unless we are disarmed completely.

Well, I think that any hope of a citizen uprising would be quelled by superior forces, superior weaponry, and superior training, coast to coast or not. About the only way that I see that a citizen uprising might succeed is if it had support from a large fraction of the existing militarized forces in the US.

Personally, I don't see how anyone in this day and age, given the example of conditions elsewhere in the world where, technically, armed bands of citizens implement a version of tribal rule (Afghanistan comes to mind), could think that the outcome of such would be better for the citizens even if the citizens won.

Personally, I see the second amendment as having been written in a time when there were no forces specifically tasked with defending the country. It was the country, IMO, that the framers of the constitution held as what must be defended. And in that time, it was external, armed forces, like the British and others, that were the most imminent threats; lacking a defense force for the country, the people of the country were the only ones who were even remotely capable of defending it and needed weapons to do so.

As well, I think the framers of the constitution recognized that there needed to be something that would allow a resolution to internal conflicts in a manner that reflected the will of the people and, hopefully, without violence. As such, they formed the executive, judicial, and legislative branches and instilled in that structure equal power to each branch.

Where the cracks in that have been exposed in modern times, IMO, is when elected officials ignore the wishes of their constituents and implement the ideology of the elected officials rather than representing and implementing the better angels of the voices of all their constituents.

 

[cliffordcooley]

As well, I think the framers of the constitution recognized that there needed to be something that would allow a resolution to internal conflicts in a manner that reflected the will of the people and, hopefully, without violence.

That was the point in the Constitution. As long as we fight to maintain it. Disarm us and we loose strength.

 

[wiyosaya]

That was the point in the Constitution. As long as we fight to maintain it. Disarm us and we loose strength.

I disagree. As I see it, weapons of any kind are not necessarily synonymous with true strength.

The way I see it, disarming the citizens would not harm the ability of the country to defend itself as long as the armed forces exist.

The other part, as I see it, is as long as the three branches of government remain and no one branch is given or usurps ultimate power over the other two, then the power remains in the hands of the citizens who elect their representatives.

Call me an idealist, however, if the alternative is some form of tribal/dictatorship/religious law, all of which were reasons why the founders came here as these forms of rule existed in the country they came from, then the very reasons that lead to the foundation of this country would be lost.

I've been shying away from mentioning this, however, I will now. There's that verse in the bible - those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Many places that refuse to let guns rule have reduced gun deaths to a minimum.

I am not against guns; however, I do not see that a free-for-all on gun ownership is a good thing.

 

[cliffordcooley]

The way I see it, disarming the citizens would not harm the ability of the country to defend itself as long as the armed forces exist.

Armed forces blindly follow orders. They do so to prevent being dishonorably charged. The only thing to sway their mind is high population of opposition. Without arms there would not be any opposition.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I've been shying away from mentioning this, however, I will now. There's that verse in the bible - those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Many places that refuse to let guns rule have reduced gun deaths to a minimum.

Yes and now the appropriate term would be weapons of mass destruction. Yet here we are quiveling over little piddly firearms. Which would inherently create an even larger divide between the top and bottom.

 

[wiyosaya]

Armed forces blindly follow orders. They do so to prevent being dishonorably charged. The only thing to sway their mind is high population of opposition. Without arms there would not be any opposition.

Do you have a background in the military? Are you capable of speaking for everyone in the military?

Yes and now the appropriate term would be weapons of mass destruction. Yet here we are quiveling over little piddly firearms. Which would inherently create an even larger divide between the top and bottom.

To me, your responses seem to indicate that you think violence, or the threat of violence, is the only solution.

As I see it, if violence is the only solution this world is lost.

 

[cliffordcooley]

is the only solution.

I do not see inevitability as the only solution.

 

[candle_86]

I disagree. As I see it, weapons of any kind are not necessarily synonymous with true strength.

The way I see it, disarming the citizens would not harm the ability of the country to defend itself as long as the armed forces exist.

The other part, as I see it, is as long as the three branches of government remain and no one branch is given or usurps ultimate power over the other two, then the power remains in the hands of the citizens who elect their representatives.

Call me an idealist, however, if the alternative is some form of tribal/dictatorship/religious law, all of which were reasons why the founders came here as these forms of rule existed in the country they came from, then the very reasons that lead to the foundation of this country would be lost.

I've been shying away from mentioning this, however, I will now. There's that verse in the bible - those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Many places that refuse to let guns rule have reduced gun deaths to a minimum.

I am not against guns; however, I do not see that a free-for-all on gun ownership is a good thing.

Germany and Japan where unwilling to try invading America because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Your discounting the effectiveness of gorillia warfare, your also discounting the sheer amount of veterans who would likey join in. They have the same training, and alot of them are combat veteran.