And it begins: Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence

[Sammich]

Just in time for the signing of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty (ATT) this friday.

Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-renews-push-reduce-gun-violence-022028207--abc-news-politics.html)

The president made clear his support for Second Amendment rights, saying "hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage."

"I also believe a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," he said.

It is amazing that Obama was a Constitutional Law professor, yet is completely (likely wilfully) ignorant of the original intent of the 2nd amendment. It is not about duck hunting. It is not about target shooting. It is about the right of the citizens to have access to arms to keep the government in check and from turning tyrannical. The irony of Obama's statement is that it was the federal government that brought the weapons used on the "battlefield of war" to the streets of our cities through the militarization of law enforcement.

I don't give a crap if people in other countries say otherwise. We are citizens with inalienable rights, NOT subjects with government granted priviledges.

"Americans have the right and advantages of being armed unlike the citizens of the countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers

[SymphonicX]

I'm with you on this entirely. The issue isn't about whether America should be allowed to own guns. This is proven by other countries who have similar gun laws but 8 times less deaths per anum due to gun incidents. It's not the actual guns that are the problem.

You can find whatever value you like in owning guns - it's your right and freedom etc - personally I can't entirely see things in the same light as you - but ultimately, as I've said...why are people even talking about guns?

I still think the "guns dont' kill people, people kill people" argument is VERY weak - but not because it's untrue. It's actually quite true in it's nature. I just detest the idea that this statement ends the argument...it doesn't, it just begins it...it's the opening of a wider debate on how the hell we get to the point where a 15 year old can shoot up a school in Germany, or how a mad fundie can go apeshit on an island and kill 70 people...it's the point of being about to root out these things, before they ocurr - and I think that argument distracts people from thinking about that.

It has taken me a while to understand it this way though...

[shootemindehead]

It is about the right of the citizens to have access to arms to keep the government in check and from turning tyrannical.

It's got nothing to do with that. It was put into effect so GOVERNMENT could raise a militia quickly.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nowhere does it say "...just in case we in the government turn out to be a load of dicks"

It was written with the GOVERNMENT's benefit in mind, not the peoples.

-- -------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------


I'm with you on this entirely. The issue isn't about whether America should be allowed to own guns. This is proven by other countries who have similar gun laws but 8 times less deaths per anum due to gun incidents. It's not the actual guns that are the problem.

You can find whatever value you like in owning guns - it's your right and freedom etc - personally I can't entirely see things in the same light as you - but ultimately, as I've said...why are people even talking about guns?

Because at the moment, it's part of the problem. Another part of the issue is that America needs to look into why middle class white kids feel the need to enact these armed massacres in the first place. The ease with which anyone can buy a semi-automatic assault rifle etc in the States gives these nutters the tools to do their job


I still think the "guns dont' kill people, people kill people" argument is VERY weak - but not because it's untrue. It's actually quite true in it's nature. I just detest the idea that this statement ends the argument...it doesn't, it just begins it...it's the opening of a wider debate on how the hell we get to the point where a 15 year old can shoot up a school in Germany, or how a mad fundie can go apeshit on an island and kill 70 people...it's the point of being about to root out these things, before they ocurr - and I think that argument distracts people from thinking about that.

It has taken me a while to understand it this way though...

It's not only weak, it's rather stupid too. It's like "People that can, do and people that can't, teach"

They sound like nice soundbites, but they only muttered by people who don't want any kind of real debate. Of course guns kill people. They're designed to kill. That's their primary function for fuck sake.

[SymphonicX]

Exactly - I agree entirely. And I think you hit the nail on the head here:

"America needs to look into why middle class white kids feel the need to enact these armed massacres in the first place."

There's some really big pointers here. James Holmes was an educated, smart bloke. He had a lot of potential as a good human being. Something went awfully wrong.


This may sound class-ist....but I do think that this stuff is usually reserved for the scum-class - for you, rednecks (?), for us, chavs...just today a guy was convicted here of randomly killing an Indian student out of the blue...he just walked up and shot him in the head. Then you have the Jamie Bulger killers, scum-class, under priviledged, abused, neglected...I can sort of understand why THOSE people go on rampages...

But then you have James Holmes - and the like. Middle class, educated, comfortable...(to a degree)....so what went wrong?

-- -------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 PM ----------

Also I have to ask you Americans about Colorado...I'm not sure if I'm imagining this - but isn't Colardo a hotspot for this sort of gun rampage?

[shootemindehead]

He was probably always a nutcase, who until then had exhibited his problems in a minor way. Healhcare in the States is financially prohibitive and mental health is no different.

This type of situation precludes many people with mental health problems from accessing care. In fact, a lot of people with mental health issues end up homeless and on the streets of America. One article I read a number of years ago suggested that the majority of homeless people in the country are victims of mental health problems and I can well believe it. I was staggered by the amount of homeless people in San Francisco when I was there on a business trip a couple of years ago. EVERY street corner was littered with homeless people, it was truly incredible. I thought Dublin's homeless problem was bad until I witnessed Frisco and I did notice that a very large number of them were quite mad.

[SymphonicX]

Uh-oh....I think you opened a can of worms there. It's a very very important point...and I think it has real legs to it.

Ready availability of healthcare sounds like a very obvious thing, now you mention it. Of course with societal support structures in place, these people can be highlighted and hopefully helped...but with no actual medical support structure to back it up, then people may suffer....this could be one of the causes - but you'd probably find a litany of information to say that Holmes was indeed covered by a medical plan, and we don't know either way...so again it flies back towards rooting this stuff out from the source, before medical intervention...I dunno...good point though....

[AcesandEights]

Also I have to ask you Americans about Colorado...I'm not sure if I'm imagining this - but isn't Colardo a hotspot for this sort of gun rampage?

I'm not sure, however I read an article the other day that wanted to paint Colorado as such a hot bed, but also included--as if to prove their point--incidents of shootings in a plane flying over the state and an Indian massacre from the mid 19th century...I think they were kind of stretching to reach their intended goals in that article.

Let's remember that Colorado, though smaller in population, is about the physical size of the UK and gun culture is fairly big out there, on the old frontier, so the I'm pretty sure the ratio of civilian owned firearms per capita is pretty high.

I'm not even touching your comments about 'rednecks' etc.

I think a lot of these problems are found in both low and middle class backgrounds, but for very different reasons. The rampage killings seems to quite often come from people in what could roughly be described as middle class to lower middle class backgrounds who have feelings of marginalization and recent trauma or trigger event, usually paired with one more axis II mental disorders.

Just some thoughts.

-- -------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ----------

Also, on the topic of healthcare, I was thinking the same thing last night. This always comes up in down economies when human services are the 1st thing to be cut.

[Sammich]

It's got nothing to do with that. It was put into effect so GOVERNMENT could raise a militia quickly.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nowhere does it say "...just in case we in the government turn out to be a load of dicks"

It was written with the GOVERNMENT's benefit in mind, not the peoples.[COLOR="Silver"]



Why would the Founders place a government power in a document enumerating inalienable rights of the INDIVIDUAL? Can you provide evidence that the Founders intended that "the people" also mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments in Bill of Rights really meant "the government"?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"...What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify is a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure...." - Thomas Jefferson: Letter to Colonel Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, 1788

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. - Patrick Henry

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States..." - Noah Webster

[Mr. Clean]

There's some really big pointers here. James Holmes was an educated, smart bloke. He had a lot of potential as a good human being. Something went awfully wrong.

But then you have James Holmes - and the like. Middle class, educated, comfortable...(to a degree)....so what went wrong?

We may NEVER know what screw came loose in this monster's head or who made it come loose. There are too many factors to examine. Maybe he was molested by a family member when he was younger or born with a mental condition? I have no clue.

The term redneck is used is alot of ways but I wouldn't use it in this case. The name comes from southern farmers in the early 1900s because they worked long hours out in the fields thus developing constant sun burns on the back of their neck. It wasn't derogatory back then and some don't take offence to it today but normally when used today it's in the sense your very dumb and screwed up in the head because your family motto is "Lets keep it in the family" if you know what I mean. :D

This Holmes guy is just a sicko piece of shit. Plain and simple.

[shootemindehead]

The quote from Jefferson is his own take. Nowhere in the actual amendment does it suggest that a "tyrannical government" was the reason for an armed populace.

It states, however, very clearly that in terms of a militia, the population's right to bear shall not be infringed. The reasons for which, was because of the military situation prevailing at the time. IE, there wasn't one. The US didn't have a regular standing army and was likely not to have one capable of fending off outside influence for some time.

In addition the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye.

[AcesandEights]

the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye.

This keeps coming up every time gun control and the counter arguments pop up, but I'll reiterate the key point on this as I've understood it in the past (people who pay more attention on this debate, please correct me if I am wrong): the U.S. is a big place and a lot less guns per capita in a lot smaller countries have caused issues for super powers in the past, if it ever came to matters of insurrection.

[Mr. Clean]

In addition the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye.

Viva la Resistance! :D

[shootemindehead]

There's only been three superpowers though, Aces. Britain, Russia and the US.

In a lot cases where an armed insurrection has caused serious issues for the ruling powers, it's been because of outside influence wishing to change the balance of power to aid their own agenda(s). The current situation in Syria is a prime example. Assad's hands are tied, because the UN (the US) are wagging their fingers from the sidelines and tapping their own big sticks and instituting no-fly zones. Meanwhile, arms are flooding into the hands of the rebels from outside forces.

Libya found itself in the same situation too and only collapsed because of outside help from nations that wished to remove Gaddafi for their own motives.

But the US possesses the most sophisticated military machine currently available. The idea that the population could fend off F-16's, M1 Abrahams and a trained body of men just doesn't stand up to even the most limited scrutiny.

[Sammich]

The quote from Jefferson is his own take. Nowhere in the actual amendment does it suggest that a "tyrannical government" was the reason for an armed populace.

It states, however, very clearly that in terms of a militia, the population's right to bear shall not be infringed. The reasons for which, was because of the military situation prevailing at the time. IE, there wasn't one. The US didn't have a regular standing army and was likely not to have one capable of fending off outside influence for some time.

In addition the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye.

Are you even aware who Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are?

Again, where is your evidence that the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right and where are any quotes of the Founders to support your assertion?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which is NOT in the Bill of Rights, has the mention of calling for the militia:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

As for your other claim, the British at that time were the most highly trained and technologically advanced military on earth, yet an armed population not only fended them off, but forced their surrender. The Afghans caused the Russian military to withdraw and now the U.S. military. The IRA was not "quashed" by the SAS.
You also assume that all of the U.S. military would comply with the orders of a tyrannical government and fire upon their own countrymen. I can tell you that is not the case.

[shootemindehead]

Viva la Resistance! :D

http://www.tootingpopularfront.com/citizensmith.jpg

[LouCipherr]

In addition the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye.

Y'know shootem, I agreed with this in a previous thread, however, I've been thinking about this and I'm not so sure now. It depends on the situation. Our trained military are part of the US population as well. If the citizens were to rise up against the government, who's to say the folks in the military wouldn't join right in with the population? They're probably just as sick of this crap as the rest of us. In fact, they're probably more sick of what's going on than we are.

It could go either way. Saying the military would quash a revolution in the US is only one outcome of many.

Just a thought to consider. ;)

[AcesandEights]

But the US possesses the most sophisticated military machine currently available. The idea that the population could fend off F-16's, M1 Abrahams and a trained body of men just doesn't stand up to even the most limited scrutiny.

Firstly, I'm just reporting what I've heard in the past, but I also don't think you're following your thought process through. Military hardware does not really answer the problems of scale or complexity considered in a continent-wide, porous bordered country saddled with what would be guerrilla warfare and a possible civil war.

[Sammich]

Y'know shootem, I agreed with this in a previous thread, however, I've been thinking about this and I'm not so sure now. It depends on the situation. Our trained military are part of the US population as well. If the citizens were to rise up against the government, who's to say the folks in the military wouldn't join right in with the population? They're probably just as sick of this crap as the rest of us. In fact, they're probably more sick of what's going on than we are.

It could go either way. Saying the military would quash a revolution in the US is only one outcome of many.

Just a thought to consider. ;)

Those in the military who uphold their oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC would side against a tyrannical government.

[shootemindehead]

Are you even aware who Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are?

Again, where is your evidence that the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right and where are any quotes of the Founders to support your assertion?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which is NOT in the Bill of Rights, has the mention of calling for the militia:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

As for your other claim, the British at that time were the most highly trained and technologically advanced military on earth, yet an armed population not only fended them off, but forced their surrender. The Afghans caused the Russian military to withdraw and now the U.S. military. The IRA was not "quashed" by the SAS.


Of course I know who they are. Please let's not resort to condesending remarks.

There was a lot of debate and many words spoken by individuals on the articles and many gave their own take on what they believed. However, the ACTUAL article itself mentions NOTHING about homegrown tyrannical governments as a reason for it institition.

As for the British Empire, IRA and Afghans etc...each of those situations had substantial help from outside influence. The British were hated worldwide, so there was no shortage in help to defeat them. The Afghans had tons of help from the US (which later turned around to bite them on the arse) and the IRA had outside help too. They, however NEVER achieved the aim of getting the British out of Ireland and were forced to roll back their aims to a very great degree.


You also assume that all of the U.S. military would comply with the orders of a tyrannical government and fire upon their own countrymen. I can tell you that is not the case.

Likewise, you are assuming that anu insurrection would consist of the majority of the population.

That wouldn't be the case either,

-- -------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------


Y'know shootem, I agreed with this in a previous thread, however, I've been thinking about this and I'm not so sure now. It depends on the situation. Our trained military are part of the US population as well. If the citizens were to rise up against the government, who's to say the folks in the military wouldn't join right in with the population? They're probably just as sick of this crap as the rest of us. In fact, they're probably more sick of what's going on than we are.

It could go either way. Saying the military would quash a revolution in the US is only one outcome of many.

Just a thought to consider. ;)

Of course, "Nothing is written" according to Lawrence of Arabia, anyway.

It also depends on how an insurrection is sold to the majority of the people too and one should never underestimate the ability of the majority to act like sheep.

One only has to look at how quickly minds are twisted in America, where a lot of the people believe wholeheartedly that their Country's ways are correct, no matter what, doubly so in cases of overseas interference.

I don't mean that as an insult, but merely as observation.

In any case, I just don't believe that there will be a revolution in the US. The powers that be know very well how to push the buttons to keep the people sated. Enough of them anyway.

TBH, I'd be all for a democratic revolution in the States.

You can get rid of the rich-guy controlled two party system for a start.

:D

[Sammich]

You still haven't supplied proof or quotes from the Founders supporting your statments that:

1) The 2nd Amendment only applies to government

2) The 2nd Amendment is collectivist right

3) The "security of a free state" did not mean tyranny

Even the U.S. Supreme court has ruled it an individual right in District of Columbia vs. Heller. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." - Scalia

Then you should be well aware that Thomas Jefferson, who was the author of the Delcaration of Independence, and James Madison both insisted on the creation of the Bill of Rights as instrument against future oppressive governments. This is what "security of a free state" means.

The quotes show the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Founders, not reimaged and revisionist positions to support current agendas.

“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." - Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788

"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jeffferson, 1799

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” -George Washington

Do you see a trend yet? The Founders were very concerned of the government reverting back into what they had just fought an 8 years war against.

[shootemindehead]

You still haven't supplied proof or quotes from the Founders supporting your statments that:

1) The 2nd Amendment only applies to government

2) The 2nd Amendment is collectivist right

3) The "security of a free state" did not mean tyranny

I don't need to. I have the actual article, Sammich:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Doesn't mention anything about homegrown govermental tyranny anywhere.

That's an intereptation that has been chosen by people who want to see it that way. Jefferson and others may have argued for that point pre or post ratification, but it's explicitly not in the actual article itself and could easily have been placed there, if the founding fathers had wished.

I can accept that SOME people may want to view the 2nd in those terms, but I do not accept that that is the reason it was drawn up.

The more logical reasoning, given the times, is that an easily raised armed citizenry be in place to be used in lieu of a regular standing army and the article specifically states these terms in the context of a militia.

Not entirely sure what you mean by "collectivist right" though.

[Sammich]

I don't need to. I have the actual article, Sammich:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Doesn't mention anything about homegrown govermental tyranny anywhere.

That's an intereptation that has been chosen by people who want to see it that way. Jefferson and others may have argued for that point pre or post ratification, but it's explicitly not in the actual article itself and could easily have been placed there, if the founding fathers had wished.

I can accept that SOME people may want to view the 2nd in those terms, but I do not accept that that is the reason it was drawn up.

The more logical reasoning, given the times, is that an easily raised armed citizenry be in place to be used in lieu of a regular standing army and the article specifically states these terms in the context of a militia.

Not entirely sure what you mean by "collectivist right" though.

I have posted numerous quotes from the Founders, even the ones that had wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you just want to play semantics games.

Since you have no intention of answering anything with the smallest amount of evidence I am through arguing with you. It is like Bill Clinton and his trying to redefine what the definition of "is" is.

[rgc2005]

The 2nd Amendment applied to both sides of the current argument. Who defends my town, my street, my house in times of emergency? Armed citizens or the Federal government.

In the days of "Ball and Musket" warfare individual ownership of firearms AND mandatory enrollment in the town militia were one in the same. Having, and participating in, a locally controlled force armed to defend against Indians, bandits and government oppression was considered as much a "Free Man's" duty as well as a right. Becoming the elected "Captain" of the militia was just as prominent as being a Mayor. In times of need local militias, NOT the National/State Guard, could assemble and respond within hours which given the era was a powerful and feared part of European Colonial culture. The 2nd Amendment was written because the British war plans hinged on their seizing the arms and ammunition in the local armories of the militias around Boston and New York. Hence the "Shots heard round the world" at Lexington and Concord. Those were local militias standing in defense of their communities.

Today, because of the nationalization of the "State Militias" into the National Guard/Reserves in which all the equipment and 99% of the funding comes from the Federal government most US states have some sort of "State/Home Guard" authorized. Many theorists believe that post "Civil Rights Era", when the National Guard units in the south were Federalized to enforce school desegregation, local professional police forces became the local defense asset. Post "9/11 and Katrina" local police forces began the process of being trained to a federal standard for response nationwide. Federal funding has resulted in the standardization and militarization of local police SWAT and Civil Disturbance gear with a requirement that those assets be made available to HSA/FEMA when deemed necessary. Once again we see ourselves back to the question at hand.
Who defends my town, my street, my house in times of emergency? Armed citizens or the Federal government.

[shootemindehead]

I have posted numerous quotes from the Founders, even the ones that had wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you just want to play semantics games.

Since you have no intention of answering anything with the smallest amount of evidence I am through arguing with you. It is like Bill Clinton and his trying to redefine what the definition of "is" is.

Whatever...there's still absolutely fuck all in the actual article mentioning anything about a homegrown government tyranny.

[Sammich]

Either you are now just trolling or have been backed into a corner and refuse to admit that you were wrong. Either way, like I said I am done arguing with a brick wall.

yYHHxlxFXco

[shootemindehead]

It doesn't matter a jot, if you think I'm "trolling", or if I'm "refusing to admit I'm wrong", or even if "you're done". The fact remains that nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the article itself was designed to combat a homegrown governmental tyranny. But it does state VERY clearly, the within the context of A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, people can have the right bear arms.

[Mike70]

Y'know shootem, I agreed with this in a previous thread, however, I've been thinking about this and I'm not so sure now. It depends on the situation. Our trained military are part of the US population as well. If the citizens were to rise up against the government, who's to say the folks in the military wouldn't join right in with the population? They're probably just as sick of this crap as the rest of us. In fact, they're probably more sick of what's going on than we are.

It could go either way. Saying the military would quash a revolution in the US is only one outcome of many.

Just a thought to consider. ;)

I'm a veteran of the US Army and am from a military family. every male in my family has served in some capacity, usually in the Army, almost without exception. I know how American military people think. There is no way the US military would support a repeal of the 2nd amendment or any attempt to disarm American ciitizens, on that I will damn guarantee you. Why? because the vast majority of the folks in the military are avid gun owners. forget about this asinine argument.

Shootem seems to be unaware that each State has its own Army and Air Force, some of them quite formidable. there are some states that are so pro-gun (including some of the very powerful ones like Texas, Florida, and Ohio) that another civil war would be the result. The States have all the same toys that the regular military does. that is why the "let's ban guns because there are crazy people" camp should just save its breath and energy for something else.

Most of the folks in Europe are exposing a vast misunderstanding of not only America and Americans but the very way America works and how Americans see themselves. the concept of States Rights and the deep, deep attachment that most Americans have for their home State cannot be underestimated and any debate or argument MUST take those things into account. these are not just things you read/see/hear in books and movies about the War Between the States. They are very real and run very deep in the American consciousness.

this is on a separate note:

I also find it damn hilarious that the first thing people say when the US military is going to invade some pisswha country is, "They get bogged down. there will be insurgents, it'll be like the VC all over" and etc, etc, blah, blah, blah people using every excuse and rationalization in the world to foresee doom and gloom. yet when it comes to dealing with the US population, which is over 300 million, armed in numbers and ways that are hard to imagine (many of these armed people have police or military training), it's always, "they'll crush em flat."

[strayrider]

It doesn't matter a jot, if you think I'm "trolling", or if I'm "refusing to admit I'm wrong", or even if "you're done". The fact remains that nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the article itself was designed to combat a homegrown governmental tyranny. But it does state VERY clearly, the within the context of A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, people can have the right bear arms.

Shootem,

"...the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well."

Furthermore.

"The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule."

:D

-stray-

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

[Mike70]

Shootem,

"...the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well."

Furthermore.

"The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule."

:D

-stray-

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

pretty funny the complete and utter silence that has ensued since it was pointed out to certain people that they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. people that live in a place where everything is centralized cannot uderstand the way things are done in the US.

also stray anyone who cannot understand the words "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is complete and total moron without any understanding of the English language.

f

[rgc2005]

Dear Management,
I really don't know or care who Sammich is, or is not, BUT I come to this board to read about Zombies and the Horror genre.
If his arguments were sound and based on something other than out of context quotes from wikipedia I could tolerate it if he added to the discussion of the relevant topics.
However, they just pollute the threads and risk visitors misunderstanding the purpose of these boards.
So could someone please ask him to stop steering every thread into the "Tin Foil Hat" zone.

[Sammich]

If you don't like what I post, then don't read it. It is just that simple. Calling out to the "authorities" to put down those who voice opinions different to your own is an action always resorted to by those who can't defend their position. Just like a certain person who claims he was a stuntman in Day of the Dead.

This is the GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM: "For general off topic issues. Dead related topics should be posted in the 'Dead Discussion' forum". Is there a missing part of the description that is supposed to read, "except when rcg2005 doesn't like what he sees"?

Could you please show what I posted was "out of context quotes from wikipedia"? I would be interested to see your "proof".

[babomb]

The quote from Jefferson is his own take. Nowhere in the actual amendment does it suggest that a "tyrannical government" was the reason for an armed populace.

It states, however, very clearly that in terms of a militia, the population's right to bear shall not be infringed. The reasons for which, was because of the military situation prevailing at the time. IE, there wasn't one. The US didn't have a regular standing army and was likely not to have one capable of fending off outside influence for some time.

You are really reaching here shootem. You're reinterpreting the words of the founders to support your argument. The fact of the matter is that a centralized federal government is exactly what the founders sought to prevent by giving the people inalienable rights. Jeffersons words were not just an opinion, these are the ideals that the bill of rights was written in the spirit of. They are the very ideas that inspired the bill of rights to begin with. The biggest threat to the American way of life, in the minds of the founders, was not outside influence. Outside influence was just an inevitable annoyance on the road of nation building. And it still is today, as can be seen time and again. The biggest threat to liberty was held to be influence from within, in the form of a tyrannical federal government that seeks to limit the rights of the people for it's own purposes. This is exactly why the bill of rights was instituted, giving inalienable rights to THE PEOPLE, and restricting the rights of the state to those specifically granted. The people reserve all rights not specifically granted, the state is limited to ONLY the rights that are specifically granted.
This was meant to be a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. Like Sammich says, we are not subjects that are granted privileges by the state, we are citizens that hold inalienable rights. Of which the founders used very specific and clear language to outline. This has been supported time after time by the supreme court, and they have found EVERY TIME that the 2nd ammendment is an inalienable right granted to THE PEOPLE.
Your far reaching conclusions on this are the result of your inability to accept that you are just plain wrong about this. Your argument has been proposed by others, and every time it's shot down because it's wrong. Plain and simple.


In addition the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye. And this!? This is not only the result of a defeatist attitude, but has also been proven wrong time after time throughout history.
The Vietnam war, The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, most recently, The US War In Iraq.
Which isn't even the most important aspect of why this statement is itself ridiculous. The fact is that this is merely the opinion of 1 man, you. And you reiterate this as if it's some sort of indisputable fact that has or should have some sort of legal bearing on the peoples right to bear arms. As if to say, even if all your other arguments against the right to bear hold no water whatsoever, and if it's proven that this is in fact what the founders intended with the 2nd amm, that citizens prepared to fight to protect their rights could never oppose the US Military, therefore the intended purpose of the 2nd amm is a moot point and should be disregarded as such. That is the most ludicrous argument against the peoples right to bear that has ever been spouted! It's as volatile as a fart in a hurricane.
So I ask, what are your motivations for being so against the peoples right to bear that you're willing to use such obviously empty and erroneous arguments?
Are you so impressed with your own ideas and opinions that you just don't see how vacuous they are?
You've said in other discussions that you have no ignorance where the US is concerned. Well, based on this thread alone you are ignorant to the concepts this country was built on, you're ignorant to the ways of the state, you're ignorant to what's in the minds of the people, and ignorant to the nature and capabilities of the US military.
And this is not the ignorance of a stupid man unable to understand these things. This is a willful ignorance.

[rgc2005]

Babomb made my point for me.
You are troll-baiting with circular logic on a site for genre fans.
Perhaps you should take a class or two in debate and philosophy. Understanding how to diagram and defend an argument might help you understand the errors in your thesis.

http://youtu.be/KU49MR19CcA

If you don't like what I post, then don't read it. It is just that simple. Calling out to the "authorities" to put down those who voice opinions different to your own is an action always resorted to by those who can't defend their position. Just like a certain person who claims he was a stuntman in Day of the Dead.

This is the GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM: "For general off topic issues. Dead related topics should be posted in the 'Dead Discussion' forum". Is there a missing part of the description that is supposed to read, "except when rcg2005 doesn't like what he sees"?

Could you please show what I posted was "out of context quotes from wikipedia"? I would be interested to see your "proof".

[shootemindehead]

So I ask, what are your motivations for being so against the peoples right to bear that you're willing to use such obviously empty and erroneous arguments?

What's the point? We're clearly not going to agree on the matter, so it's just going to end up as an is "to/is not" and I'm not interested. Not to mention the fact that I've never once said that I was "...against the peoples right to bear". You seeing arguments that aren't even there.

I will also never subscribe to this weekend Rambo fantasy that an armed civilian population could hold off the US Army for any real length of time. The very idea is ridiculous, despite the fact that the US military have had setbacks in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Those involvements took part in an all out war situation. Perhaps, if the entire citizenry of the US rose up, it could succeed, but the fact is that America is NOWHERE near such a scenario and won't be, at least not in our lifetime, or even our grandchildren. So, it remains academic, at best. It remains a fantasy in minds of some people, that's all.

If any kind of uprising takes place, more than likely it would be an unorganised, local situation and anything like that would be crushed swiftly, under the bogeyman of "terrorism" etc.

The fact is that the majority of America has it too good and the idea of a nationwide revolution remains absurd.

[babomb]

What's the point? We're clearly not going to agree on the matter, so it's just going to end up as an is "to/is not" and I'm not interested. Not to mention the fact that I've never once said that I was "...against the peoples right to bear". You seeing arguments that aren't even there.

I will also never subscribe to this weekend Rambo fantasy that an armed civilian population could hold off the US Army for any real length of time. The very idea is ridiculous, despite the fact that the US military have had setbacks in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Those involvements took part in an all out war situation. Perhaps, if the entire citizenry of the US rose up, it could succeed, but the fact is that America is NOWHERE near such a scenario and won't be, at least not in our lifetime, or even our grandchildren. So, it remains academic, at best. It remains a fantasy in minds of some people, that's all.

If any kind of uprising takes place, more than likely it would be an unorganised, local situation and anything like that would be crushed swiftly, under the bogeyman of "terrorism" etc.

The fact is that the majority of America has it too good and the idea of a nationwide revolution remains absurd. Yeah, the whole thing is kinda stupid. No point in dragging it out further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree

[shootemindehead]

pretty funny the complete and utter silence that has ensued since it was pointed out to certain people that they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. people that live in a place where everything is centralized cannot uderstand the way things are done in the US.

also stray anyone who cannot understand the words "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is complete and total moron without any understanding of the English language.

f

Why so hostile Mike? Is there really a need for that?

By the way, I believe that the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. I don't think it's as cut and dried as you state, especially when the piece in take within the context of the preceding line:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A strict reading of that suggests that the right to bear arms is hand in hand within a militia. There is no mention of an individual right.

In addition, it's also important to mention that specific reference to an individual right to bear arms was struck out when it was offered up by certain states for inclusion in the Bill of Rights, as far as I know. So, one is therefore forced to ask, if the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee individual rights to arms, why wasn't express mention made within the finished article?

Either way, I have no interest in pursuing this further because, frankly, it's turning nasty and this place is supposed to be a forum for genre flicks and I'm sure that Neil doesn't want to see it descend into petty squabbles and name calling.

[rgc2005]

At the risk of opening a whole can of worms............
The sole reason that Imperial Armies lose insurgencies is the concept of "Limited War" and a term used by the US staff planners called "Battlefield Calculus".
Had the British fought a committed "Total War" against us in the late 1700s Americans would still be drinking tea instead of coffee. The first, last and only nationally committed war the US has ever fought in was WW2. At its core, taking away human pain and suffering, warfare is based on pure math. Despite local battlefield victories and appalling losses no nation of 20-30 million can hold off a nation of 200-300 million committed to victory. Had the former Soviet Union chose to focus a fully committed Red Army, instead of a few Airborne Divisions, against Afghanistan no amount of American Stinger missiles could have held them off. For example, in WWI the Germans were never militarily defeated and in WW2 their early gains, better tactics and advanced technology only delayed the same results. They lost against the total economic/production, GDP, weight of the nations allied against them committed to the total destruction of Nazi Germany.
The same "Battlefield Calculus" worked against Napolean, General Lee, Hannibal, the Huns, the Mongols, the Crusades, all the way back to the "Neanderthals vs Homo-sapiens".
Math always wins in the long term no matter how just the cause.

[babomb]

Shootem, damn, you just can't let sleeping dogs lie can you!? You're tenacious, I gotta give you that.
But NO! It isn't open to interpretation! It is exactly as it sounds. In the same English language we all understand.
Your insistence and tenacity is something to behold. But at some point you have to know when it's over and bow out with your dignity intact...

[botc]

F*ck all this debating shit.... The words are there for a reason and not open to interpretation.... You boys across the pond have your own worries wo quit sticking your nose up America's ass. I like aks I think everyone should own one that's able. I think the ar15/ m16 should be banned cuz the operating system is junk. Now there is a new can of works for ya. Oh and anti gunners please make your own thread and advise pro gunners not to comment or not to leave argumentive statements. Otherwise shut up or move yo china.

[swiftsantorum]

This Research Report is part of NIJ's Reducing Gun Violence publication series. Each report in the series describes the implementation and effects of an individual, NIJ-funded, local-level program designed to reduce firearm-related violence in a particular U.S. city. It describes in detail the problem targeted; the program designed to address it; the problems confronted in designing, implementing, and evaluating the effort; and the strategies adopted in responding to any obstacles encountered. Both successes and failures are discussed, and recommendations are made for future programs.

[Tricky]

Oh look another one...
http://news.sky.com/story/976719/several-people-shot-at-empire-state-building

[Sammich]

Here are 2 shootings that the corporate media DID NOT report nationwide, like they will with the NY shooting.

ZjXJBpV9YRI

[Mr. Clean]

I love how most of these places have the strickest gun laws....yet anti-gun activists still call for tougher laws......

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[babomb]

http://gothamist.com/2012/08/25/ray_kelly_9_empire_state_building_c.php

All the bystanders in NYC were actually shot by police. That's not a conspiracy either. When the cops shot the gunman they accidentally shot 9 bystanders in the process. Damn...

[Tricky]

And again... http://news.sky.com/story/979220/three-dead-in-new-jersey-supermarket-shooting

[babomb]

It's just way too coincidental at this point. It just keeps happening. And it seems like it's fueling an agenda. It only like 2 weeks after it was revealed that we've all been under the watchful eye of TrapWire for some time now.
Even you guys in the UK are under the eye of TrapWire, but you guys probably feel safer knowing that.


"In one leaked email, Stratfor vice president Fred Burton states that TrapWire is in place at every high-value target in New York City, Washington, D.C, and Los Angeles, as well as London and Ottawa."
I don't know about anyone else, but that's super fucking creepy to me!! I don't feel safe or free knowing that shit exists...

[Mike70]

And again... http://news.sky.com/story/979220/three-dead-in-new-jersey-supermarket-shooting

and it will keep happening, my friend. it will happen here and in other places over and over. doesn't need to be guns either, just look the sarin gas attacks in japan.

the problem is that modern society is fundamentally sick on a deep, deep level. i don't care the method a person uses, the real question is why people do these things. Huxley understood this sickness and it is the main theme of many of his major works.

so many of us grow up in fucked up, neglectful, violent situations because we are prisoners of our parents and "belong" to them somehow. how much does psychiatric disease revolve directly around the things done in to you in childhood? a massive amount of it. what happens to you as a kid never leaves you, you might never get over it, and it can a fuck person's entire life up.

again, machines are not the problem, it is the darkness in the human heart and what puts it there that we should be concerned about.

[Tricky]

Well Mike, the UK has just applied some common sense which has been unheard of here for a while with this story! As I've said before, I'm not anti-gun by any means and I do believe strongly in being able to defend yourself and property http://news.sky.com/story/981373/farm-shooting-couple-will-not-face-charges

The shotgun was legally held and the owner will have had all the proper background checks and jumped through all the hoops to own that gun, luckily, and largely down to guns not being freely available to all and sundry, the thieves were not carrying them too. :)

[fulci fan]

Semi automatic rifles are not real "assault rifles" .
The m16/Ar15's operating systems are far from "junk".
Nobody will take our guns.

[Tricky]

And again... http://news.sky.com/story/1025646/school-shooting-in-connecticut-27-killed

[Exatreides]

Already morons on my facebook are calling for teachers to be armed. Saying that it would have prevented the violence.

Sigh...
That's stupid for quite a few reasons. Unless you want teachers to walk around armed always(yeah just what kids need, to be more desensitized to guns and violence) when a group of kids could attack a teacher get a gun and start a spree with that. Or you have it locked in the class room where It's useless if a shooter bursts in.

But let's say you have a teacher with a gun at her side, say a glock 17 with a loaded 20 round magazine. Say a shooter bursts in the room with a tech 9 with let's say 25 round magazine. Teacher is at her desk opposite the door. Gunman starts shooting towards teacher, kids get hit. Teacher pulls out her weapon, returns fire. Now unless she's an expert marksman she's going to miss and possibly hit kids. Or her rounds are going to go through walls and hit other people. You go from 25 bullets flying to 45. Say the gunman manages to kill the teacher in the first shot. Now he has another weapon to kill kids and the staff with. Simply putting more guns out there is a terrible terrible plan.

[shootemindehead]

All that's going to happen there is that the teacher will be the first to be targeted.

It's a moronic idea.

[Neil]

Already morons on my facebook are calling for teachers to be armed. Saying that it would have prevented the violence.
And then the day a teacher goes postal, the calls would be to arm all pupils?

[Exatreides]

Sometimes when faced with a situation like today's pathetic events in Connecticut, the only way to counter the "It's not the gun, it's the person behind it" argument is to use a Socratic technique known as reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is the technique of reducing an argument or hypothesis to absurdity, by pushing the argument's premises or conclusions to their logical limits and showing how ridiculous the consequences would be, thus disproving or discrediting the argument.

In this case, ask yourself, "If Hitler had posessed a nuclear weapon in 1943, how might WWII have ended differently?" Clearly our answer to that lies in our knowledge of Hitler's psychosis and disdain for human life, true. That's the "person behind the gun" part of the NRA argument. The rest, however is that Hitler couldn't get his hands on a nuclear weapon, ergo we are still here. The reductio in absurdum here is "If there were no handguns, how many handgun deaths would there be?" - duh - none. The NRA response always revolves around the "If guns were illegal only criminals would have guns" - well, then make illegal handgun possession a 20 year prison sentence. secondarily, require legitimate accountability for ammo purchases and stop selling weapons designed almost exclusively for killing people to anyone except law enforcement. Even better, tell the gun manufacturers lobby in America (incredibly powerful, huge Republican contributors) to stop making and selling cheap handguns. If I need a license to drive and own a pet, certainly it's not too much to require the same for handgun ownership, if we are determined to allow it. Also make it a felony to fail to report the loss of a handgun within a specified amount of time. Above all, stop telling us that the Second Amendment relates to private handgun (or any gun, for that matter) ownership. It starts with these words: "A well regulated militia being....." In other words all that follows those words is predicated on the need for a well regulated militia. We have it; it's Known as "the National Guard". Give them all the weapons they need. period.

[babomb]

Yeah, let's keep trading liberty for safety and keep giving the state more and more power! Sounds like a good plan.

[Mr. Clean]

Already morons on my facebook are calling for teachers to be armed. Saying that it would have prevented the violence.

Sigh...
That's stupid for quite a few reasons. Unless you want teachers to walk around armed always(yeah just what kids need, to be more desensitized to guns and violence) when a group of kids could attack a teacher get a gun and start a spree with that. Or you have it locked in the class room where It's useless if a shooter bursts in.

But let's say you have a teacher with a gun at her side, say a glock 17 with a loaded 20 round magazine. Say a shooter bursts in the room with a tech 9 with let's say 25 round magazine. Teacher is at her desk opposite the door. Gunman starts shooting towards teacher, kids get hit. Teacher pulls out her weapon, returns fire. Now unless she's an expert marksman she's going to miss and possibly hit kids. Or her rounds are going to go through walls and hit other people. You go from 25 bullets flying to 45. Say the gunman manages to kill the teacher in the first shot. Now he has another weapon to kill kids and the staff with. Simply putting more guns out there is a terrible terrible plan.

Sometimes when faced with a situation like today's pathetic events in Connecticut, the only way to counter the "It's not the gun, it's the person behind it" argument is to use a Socratic technique known as reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is the technique of reducing an argument or hypothesis to absurdity, by pushing the argument's premises or conclusions to their logical limits and showing how ridiculous the consequences would be, thus disproving or discrediting the argument.

In this case, ask yourself, "If Hitler had posessed a nuclear weapon in 1943, how might WWII have ended differently?" Clearly our answer to that lies in our knowledge of Hitler's psychosis and disdain for human life, true. That's the "person behind the gun" part of the NRA argument. The rest, however is that Hitler couldn't get his hands on a nuclear weapon, ergo we are still here. The reductio in absurdum here is "If there were no handguns, how many handgun deaths would there be?" - duh - none. The NRA response always revolves around the "If guns were illegal only criminals would have guns" - well, then make illegal handgun possession a 20 year prison sentence. secondarily, require legitimate accountability for ammo purchases and stop selling weapons designed almost exclusively for killing people to anyone except law enforcement. Even better, tell the gun manufacturers lobby in America (incredibly powerful, huge Republican contributors) to stop making and selling cheap handguns. If I need a license to drive and own a pet, certainly it's not too much to require the same for handgun ownership, if we are determined to allow it. Also make it a felony to fail to report the loss of a handgun within a specified amount of time. Above all, stop telling us that the Second Amendment relates to private handgun (or any gun, for that matter) ownership. It starts with these words: "A well regulated militia being....." In other words all that follows those words is predicated on the need for a well regulated militia. We have it; it's Known as "the National Guard". Give them all the weapons they need. period.

I'm not saying I agree with the idea but it's considered an attempt at deterrence. Nut jobs with the intention of doing such a horrible thing and then commiting suicide wouldn't care if teachers were armed. They would just factor that in their plans for the assault. So yes, I do agree that armed "teacher marshals" is pretty lame but trained armed resource officers isn't a bad idea apart from stretching the limited resources of already struggling police forces.

As far as eliminating gun ownership completely....That's stupid. Stuart shit his pants so now I have to wear a diaper? Give me a break. You're not going to be able to disarm Americans. It's just never going to happen. Many citizens will die before they allow ole' Uncle Sam take their guns. You wanna see an attempt at secession? As President, openly admit to the American people that your going to disarm them then watch how many states start talking about forming a Union for real.

The prison system already suffers from over crowding. You talk about hammering people with strict prison sentences for gun ownership but they will just get out early on probation because of all the over crowding........along with all the other asshats behind bars for other felony offenses. Harsh punishment is a suppose to be a deterrence for comitting a crime but criminals still commit crimes don't they? Sickos still rape children or own child pornagraphy on their computers. Sex trafficking still takes place. People still sell illegal drugs.

I can't really argue with the license requirement but why impose a license requirement on gun owners when you can't even require a license when it comes to voting in the booth?

You forgot the rest of the amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If the government ever became tyrannical.....The National Guard certainly isn't gonna be looking out for your best interests or give a yoohoo about your rights so depending on the NG to come save the day is rather sheepish. Also, We are the people.

I'm not trying to attack you or your opinions....just think some of your ideas are as flawed as arming teachers. So don't blow a gasket on me. :o

[Staredge]

The founding fathers didn't want a standing army. They saw that as the beginning of the end for the whole idea of liberty. The militia was NOT anything approaching the national guard. The militia was any able bodied man. The second amendment exists to keep the government afraid of it's people, which is as it should be.

It's insane to even have this argument, because no one is going to change their mind. If you think guns are the problem, then you want them banned. If you think society is the problem, not guns, then you probably don't. As for the licensing argument.......ok. I'll support licenses, as long as their handled just like driver's licenses and pet licenses. Issue them to anyone that wants one, upon request and with no reason needed. Make them national, so I can own and carry in every state. Want me to take a class? Fine by me.

Arming teachers that want to carry? Works for me. You give us your children all day, and allow us to fill their little minds but you're afraid of us having guns??? How many teachers died trying to protect their students. I'll fight as hard to keep your kids alive as I will my own. Ain't too many police stations or military bases getting shot up, now are there? (and IIRC in the case of Ft. Hood....they weren't allowed to carry loaded weapons)

[Publius]

well, then make illegal handgun possession a 20 year prison sentence. secondarily, require legitimate accountability for ammo purchases and stop selling weapons designed almost exclusively for killing people to anyone except law enforcement.

That would explain why there's practically no drug-related crime in the US: cuz banning something and imposing severe penalties for its possession makes it disappear.


If I need a license to drive and own a pet, certainly it's not too much to require the same for handgun ownership, if we are determined to allow it.

Gun control advocates often say how guns should be regulated like cars. Well, if that were the case:

1. You wouldn't need a license or registration for a gun used only on your own property (only if you want to use it in public areas).

2. You could carry your gun throughout the country, as your license would be recognized in every state.

3. You could buy a gun outside of your state of residence, including from a private party in another state, without the involvement of a licensed dealer in your own state.

Bottom line is that Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and no restriction that has a reasonable possibility of being enacted on a national level would have made a bit of difference in this incident.

[krisvds]

Meanwhile the elephant is still in the room isn't it? Why is it that we live in an age where individuals pick up arms and slaughter people they have no connection with and seem to do so with sickening regularity? I don't pretend to have an answer to that question and it sure as hell is more complicated than a couple of laws concerning the carrying of arms.

[babomb]

Meanwhile the elephant is still in the room isn't it? Why is it that we live in an age where individuals pick up arms and slaughter people they have no connection with and seem to do so with sickening regularity? I don't pretend to have an answer to that question and it sure as hell is more complicated than a couple of laws concerning the carrying of arms. It's very sickening that it happens with such regularity. There's nothing else to be said in that regard. But it's equally sickening that when it comes to real solutions to this problem, nobody has any.
Everyone jumps to the quickest solution: BAN GUNS!
And the reason for this is that most people want a solution that they consider to be all encompassing, just something that can be done quickly to dissolve the problem entirely. Or so they think anyway.
The cause of the problem has been a long time in the making. It's so much more complex than simply banning access to objects. But that's what people are crying out for, because they think it will be a magical fix that will just make the problem go away and then we won't have to talk about it anymore.

Some of the problems that I see are inadequate access to mental health resources, the tendency to just medicate those with mental health problems. The US has had a problem with these "active shooters" for quite a few years. But it's never happened with such alarming regularity as it is happening now. And it can't be coincidence that it IS happening so frequently now that the US is in real serious trouble on all fronts.
These are dire and desperate times now in the US. The American way of life is changed forever, and people don't know how to cope with it.
As a society, we have a real crazy fascination with violence. Our culture glamorizes it, makes heroes out of those who practice it, it's in every TV show, more so in videogames.
I realize that other nations are playing the same videogames and watching the same films and TV shows. But I don't think there's another country on the planet that glamorizes violence to the same degree that the US does. I think this plays a HUGE role in these massacres. I think young people in America today are having the line between fantasy and reality blurred. Whether you want to accept it or not, this kind of violence is part of our culture now.
Which is where part of the problem with correcting it comes in. People want a way to get rid of it with one long sweep, a surefire method of erasing it entirely and making it as if it never was. So people focus on GUNS, the scary looking death machines.
The funny thing is that the people who see banning guns as the fix are people who never valued the 2nd ammendment to begin with. It's real easy to cast away a right when it's not one you value or exercise. So it ends up being the same as surrendering someone elses rights. Which is much easier than surrendering your own.
You're not gonna find someone who owns guns, believes in the need for them, and values the 2nd amm. standing up and saying "Yes! We need to ban guns to stop these massacres"! It's just not gonna happen. Just like you're not gonna find an American who thinks the solution is to throw away the right to free speech so that violence is no longer in everyones face.
And it's not because gun owners are all selfish bastards that would rather see children die than give up their weapons. It's because it's not a real solution, it doesn't really address the bigger problem, and it does away with a constitutional right that some people value. Most people who look to ban guns as the solution are not themselves gun owners, and see no real reason for people to own guns. So it's real easy to see that as the magic cure. They aren't surrendering their own rights for this so called solution, so to them it's a no-brainer and those who oppose are selfish morons and retarded rednecks that don't matter anyway.

But, if these same people were expected to give up a right that they valued highly, I suspect it would be a much different situation entirely. The solution wouldn't be anywhere near as simple, and other problems and solutions would be explored much more thoroughly.

[Mr. Clean]

Everyone jumps to the quickest solution: BAN GUNS!


On talk radio yesterday, One of the guest said that this is a very complex problem that can't be fixed with a simple solution so anyone submitting a simple solution such as gun control isn't really trying to fix the problem. He went on to say that perhaps some form of gun control may be part of the solution but it's certainly not an answer by itself or gonna happen over night.

Then on a different show, the host blamed Ronald Reagan for closing up all the mental hospitals in the 80s and had all kinds of callers calling in saying that they have children with mental problems that they can't really do anything with.

EDIT: I guess the ACLU bragged recently about getting a mental hospital shutdown in Illinois aswell.

[Neil]

Maybe a simpler ban, might be to ban the media have a field day?

Q9jn_qUXtMk

[babomb]

Seems to me like banning things in order to prevent bad things from happening is overall just another way to escape responsibility. You end up in a predicament.

I can't help but wonder what went on in the personal lives of these shooters. How were they raised? How well were real life skills taught to these people? I've witnessed the coddling of people with mental health problems before. I know a guy who's bi-polar, and his parents dealt with it by spoiling the hell out of him. And it seems as if that's pretty common in those situations. So what ends up happening is that anytime the dude had a problem, he just threw a big enough fit about it that his parents solved the problem for him. So in the end he was never able to develop problem solving skills. I can see something like that resulting in a tragic incident. Where a person decides that since they're having a rough time with life, that others need to suffer for it.
People always say that there's no way to understand what goes on in the mind of these types. IMO, that's total crap. Something causes these people to revert to using some sort of distorted logic when making the decision to do these things. And there's no way that's just beyond the comprehension of a normal adult. The only way it's incomprehensible is if you try to think of it from your own frame of reference. Something leads up to this.

[mista_mo]

If they close down all of the schools, there will be no more school shootings.

[Staredge]

This is an interesting article (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_ before_automatic_weapons_.html)

[babomb]

If they close down all of the schools, there will be no more school shootings. This^

[Neil]

Seems to me like banning things in order to prevent bad things from happening is overall just another way to escape responsibility. You end up in a predicament.
Sort of like banning driving too fast on roads near population centers? Because for me, that one seems quite effective!

[babomb]

Sort of like banning driving too fast on roads near population centers? Because for me, that one seems quite effective! Well that's not really a ban now is it? A more accurate comparison in that scenario would be to ban gas pedals. Because those are the physical objects that allow people to go too fast. It's not that people are just careless with their gas pedals, it's because they're in cars. If there were no gas pedals or steering wheels in cars used by average citizens, there wouldn't be any traffic accidents. If privately owned vehicles were more like public transports, being remotely controlled by people who are licensed and trained by the state, and the owners themselves were just passengers, then the world could experience freedom from common traffic accidents.
If banning vehicle control systems saves even 1 life, then it's worth it right?

[AcesandEights]

Well that's not really a ban now is it? A more accurate comparison in that scenario would be to ban gas pedals. Because those are the physical objects that allow people to go too fast. It's not that people are just careless with their gas pedals, it's because they're in cars. If there were no gas pedals or steering wheels in cars used by average citizens, there wouldn't be any traffic accidents. If privately owned vehicles were more like public transports, being remotely controlled by people who are licensed and trained by the state, and the owners themselves were just passengers, then the world could experience freedom from common traffic accidents.
If banning vehicle control systems saves even 1 life, then it's worth it right?

I'm no gun control nut, but you're really reaching here.

[babomb]

I'm no gun control nut, but you're really reaching here. I wasn't actually serious.
But it does bare some resemblance. By advocating the idea that private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns, you're basically saying that only those trained and licensed by the state should be allowed to bear arms. So then what you have are state employed private citizens licensed to bear arms, trained by the lowest bidding private contractor. Who have no legal obligation to actually protect private citizens. Yes, it's true. The supreme court ruled that police officers are NOT responsible for the safety of citizens. They are merely agents of the state who's responsibility is to the state and their job is to enforce laws put forth by the state.
So, when you find yourself in a situation such as a late night burglary or home invasion by an armed assailant, hopefully you can get to your phone to call these agents of the state, who are not responsible for your safety. And hopefully they get there in time to prevent any possible tragedy that might ensue.
But, even if he kills you, at least your family can say at your funeral that you were morally superior to the assailant because you didn't brandish a firearm.:duh:

[Mr. Clean]

Operation Legless Cricket is a go!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/19/obama-to-launch-effort-led-by-biden-to-create-new-policies-in-wake-school/


President Obama announces administration-wide task force led by Vice President Biden

President Obama on Wednesday tapped Vice President Biden to lead an administration-wide effort looking at gun control and other measures in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting last week. The move marks the first concrete step by the White House toward crafting new firearms restrictions. The president did not announce any major policy decisions on Wednesday. Rather, he outlined the process for pursuing changes.

Some lawmakers, in the wake of the tragedy, have called for a broad-based response, looking at everything from mental health to school security to American culture. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in a call soon joined by others, proposed a national commission examining the entertainment industry and particularly video games.

Obama and top administration officials have suggested the response to the Newtown, Conn., mass murder could include a range of recommendations. But the focus, given the debate that has accelerated on Capitol Hill in recent days, is likely to be gun control.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the administration will craft proposals for Congress to consider over the next few weeks. He said a "strong" Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is also important.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that Obama is "actively supportive" of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's, D-Calif., push to bring back an assault-weapons ban. He also said the president supports closing the so-called gun show loophole.

Lawmakers have floated a number of other proposals, including regulation of high-capacity clips, that the administration could also look at.

Gun-rights advocates have started to push back on the swift call for more firearms regulation. The National Rifle Association, after remaining silent in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, released its first -- albeit brief -- statement on Tuesday, and announced it would be holding a major press conference on Friday.

The White House sees some urgency in formulating a policy response to the shooting, even as Obama and his top aides are consumed with averting the looming fiscal crisis before tax hikes and spending cuts take effect in January.

As many pro-gun lawmakers have called for a greater focus on mental health issues and the impact of violent entertainment, aides say Obama also prefers a holistic approach.

"It's a complex problem that requires more than one solution," Carney said Tuesday. "It calls for not only re-examining our gun laws and how well we enforce them, but also for engaging mental health professionals, law-enforcement officials, educators, parents and communities to find those solutions."

Still, much of the immediate focus after the shooting is on gun control, an issue that has been dormant in Washington for years. Obama expended little political capital on gun issues during his first term, despite several mass shootings, including a movie theater attack in Aurora, Colorado, in the midst of this year's presidential campaign.

The White House has begun to signal that Obama may be more proactive on gun issues following the murders of the elementary school youngsters, ages 6 and 7.

The policy process Obama was announcing Wednesday was expected to include input from the departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. The heads of those agencies met with Obama at the White House on Monday.

He's gonna pull our legs off so no one can jump. :(

[AcesandEights]

Taskforce led by...Biden?! Yeah, there'll be no political or moral grandstanding there and we'll all end up with a perfect set of laws and regulations that won't be completely irrelevant or OTT...:shifty:

And you know Biden will attempt to go apeshit with this, as his ungrounded politico mindset will see this as his chance to shine for a future presidential nomination.

[babomb]

Taskforce led by...Biden?! Yeah, there'll be no political or moral grandstanding there and we'll all end up with a perfect set of laws and regulations that won't be completely irrelevant or OTT...:shifty:

And you know Biden will attempt to go apeshit with this, as his ungrounded politico mindset will see this as his chance to shine for a future presidential nomination. Absolutely! Get ready. It's gonna get real weird soon.

[ProfessorChaos]

isn't biden a bit old to be considering running for prez? dude's like 70, iirc.

on a side note, my uncle has an assault rifle that's all decked out with a fancy scope, forward hand-grip, etc. since he has no sons, he told me he plans to leave it to me when he passes away. it's a pretty nice piece and i'm kinda looking forward to owning it....not that i want my uncle to die or anything, it's just a nice rifle.

[AcesandEights]

Prof., he's not electable and I can't see him getting the nomination, but that might very well not be how he sees it.

[Mr. Clean]

Prof., he's not electable and I can't see him getting the nomination, but that might very well not be how he sees it.

We still have a long 4 years to go and alot could change but seems Hiliary is already the libs pick for 2016.

[aaron2]

I agree with you on this entirely! This is the time American government take a stand on the issues like crime and guns!
The incident is really a sad spot on human-beings!

[babomb]

I agree with you on this entirely! This is the time American government take a stand on the issues like crime and guns!
The incident is really a sad spot on human-beings! So then you think that Obama should circumvent congress and disarm the people?

[Staredge]

They've already talked about him using executive privilege to "do something". Lovely.

[Neil]

Am I hearing right that assault rifle sales are going mad in the US at the moment?

[Tricky]

A couple of posts from a British army forum that I happen to agree with


I'm currently in the US, and I think the problem is primarily one of attitude.

Every disturbed lunatic and weird goth recluse in this country is armed to the teeth. Most sensible, law-abiding people are not. This, regardless of gun laws, is what enables situations like the one in Connecticut.

In my opinion, there are two key things that need to happen.

1 - Discourage lunatics from gun ownership

I think a lot could and should be done to make gun ownership less 'sexy'. Guns and associated equipment are sold in a very macho way, with brands like 'killzone' and an overt focus on patriotism. I believe that the marketing surrounding guns and associated products should be limited in the same way that cigarette advertising is in the UK.

I agree with the argument that an AR-15 is no more dangerous than a semi-auto pistol. However, I think there's a solid argument for a ban in that it's a military style weapon that is poorly suited to any legitimate application. The sale of this type of weapon seems to feed the fantasies of the deranged while providing little value to those whose stated aim is to hunt or protect themselves. If military style weapons were currently banned, I could not think of a single reason why they should be legalised.

If a ban were introduced, I accept that criminals would still have access to these weapons. However, shooters seem to use legally held firearms and do not have criminal connections.

2 - Encourage non-lunatics to own and carry guns

Law abiding people do not carry guns because it is a big responsibility, costs a lot of money and involves hassle. To carry a gun in most states, you need to first attend a course and gain a concealed carry permit. It's also seen as something out of the ordinary; the preserve of walter mitty types, lunatics, gangsters and rednecks.

For most well-balanced, law-abiding people, this means that they'd need a compelling reason to purchase and carry a firearm. Excepting those who live in very dangerous areas, this would mean a change in the way that guns and gun owners are viewed by society.


1177
I think you've hit the nail on the head there!


It's not a matter of ownership or non ownership. I know people with what can only be described as arsenals of legally owned firearms and shotguns. The thought of them using a bumper sticker with a threatening undertone wouldn't cross their minds any more than switching stands on the clay range with the gun not safely in its slip, or mouthing off at the local how they'd "pop a cap in the ass" of anyone intruding on their land.


Legal owners of firearms and shotguns (and even air guns to a degree) seem to feel far more compelled to show restraint, sensibility, purpose for ownership, and crucially and attitude where the gun is a dangerous piece of kit, to be treated with respect, fired when safe and where safe to do so, and stored in a locked cabinet, separate rom ammunition.


The problem in the USA seems to be a Gung-Ho mentality, lightly seasoned with some Hollywood bravado and cheesy catchphrases and before too long you've got a country where it's socially acceptable, if not desirable to not only own guns, but have them scattered around the house, and more worryingly, loaded and accessible. The sad truth is, it's more likely to be their own son taking the loaded gun to perform a massacre due to his shitty paranoid life than the registered owner, or an intruder who gets lucky while they sleep, stumbling through an unsecured armoury while the home owner sleeps.


If any UK gun owner were to sport a bumper sticker like the one shown above or to broadcast their intent and willingness to shoot a fellow human, they would be handing in their guns and certificates quicker than one can say "unfit"!


That's the difference between the USA and the UK, attitude.

[babomb]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335848/gun-control-ignorance-thomas-sowell# Interesting view.

[Publius]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335848/gun-control-ignorance-thomas-sowell# Interesting view.

Not just a view, straight fact. The UK has a lower crime rate than the US, true, but the disparity was even greater back when the UK had practically no gun control. The days when Conan Doyle wrote about Sherlock Holmes sticking a revolver in his pocket before leaving home and no one batted an eye. Fared Zakaria recently wrote an article in the Washington Post about how the wisdom of an "assault weapon" ban is "blindingly obvious" because Australia had a significant drop in firearm homicide after enacting one in 1996. What he didn't note, of course, is that the US had an equivalent drop in homicide rates over the same period while generally expanding gun rights.

[strayrider]

A couple of posts from a British army forum that I happen to agree with

Shall I check my critical thinking skills in at the door?

:D

-stray-

[babomb]

A couple of posts from a British army forum that I happen to agree with


Every disturbed lunatic and weird goth recluse in this country is armed to the teeth. Most sensible, law-abiding people are not. This, regardless of gun laws, is what enables situations like the one in Connecticut. How is that even possible for 1 thing? And how is it possible to know that? It's a bold statement that defies logic and has no way of being verified.


I agree with the argument that an AR-15 is no more dangerous than a semi-auto pistol. However, I think there's a solid argument for a ban in that it's a military style weapon that is poorly suited to any legitimate application. The sale of this type of weapon seems to feed the fantasies of the deranged while providing little value to those whose stated aim is to hunt or protect themselves. If military style weapons were currently banned, I could not think of a single reason why they should be legalised. This is also not an accurate concept. The reason people own assault weapons is for protection against a government that's out of control and has the same weaponry.

Anyone who associates the 2nd ammendment with hunting/sport shooting/personal defense from criminals, does not understand why the 2nd ammendment was instituted. And this is the vast majority of people, from America as well as abroad. The fact that they are military style weapons is the exact reason why people should be allowed to own them. How can a person protect themselves and their country from those weapons without owning weapons that are equally as capable?

As to the bumper sticker, it's just a stupid saying. It doesn't mean the owner of the vehicle puts it into play as a governing philosophy.

http://www.redrockdecals.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/small_image/170x170/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/9/6/9676_insuredbymafia.jpg
Does this^ bumper sticker saying actually mean that if someone hits his car he will kill them?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Congrats on post 420 babomb (Woo hoo, 420)

Anyway, here is my take, and I have said it before... I am a left wing liberal who owns guns. Real and stage weaponry. I prefer pistols, but I also have a 12 gauge. I do not own an M4 or M16 simply because I have no need for that kind of weapon, but just because I don't have a need for it, doesn't mean no one else does, so I don't like the government banning guns in general. Guns do not kill people. The stupid mutherfuckers with access to guns kill people.

I have posted this a lot recently to those wanting to take guns away.

GO to a family or firends house who owns a lot of guns or just one gun. Sit at their house and have a discussion about anything, tell me when you leave how many people that gun in their house killed while you were there.

I have heard responses most people don't comprehend, such as, well it won't hurt anyone because no one is holding it, but it kills people as it is a gun.

WHAT!

Those crying for gun control haven't owned a gun, and don't understand the object, needs a secondary intervention to become lethal. As it stands by itself, laying on a table or in a cabinet, it is just an object, but in the wrong hands it can become a weapon. Some say let us institute testing on the human state before someone can buy a gun. That will get you nowhere. I could be mentally unstable... doesn't mean I would fail the test. Some of the smartest folks in the world have mental problems, if they want that weapon bad enough they can rehearse their way through an examination, pass it and get the gun.

I like owning my gun(s), I am now in a state where I can legally open carry, but I have a concealed permit as well. However, I don't open carry, and don't conceal carry. Most of my day to day is just sitting at home working remotely, so if I need a gun bad enough to protect myself it is one room away. However, even when I go out and run errands I hardly carry, hell I would say 99.9% of the time I do not carry. Now if the news said there are 10 armed men running loose in my neighbor hood, you damn skippy I would carry before I walked out the door.

I will never turn to the right politically, but I will support the right to own a gun.

[babomb]

Congrats on post 420 babomb (Woo hoo, 420)

Anyway, here is my take, and I have said it before... I am a left wing liberal who owns guns. Real and stage weaponry. I prefer pistols, but I also have a 12 gauge. I do not own an M4 or M16 simply because I have no need for that kind of weapon, but just because I don't have a need for it, doesn't mean no one else does, so I don't like the government banning guns in general. Guns do not kill people. The stupid mutherfuckers with access to guns kill people.

I have posted this a lot recently to those wanting to take guns away.

GO to a family or firends house who owns a lot of guns or just one gun. Sit at their house and have a discussion about anything, tell me when you leave how many people that gun in their house killed while you were there.

I have heard responses most people don't comprehend, such as, well it won't hurt anyone because no one is holding it, but it kills people as it is a gun.

WHAT!

Those crying for gun control haven't owned a gun, and don't understand the object, needs a secondary intervention to become lethal. As it stands by itself, laying on a table or in a cabinet, it is just an object, but in the wrong hands it can become a weapon. Some say let us institute testing on the human state before someone can buy a gun. That will get you nowhere. I could be mentally unstable... doesn't mean I would fail the test. Some of the smartest folks in the world have mental problems, if they want that weapon bad enough they can rehearse their way through an examination, pass it and get the gun.

I like owning my gun(s), I am now in a state where I can legally open carry, but I have a concealed permit as well. However, I don't open carry, and don't conceal carry. Most of my day to day is just sitting at home working remotely, so if I need a gun bad enough to protect myself it is one room away. However, even when I go out and run errands I hardly carry, hell I would say 99.9% of the time I do not carry. Now if the news said there are 10 armed men running loose in my neighbor hood, you damn skippy I would carry before I walked out the door.

I will never turn to the right politically, but I will support the right to own a gun. I didn't even notice my post count was at 420. I guess this one will ruin it. I like your take on the subject. I agree that most people calling for more gun control are people that are totally unfamiliar with them. I don't own any assault rifles either. All the men in my family were hunters, so I only own hunting weapons.
My problem with gun control is really not even about the guns themselves. To me it's an issue of liberty and the preservation of the constitution. 2nd to that I think it's a preparedness issue also.
It really aggravates me though to hear the rhetoric coming from the anti-gun crowd. It's obvious that they don't know anything about guns, and most of them don't even understand what the 2nd amendment is even about. This new gun control bill they're pushing is total BS. They want to ban certain guns based solely on the fact that they look "scary". No pistol grips or telescoping stocks. Neither one of those things makes the gun any more lethal than a gun that doesn't have them. So that's an indication of the logic being used here. It's just more fear mongering.
Another thing is that every single one of these shooters was on anti-psychotic medication, SSRI's. Which are known to have these kind of effects. It's been known for years that those medications cause aggression and suicidal tendencies, and they vary from person to person. But you don't hear anyone saying they should take those medications off the market or ban them altogether. All you hear is "BAN GUNS". Which is another indication of the 1 sided, fear based logic that's behind this whole thing. But nobody really wants to hear that. They just want to ban guns and that's all there is to it. And the liberty issue and the fact that it's unconstitutional means absolutely nothing to these people. And IMO, that's the most disturbing aspect of it. These are fellow Americans, and they don't understand the concepts that the constitution is based on, and they don't give a shit about it. If you try to make them aware of those issues, all they have to say is that the constitution was written with muskets in mind, and that the constitution was written by drunken slave owners. Which goes to show that these people don't think well of America or the concepts that it was created under.
They enjoy the benefits of a so called free society, but they feel no obligation to uphold those liberties, and will trade them off at the drop of a hat. They'll sit back and watch as laws are passed to deprive them of their freedoms and stay absolutely silent on it. They'll drive around with bumper stickers that say "Obama for peace" while he continues to kill women and children with drone strikes in other countries, and stay completely silent on that one too.
These are highly emotional and easily manipulated people who don't really understand what's going on or what's really at stake here. And the future of our nation and our liberty is in their hands.

[DjfunkmasterG]

A lot of those drugs are dangerous. Take Wellbutrin for example. It is an antidepressant but it has smoking cesstation properties as well. I was precribed it to stop smoking, worked great the first two weeks, then suddenly I became more and more aggressive (more than i am when smoking, those who know me are probably saing.. "How much worse?")

It was pretty bad, so bad to the point my own boss begged me to start smoking again, as I was an angry shit day and night for the other 4 weeks I was on Wellbutrin. Tried Chantix, but it didn't work, so here I am in year 26 of smoking. I still remember to his day how miserable I was on that medication and even the doc won't prescribe it again, so he just came to grips with the fact I will probably be a smoker for life.

But that stuff... WOW... little things would set you off, and I owned my guns at the time this happened, but still in my most angered state I never considered getting one and shooting up work, school whatever. Because in the back of my mind... I just remembered, I don't like small places and prison is a small space. Just saying.

[strayrider]

DJ: You are correct. Owning a gun gives you the ultimate right to say "No!" to a social miscreant bent on controlling your fate.

Bomb: You are correct. Owning a gun gives you the ultimate right to say "No!" to a political miscreant bent on controlling your fate.

And vice versa.

:D

-stray-

[DjfunkmasterG]

Like Babomb has said many try to use the 2nd ammendment incorrectly. The NRA doesn't help this whatsoever because they cloud the issue in political rhetoric.

The severe rightwingers, and the gun debate worry me. It make me think this is how they bring up their children.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8224/8299196253_b0bb738570_n.jpg

[Neil]

It's fascinating the ultimate argument of people endorsing liberal gun ownership use the term "my freedom" as their primary reason. Can I ask:-
- Why is one gun not enough? - For such a dangerous device, who's primary goal is to kill efficiently, the American's seem to have a very unhealthy love affair with it. Regularly you see individuals discussing the number of guns they own, and how "cool" they are etc etc. For a tool which is primarly aimed at simply protecting ones "freedom" it seems so be very "sexed up." Why?
- A selfish freedom - To many other people around the world, when Americans declare its their right and their freedom to own a gun, we cannot help but consider it a somewhat selfish to be honest. It seems individuals put their own needs and rights first, and ignore what may infact be better for society. I liken it to speed limits. I'd love to be able to drive at any speed I like, but society deems a safe limit in towns as 30mph. I therefore forego this freedom for society as a whole.
- Freedom? - There's now talk for example of arming all school teachers. Where is there freedom to go abuot their daily life/job not having the stress of carrying a gun?

Now, I'm not suggesting the US should bad guns etc etc. I don't know what the answer is. BUT:-
1) There seems to be a very unhealthy love affair with guns in the US. I cannot fathom why a device which is killing tens of thousands of individuals every year is treated so frivolously and sexed up.
2) If we assume that allowing such numbers of guns, so freely, is at least some way to blame for the number of deaths, and I think we can safetly say that, then there would seem to be some acknowledgement of that. If the laws remain unchanged then that's absolutely fine, but the US populous needs to realise theres a cost involved. Just as we realise there's a cost involved with setting our speed limits to 30mph instead of 20mph. If we reduced them to 20mph, road related deaths would drop and lives would be saved, but we're willing to take absorb the risk of those deaths for the benefits we see (eg: jouney times etc).

[DjfunkmasterG]

It's fascinating the ultimate argument of people endorsing liberal gun ownership use the term "my freedom" as their primary reason. Can I ask:-
- Why is one gun not enough? - For such a dangerous device, who's primary goal is to kill efficiently, the American's seem to have a very unhealthy love affair with it. Regularly you see individuals discussing the number of guns they own, and how "cool" they are etc etc. For a tool which is primarly aimed at simply protecting ones "freedom" it seems so be very "sexed up." Why?
- A selfish freedom - To many other people around the world, when Americans declare its their right and their freedom to own a gun, we cannot help but consider it a somewhat selfish to be honest. It seems individuals put their own needs and rights first, and ignore what may infact be better for society. I liken it to speed limits. I'd love to be able to drive at any speed I like, but society deems a safe limit in towns as 30mph. I therefore forego this freedom for society as a whole.
- Freedom? - There's now talk for example of arming all school teachers. Where is there freedom to go abuot their daily life/job not having the stress of carrying a gun?

Now, I'm not suggesting the US should bad guns etc etc. I don't know what the answer is. BUT:-
1) There seems to be a very unhealthy love affair with guns in the US. I cannot fathom why a device which is killing tens of thousands of individuals every year is treated so frivolously and sexed up.
2) If we assume that allowing such numbers of guns, so freely, is at least some way to blame for the number of deaths, and I think we can safetly say that, then there would seem to be some acknowledgement of that. If the laws remain unchanged then that's absolutely fine, but the US populous needs to realise theres a cost involved. Just as we realise there's a cost involved with setting our speed limits to 30mph instead of 20mph. If we reduced them to 20mph, road related deaths would drop and lives would be saved, but we're willing to take absorb the risk of those deaths for the benefits we see (eg: jouney times etc).

Well let's go with the theme of the forum, zombies, one gun wouldn't be enough during the zombie apocalypse, but some of these yahoos wanting an arsenal is just from plain stupidity. Gun Stores around here are jammed packed with people thinking OBAMA is going to take away all freedoms and some of these nutjobs want to be ready for his "Tyranny" and the gunshop owners freely sell them the guns with them spouting this shit off.

Yesterday I was out and stopped by the local gunshop for a new cleaning kit (misplaced mine in the move) they had a police officer onsite, which pissed customers off, but I understood why he was there, and I had no personal issue with it myself.

Some of the pro gun folks scare the shit out of me more than the ban gun folks, but neither side has it right in their arguments and trying to talk to either side is like talking to a wall 90% of the time. some folks GET it, others don't care.

I am not worried my government will turn on me, it is my neighbor. (generally speaking) some folks have just gone right off the deep end over guns in general, and if they don't tone it down, then they will ban guns. I just see it happeneing because looking at the debate as a whole, some who DEMAND their gun rights truly don't deserve them, and the ones wanting all guns banned know jack shit about a gun.

[facestabber]

Like Babomb has said many try to use the 2nd ammendment incorrectly. The NRA doesn't help this whatsoever because they cloud the issue in political rhetoric.

The severe rightwingers, and the gun debate worry me. It make me think this is how they bring up their children.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8224/8299196253_b0bb738570_n.jpg

Holy shit I almost fell out of my chair laughing at those pics. DJ, thats refreshing to see a self described left winger support the 2nd Amendment. I am very conservative but the gun debate worries me too. It is a very difficult topic to address and is often polarized by two political parties looking for points rather than rational discussion.

[Tricky]

This is also not an accurate concept. The reason people own assault weapons is for protection against a government that's out of control and has the same weaponry.

Anyone who associates the 2nd ammendment with hunting/sport shooting/personal defense from criminals, does not understand why the 2nd ammendment was instituted. And this is the vast majority of people, from America as well as abroad. The fact that they are military style weapons is the exact reason why people should be allowed to own them. How can a person protect themselves and their country from those weapons without owning weapons that are equally as capable?



That sounds insane to people outside of the US. Are you all really that paranoid about the government over there? And do citizens with assault rifles really believe that if the shit hit the fan they could go up against one of the largest and most capable armed forces in the world with their personal stash? How would you counter this?

1179

Or this?
1180

If it was really about being able to beat the government in the field you'd all have an Abrams parked on the drive as well as a Javelin and Stinger launcher tucked away under the bed. For the record I have access to legally held shotguns, a hunting rifle and air rifles, but the thought of using them to march on Westminster because the government did something I don't like is frankly ridiculous

[DjfunkmasterG]

Holy shit I almost fell out of my chair laughing at those pics. DJ, thats refreshing to see a self described left winger support the 2nd Amendment. I am very conservative but the gun debate worries me too. It is a very difficult topic to address and is often polarized by two political parties looking for points rather than rational discussion.

I only side with conservatives on two issues, guns, but not in the way they are riling it up today. The other is the DEATH PENALTY.

[Neil]

I am not worried my government will turn on me, it is my neighbor. (generally speaking) some folks have just gone right off the deep end over guns in general, and if they don't tone it down, then they will ban guns. I just see it happeneing because looking at the debate as a whole, some who DEMAND their gun rights truly don't deserve them, and the ones wanting all guns banned know jack shit about a gun.

So can you imagine a line being walked in the US where the number of guns, and type of guns are reduced/limited?

ie: Is there any need for Mr Joe Average to have an assault riffle, 2 shot guns and 6 hand guns? If he desires a gun for home protection, surely a basic hand gun with a six round magazine would serve that purpose?

[facestabber]

That sounds insane to people outside of the US. Are you all really that paranoid about the government over there? And do citizens with assault rifles really believe that if the shit hit the fan they could go up against one of the largest and most capable armed forces in the world with their personal stash? How would you counter this?

1179

Or this?
1180

If it was really about being able to beat the government in the field you'd all have an Abrams parked on the drive as well as a Javelin and Stinger launcher tucked away under the bed. For the record I have access to legally held shotguns, a hunting rifle and air rifles, but the thought of using them to march on Westminster because the government did something I don't like is frankly ridiculous

Before I answer let me go on record as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment but am really struggling with what the right answer is. I am not a NRA member. Part of me wants to see tighter gun restrictions but my job allows me to carry a gun and carry concealed off duty. So I struggle telling people who ask for the same right I was given that they cant defend themself. On the flip side I would hate arresting a drunk driver who(if became legal in Illinois) was carrying a concealed gun and decides he's not going to jail. Its really difficult for me to pick an absolute side.

Now on to this issue sounding insane to US outsiders. Im sure it does but understand how and why America came to be. Without guns we werent running the British out and we are still a Colony. Our Founding Fathers realized that a gov't that becomes too powerful is dangerous and needs to be kept in check. And no Americans dont expect to fight our military head to head. Think gorilla tactics. Hit and run. We deployed snipers during the beginning of the revolutionary war and took out British Commanders. That was considered dirty fighting but it damaged our enemy. The key is to inflict damage with small cuts and eventually you weaken your enemies resolve. The North Vietnamese did this do us. They couldnt take us head on and they knew it. But with all that said there does need to be limits. Most(except the true gun nuts) would agree Americans should not have M60 machine gun nests on their property.

Regarding marching on Westminster. Armed Americans arent marching locked and loaded at the steps of Congress either. Our gun belief is the last resort. Not offensive. But rather our last defense IF the gov't becomes tyranical. And lets face it an Armed America makes us very unattackable. A Japanese general once expressed this saying he would never invade America because behind every blade of grass would be an American with a gun. So this becomes an arguement of limits. And how do we set them. I am open to discussion.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Before I answer let me go on record as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment but am really struggling with what the right answer is. I am not a NRA member. Part of me wants to see tighter gun restrictions but my job allows me to carry a gun and carry concealed off duty. So I struggle telling people who ask for the same right I was given that they cant defend themself. On the flip side I would hate arresting a drunk driver who(if became legal in Illinois) was carrying a concealed gun and decides he's not going to jail. Its really difficult for me to pick an absolute side.

Now on to this issue sounding insane to US outsiders. Im sure it does but understand how and why America came to be. Without guns we werent running the British out and we are still a Colony. Our Founding Fathers realized that a gov't that becomes too powerful is dangerous and needs to be kept in check. And no Americans dont expect to fight our military head to head. Think gorilla tactics. Hit and run. We deployed snipers during the beginning of the revolutionary war and took out British Commanders. That was considered dirty fighting but it damaged our enemy. The key is to inflict damage with small cuts and eventually you weaken your enemies resolve. The North Vietnamese did this do us. They couldnt take us head on and they knew it. But with all that said there does need to be limits. Most(except the true gun nuts) would agree Americans should not have M60 machine gun nests on their property.

Regarding marching on Westminster. Armed Americans arent marching locked and loaded at the steps of Congress either. Our gun belief is the last resort. Not offensive. But rather our last defense IF the gov't becomes tyranical. And lets face it an Armed America makes us very unattackable. A Japanese general once expressed this saying he would never invade America because behind every blade of grass would be an American with a gun. So this becomes an arguement of limits. And how do we set them. I am open to discussion.

Face, you hit the nail on the head.

No country could ever come to America and wage a ground war, simply because we have Americans that are armed, like you and I. The government knows this, which is why the gun debate is a bitch for them to take on. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

Movies like Red Dawn are unrealistic, especially the remake. The minute anyone marched upon the land, it would be over before they could start a march. However, in lies the same issue. If the government stepped in to take away guns you would have the same scenario, and then you have the military arm of the government with most soldiers and leaders being pro 2nd ammendment. I think you would see soldiers go AWOl before taking on the citizens to remove guns from their posession.

Does the average joe, working a 9-5 blue collar job need an M16, M4 or M60 weapon? NO! It serves no purpose to them other than to give them a bigger ego. I own a .45, a .40 and a 9mm. I have probably 300 rounds of ammo, mostly junk stuff for target practice. The last time I went target shooting was 3 weeks into relocating to PA from MD, that was 4 months ago.

While I disgree with our country from time to time, other than maybe England, Canada or Italy, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. Also, if someone had the balls to try and invade us by ground, I would stand up for the country. Again, the gun debate is a fine line, and I honestly believe most folks who have guns don't deserve them, but they have a right to own it.

If you wrap your head around it too much it will give you a migraine. Just saying.

- - - Updated - - -


So can you imagine a line being walked in the US where the number of guns, and type of guns are reduced/limited?

ie: Is there any need for Mr Joe Average to have an assault riffle, 2 shot guns and 6 hand guns? If he desires a gun for home protection, surely a basic hand gun with a six round magazine would serve that purpose?

Neil, I only pulled my gun on someone one time. Just once. it was summer of 2010, I was taking a nap in the afternoon, and heard something going on downstairs in my townhouse. I woke up, and grabbed my gun, found a guy going through my house. I aimed at him and told him to freeze and kneel down. He turned and ran out of the patio doors, and hopped the fence. I couldn't shoot him because the minute he turned to retreat, I cannot open fire on him. If he came at me, in MD I had everyright to shoot him, dead or wound him, my choice.

The only reason I ever bought a gun was because when I was a DJ I was robbed at Gun point when finishing a gig in Philadelphia, PA in 1995. I gave up my equipment (it was insured) the CD collection and vinyl was still int he club. I lost my equipment, and $1200 in cash. I did as they asked, I let them take the stuff, they would have taken the car too, but the keys were still inside. As soon as I got done dealing with the cops, and drove back to Allentown, where I lived at the time, I went to bed woke up the next morning and went right to a friends gun store in scranton, pa. Bought my first weapon, a Ruger (P89) 9mm. The other guns, my .40 and .45 were just bought simply because I thought they were great looking and reliable weapons.

[Neil]

Neil, I only pulled my gun on someone one time. Just once. it was summer of 2010, I was taking a nap in the afternoon, and heard something going on downstairs in my townhouse. I woke up, and grabbed my gun, found a guy going through my house. I aimed at him and told him to freeze and kneel down. He turned and ran out of the patio doors, and hopped the fence. I couldn't shoot him because the minute he turned to retreat, I cannot open fire on him. If he came at me, in MD I had everyright to shoot him, dead or wound him, my choice.

The only reason I ever bought a gun was because when I was a DJ I was robbed at Gun point when finishing a gig in Philadelphia, PA in 1995. I gave up my equipment (it was insured) the CD collection and vinyl was still int he club. I lost my equipment, and $1200 in cash. I did as they asked, I let them take the stuff, they would have taken the car too, but the keys were still inside. As soon as I got done dealing with the cops, and drove back to Allentown, where I lived at the time, I went to bed woke up the next morning and went right to a friends gun store in scranton, pa. Bought my first weapon, a Ruger (P89) 9mm. The other guns, my .40 and .45 were just bought simply because I thought they were great looking and reliable weapons.

Sorry, maybe my questions wasn't clear. So it seems you have a gun purely for (home) defense. Which of course is fine. But would you say it's a fair comment there's an attitude to guns in the US which is not this pragmatic? ie: Which sexes up guns to the extent people buy and own weapons which far excede the requirement for (home) defense? Multiple hand guns, more power that required, shot guns, assault rifles etc etc.

I'm simply wondering if a step to reigning in America's love affair with the gun - which to some of us appears slightly unhealthly - would be to try and return the ownership of guns back to it being a functional tool, rather than a fashion accessory? A single adequate gun, rather than multiple unecessarily powerful guns?




Face, you hit the nail on the head.

No country could ever come to America and wage a ground war, simply because we have Americans that are armed, like you and I. The government knows this, which is why the gun debate is a bitch for them to take on. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.
You know I'm fascinated this is used as a reason for owning guns. Can you really imagine a foreign power trying to invade the UK, yet alone the US with the size & power of its military? To suggest there's even the risk there bemuses me?!

[Staredge]

Why should I be limited in how many guns I own? I happen to enjoy shooting them. I use some of them for hunting. To be honest, mine aren't there for home defense so much, as all mine are small caliber. (I could use them that way if necessary though) If I'm a law abiding citizen, why does anyone care what I own? If I'm a criminal, why do I care how many I'm legally allowed to own? I can't figure out why people have such a hard time understanding that some people just like to shoot different types of guns. There are any number of shooting competitions out there. Cowboy Action, 3-Gun, Long Range rifle....the list goes on.

As for dealing with a tyrannical government....as has been said before, ask the Vietnamese and the Afghanis how well it goes against a technologically superior force. Add in the fact that good chunks of the military would probably not go up against their neighbors. Is it a real concern of mine? Not really, but I can certainly see a greater possibility if we were disarmed.

[babomb]

That sounds insane to people outside of the US. Are you all really that paranoid about the government over there? And do citizens with assault rifles really believe that if the shit hit the fan they could go up against one of the largest and most capable armed forces in the world with their personal stash? How would you counter this?

If it was really about being able to beat the government in the field you'd all have an Abrams parked on the drive as well as a Javelin and Stinger launcher tucked away under the bed. For the record I have access to legally held shotguns, a hunting rifle and air rifles, but the thought of using them to march on Westminster because the government did something I don't like is frankly ridiculous The government does things people don't like everyday. Nobody marches on washington with guns. It's not about simply doing things we don't like. It's when they take away our ability to determine our own fate and future, and become a threat to our way of life.
It's because we realize that a foreign power couldn't come in and take us by force. They would infiltrate our systems, and try to defeat us from within. It's happening right now, and has been for a long time.
I think the general sentiment among Americans that value liberty is that our rights and liberties are under attack. Not just the right to bear arms, all of our liberties. Our government seems to not really respect our rights, or our constitutional liberties anymore. And now they're coming after our right to bear arms. The last line of defense we have.
Yeah, it's wrapped in a pretty package and attributed to "the greater good". But with this task force headed by VP Biden, it's not just the 2nd amendment that's being "re-examined", it's also the 1st amm. They want to legislate violence out of films and videogames. While less violence in the media would be a good thing for the most part, legislating it to be that way is not. It's censorship.
America was never meant to be a nation where the government tells us how to live our lives. That's more power over the people than the government should ever be allowed to have. The US government no longer represents the people. That's the problem! That's what makes us paranoid, and that's why taking away firearms is such a big deal. Many of us don't believe that the reason for an assault weapons ban or firearm restrictions in general is actually an altruistic act. We believe it serves a political agenda. Why? Because our government has proven time and again that they don't really care about the people. So why would we now believe that firearm restrictions are for the good of the people?
I think that if things weren't the way they are now, and people didn't feel that the government was so out of control and only interested in keeping and furthering their own power, the whole firearms issue would be much different.
They've already thrown out the 4th amm, and the 5th amm. Now the 1st and the 2nd are on the menu. See a pattern here?
It's not an issue of "the government wants to take away our toys"(well, maybe for some people it is). It's an issue of phasing out the US constitution and BOR. Which is what our entire nation has been based on since it's conception. That's the real problem. Yeah, the anti-gun crowd makes it seem like it's all about the guns, and people not wanting to give them up. And it is about that, for them. For me, and those who believe as I do, it's not that simple.
They would never come right out and say "we're taking away your rights for our own agenda", they'll mask it as something for the common good to get people to surrender their rights. They'll trump it up in the media(GOV propaganda wing) to sway popular opinion in favor of their agenda. The problem is that our government insists on using covert control over the people. So we can never be sure what they're really doing and why they're doing it. They never tell us the truth, so our instinct is to be suspicious of them and their motives. That's not paranoia, that's just reality.
I'm sure it does sound insane to others. Just imagine how insane it is to be living in that situation.

- - - Updated - - -


Sorry, maybe my questions wasn't clear. So it seems you have a gun purely for (home) defense. Which of course is fine. But would you say it's a fair comment there's an attitude to guns in the US which is not this pragmatic? ie: Which sexes up guns to the extent people buy and own weapons which far excede the requirement for (home) defense? Multiple hand guns, more power that required, shot guns, assault rifles etc etc. That's an issue of capitalism and marketing. That's how they sell products.

[facestabber]

Sorry, maybe my questions wasn't clear. So it seems you have a gun purely for (home) defense. Which of course is fine. But would you say it's a fair comment there's an attitude to guns in the US which is not this pragmatic? ie: Which sexes up guns to the extent people buy and own weapons which far excede the requirement for (home) defense? Multiple hand guns, more power that required, shot guns, assault rifles etc etc.

I'm simply wondering if a step to reigning in America's love affair with the gun - which to some of us appears slightly unhealthly - would be to try and return the ownership of guns back to it being a functional tool, rather than a fashion accessory? A single adequate gun, rather than multiple unecessarily powerful guns?




You know I'm fascinated this is used as a reason for owning guns. Can you really imagine a foreign power trying to invade the UK, yet alone the US with the size & power of its military? To suggest there's even the risk there bemuses me?!

Neil backtrack to the 1980's. Did you not believe the Soviet Union to be a threat to Europe and the US? The Soviets build up was not defensive. And part of the reason it would be rediculous for a foreign invasion is because of private ownership. But it is a reason not THE reason or ever the sole reason Americans have guns. Im not sure how much more is needed to quantify when a Japanese general of a powerful, competant and fight to the death military, whom had the balls to attack and cripple our Pacific Fleet, spoke directly of private gun ownership by Americans.

I will agree in the current state of the world not even the Chinese could pull off an invasion due to their undersized and underpowered Navy. They may have the Troop numbers but crossing the Pacific pond wont happen. But what will happen in the future? What superpower will emerge? We dont know but at some point America may not be the biggest kid on the block. If a Nation can actually match our Navy and Airforce and reach US soil do you understand how much havoc American's with guns will cause? So fearing N. Korea, China etc invading the US is not the primary motivating force for Americans buying guns, it does matter.

And you are right about American's having a love affair with guns. The hard core gun toters scare me too. Since I work for the Gov't I have noticed certain old school gun store owners have given me some creepy stare's when I came in their store. And I dont doubt for a second that if guns were banned the hard core owners would shoot me dead if I showed up to remove their guns. But I dont judge the majority of responsible gun owners by the example of the minority of nut jobs

[Staredge]

As for arming teachers.... I'm all for it. No one is suggesting giving EVERY teacher a gun. I think that any teacher who wants to should be given the opportunity. They have to go through the concealed carry permit process and be approved for that. Multiple safety and defense courses. The police have to be involved, and there should be training involved with the entire school on how to handle a lockdown situation (which should happen anyway). I think THIS (http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/6067353-Newtown-shooting-Why-Minutemen-can-protect-against-active-shooters/) sounds logical and reasonable. I see this whole thing through multiple eyes. As a parent, as a teacher, as a husband of a teacher, as a friend of teachers. I'll die trying to defend my students.....I'd just like a chance to defend them.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Sorry, maybe my questions wasn't clear. So it seems you have a gun purely for (home) defense. Which of course is fine. But would you say it's a fair comment there's an attitude to guns in the US which is not this pragmatic? ie: Which sexes up guns to the extent people buy and own weapons which far excede the requirement for (home) defense? Multiple hand guns, more power that required, shot guns, assault rifles etc etc.

I'm simply wondering if a step to reigning in America's love affair with the gun - which to some of us appears slightly unhealthly - would be to try and return the ownership of guns back to it being a functional tool, rather than a fashion accessory? A single adequate gun, rather than multiple unecessarily powerful guns?

You know I'm fascinated this is used as a reason for owning guns. Can you really imagine a foreign power trying to invade the UK, yet alone the US with the size & power of its military? To suggest there's even the risk there bemuses me?!

I haven't seen a gun commercial that sexes up gun ownership, nor any other ad material that makes it sexy to own guns. I don't subscribe to gun magazines, so I can't say with any certainty sexing up of guns takes place. I am not even referring to bikini clad women, or whatever arouses the mind to want to own the biggest most powerful gun you can get your hands on.

Though, I used to joke with the clerks at one gun shop in MD that gun ownership is no different than car ownership. They joked I drove mustangs to add inches to my cock... my response was your wife doesn't complain. But I knew these guys so I could get away with it. However, I would flip the script on them as well when the owner would show off with his new AK-47, or whatever new firearm he was bragging about that week or particular day i stopped in.

I guess I never really cared what makes people excited about the bigger better gun... nor can I cimplain, I mean i could, I see no reason anyone should own an M16 for home defense when a 9mm or 12 gauge would do the trick. All someone has to hear is the hammer clicking back or the shucking of a 12 gauge to know breaking into that house was a mistake of epic proportions. However, if I complain louder about it, that makes me a hypocrite, because one could say there is no reason for me to own a 420 HP muscle car, or to spend thousands more to make it faster. It could be the same thing that makes me want to own a mustang and make it faster that makes someone who loves guns make it more powerful, or own the most powerful model.

I assume if Sigmund Fraud was still around he would concur they are both penile extension tools.


Why should I be limited in how many guns I own? I happen to enjoy shooting them. I use some of them for hunting. To be honest, mine aren't there for home defense so much, as all mine are small caliber. (I could use them that way if necessary though) If I'm a law abiding citizen, why does anyone care what I own? If I'm a criminal, why do I care how many I'm legally allowed to own? I can't figure out why people have such a hard time understanding that some people just like to shoot different types of guns. There are any number of shooting competitions out there. Cowboy Action, 3-Gun, Long Range rifle....the list goes on.

As for dealing with a tyrannical government....as has been said before, ask the Vietnamese and the Afghanis how well it goes against a technologically superior force. Add in the fact that good chunks of the military would probably not go up against their neighbors. Is it a real concern of mine? Not really, but I can certainly see a greater possibility if we were disarmed.

I am not sure if we were disarmed that our men and women would go against us. i could be wrong, but if the US government thinks it could exert that kind of control over the military it would be seriously mistaken. You have a few NUTS who would probably obey the order, but the vast majority of enlisted men and women I think would stand on the side of the citizens.

I don't think anyone should be limited in the ownership of firearms to the number of guns you own... I guess I am just trying to see the benefit, like some others, of why someone needs to own an AK-47, other than to say...

"Dude, come check out my AK-47. It's fucking bad ass man. I can drop this bitch in mud, pick it up and still tear someone a new ass. It's fucking awesome man."

G

[babomb]

As for arming teachers.... I'm all for it. No one is suggesting giving EVERY teacher a gun. I think that any teacher who wants to should be given the opportunity. They have to go through the concealed carry permit process and be approved for that. Multiple safety and defense courses. The police have to be involved, and there should be training involved with the entire school on how to handle a lockdown situation (which should happen anyway). I think THIS (http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/6067353-Newtown-shooting-Why-Minutemen-can-protect-against-active-shooters/) sounds logical and reasonable. I see this whole thing through multiple eyes. As a parent, as a teacher, as a husband of a teacher, as a friend of teachers. I'll die trying to defend my students.....I'd just like a chance to defend them. That's exactly the type of thing I've been thinking about. Since of course you can't arm every teacher, there should be security officers in place.
Israel uses armed teachers. And I've never heard of an incident where it has created an "OK Corral" situation where bullets are flying everywhere indiscriminately. That fear is trumped up by people who just see guns as being these scary death machines. People who's exposure to guns is based only on what they see on TV. These are the people who see getting rid of guns entirely as the 1 and only solution to the problem, and they don't even want to hear any other possible solutions. If you don't agree with them then your opinion doesn't matter and you're part of the problem. They're scared, sheepish and over-emotional. Which makes them easily manipulated into surrendering not only their own rights, but the rights of everyone else.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm simply wondering if a step to reigning in America's love affair with the gun - which to some of us appears slightly unhealthly - would be to try and return the ownership of guns back to it being a functional tool, rather than a fashion accessory? A single adequate gun, rather than multiple unnecessarily powerful guns? What's an adequate gun? In terms of home defense, a shot from from a pistol round to the head or heart will make someone just as dead as a shot from a rifle or shotgun. What does "unnecessarily powerful" mean? We aren't talking about grenade launchers or anything like that. A firearm is only as powerful as the round it shoots. So a .223 round from an assault rifle does the same damage as a .223 from a hunting rifle. The only difference is the way the rifle looks, and the way it looks has no bearing on its power.
Assault rifles only look menacing because they're associated with war. And then some assault rifles look more menacing than other assault rifles. But looks are deceiving there. Same with shotguns. Sawed off(short barrel) shotguns look more menacing than full length shotguns. Pistols too. Semi auto pistols look more menacing than revolvers. But they really aren't.
This is one of the troubling aspects of this whole thing. People think there should be restrictions on certain firearms, but they don't know anything about the firearms they want to restrict.





You know I'm fascinated this is used as a reason for owning guns. Can you really imagine a foreign power trying to invade the UK, yet alone the US with the size & power of its military? To suggest there's even the risk there bemuses me?! We have a large and powerful military right now. But that could be a different story 10 years down the road. It would also be a different story if we were involved in different wars abroad, if our military were spread too thin and national guard troops were even activated and sent somewhere in the middle east. Alot can happen in todays unstable world. In all reality, if there were to be an invasion of the US/UK it wouldn't be from a single foreign power. It would be a coalition of multiple nations. And you can't deny that America is hated by many nations.
This isn't to say that I think this is gonna happen anytime soon, or at all for that matter. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's impossible, or that the notion itself is bemusing. I think it's more likely that a foreign power or coalition would assimilate themselves into our society for the purpose of subversion. Just look at the current state of affairs in the US right now. Obama is reducing Americas nuclear arsenal, while other nations that are nuclear capable are not, and some are working toward becoming nuclear capable. Obama is degrading our economy further and further. Which weakens us and our military. He's also strengthening Arab resolve against us with his drone strikes. He's subverting our relationship with nations that are allies such as the UK.
There's a whole lot of people in the US that believe Obama is trying to reduce our influence across the world, and weakening the economy on purpose in an effort to make it difficult for us to regain that influence. I'm not saying that's definitely happening, but there's a good case to be made in favor of that theory.
And on top of everything else that's going on, now Obama wants to restrict firearms. Effectively weakening the peoples ability to defend themselves. So when you add all this up, do you seriously not see a pattern emerging?
I'm seriously wondering. Because I keep hearing you guys say that our reasons for owning firearms are invalid. So do you really think we're all imagining all of this stuff? That it's business as usual over here, and that we really have no realistic cause for concern? Do you honestly think that our concerns about our liberties being stripped away all boils down to just paranoia?

[Neil]

What's an adequate gun? In terms of home defense, a shot from from a pistol round to the head or heart will make someone just as dead as a shot from a rifle or shotgun. What does "unnecessarily powerful" mean? We aren't talking about grenade launchers or anything like that. A firearm is only as powerful as the round it shoots. So a .223 round from an assault rifle does the same damage as a .223 from a hunting rifle. The only difference is the way the rifle looks, and the way it looks has no bearing on its power.
Assault rifles only look menacing because they're associated with war. And then some assault rifles look more menacing than other assault rifles. But looks are deceiving there. Same with shotguns. Sawed off(short barrel) shotguns look more menacing than full length shotguns. Pistols too. Semi auto pistols look more menacing than revolvers. But they really aren't.
This is one of the troubling aspects of this whole thing. People think there should be restrictions on certain firearms, but they don't know anything about the firearms they want to restrict.




Effectively weakening the peoples ability to defend themselves. So when you add all this up, do you seriously not see a pattern emerging?

Because I keep hearing you guys say that our reasons for owning firearms are invalid. So do you really think we're all imagining all of this stuff? That it's business as usual over here, and that we really have no realistic cause for concern? Do you honestly think that our concerns about our liberties being stripped away all boils down to just paranoia?

In an attempt to make my point... Over on another thread, this image was posted...

This, as the owner put it, was before "I really started to collect guns".
http://www.njrod.com/images/ocuknothotlinked/wall2.jpg


Can I ask do you think that picture in anyway suggests what the 2nd amendment was aimed at? Does that wall help this individual retain his freedom any more than a single gun? Does a wall of guns help protect his fellow citizens? Or does is this unhealthy gung-ho attitude towards guns, and their ease of access, become part of the problem? Does this huge array of death and destruction pose more of a threat to others than it in turn offers security to an individual?

To me - and I don't mean to sound condescending - it feels to me Americans have go so carried away with their supposed own freedom and their own rights, that they've forgotten that it may come at the expense of other peoples'. Would it really be so bad if you could only own one gun and a limited supply of ammunition? If this could help prevent some shootings wouldn't that be a good compromise?

And as I've said before, I don't pretend to know what the answer to shootings like we've witness over and over in the US, but I know the somewhat sick love affair we seem to witness with devices designed to kill can't help the problem.

[Tricky]

Some of the photos on here amaze me, why does any civilian need a minigun or belt fed .50cal tripod mounted machine gun?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/9690407/The-Big-Sandy-Machine-Gun-Shoot-in-Arizona.html?frame=2403831

[Neil]

I actually have no issue at all with what ever guns people want at all at a firing range... It's when there's the desire to have a small arsenal in your cupboard I cannot fathom. Seems more down to reasons of bling than anything to do with sensible and justified home defense?

[DjfunkmasterG]

And you can't deny that America is hated by many nations.

Maybe if we weren't such cocksuckers, we wouldn't be hated as much. We do have a snobbery to us that tends to even piss off our allies.

[babomb]

Can I ask do you think that picture in anyway suggests what the 2nd amendment was aimed at? Does that wall help this individual retain his freedom any more than a single gun? Does a wall of guns help protect his fellow citizens? Or does is this unhealthy gung-ho attitude towards guns, and their ease of access, become part of the problem? Does this huge array of death and destruction pose more of a threat to others than it in turn offers security to an individual? I think that's exactly what the 2nd amendment was aimed at. For 1 thing, the top 3 firearms to the left in that image are antiques. In no way considered assault rifles as their capacity is limited to 6 rounds at best, and they're bolt action firearms not semi-auto. The bottom rifle to the left is a kalashnikov variant, also a collector firearm, and depending on the manufacture date it could also be an antique. We also don't know the details of this persons situation. So the AR variants on the right could be for other members of his family or friends. They're on display, but he most likely keeps them locked up in a gun safe because that's alot of money to have sitting around like that. If this guy is a responsible owner then I don't see a problem with him owning those firearms. Just because he displays them in a photo like that doesn't mean they're freely available for someone to walk in and grab to go shoot a bunch of innocent people with.




To me - and I don't mean to sound condescending - it feels to me Americans have go so carried away with their supposed own freedom and their own rights, that they've forgotten that it may come at the expense of other peoples'. Would it really be so bad if you could only own one gun and a limited supply of ammunition? If this could help prevent some shootings wouldn't that be a good compromise? It doesn't have to come at the expense of the rights of others. I believe there's a way to curtail that without denying anyone any rights at all.
I do see a problem with only owning a single firearm and limited ammunition. How would you choose that single firearm? If you choose a pistol for home defense, then you can't own a rifle or shotgun suitable for hunting or sport shooting. People who own competition firearms and take part in actual competitions can go through several hundred rounds in an afternoon. Whether for practice or in a match. So to ease the cost of all those rounds they reload their own shells. Under that rule you propose, none of that is possible at all. Also for hunting you're often required to have several different firearms for different uses. To hunt ducks and water fowl you need a long barrel shotgun with an adjustable choke. If you want to hunt deer in a state where using high powered rifles for hunting is illegal you need a shotgun with a rifled barrel. You don't shoot buckshot through a rifled barrel and you don't shoot slugs through a smoothbore.
Then you have remote places such as Alaska where people hunt to eat, to survive the winters. And all resources have to be brought in by truck and there's often several months of the year that bringing supplies in isn't possible. So people stock up on supplies such as ammo to have enough for the whole winter. Because they might run into a situation where they can't get more for an extended period. Then they can't hunt, and their families don't eat.
It's also more cost effective to buy a large amount of ammo at once, or to buy a reloading machine, powder and primers. Many Americans also fear the breakdown of society, and a situation where they're unable to obtain more ammo and food. Which isn't an unfounded concern, and that concern is also trumped up by the media and entertainment industry. So in a situation like that, be it a natural disaster or economic collapse, or both, limiting people to a single firearm and a small amount of ammunition could be a detriment to peoples ability to protect themselves and the ability to provide for their families. So under the situation you propose, peoples ability to survive and thrive in certain situations is seriously limited due to the actions of a few nutjobs.
So basically what you're saying is that the nutjobs that shoot up schools, malls , and theaters should set the bar for everyone else. That the actions of these insane criminals should be allowed to determine the future of the firearms industry, the hunting industry, and law abiding citizens ability to protect themselves and provide for their families.
I'm saying that people like that shouldn't be given such power and influence over an entire society.



And as I've said before, I don't pretend to know what the answer to shootings like we've witness over and over in the US, but I know the somewhat sick love affair we seem to witness with devices designed to kill can't help the problem. I agree with that. There is a sick love affair with firearms in this country. However, that's an issue of the free market for the most part. How do you solve that? How do you impose restrictions on marketing and advertising without having an adverse effect on an already failing economy?

[Neil]

It doesn't have to come at the expense of the rights of others. I believe there's a way to curtail that without denying anyone any rights at all.
I do see a problem with only owning a single firearm and limited ammunition. How would you choose that single firearm? If you choose a pistol for home defense, then you can't own a rifle or shotgun suitable for hunting or sport shooting. People who own competition firearms and take part in actual competitions can go through several hundred rounds in an afternoon. Whether for practice or in a match. So to ease the cost of all those rounds they reload their own shells. Under that rule you propose, none of that is possible at all. Also for hunting you're often required to have several different firearms for different uses. To hunt ducks and water fowl you need a long barrel shotgun with an adjustable choke. If you want to hunt deer in a state where using high powered rifles for hunting is illegal you need a shotgun with a rifled barrel. You don't shoot buckshot through a rifled barrel and you don't shoot slugs through a smoothbore.
You've surely chosen the exeption to the rule? Can we consider Mr Average Joe who lives in a city. He will never go shooting, or take part in competitions. Yet stands a good chance of being allowed to own dozens of firearms with more firepower than a small police station. Does this make sense? Look at the image I 'spoilered' above. Does that look like a hunter or competition shooter to you? It's posted by a Mr Average Joe though, and pre-dates the other guns he's now added!?

[babomb]

Some of the photos on here amaze me, why does any civilian need a minigun or belt fed .50cal tripod mounted machine gun?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/9690407/The-Big-Sandy-Machine-Gun-Shoot-in-Arizona.html?frame=2403831 Average citizens don't own those. Those can only be owned by firearms dealers that are licensed and authorized to own them. Normal folks show up to events like that to shoot them, but they can't bring them home.
Those weapons are designed and manufactured by private companies that are contracted by the department of defense, part of the military industrial complex. Because private industries are better suited to develop weapons like that. The same is true for all industrialized nations.
But that doesn't mean that I can buy one and bring it home to mount on the back of a pickup truck.

[Neil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20838729 - Piers Morgan: Thousands petition for deportation

This is fantastic! So people ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd.

[Publius]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20838729 - Piers Morgan: Thousands petition for deportation

This is fantastic! So people ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd.

I guess that's the kind of mindset that results when people get the idea that you can pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights to enforce.

[babomb]

Maybe if we weren't such cocksuckers, we wouldn't be hated as much. We do have a snobbery to us that tends to even piss off our allies. I agree 100% there.


You've surely chosen the exeption to the rule? Can we consider Mr Average Joe who lives in a city. He will never go shooting, or take part in competitions. Yet stands a good chance of being allowed to own dozens of firearms with more firepower than a small police station. Does this make sense? Look at the image I 'spoilered' above. Does that look like a hunter or competition shooter to you? It's posted by a Mr Average Joe though, and pre-dates the other guns he's now added!? Ok. But how do you restrict Joe Average from owning multiple firearms and ammo but still allow others to own multiple firearms for hunting and competition shooting? If there was a special license needed for hunting and competition shooting then people will just take up those hobbies, acquire the license and continue on. As to the exception to the rule, well, that represents a sizeable portion of firearm owners.

- - - Updated - - -


I guess that's the kind of mindset that results when people get the idea that you can pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights to enforce. Exactly right. While I myself am not on that deportation bandwagon, I can see why others are. I watched those debates with Peirs Morgan and he was acting like a total douche. Wouldn't allow his guests to even get a complete sentence out of their mouths before he started his heated rants. Complete with name calling and finger pointing.
He's certainly entitled to his own opinion on the matter. Had he gone about it in a more respectful manner and not acted like such a douche bag about it on national television, calling names and shit, nobody would've cared. Especially since he's done this before. He had Micheal moore on his show and they discussed gun control. It was a polite and civil discussion, and nobody had a problem with it. No petitions for deportation were introduced.
The Bill Of Rights is non-negotiable. It's the backbone of America. People need to respect that and stop acting like it's an outdated document that has no place in modern society. That's what gets Americans riled up and pissed off. It's one thing to discuss the issue of gun control, it's a completely different ballgame when during that discussion someone begins to disregard or cast aside the BOR. That's when the situation becomes a powder keg.
You don't hear Americans arguing about the rights that Brits should be allowed to have under the Magna Carta. Those are your rights. It's not our place to decide those things or to pass judgement on them. If Brits are happy with very restrictive firearms laws, that's fine, we'll support you in that. If you want to repeal those laws and establish your own right to bear arms, great, we'll support you in that too. If you want to discuss our right to bear arms, that's ok too, just be respectful of that right. We don't have a problem with any of this. The problem only comes into play when Brits come over here, and are welcomed by us, and enjoy our way of life while working to undermine or subvert our constitutional rights. Especially when those rights were, in part, established to protect us from you.

[DjfunkmasterG]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20838729 - Piers Morgan: Thousands petition for deportation

This is fantastic! So people ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd.

A Texan started Neil... would you expect anything less?

[Publius]

Ok. But how do you restrict Joe Average from owning multiple firearms and ammo but still allow others to own multiple firearms for hunting and competition shooting?


The statist approach is to simply declare that what's good enough for Joe Average ought to be good enough for everyone. See Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" for a satirical take on what lies down that road.

[babomb]

Here's a good sentiment.
1181

On a side note, this image is from facebook. They have all these weird groups and pages for political ideologies and all they do is send out memes like this. Day in and day out. So they either have an automated system that sends these out, or they have people posting shit in shifts, 24 hours a day. They all claim to be spreading the truth. The shit is interesting sometimes. But really it's just a distraction. People are being indoctrinated by this shit and they don't even know it. By sharing the shit they put out it makes people feel like they're doing something by spreading the word. So they're less likely to act.
And you know the government uses it to monitor people. During Arab Spring the media was talking it up, saying how facebook was a useful tool in organizing protests.:lol:

It's basically just a huge database system. It stores peoples personal information, then as you interact with it you associate yourself with all these interests and activities. And since it's all just data, all those things you associate yourself with are automatically categorized and keyword ready. All that's needed is a query engine.

Crazy ass world.

[strayrider]

Ok. But how do you restrict Joe Average from owning multiple firearms and ammo...

You don't.

:D

-stray-

[Neil]

You don't.

:D

-stray-

Here's a Joe Average with the guns you'd let him have then - How's that working for you at the moment?

http://www.radaronline.com/sites/radaronline.com/files/imagecache/350width/adam-lanza-weapons.jpg

- - - Updated - - -


You don't hear Americans arguing about the rights that Brits should be allowed to have under the Magna Carta. Those are your rights. It's not our place to decide those things or to pass judgement on them. If Brits are happy with very restrictive firearms laws, that's fine, we'll support you in that. If you want to repeal those laws and establish your own right to bear arms, great, we'll support you in that too. If you want to discuss our right to bear arms, that's ok too, just be respectful of that right. We don't have a problem with any of this. The problem only comes into play when Brits come over here, and are welcomed by us, and enjoy our way of life while working to undermine or subvert our constitutional rights. Especially when those rights were, in part, established to protect us from you.
Sorry, but we've had gun threads here before where Americans have tried endorsing gun ownership here in the UK?

And to clarify, I'm not suggesting the 2nd amendment should be revoked. I'm suggesting its interpretation has got carried away, and that americans have gone far beyond what it was meant when it was written hundreds of years ago. Do you think they envisaged dozens of guns and assault rifles etc? Has gun ownership got carried away for personal pleasure (greed?) instead of personal protection?

Maybe gun ownership laws needs adjusting to bring it back into sensible land.

[strayrider]

Here's a Joe Average with the guns you'd let him have then - How's that working for you at the moment?

http://www.radaronline.com/sites/radaronline.com/files/imagecache/350width/adam-lanza-weapons.jpg

That is not "a" Joe Average. That is a young man with a mental disorder. Joe Unaverage, so to speak. I would not let that kid have a kitten, much less a firearm. Why would you suggest that I, a Joe Average, would even allow such a thing?

Shall we restrict Average to accommodate Unaverage? Shall we lower the bar? Shall we allow the inmates to run the shithouse? Sir, I think not! Offer up a solution to the Unaverage problem that does not include holding Average responsible for Unaverage's behavior. Please.

:D

-stray-

- - - Updated - - -


And to clarify, I'm not suggesting the 2nd amendment should be revoked. I'm suggesting its interpretation has got carried away, and that americans have gone far beyond what it was meant when it was written hundreds of years ago. Do you think they envisaged dozens of guns and assault rifles etc?

Of course not. Hundreds of years ago Americans were too dumb to think that technology could actually advance (even though technology was expanding at an astounding rate) and that firearms beyond muzzle-loaders were even possible. It is therefore insane for us to even consider that Jefferson et al believed that any advancement in the realm of arms improvement would include weapons in civilian hands that might almost match those possessed by the military.

In order to maintain the "security of a free state" they meant that muskets would always be the weapon of the day, because they were too stupid to realize what was happening in the world in terms of armament. In their ignorance, they never suspected that newer, improved weapons systems would emerge. Therefore, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, we should read it as implying that: "although technology has advanced, the right of the people to own anything more than black powder muskets shall not be infringed; however, no man of sound mind shall ever be allowed to own more than one musket and a limited supply of powder and shot for said musket for such might be considered "greedy"."

:D

-stray-

[Neil]

That is not "a" Joe Average. That is a young man with a mental disorder. Joe Unaverage, so to speak. I would not let that kid have a kitten, much less a firearm. Why would you suggest that I, a Joe Average, would even allow such a thing?

Yet he had access to a nice little arsenel, including an assault rifle... Why was there even the need for an assault rifle in the house? To me, it seems the presence of that assault rifle posed more of a threat to others, than security to the owner!?

[Tricky]

Shall we restrict Average to accommodate Unaverage? Shall we lower the bar? Shall we allow the inmates to run the shithouse? Sir, I think not! Offer up a solution to the Unaverage problem that does not include holding Average responsible for Unaverage's behavior. Please.



There used to be a solution before it became a cardinal sin to lock these people away, so now they walk among us like ticking timebombs while the vast places built to house them safely away from society have become nothing more than photo opportunities for urban explorers
1182

[DjfunkmasterG]

I was born in Bridgeport CT, it is about 25 or so miles from the area of the shooting. When I heard about the shooting I was "shocked" for two reasons... #1 It being an elementary School. #2 the location. I am sure the media has shown the town, trust when I sai this is not a place you would expect this type of stuff to happen or anyone to own an the type of guns he had access too. That area is money, nothing but money. Mostly NY yuppies who reside in CT to be away from the everyday hustle and bustle of the city.

However, to a point Neil made... Neil, keep in mind, stores that sell guns can't diagnose or know if the person they are selling a gun too is unstable, or has mental issues. Those with mental health issues can appear as normal as anyone else you or I may run into on the street in our day to day lives. While to someone living with said individual will notice these quirks faster than the clerk at a gun store who processes paperwork, does the BG check and then sends the individual out the door within 30-60 minutes.

Gun shop owners/distributors are not Mental health professionals.

With this individual, he had access to the guns because his mother purchased the guns for her collection/self. Again, nothing anyone can predict whether it be the government or the store owner selling the guns.

Something about this story bothered me and until last night I couldn't put my finger on it. The media is spinning the hell out of this to scare the shit out of you, which is what they do well, but what they aren't reporting is what features those guns have built into them and how they work. The Bushmaster is a semi-auto rifle, for the civilian market it can only fire one shot every time the trigger is depressed. Whereas the government issued version come with three round burst or fully auto capabilities.

Even the pistols he was carrying are the same set up, Semi-Auto. The media isn't reporting this, they keep focusing ont he terminology of it being an assault rifle, when technically it is far from that because of the safe guards put into place to make it legal for civilian ownership.

Now, does anyone really need a Bushmaster .223 in their home for protection? In my opinion... NO. a 12 gauge or 9mm pistol is suffice. 12 gauge is better in my opinion, but whatever.

Based on the vibe of the country right now and public opinion I see another assault weapons ban going into effect in the next 3-6 months. No 2 ways about it. The NRA is blowing it up to the point it is turning more and more americans against the concept of personal gun ownership, and their own rhetoric is undoing what the NRA was supposed to do, protect gun ownership because they do not have a level headed individual leading them and making solid arguments as to why guns should not be banned, they keep screaming 2nd ammendment right and when applying it to their argument they fail with every word uttered by their own spokesman.

When you get into the politics of the discussion it is a disaster top to bottom. All one side has to do is step away from the politics and craft a solid statement with specific non-argument leading points as they why this tragedy shouldn't affect gun ownership, but the NRA doesn't have that person. They seem to find the biggest loud mouth to lead a rallying cry, the riles up both sides of the issue, and when the words start flying it just adds fuel to the fire.

[Danny]

I think more can be read into this situation about the media than the kid or guns to be honest. It's like chris rock said "what ever happened to just being crazy?". You dont suddenly do this. There is causality to it. But people arent looking for cause. they are looking for blame. because blames comfy. blames a sign to point at and differentiate yourself from. theres plenty of folks with guns in the states, few do something so abhorrent. so what caused it? that should be the forefront of discussion. not what made him do it, but what in him was that unique organisation of random elements coalescing to create this mindset that wants to commit a mass murder in a kingergarden.
I mean the gun things a moot point. Its hard for most of us outside the states to truly get but it seems like taking away the right to bear arms in any degree is like the uk government one day making watching 18 rated movies illegal. its an infringement on a basic freedom we take as given and having it revoked would be nothing short of a facist control of your freedoms. I think i get it more than i used to even though i think guns are still at best a dick compensator for most civilian folks who arent hunters if im honest. but thats a few pages of back and forth on a different topic :lol:
Rambling, but point is, argueing about guns in america changes NOTHING. If this kid could only buy two pistols, you think he would be dissuaded? if he couldn't get any and drove a car into a mall instead he would not do it? or make a compost bomb?
It doesnt matter what makes someone do this. in the right hands nearly everything is a weapon. We should see better mental health care so this kind of shit doesnt come to pass, so the warning signs -if any are recognised beforehand.

Its a little sad that people go "omigod, whats wrong with him!" when they do stuff like this and we never go "hmm, what WAS wrong with him? and how could we have stopped this?" instead of "LETS FIND SOME MEDIA THAT PUSHED HIS MUDER SWITCH TO ON!"

[Neil]

With this individual, he had access to the guns because his mother purchased the guns for her collection/self. Again, nothing anyone can predict whether it be the government or the store owner selling the guns

.
.
.

Now, does anyone really need a Bushmaster .223 in their home for protection? In my opinion... NO. a 12 gauge or 9mm pistol is suffice. 12 gauge is better in my opinion, but whatever.

And this is the point I'm trying to make. Maybe the right to own guns, shouldn't mean so many and so powerful? I think individuals have got too used to having anything and everything they want, rather than what they really just need... And given a 'tool' who's primary function is to kill, maybe the latter is the more sensible approach?

[babomb]

And this is the point I'm trying to make. Maybe the right to own guns, shouldn't mean so many and so powerful? I think individuals have got too used to having anything and everything they want, rather than what they really just need... And given a 'tool' who's primary function is to kill, maybe the latter is the more sensible approach? So who decides what constitutes "need"? Are those needs the same for everyone? How can there be a blanket approach to "need"? Once you start doing that, it's gonna start being used everywhere. Next thing you know it's gonna be, well, Joe Average here only has 2 kids, so his transportation needs can be met with a single car. He doesn't "need" that convertible AND an SUV for his wife to drive only 2 kids to school with. And he doesn't "need" a home with 5 bedrooms and a 2 car garage, he doesn't "need" a flatscreen TV in the basement, the kitchen AND the bedroom. He doesn't "need" that Harley, his son doesn't "need" that quad racer. Hell, he doesn't "need" that $100,000 salary he makes to support his family.
That's a dangerous precedent there Neil! To give a government like the American government the power to decide what peoples needs are, and restrict things according to those needs. If you think for a second that such power would be restricted to the amount or power of the firearms an individual is allowed to have, well, you're either not paying attention or just grasping at straws for a solution.
Seriously, no offense intended to you Neil, but that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. And not only because it applies to firearms, and because I support liberty and the constitution. Because it completely ignores the abuse of power that government is so well known and famous for. I'd rather see all firearm ownership abolished than to allow this government to decide what peoples needs are!!


And to clarify, I'm not suggesting the 2nd amendment should be revoked. I'm suggesting its interpretation has got carried away, and that americans have gone far beyond what it was meant when it was written hundreds of years ago. Do you think they envisaged dozens of guns and assault rifles etc? Has gun ownership got carried away for personal pleasure (greed?) instead of personal protection? There is no interpretation of the 2nd amendment! It means what it says, as it sounds, in very precise and clear language. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What in that sentence leads you to believe that it's subject to interpretation? The mere act of trying to interpret it is wrong, and has been repeatedly struck down by the US supreme court.

[Neil]

So who decides what constitutes "need"? Are those needs the same for everyone?
You seem to be under the impression there's no rules or restrictions at the moment at so what constitutes fair or required? I bet there's a whole load of weapons your average gun nut would love, but isn't allowed to own...

And there's plenty of other example of what the government dictates you don't need. You don't need to drive at 100mph, even though you'd like to, for example. You do not have that right! They've taken it from you for the benefit of the rest of society. To much of a risk to the rest of society! So just maybe, owning too many guns, or too powerful guns, could be construed as to much of an infringement (risk) to the rest of society, than a benefit to you.

As for your analogies about cars, TVs etc etc, it comes across as dreafully desperate - These things primary goal are not to kill efficiently, unless I've miss some mass school-TV'ings recently?



I'd rather see all firearm ownership abolished than to allow this government to decide what peoples needs are!
This just sounds paranoid! The government already does dictate what you need and what you or are not allowed to do for the better good of society.

[babomb]

You seem to be under the impression there's no rules or restrictions at the moment at so what constitutes fair or required? I bet there's a whole load of weapons your average gun nut would love, but isn't allowed to own... Ok. But I don't care what the average gun nut wants and/or isn't allowed to do or own. I only care what the average law abiding citizen has the right to do and own under the US constitution.


And there's plenty of other example of what the government dictates you don't need. You don't need to drive at 100mph, even though you'd like to, for example. You do not have that right! They've taken it from you for the benefit of the rest of society. To much of a risk to the rest of society! So just maybe, owning too many guns, or too powerful guns, could be construed as to much of an infringement (risk) to the rest of society, than a benefit to you. Well, to be accurate, I have the ability to do those things, but if I do them and get caught I pay the consequences. They haven't yet come to the point where cars are only capable of the legal speed limit. And there is nothing under the US constitution that guarantees citizens any rights to do anything involving motor vehicles.


As for your analogies about cars, TVs etc etc, it comes across as dreafully desperate - These things primary goal are not to kill efficiently, unless I've miss some mass school-TV'ings recently? They aren't analogies. I'm not equating these things to firearms. I'm saying that allowing your government to decide what your needs are is a dangerous thing. Having speed limits set is a completely different thing than allowing the government to decide what someones needs are arbitrarily. As has been seen throughout history in the US, when you give power to the government you never get it back. And when you give them an inch, they always take a mile.
Let's look at the speed limit analogy for a moment. We have speed limits, yes. However, we are still able to buy cars that are capable of exceeding those speed limits. Pretty much any car is capable of exceeding the legal speed limit. Citizens are not allowed to walk into schools or theaters and kill people. I'm not advocating for the right of citizens to go around killing people as they wish. I'm saying that it isn't the norm for gun owners to do such things. Just like it isn't the norm for people to do 100mph on a highway that has a speed limit of 65mph. The difference is that if someone does drive 100mph in a 65mph zone, that person is ticketed and they pay the consequences. They don't take away everyones ability to buy cars that can go faster than 65mph because a few people choose to disobey the law and drive 100mph! Do you understand the difference here?

[Publius]

Here's another idea, if we grant that the state should determine what our needs are based on the greater good of society: alcohol and tobacco use kill far more people in the US than "assault weapons," or even than all kinds of firearms put together. And who "needs" to drink or smoke? There's certainly no explicit constitutional right to own alcohol or tobacco. So what reason is there not to ban these substances, for the greater good? Aside from the fact that we tried banning alcohol already (Prohibition), and it failed miserably.

[strayrider]

And this is the point I'm trying to make. Maybe the right to own guns, shouldn't mean so many and so powerful? I think individuals have got too used to having anything and everything they want, rather than what they really just need... And given a 'tool' who's primary function is to kill, maybe the latter is the more sensible approach?

Let's simplify the argument and take home defense, hunting, and sport shooting off the table (they're just fringe benefits anyway). Honestly, to fulfill my obligations to the United States in terms of the 2nd Amendmant I only need one (1) weapon. This weapon must be of the type and function that is nearly equal to those currently used by the military. I believe that a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine would fit this need. In addition to the weapon, I'll also need one thousand (1000) rounds of .223 ammo and a scant few magazines (let's say three (3) thirty (30) rounders).

There, I've limited myself to a relatively low-powered weapon, a handful of magazines, and a limited number of bullets.

If the Colt AR knock-offs look to "scary" for me to own, I'd glady settle for a Mini-14.

Happy?

:D

-stray-

[AcesandEights]

Stray and Publius! Hope your holidays and all else are going well, guys.

/resume debate

- - - Updated - - -


I think more can be read into this situation about the media than the kid or guns to be honest. It's like chris rock said "what ever happened to just being crazy?". You dont suddenly do this. There is causality to it. But people arent looking for cause. they are looking for blame. because blames comfy. blames a sign to point at and differentiate yourself from. theres plenty of folks with guns in the states, few do something so abhorrent. so what caused it? that should be the forefront of discussion. not what made him do it, but what in him was that unique organisation of random elements coalescing to create this mindset that wants to commit a mass murder in a kingergarden.
I mean the gun things a moot point. Its hard for most of us outside the states to truly get but it seems like taking away the right to bear arms in any degree is like the uk government one day making watching 18 rated movies illegal. its an infringement on a basic freedom we take as given and having it revoked would be nothing short of a facist control of your freedoms. I think i get it more than i used to even though i think guns are still at best a dick compensator for most civilian folks who arent hunters if im honest. but thats a few pages of back and forth on a different topic :lol:
Rambling, but point is, argueing about guns in america changes NOTHING. If this kid could only buy two pistols, you think he would be dissuaded? if he couldn't get any and drove a car into a mall instead he would not do it? or make a compost bomb?
It doesnt matter what makes someone do this. in the right hands nearly everything is a weapon. We should see better mental health care so this kind of shit doesnt come to pass, so the warning signs -if any are recognised beforehand.

Its a little sad that people go "omigod, whats wrong with him!" when they do stuff like this and we never go "hmm, what WAS wrong with him? and how could we have stopped this?" instead of "LETS FIND SOME MEDIA THAT PUSHED HIS MUDER SWITCH TO ON!"

My brain is fried from real life stuff going on, so I can't really pull the energy together for an in-depth reply, but this is such an excellent set of points. Mental health has been back-burnered in this country for a long, loooong time, and, because the state of our economy, funds are all too likely to continue to slide.

[Exatreides]

Why not do some of the following things?

Tier gun ownership into several different categories.
Hunting Rifles and Shotguns require a certain license. To get this you have to pass a practical test, and a written test.
Same for Pistols
Same for Assault Rifles. Each one of these licenses require mandatory safety refresher courses.
Each Gun Owner must provide proof of a lockable safe with each new gun purchase. This prevents kids or criminals from simply taking their parents guns and shooting up a school.
Eliminate production of Armor piercing/incendiary/dragon breath rounds for civilian use. Add additional criminal penalties for crimes committed with these rounds.
Each gun purchaser must provide proof from a state licensed and certified Psychiatrist/ Psychologist stating that the owner is in sound state and mind to own a weapon.
Tax on each weapon that goes towards law enforcement, anti violence campaigns, and mental health programs.
Three to six day mandatory waiting period for all fire arms. You want to hunt that bad? Plan ahead guy.

Drop the "We need these weapons in case the government comes." line. I'm in the Army, and If Texas wanted to quit the union. I would have no problem honoring my oath to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic and destroying rebel secessionist chodes. Not that I would have to do much, an AR-15 isn't going to stop a predator drone strike, or a Abrams Tank. General Sherman crushed Confederate forces as he burned through Georgia and the Carolinas, those jerks were armed with nearly identical weapons to Sherman. Now Imagine Sherman having Air strikes, white phosphorus rounds, Tanks, 155mm rounds against an enemy that only can muster what his lightest infantry carry. We could turn any city and any state in America into a parking lot if we wanted to Launch Total war, I'm not talking the limited use of force and precession strikes like in Iraq, but total war. and no amount of poorly trained, AK47 wielding NRA trained asshole has any possible hope of stopping the tide of death would come his way.

[Danny]

My brain is fried from real life stuff going on, so I can't really pull the energy together for an in-depth reply, but this is such an excellent set of points. Mental health has been back-burnered in this country for a long, loooong time, and, because the state of our economy, funds are all too likely to continue to slide.


I think the trouble is mental health for many is a black and white issue. you are sane or "crazy". Which is, well, crazy when so many people you talk to every day probably have some form of mild anxiety disorder, or depression or phobia that fucks with them. It doesnt mean these people are ticking timebombs of murder, they are normal for them. Folks are scared of being seen as damaged or irreparably broken for things like having a recurring stress cough or something silly so if folks wont talk to people about those far smaller issues or course they wont when its a big deal because of our "what would the neighbours think" mentality that ,lets be honest, shared by every goddamn human regardless of race or creed yknow?

[DjfunkmasterG]

And this is the point I'm trying to make. Maybe the right to own guns, shouldn't mean so many and so powerful? I think individuals have got too used to having anything and everything they want, rather than what they really just need... And given a 'tool' who's primary function is to kill, maybe the latter is the more sensible approach?

I disagree with its primary function being "to kill"

It can deter crime from occuring, you can use it to injure or disable a criminal/attacker. You have to think outside of what it is ultimately capable of and consider all of its true functions and purposes.

[krisvds]

I have been a teacher for the better part of fifteen years. I could tell you a thing or two about trying to educate teenagers, the importance of feeling responsible for the wellbeing of other people's children and whatnot.

Every individual who thinks a society that cares about the personal rights of its citizens would find it beneficial to raise and educate their children in an environment where adults stand in front of classrooms packing heat and then claim that this situation makes them feel more 'free' is in my opinion an idiot.

[Neil]

Here's another idea, if we grant that the state should determine what our needs are based on the greater good of society: alcohol and tobacco use kill far more people in the US than "assault weapons," or even than all kinds of firearms put together. And who "needs" to drink or smoke? There's certainly no explicit constitutional right to own alcohol or tobacco. So what reason is there not to ban these substances, for the greater good? Aside from the fact that we tried banning alcohol already (Prohibition), and it failed miserably.

That's a good and fair point... The difference is of course, if I choose to drink or smoke, I don't typically end up contributing towards 20+ dead kids.

But there are similarities of course. The government (or society) is slowly realising the -ve effects of alcohol and smoking, hence the change of freedoms on them. Try smoking in a public place for example... Notice the increasing cost (tax) to deter use?

So society simply needs to decide if people routinely owning more guns than they need, produces a greater threat than society is willing to swallow. And I use "owning more guns than they need" with the caveat being I'm not sure what that realy means. But in the case of Adam Lanza, did his mother really need all three guns she purchased two years ago? Did she really need an assault rifle?

- - - Updated - - -


Why not do some of the following things?

Tier gun ownership into several different categories.
Hunting Rifles and Shotguns require a certain license. To get this you have to pass a practical test, and a written test.
Same for Pistols
Same for Assault Rifles. Each one of these licenses require mandatory safety refresher courses.
Each Gun Owner must provide proof of a lockable safe with each new gun purchase. This prevents kids or criminals from simply taking their parents guns and shooting up a school.
Eliminate production of Armor piercing/incendiary/dragon breath rounds for civilian use. Add additional criminal penalties for crimes committed with these rounds.
Each gun purchaser must provide proof from a state licensed and certified Psychiatrist/ Psychologist stating that the owner is in sound state and mind to own a weapon.
Tax on each weapon that goes towards law enforcement, anti violence campaigns, and mental health programs.
Three to six day mandatory waiting period for all fire arms. You want to hunt that bad? Plan ahead guy.

Drop the "We need these weapons in case the government comes." line. I'm in the Army, and If Texas wanted to quit the union. I would have no problem honoring my oath to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic and destroying rebel secessionist chodes. Not that I would have to do much, an AR-15 isn't going to stop a predator drone strike, or a Abrams Tank. General Sherman crushed Confederate forces as he burned through Georgia and the Carolinas, those jerks were armed with nearly identical weapons to Sherman. Now Imagine Sherman having Air strikes, white phosphorus rounds, Tanks, 155mm rounds against an enemy that only can muster what his lightest infantry carry. We could turn any city and any state in America into a parking lot if we wanted to Launch Total war, I'm not talking the limited use of force and precession strikes like in Iraq, but total war. and no amount of poorly trained, AK47 wielding NRA trained asshole has any possible hope of stopping the tide of death would come his way.

I'm not sure if these are good or bad suggestions, but these are the kind of premise I'm suggesting; A tightening and reducing of weapons and their ease of access... It all seems to darn casual at the moment...

[babomb]

Why not do some of the following things?

Tier gun ownership into several different categories.
Hunting Rifles and Shotguns require a certain license. To get this you have to pass a practical test, and a written test.
Same for Pistols
Same for Assault Rifles. Each one of these licenses require mandatory safety refresher courses.
Each Gun Owner must provide proof of a lockable safe with each new gun purchase. This prevents kids or criminals from simply taking their parents guns and shooting up a school.
Eliminate production of Armor piercing/incendiary/dragon breath rounds for civilian use. Add additional criminal penalties for crimes committed with these rounds.
Each gun purchaser must provide proof from a state licensed and certified Psychiatrist/ Psychologist stating that the owner is in sound state and mind to own a weapon.
Tax on each weapon that goes towards law enforcement, anti violence campaigns, and mental health programs.
Three to six day mandatory waiting period for all fire arms. You want to hunt that bad? Plan ahead guy.

Drop the "We need these weapons in case the government comes." line. I'm in the Army, and If Texas wanted to quit the union. I would have no problem honoring my oath to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic and destroying rebel secessionist chodes. Not that I would have to do much, an AR-15 isn't going to stop a predator drone strike, or a Abrams Tank. General Sherman crushed Confederate forces as he burned through Georgia and the Carolinas, those jerks were armed with nearly identical weapons to Sherman. Now Imagine Sherman having Air strikes, white phosphorus rounds, Tanks, 155mm rounds against an enemy that only can muster what his lightest infantry carry. We could turn any city and any state in America into a parking lot if we wanted to Launch Total war, I'm not talking the limited use of force and precession strikes like in Iraq, but total war. and no amount of poorly trained, AK47 wielding NRA trained asshole has any possible hope of stopping the tide of death would come his way. This is exactly why we need them! Out of curiosity, what is it that makes you see secessionists as an enemy? Or are you just eager to "get some"? Have you not learned anything from the military or history? Insurgents don't need to match the firepower of an organized army. All they have to do is drag things out for an extended period. Inflicting small wounds and making things very difficult.
You'd never be able to match their resolve. Because you're just following orders while they're fighting for their lives. I'm sure you think you can match or even exceed their resolve. But that's just your ego talking. Which has no bearing on reality.

- - - Updated - - -


But there are similarities of course. The government (or society) is slowly realising the -ve effects of alcohol and smoking, hence the change of freedoms on them. Try smoking in a public place for example... Notice the increasing cost (tax) to deter use?
Yeah, that increasing cost/tax is to deter use!? So the idea here is that additional costs on addictive substances will make people stop using it? Not hardly. They'll keep using it, and pay the extra money, and those who impose the tax reap those benefits.

[Publius]

Stray and Publius! Hope your holidays and all else are going well, guys.


Same to you, pal!


We could turn any city and any state in America into a parking lot if we wanted to Launch Total war, I'm not talking the limited use of force and precession strikes like in Iraq, but total war. and no amount of poorly trained, AK47 wielding NRA trained asshole has any possible hope of stopping the tide of death would come his way.

That skips past a rather obvious question: how likely is the relationship between the U.S. military and the civilian population to go directly from normal Posse Comitatus Act situation straight to "total war," skipping heavy-handed military assistance of civilian law enforcement, Iraq-style counterinsurgency operations, and everything in between those levels of force and "total war"? Gun control advocates sneer at the utility (or futility) of "assault weapons" in defeating the regular military in a total war scenario, but the real question is whether they could potentially deter the military from moving against their friends and neighbors on a much lower step of the force continuum.


That's a good and fair point... The difference is of course, if I choose to drink or smoke, I don't typically end up contributing towards 20+ dead kids.

Actually, you do (and I do, and so does everyone else who does not support alcohol prohibition), and in exactly the same way. Drunk drivers kill kids in greater numbers than maniacs with "assault weapons." I don't think that YOU are likely to drive drunk and kill kids, or to go out and shoot kids with an "assault weapon" even if you owned one. But the fact is that the cost of preserving the freedom of reasonable people like you to do either of these things is accepting the risk that some unreasonable people will also abuse the same freedom. If you want to be able to choose to drink, you do so knowing that some people will choose to drink and drive, and some kids will die as a result. The only difference is that drunk drivers kill more kids in smaller batches (usually one or two at a time), while nutcases with "assault weapons" kill fewer kids but occasionally in larger groups. The fact that the spree killings get more attention is merely a fluke of the way the news media works. A Newtown or Columbine shooting is front page news, a dozen fatal drunk driving accidents are background noise.

[strayrider]

Drop the "We need these weapons in case the government comes." line. I'm in the Army, and If Texas wanted to quit the union. I would have no problem honoring my oath to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic and destroying rebel secessionist chodes. Not that I would have to do much, an AR-15 isn't going to stop a predator drone strike, or a Abrams Tank. General Sherman crushed Confederate forces as he burned through Georgia and the Carolinas, those jerks were armed with nearly identical weapons to Sherman. Now Imagine Sherman having Air strikes, white phosphorus rounds, Tanks, 155mm rounds against an enemy that only can muster what his lightest infantry carry. We could turn any city and any state in America into a parking lot if we wanted to Launch Total war, I'm not talking the limited use of force and precession strikes like in Iraq, but total war. and no amount of poorly trained, AK47 wielding NRA trained asshole has any possible hope of stopping the tide of death would come his way.

Let's see, you as an American soldier admit that you would shoot civilians (i.e., chodes) while in the process of violating their Constitutional rights. You further suggest that the use of heavy ordnance against civilian (i.e., chode) targets is acceptable.

Thank you for supporting my argument, however unwittingly. Yup, poorly trained NRA assholes definitely need to hang on to their semi-automatic rifles (especially while elite storm-troopers like Exatreides "The Chode Destroyer" are in "service"). Perhaps the military needs stricter psychological guidelines as to who, and who cannot, serve?

Just kiddin', Ex, we know that you are not mentally disturbed. Wanting to destroy "chodes" is normal. Whatever keeps you warm at night, mon ami.

:D

-stray-

[Neil]

Actually, you do (and I do, and so does everyone else who does not support alcohol prohibition), and in exactly the same way. Drunk drivers kill kids in greater numbers than maniacs with "assault weapons." I don't think that YOU are likely to drive drunk and kill kids, or to go out and shoot kids with an "assault weapon" even if you owned one. But the fact is that the cost of preserving the freedom of reasonable people like you to do either of these things is accepting the risk that some unreasonable people will also abuse the same freedom. If you want to be able to choose to drink, you do so knowing that some people will choose to drink and drive, and some kids will die as a result. The only difference is that drunk drivers kill more kids in smaller batches (usually one or two at a time), while nutcases with "assault weapons" kill fewer kids but occasionally in larger groups. The fact that the spree killings get more attention is merely a fluke of the way the news media works. A Newtown or Columbine shooting is front page news, a dozen fatal drunk driving accidents are background noise.

Fair comment.

We accept alcohol and vehicles as necessary evils, and swallow the cost!

But I have to say, I still really don't see the +ves in owning a bucket full of guns and/or powerful guns (assault rifles) in the name of personal security, outweighing mass shootings!?

[Exatreides]

This is exactly why we need them! Because of people like this guy. Who would obey unconstitutional orders just for a chance to kill some people. Just look at the things he says. This is the problem. They want to restrict firearms in the hands of responsible citizens, but they'll let people like him operate million dollar machines capable of destroying entire cities. And he'll do it without a 2nd thought. He's a tool of the empire of American oppression. He freely admits that he'd have no problem killing thousands of people simply because they want to secede from the union. He's brainwashed completely, willing to kill those who stand up for their own rights.
It's people like that who commit these atrocities. Young males with no respect for human life. But it's Joe Average that shouldn't be trusted with a semi-auto assault rifle?
That's why they don't trust us with firearms. Because we have our own minds still, and stand up for our rights and don't just follow orders. They have no problem giving him a REAL assault rifle that has the ability to shoot 3 round burst and full auto. Because he's under their control.

Actually, I'm a Nurse in the Army.
I treat soldiers who have been shot by assault weapons. You ever see what a 7.62 round does to the gallbladder? Or have to measure the purelent discharge from a jp drain attached to em ? I have.

Have you ever had to explain to a 17 year old kid who was hit in the crossfire in a gangfight, how he's going to have to shit in a plastic bag for the rest of his life? Yeah I've done that. All of this because of gun violence.

I also spent 9 weeks living, sleeping, and cradling my weapon. I can still take it apart and put it together blindfolded. Even though, I don't use one often, I still have more training then any civilian outside of law enforcement or prior military with the weapon. I've watched the night sky erupt with the flames of MLRS munitions, and Artillery rounds streak through the sky at unquestionably astonishing speeds, I've heard the belly of an A-10 and the eruption of it's targets into fine mist.

Secessionists, if they do secede are not Americans, They are Texans, Confederates, Scientologists whatever they want to call themselves. They are not my countrymen at that point, They have no "constitutional rights." Hell I'm stationed in Texas right now, and have to hear this "Leaving the union." Crap all day. You think that Texas would have learned it's lesson after being a failed country once, and joining a failed nation the second time. We are one country, indivisible, with room for ass holes and all.

This is not blood lust, or some 17 year old basic trainee speaking. I've served the Military for over 6 years, All that soldiers creed malarky has long left my blood. Hell, I'm a nurse in the military! So your accusations are kinda funny. I just find it laughable that people still think that they stand any chance, any chance what so ever against the US military. You don't, not at all, you would inflict some casualties yes, you would do some damage, but would never defeat the most weary of Coast Guard or Air Force reservists in battle, let alone battle hardened Marine or Army units. It's frankly rather insulting.


You want change? Get involved politically, support candidates and vote for things you want, call them when they get elected, write letters.
But never think that violent overthrow is even in the most remote possibility. It's not, so stop using that excuse as a reason to own assault rifles.

[Mr. Clean]

Drop the "We need these weapons in case the government comes." line. I'm in the Army, and If Texas wanted to quit the union. I would have no problem honoring my oath to defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic and destroying rebel secessionist chodes. Not that I would have to do much, an AR-15 isn't going to stop a predator drone strike, or a Abrams Tank. General Sherman crushed Confederate forces as he burned through Georgia and the Carolinas, those jerks were armed with nearly identical weapons to Sherman. Now Imagine Sherman having Air strikes, white phosphorus rounds, Tanks, 155mm rounds against an enemy that only can muster what his lightest infantry carry. We could turn any city and any state in America into a parking lot if we wanted to Launch Total war, I'm not talking the limited use of force and precession strikes like in Iraq, but total war. and no amount of poorly trained, AK47 wielding NRA trained asshole has any possible hope of stopping the tide of death would come his way.

You're either single and haven't been active duty very long or you're guardsman/reservist who lacks experience and training. I'm gonna take a guess say Guardsman after your comment last week about leaving the well trained militia to the National Guard and giving them all the guns. Many things wrong with what you say....First of all, you can't have "total war" EVER. At least not the military. There are these rules called "Laws of Armed Conflict"(LOAC) and "Rules of Engagement"(ROE) that YOU as a member of the U.S. Military must play by at all times. If you don't....you are subject to war crimes. Also, You are swearn to support and defend the Constitution. That includes the Bill of Rights. If Democrats tried to force a change to the second amendment and people attempted to pull away from the union, why are you so willing to kill people attempting to defend the Constituation? Are you just going straight to "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me".?

There are a few of the reasons the taliban and other shithead terrorists have been so difficult to deal with. Which is why I say an American Rebel force isn't an instant write-off. Many think that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are a bunch of dumbshits hiding and sleeping in caves. They are not. They shoot RPGs at US troops....and quickly retreat into the woods where Apaches hammer with missles and thousands of rounds only to find bodies of children after everything settles and then the taliban point fingers and start propaganda saying US military kills kids that were chopping wood. Angry family and friends of the dead swear allegiance to their case to get justice for the dead children. They also know how to get what they need. Say they need someone to make explosive detonators. Well, they sabotage a business(electronics for example) so that it will fail....once it fails....the owner can no longer provide for his family and has a huge debt. They then go to said owner and offer him a job to fabricate detonators to go on the bombs they need. The owner really has no choice but to take the offer.

Since we're hitting the debt ceiling on monday....I can't see the military functioning very well if no one is receiving a paycheck. How long you willing to work without a paycheck with a very expensive home-front battle taking place?

You maybe dedicated to a cause but are your fellow coworkers? I do not know what your MOS is but imagine if 2 or 3 didn't show up for work....How much more difficult would you job be then to accomplish? Could you even accomplish it missing that many hands? How many people jumping would it take before you too decided the boat was sinking and jump overboard? It takes dozens of people to launch 1 aircraft. Dozens! Imagine being a few people short. Now that operation is severly hindered.

I can't possibly believe that a Lieutenant Colonel flying an F-15E....Who has flown thousands of sorties, training missions, and hundreds of combat missions.....would weigh the decision of dropping a 5,000lb GBU on a crowd of Americans(rebels) the same as dropping it on some terrorist encampment in Afghanistan. It wouldn't come as easy. The US military is not by any means unstoppable.

There is a book called "Phantom Soldier" which talks about how Asians have developed techniques to negated the advantages of our technology to defeat us in combat throu our wars with them. Again, the US military is not by any means unstoppable.

[facestabber]

Actually, I'm a Nurse in the Army.
I treat soldiers who have been shot by assault weapons. You ever see what a 7.62 round does to the gallbladder? Or have to measure the purelent discharge from a jp drain attached to em ? I have.

Have you ever had to explain to a 17 year old kid who was hit in the crossfire in a gangfight, how he's going to have to shit in a plastic bag for the rest of his life? Yeah I've done that. All of this because of gun violence.

I also spent 9 weeks living, sleeping, and cradling my weapon. I can still take it apart and put it together blindfolded. Even though, I don't use one often, I still have more training then any civilian outside of law enforcement or prior military with the weapon. I've watched the night sky erupt with the flames of MLRS munitions, and Artillery rounds streak through the sky at unquestionably astonishing speeds, I've heard the belly of an A-10 and the eruption of it's targets into fine mist.

Secessionists, if they do secede are not Americans, They are Texans, Confederates, Scientologists whatever they want to call themselves. They are not my countrymen at that point, They have no "constitutional rights." Hell I'm stationed in Texas right now, and have to hear this "Leaving the union." Crap all day. You think that Texas would have learned it's lesson after being a failed country once, and joining a failed nation the second time. We are one country, indivisible, with room for ass holes and all.

This is not blood lust, or some 17 year old basic trainee speaking. I've served the Military for over 6 years, All that soldiers creed malarky has long left my blood. Hell, I'm a nurse in the military! So your accusations are kinda funny. I just find it laughable that people still think that they stand any chance, any chance what so ever against the US military. You don't, not at all, you would inflict some casualties yes, you would do some damage, but would never defeat the most weary of Coast Guard or Air Force reservists in battle, let alone battle hardened Marine or Army units. It's frankly rather insulting.


You want change? Get involved politically, support candidates and vote for things you want, call them when they get elected, write letters.
But never think that violent overthrow is even in the most remote possibility. It's not, so stop using that excuse as a reason to own assault rifles.

The only consolation I can find in all of this is that I have never met a veteran or especially a combat veteran, remotely speak or have the belief system you do. You are a nurse that doesnt like guns. Great. Youve seen bullet wounds and carnage. So have thousands of others, myself included. You are so appalled by gun violence yet speak so freely of US soldiers turning their weapons toward its citizens.

At what point are so confused to think anyone here underestimates the power of the US military? If the military turned on its people we are talking about the end of the US. How effective a resistance would be can be debated but citizens with guns far outnumber soldiers. Have you studied history and conflict? Do you understand how an insurgency or rebellion fights? Its been cited here several times but does Vietnam, Afganistan ring a bell? We all saw the Iraqi Rep Guard roll its tanks onto the battlefield and as expected we demolished them. When their fighters took flight, same result. The people understand that. No one is talking about a violent overthrow but rather to defend themselves if society were to collapse. It is about keeping a 'check' in place to remind the Gov't not to overstep its bounds. And that is at the extreme of the spectrum.

Do you not see how our Gov't has become a nanny state. Telling us what is good for us. It starts small. Always does. But the more freedoms they take away for 'the greater good' the closer to a police state we become. You should consider a career change very soon. After all you volunteered to be a part of a military that uses gun violence against people.

[Neil]

I actually cannot believe I'm reading what I'm reading. That in a modern western society people fear they may need to take up arms against their government/army... Seems so very alien to our mindset over here in the UK!

[babomb]

I actually cannot believe I'm reading what I'm reading. That in a modern western society people fear they may need to take up arms against their government/army... Seems so very alien to our mindset over here in the UK! What's the mindset in the UK? I've been wondering this. I just didn't want to insult anyone by saying what it seems like to me to be the UK mindset. It seems to me that from what you've said, that the mindset is that most UK folks simply trust that your government does things with the best interest of the people in mind. Maybe your government is just that wonderful, I don't live there so I don't know. But in the US we don't have that luxury.
It seems like in the UK, you guys have just accepted the fact that you're ultimately powerless over your government if it were to ever become out of control and a threat to it's people. The US is a nation built by rebels for the express purpose of escaping English rule. So in other words, our founding fathers were men who just could not tolerate the way things were done in your country. So it makes perfect sense that our ways seem alien to you. This is just the way we are. We question authority, and we're constantly suspicious of it.
The basis of that is that this country was founded on the idea that ALL power rests in the hands of the people. The people grant power to the state. It seems that it's the other way around over there in the UK. That's not to say that I think the UK is a dictatorship, I don't think that at all. It's a Monarchy. The US is a Republic. It was setup in such a way that it would never become what the UK is.
IMO, all governments should live in fear of their citizens. It's the only way to guarantee that the people remain free.


This is not blood lust, or some 17 year old basic trainee speaking. I've served the Military for over 6 years, All that soldiers creed malarky has long left my blood. Hell, I'm a nurse in the military! So your accusations are kinda funny. I just find it laughable that people still think that they stand any chance, any chance what so ever against the US military. You don't, not at all, you would inflict some casualties yes, you would do some damage, but would never defeat the most weary of Coast Guard or Air Force reservists in battle, let alone battle hardened Marine or Army units. It's frankly rather insulting. What you fail to recognize is that it doesn't matter if defeat is imminent. We don't believe it is, but that's totally beside the point. Even if defeat is gauranteed, you still fight for your freedoms! You still stand up and die if necessary. That's the American spirit. I'd think that being a soldier you'd understand that very well.
It's troubling that you don't, but you're only 24 so there's still hope for you. But it's very troubling that you're so willing to trade your freedom for a little temporary and false security.


You maybe dedicated to a cause but are your fellow coworkers? I do not know what your MOS is but imagine if 2 or 3 didn't show up for work....How much more difficult would you job be then to accomplish? Could you even accomplish it missing that many hands? How many people jumping would it take before you too decided the boat was sinking and jump overboard? It takes dozens of people to launch 1 aircraft. Dozens! Imagine being a few people short. Now that operation is severly hindered. Not to mention the fact that he's demonstrated the mindset of someone who is only willing to fight when victory is probable. Also, not all soldiers have his mindset. Many are freedom supporters. And won't be as eager as he is to turn their weapons on Americans that are really just trying to take back their rights, according to the concepts that this country was built on. Will soldiers be so willing to kill their fathers and brothers, friends and in-laws if/when the time comes?
What he fails to recognize is that this country was built by rebels, the freedoms he enjoys daily were paid for by the blood of the same people he's so willing to turn his weapon against.
He's a 24 year old soldier. He's just chest thumping. He's against assault rifles because he sees the damage they cause. Yet, he's extremely willing to use those assault rifles against his own people if they have the audacity to try and stand up for themselves against the federal government. He doesn't know which way he's going. He's offended at the thought that Americans would even try to stand up against the power of the military. He has no idea what he's saying or what he stands for. Give him another 10 years(if we have that long) and it'll be a completely different story.

[Exatreides]

Not so much.

A few things. The founding fathers were also the Richest men in America (George Washington was the Richest in the colonies). They encouraged those loyal to the crown to be driven out of their homes at gunpoint and into Canada. They promised huge swaths of land to those soldiers who fought the war, and failed to deliver on most of these promises. When people refused to enlist to fight the British they tossed them in Jail. The American revolution was not a "Good Guys Vs Bad Guys." Sort of deal, it wasn't a Mel Gibson movie. Atrocities were committed on both sides, so lets not bring in "How this country was founded on rebels." argument. Not to mention, we spent quite a few years killing each other to prevent the dissolution of the union.

My intent was to simply say the following: Owning assault rifles for the sole purpose of defending your self from the government is not wise. You will die. If you want change, vote. Do not think that you're AR-15 can stop the US military, you will die. Hell The Government can already do it now simply by calling you a terrorist (Which I don't support). In the case of a state leaving the union. I have no qaums fighting these rebels. if it's simply red neck Texans deciding to quit America because they don't want Obamacare, or something similar. The line between oppressing your own people and WAR is when that state declares independence. They are their own country, and are not Citizens of the United States, but of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Vermont, or whatever. That's vastly different then being told to line up and shoot American Citizens for not paying parking tickets, that's silly.



I know all about the rules of engagement, but when Texan air national guard troops attack Ft. Sill, or Ft. Polk, When American flags are burning and Federal buildings are burning, and the Citizens of Austin attacked and killed by Confederates, do you really think that the US Government is going to launch a limited war? When video reports come in of Pro American's being hung and driven out of the state, popular opinion isn't going to be that high for the rebels. It's a direct attack on National Sovereignty, no different then Mexico claiming Texas for itself, or Canada for Alaska. Hell even if we didn't invade and mop the floor with them, a total economic embargo and freezing of funds would devastate them into poverty. Before long states would break away and rejoin the Union (West Virginia did this in the American civil war).

Yeah fight to the bitter end? Tell that to the Germans, the Poles, The French, the Japanese, or the Former Confederate states, when you don't have the ability to fight, you surrender. Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan are all versions of limited warfare. The Military held back to limit civilian casualties. Threat of M.A.D from the soviets in Vietnam prevented an invasion of North Vietnam, and Iraq/Afghanistan had/have members of the U.N/NATO participation. That was not total war, you have to go back to World War Two for that. An American Civil war would not have to worry about Soviet Missiles or UN troops pulling their forces out, tanks would roll, and rebellions would end. The argument that any state has a right to leave the Union was ended at the conclusion of the civil war. Red Dawn was not a documentary.

The whole point of that comment, was that Assault Rifles are meant for Military and to a lesser degree Law enforcement use. a 5.56 round is terrible to hunt with due to how the round likes to bounce around in victims. Stating that you need it to fight the Government, whose military has been fighting counter insurgents for going on 11 years now is silly. Saying that you should have it with out mandatory classes/licensing/pysch eval is even sillier. I am not a chest beating Hooah soldier, I hate those guys. I'm just stating my opinion. That opinion is, you don't need a fucking AK47, for god damn anything.

[krisvds]

Do you not see how our Gov't has become a nanny state. Telling us what is good for us. It starts small. Always does. But the more freedoms they take away for 'the greater good' the closer to a police state we become. You should consider a career change very soon. After all you volunteered to be a part of a military that uses gun violence against people.

Just out of curiosity: how do you guys see Europe where things like strict gun control and social security are considered quite normal by most of its citizens? Do we live in nanny police states according to you or no?

Some speak so easily of personal freedoms while on a philosophical level the term freedom is hardly ever discussed more deeply than a surface level 'the freedom so I could do whatever I want without anyone telling me differently.' Take the social security system away in Belgium for instance and you end up with a lot of people in poverty. I believe it was Roosefelt who said freedom from want was one of four capital freedoms. Without it you simply are not free. Giving everyone the freedom to arm themselves, 'responsible' people or no, is viewed by some (including me) as something that makes them feel less free. And I say this without endorsing police state - like politics or tirannical governments. It's just not that black and whit clear cut simple.

You live in a society where people should have the freedom to express themselves, live out their lives freely. That means your personal freedoms end where those of others begin. As far as I'm aware a democracy is still the least broken of all systems wherein that is possible.

[strayrider]

That opinion is, you don't need a fucking AK47, for god damn anything.

Sure we do. To act as a deterrent against guv'ment oppression. Sort of, but not exactly, like M.A.D.

One thing that you consistently fail to consider in your scenarios is that the patriot groups (pro-gun, pro-traditional American values) will manned, at least in part, by ex-military personnel; some will be combat vets, trained in the use of the equipment that you are currently issued. They will be trained in insurgency/counter-insurgency operations as well. Civilians, armed with military-style, semi-automatic weapons will rally around them.

You also fail to consider that some regular military units will not follow orders to "kill chodes". These non-chode killers will simply turn their weapons against whoever is issuing the "kill chodes" order and, further, might decide to neutralize those foolish enough (e.g., you and your ilk) to follow such atrocious orders. It would be a situation of non-chode killers killing chode killers.

You are really quite naive if you think it would simply be: US Armed Forces versus the Chodes.

That is why myself and other NRA assholes (and other individuals who opt not to be NRA assholes) choose to remain armed and prepared for the worst. We need our AK-47s (and our ARs and our Mini-14s, etc.) to support the non-chode killers currently serving in the military.

Be forewarned Chode Killers; if you dare turn the weapons that we expect you to use in our defense, provided for through the sweat of our collective brow, against us; get ready for hell.

You, Ex, might want to reconsider your elitist position on this matter. Your greatest threat lies not with the chodes that you wish to kill, but from a bullet to the back of your skull fired at the onset of hostilities by a soldier whose family happens to be chodes. Then again, if their family is made up of chodes, they're probably chodes too. If not chodes, then NRA assholes, yes?

:D

-stray-

[Mr. Clean]

I actually cannot believe I'm reading what I'm reading. That in a modern western society people fear they may need to take up arms against their government/army... Seems so very alien to our mindset over here in the UK!

It is rather annoying that our politicans have divided the nation to this extent.

[Neil]

What's the mindset in the UK? I've been wondering this. I just didn't want to insult anyone by saying what it seems like to me to be the UK mindset. It seems to me that from what you've said, that the mindset is that most UK folks simply trust that your government does things with the best interest of the people in mind. Maybe your government is just that wonderful, I don't live there so I don't know. But in the US we don't have that luxury.
How do you not have that luxury? How many times have you had to rise up against your government/military in the past few generations?



It seems like in the UK, you guys have just accepted the fact that you're ultimately powerless over your government if it were to ever become out of control and a threat to it's people. The US is a nation built by rebels for the express purpose of escaping English rule. So in other words, our founding fathers were men who just could not tolerate the way things were done in your country. So it makes perfect sense that our ways seem alien to you. This is just the way we are. We question authority, and we're constantly suspicious of it.
1) I just don't think any of us can reasonably envisage that happening. Hence it just seeming paranoid? When's the last time it took place in the US for example? When did an armed civilian force need to take action against the government?
2) How are we powerless? We, the public, ultimately control virtually every power supply, drop of water and piece of food in the country? You suddenly expect some mind controlling drug to coerce soldiers into making people do things against their will by force?



So in other words, our founding fathers were men who just could not tolerate the way things were done in your country. So it makes perfect sense that our ways seem alien to you. This is just the way we are. We question authority, and we're constantly suspicious of it.Twice in the past 100 years we've faught vicious wars against Germany. Yet, we now get on with them perfectly well, and all is forgotten now - Infact we're rather good at that sort of thing! Time's moved on, civilisation has moved on and so have we... Maybe it's time for the US to move on from X hundred year old history and mindsets?


No insult indended, just letting you know my mindset/POV on this!

And to put this into context, I'm not even suggesting people in the US losing their guns. Only looking at losing some of them and/or the more powerful ones...

- - - Updated - - -


It is rather annoying that our politicans have divided the nation to this extent.

Explain? You think politicians in the US have resulted in some of the US public distrusting the goverment that much?

[babomb]

Neil, I don't know how else to explain it. Maybe your government is not as authoritarian as ours. Our presidents don't need the consent of congress to do anything anymore. They passed a law that gives them the power to incarcerate US citizens without due process. They passed a law that makes protesting anywhere near a federal building or where any politician that's protected by the secret service is, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The cops here beat and tase people daily, for exercising their rights.
Our government has created an atmosphere where they're allowed to do whatever they please, unrestricted by the checks and balances built into the system. They use our tax dollars to bail out financial institutions that blatantly break the law instead of holding them accountable.
They disregard and trample the rights of the people daily. They do not represent the people anymore. This is an incredibly bad situation for a nation founded on the concepts of freedom. And this just keeps happening at a quicker and quicker pace.
To you, an outsider looking in, this seems to be about guns and the laws regarding them. But to us this is just another case of the government taking away our rights. Just another instance of a president curtailing the checks and balances that the constitution put in place to protect us.
Our president has already said that this new gun legislature will happen without having to go through congress. That's not the way things are supposed to be done. There's a reason why these things are supposed to go through congress. it's a checks and balances safeguard.
It's to the point where the only things we can trust our government to do is lie, spend our tax dollars, and actively work to deny us our rights. They lie to us on such a regular basis that we have no choice but to always assume they're lying and withholding information.
We don't choose this! This isn't the way we want things. But it's just the way things are. Maybe you have to be from here, and experience it to understand it.


A few things. The founding fathers were also the Richest men in America (George Washington was the Richest in the colonies). They encouraged those loyal to the crown to be driven out of their homes at gunpoint and into Canada. They promised huge swaths of land to those soldiers who fought the war, and failed to deliver on most of these promises. When people refused to enlist to fight the British they tossed them in Jail. The American revolution was not a "Good Guys Vs Bad Guys." Sort of deal, it wasn't a Mel Gibson movie. Atrocities were committed on both sides, so lets not bring in "How this country was founded on rebels." argument. Not to mention, we spent quite a few years killing each other to prevent the dissolution of the union. War is a horrible thing. That's why it should be avoided if at all possible. But some things are worth fighting for. This country gained it's independence through war, by rebels. They committed atrocities, sure. If you choose to condemn them for their actions, that's on you. I don't choose that. I choose not to be a self-loathing American. There's never been a case in the history of the world where a nation fighting for it's Independence didn't get its hands dirty in the process. And nobody is making the claim that the founders were saints. I'm just saying that I happen to see the brilliance in the constitution, which I attribute to the nations success as the worlds youngest superpower. And I'd like to see the country continue to use the constitution as its guide. I don't believe that we can pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we follow.
I'm sorry you don't agree with that.


My intent was to simply say the following: Owning assault rifles for the sole purpose of defending your self from the government is not wise. You will die. If you want change, vote. Do not think that you're AR-15 can stop the US military, you will die. Hell The Government can already do it now simply by calling you a terrorist (Which I don't support). In the case of a state leaving the union. I have no qaums fighting these rebels. if it's simply red neck Texans deciding to quit America because they don't want Obamacare, or something similar. The line between oppressing your own people and WAR is when that state declares independence. They are their own country, and are not Citizens of the United States, but of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Vermont, or whatever. That's vastly different then being told to line up and shoot American Citizens for not paying parking tickets, that's silly. I don't remember saying anything about executing people for not paying parking tickets. That's not even a relevant issue. Nobody is saying that guns should be the 1st option to use when you want to create change. But, people don't really have alot of faith in the electoral process anymore. And I completely understand why. But that's a different discussion. The point is that the 2nd amm is a failsafe for when democracy becomes corrupt and perverse, and is no longer an effective method for people to exercise control. That's it's intent. And I believe in it. How you feel about that is of no consequence to me.




I know all about the rules of engagement, but when Texan air national guard troops attack Ft. Sill, or Ft. Polk, When American flags are burning and Federal buildings are burning, and the Citizens of Austin attacked and killed by Confederates, do you really think that the US Government is going to launch a limited war? When video reports come in of Pro American's being hung and driven out of the state, popular opinion isn't going to be that high for the rebels. It's a direct attack on National Sovereignty, no different then Mexico claiming Texas for itself, or Canada for Alaska. Hell even if we didn't invade and mop the floor with them, a total economic embargo and freezing of funds would devastate them into poverty. Before long states would break away and rejoin the Union (West Virginia did this in the American civil war). And you think WE are the ones with a warped sense of reality on this? There would never be a time where the federal government clears every option off the table and declares any state a separate and hostile entity, and just cuts loose on it. Never! That would not work to their advantage and they're painfully aware of that.



The whole point of that comment, was that Assault Rifles are meant for Military and to a lesser degree Law enforcement use. a 5.56 round is terrible to hunt with due to how the round likes to bounce around in victims. Stating that you need it to fight the Government, whose military has been fighting counter insurgents for going on 11 years now is silly. Saying that you should have it with out mandatory classes/licensing/pysch eval is even sillier. I am not a chest beating Hooah soldier, I hate those guys. I'm just stating my opinion. That opinion is, you don't need a fucking AK47, for god damn anything. I'm all for mandatory safety classes as a requirement. I had to pass a safety class before getting a FOID card when I was a kid. Almost all my friends had to do the same thing. Same goes for licensing. Provided that getting that license isn't intentionally made economically prohibitive for the average citizen.
The only problem I'd have with a psych eval is that there isn't currently any type of standard that can be used to prevent misuse of that requirement. Say you have a psychiatrist who does these evals, and his personal politics on guns is that citizens should not own them. So he uses his position to prevent people from being allowed to own them. Also, the way the medical industry works today is all monetary based. Doctors always find something wrong with their patients, that's how they make money.
So if some guy's wife or child dies unexpectedly from accident or disease, and the guy is prescribed something to help him with anxiety or depression, that shouldn't mean he's stripped of his right to own a gun for the rest of his life. Or some 17-18 year old kid who breaks up with his girlfriend and threatens suicide in an attempt to gain her sympathy, and his parents take him for an overnight stay for observation in a psych ward. That shouldn't be grounds for losing your 2nd amm rights.
There's alot of ways that the psychological aspect could be used to deny people their 2nd amm right, unjustly. There would have to be some standard way to apply that. Some way that isn't subject to anyones personal agandas. I don't know the answer to that problem. Or the larger problem. I desperately want these shootings to stop! But I don't see the banning of semi-auto rifles as the end all be all of the equation.

[Mr. Clean]

Explain? You think politicians in the US have resulted in some of the US public distrusting the goverment that much?

lol Other than the media.....who else is there to blame? Not really much to explain.

Our leaders in Congress are absolutely worthless. They get paid to argue and accomplish nothing. They haven't passed a budget in 3 years. We have a $16,000,000,000,000 deficit yet they just keep on spending like it we're 16 trillion dollars to the good. We weren't suppose to hit the debt ceiling until Feburary but guess what? We're hitting in on Monday....ooopsie :lol:.....They waste so much f-ing money on nothing that it just blows my mind.

Then, you have the media which is just as divided. All the news agencies twist stories into being misleading by leaving out facts or carefully wording things to make you form certain opinions.

I suppose society has a tiny part in it as well for having a "do whatever feels good regardless outcome" mentality.

- - - Updated - - -


The only problem I'd have with a psych eval is that there isn't currently any type of standard that can be used to prevent misuse of that requirement. Say you have a psychiatrist who does these evals, and his personal politics on guns is that citizens should not own them. So he uses his position to prevent people from being allowed to own them. Also, the way the medical industry works today is all monetary based. Doctors always find something wrong with their patients, that's how they make money. So if some guy's wife or child dies unexpectedly from accident or disease, and the guy is prescribed something to help him with anxiety or depression, that shouldn't mean he's stripped of his right to own a gun for the rest of his life. Or some 17-18 year old kid who breaks up with his girlfriend and threatens suicide in an attempt to gain her sympathy, and his parents take him for an overnight stay for observation in a psych ward. That shouldn't be grounds for losing your 2nd amm rights. There's alot of ways that the psychological aspect could be used to deny people their 2nd amm right, unjustly. There would have to be some standard way to apply that. Some way that isn't subject to anyones personal agandas. I don't know the answer to that problem. Or the larger problem. I desperately want these shootings to stop! But I don't see the banning of semi-auto rifles as the end all be all of the equation.

Well put!

[Neil]

lol Other than the media.....who else is there to blame? Not really much to explain.
There is of course the less paranoid explanation that no one is to blame? And $hit sometimes just happens? :)

There's not many countries in the wake of the Bank nonsense a few years back that aren't in poor shape. The UK is just the same (unfortunately). And out eagerness to get involved in expensive military action hasn't helped!

[facestabber]

Not so much.

A few things. The founding fathers were also the Richest men in America (George Washington was the Richest in the colonies). They encouraged those loyal to the crown to be driven out of their homes at gunpoint and into Canada. They promised huge swaths of land to those soldiers who fought the war, and failed to deliver on most of these promises. When people refused to enlist to fight the British they tossed them in Jail. The American revolution was not a "Good Guys Vs Bad Guys." Sort of deal, it wasn't a Mel Gibson movie. Atrocities were committed on both sides, so lets not bring in "How this country was founded on rebels." argument. Not to mention, we spent quite a few years killing each other to prevent the dissolution of the union.

My intent was to simply say the following: Owning assault rifles for the sole purpose of defending your self from the government is not wise. You will die. If you want change, vote. Do not think that you're AR-15 can stop the US military, you will die. Hell The Government can already do it now simply by calling you a terrorist (Which I don't support). In the case of a state leaving the union. I have no qaums fighting these rebels. if it's simply red neck Texans deciding to quit America because they don't want Obamacare, or something similar. The line between oppressing your own people and WAR is when that state declares independence. They are their own country, and are not Citizens of the United States, but of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Vermont, or whatever. That's vastly different then being told to line up and shoot American Citizens for not paying parking tickets, that's silly.



I know all about the rules of engagement, but when Texan air national guard troops attack Ft. Sill, or Ft. Polk, When American flags are burning and Federal buildings are burning, and the Citizens of Austin attacked and killed by Confederates, do you really think that the US Government is going to launch a limited war? When video reports come in of Pro American's being hung and driven out of the state, popular opinion isn't going to be that high for the rebels. It's a direct attack on National Sovereignty, no different then Mexico claiming Texas for itself, or Canada for Alaska. Hell even if we didn't invade and mop the floor with them, a total economic embargo and freezing of funds would devastate them into poverty. Before long states would break away and rejoin the Union (West Virginia did this in the American civil war).

Yeah fight to the bitter end? Tell that to the Germans, the Poles, The French, the Japanese, or the Former Confederate states, when you don't have the ability to fight, you surrender. Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan are all versions of limited warfare. The Military held back to limit civilian casualties. Threat of M.A.D from the soviets in Vietnam prevented an invasion of North Vietnam, and Iraq/Afghanistan had/have members of the U.N/NATO participation. That was not total war, you have to go back to World War Two for that. An American Civil war would not have to worry about Soviet Missiles or UN troops pulling their forces out, tanks would roll, and rebellions would end. The argument that any state has a right to leave the Union was ended at the conclusion of the civil war. Red Dawn was not a documentary.

The whole point of that comment, was that Assault Rifles are meant for Military and to a lesser degree Law enforcement use. a 5.56 round is terrible to hunt with due to how the round likes to bounce around in victims. Stating that you need it to fight the Government, whose military has been fighting counter insurgents for going on 11 years now is silly. Saying that you should have it with out mandatory classes/licensing/pysch eval is even sillier. I am not a chest beating Hooah soldier, I hate those guys. I'm just stating my opinion. That opinion is, you don't need a fucking AK47, for god damn anything.

You could save the long winded attacks on; Our corrupt and flawed Founding Fathers, You're hatred of Texans, Blind faith in a dreamed up TOTAL war, add nauseum. You have a valid opinion that assault rifles are too powerful in the citizens hands. Heck part of me wants to agree with you because as an agent of gov't who legally carries body armor, a decked out ar-15 and swat training it would be nice to never have to go up against assault rifles. But to twist gun owners opinion that their ownership acts as a deterent into they want to wage TOTAL war against a military comprised of volunteer friends, family etc, just weakens your opinion.

Regarding your statements fighting a state succeeding from the Union. What is wrong with you? Its clear you dislike Texans. You discredit these Americans to the point that they would be hanging "Pro" Americans. Burning flags etc. Your age is showing here. But I couldnt leave it at that. I asked a friend of mine to read your posts. He is a decorated Marine that served two combat tours in Iraq. Lost many men under his command. You may consider him one of those chest bumping soldiers that you hate. When he finished he shrugged his shoulders and chuckled, "he's a nurse in the fucking Army". I had to push him for more of an opinion because it was clear he didnt feel it needed to be quantified. States succeeding or not there is no f'n way any of the men he served with would turn their weapons toward Americans let alone your total war scenario. Some people join the military because they love their country and wish to serve, unfortunately some join simply for a college education he left it up to me to decide which you were.
I dont mind your opinion on assault rifles. But for an anti gun violence advocate, how are you so willing to fight the "rebels" of Texas?

Fight to the bitter end. Im glad you can so easily discredit the resolve of our enemies. Its funny because combat vets, though understandibly hate their enemy, will more often than not express a level of respect toward their resolve. So just sticking with your WW2 total war statement. A very small minority of Japanese soldiers surrendered. They did fight to the bitter end on Islands in the Pacific. And had we not developed the most devasting weapon in the world rest assured they would have defended their homeland on a scale that would have been devastating. I could never laugh at the Japanese for surrendering after two cities were leveled. Thank GOd Hitler interfered with his Generals. Very interesting that you chose this statement, "when you don't have the ability to fight, you surrender".

Oh and American revolution was by a rebel force that stockpiled weapons equal to their opponents and trained in secret.

The .223 round is effective for hunting. How can it be so deadly in an assault rifle yet not usual for the same reason with game?

- - - Updated - - -


There is of course the less paranoid explanation that no one is to blame? And $hit sometimes just happens? :)

There's not many countries in the wake of the Bank nonsense a few years back that aren't in poor shape. The UK is just the same (unfortunately). And out eagerness to get involved in expensive military action hasn't helped!

Neil I think you are probably right. Shit happens. It sucks, it really does. How do we account for the very few morons of society that wish to do harm.

And folks my apologies for multiple posts but I am near computer illiterate. I can figure out how to quote multiple sources.

To my Belgium friend. Let me start by saying I dont know much or understand your country and its issues. I dont want to offend you or your country men by my ignorance of Belgium. Correct me if I'm wrong but is it your belief that I consider the US a police state? If so no I dont believe that nor that it is very close. The US is however becoming a nanny state. For example Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has instituted a ban on surgary drinks. He has limited the size allowed for sale. Of the top of my head I dont know the amount but for example a person can no longer buy a 44oz coke because as he says, it encourages people to consume the entire contents of an unhealthy drink. A person can still buy 2 20oz drinks but that is besides the point that many things are getting out of hand in the US.

Going only by your description of conditions in Belgium. I would say you are not at the level of a police state. It seems the populous is very dependant on the gov't which is a shame. America is on that path. Our social security program is in bad shape. I personally have taken it upon myself to fund my own retirement system because I dont trust the gov't. My gov't mandated pension, which I am required to contribute, is threatened everyday here in Illinois. So I'm forced to pay, the gov't overspent their budget and failed to contribute their promised contribution, and now its my fault and blame that the state is broke.

There has been some really good discussion on this forum. Aside from the Texas hating poster, I enjoy reading this. But at the end of the day I need TWD back on tv to discuss the fun stuff.

[Mr. Clean]

There is of course the less paranoid explanation that no one is to blame? And $hit sometimes just happens? :)

There's not many countries in the wake of the Bank nonsense a few years back that aren't in poor shape. The UK is just the same (unfortunately). And out eagerness to get involved in expensive military action hasn't helped!

The burden of blame should always fall on someone's shoulders weither their decisions were reckless or made in good faith. Sure, accidents happen but when it comes to powerful positions such of The US President or Congress....no one should recieve a pass for making a poor decision especially when it negatively affects millions of folks.

This is why so many people are pissed about the Benghazi, Libya attack....because someone screwed up.....people died because of poor planning/decision making....and the people in charge are just staring at the ground...kicking dirt around....all the while still refusing to tell the truth after a failed attempt to place blame on some low budget movie about the muslim prophet.

[botc]

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE AND NEITHER IS THE REST! WE KICKED TYRANNICAL ASS THE FIRST TIME AND BRING IT ON AGAIN IF NECESSARY! im tired of this debate even though it will never end. and a certain someone said it best "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!" GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[babomb]

There is of course the less paranoid explanation that no one is to blame? And $hit sometimes just happens? :)

There's not many countries in the wake of the Bank nonsense a few years back that aren't in poor shape. The UK is just the same (unfortunately). And out eagerness to get involved in expensive military action hasn't helped! So you're insinuating that there's the possibility that our politicians are just doing the best they can with a bad situation, and some of us are just so paranoid that we see it as malicious intent? You're joking right!?
It seems as if you subscribe to the belief that it's better to close your eyes and ignore things than to come to any conclusion that can be construed as paranoid.
There's really no point to this whole discussion if you're gonna invalidate all of our concerns by immediately assuming that it all comes down to paranoia.
Maybe you should educate yourself about the situation over here, become more familiar with our concerns before you conveniently pigeon hole us as paranoid quacks.

Are you familiar with the term "Useful Idiot"? I'm not calling you one, I'm just wondering if you're familiar with the concept.
Here's the wikipedia definition:

In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
The term has been used to refer to Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication was that, although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used. The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naïvely believe to be a force for good.

People unknowingly become useful idiots by arguing for or against something that they haven't taken the time to fully understand, or has been arrived at by purely emotional criteria.
I'm not calling anyone here a useful idiot, I'm just throwing it out there so people can avoid stepping into that if at all possible. People that become useful idiots do so by the best of intentions. They aren't fully aware of the scope of the larger picture.

[Neil]

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE AND NEITHER IS THE REST! WE KICKED TYRANNICAL ASS THE FIRST TIME AND BRING IT ON AGAIN IF NECESSARY! im tired of this debate even though it will never end. and a certain someone said it best "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!" GOD BLESS AMERICA!

The question is, has the 2nd amendment - created hundreds of years ago under very different times (& weapons) - got carried away and allowed too many, or too powerful guns, into the hands of the public?

And, what is enough to protect your personal freedom? Surely we can discuss that? Was the 6000 odd rounds of ammunition bought by James Holmes (Aurora) for his four guns too much? Would 20 rounds and two hand guns be enough to server as protection? Or do you need access to as many guns as you want?

When the 2nd amendment was created do you think they envisaged :-
(1) Modern high performance weapons?
(2) Modern high figure death rates?

And, once again, no one is suggesting doing away with the 2nd amendment... So maybe take off your caps lock, calm down, and discuss rather than blindly rant...

- - - Updated - - -


So you're insinuating that there's the possibility that our politicians are just doing the best they can with a bad situation, and some of us are just so paranoid that we see it as malicious intent? You're joking right!?
So if we try to remain on the topic of gun ownership, I must admit being generally confused at trying to endorse the need for powerful assault rifles to protect you/us from the government...

The stepping stones we've seem to have taken - unless I've missed something is - you/we need guns, lots of them, and powerful ones, because we don't trust the government, and the evidence for that is the deficit (unless I misunderstood)? Which, they either created on purpose or through mismanagement? I'm having trouble joining up the dots here...

Can you explain what signs of malicious intent there is from your governemt that should ring alarm bells for your freedom?



And lets remember cultural upbringing is a strong force. It's the reason many don't bat an eyelid at stoning rape victims to death in Iran. And it's the reason why we're (UK) so passionate about queuing! There's clearly a strong cultural force in the US surrounding guns... Which I suspect is why our views/feelings differ...

[strayrider]

1) I just don't think any of us can reasonably envisage that happening. Hence it just seeming paranoid? When's the last time it took place in the US for example? When did an armed civilian force need to take action against the government?

That's the brilliance of the 2nd Amendment. As long as the average [American] man or woman is in possession of of weapons of this type, we do not have to take action against the government. The weapons themselves, in private hands, act as a deterrent.

Paranoid? Seriously, Neil.

Consider Senator Diane Feinstein’s latest proposal. This particular scheme includes the photographing and fingerprinting of non-criminal gun owners.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

The same Senator Feinstein who said in 2004: “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.”
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-Amendment-Mr-and-Mrs-America-turn-them-2813319.php

And we have New York governor Andrew Cuomo suggesting that confiscation could be an option.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336373/cuomo-confiscation-could-be-option-eliana-johnson

How would they go about confiscating these guns? What would they do if citizens refused to relinquish them?

Anyway, if our own politicians weren't spouting this bullshit then I’d say that, yes, gun owners are probably paranoid. But they are saying these things, aren't they? So, how are we being paranoid?



Twice in the past 100 years we've faught vicious wars against Germany. Yet, we now get on with them perfectly well, and all is forgotten now - Infact we're rather good at that sort of thing. Time's moved on, civilisation has moved on and so have we... Maybe it's time for the US to move on from X hundred year old history and mindsets?

Actually, technology has advanced; human nature remains the same. Civilization is a reflection of that nature at any given time. You're at peace with Germany, now. The future will always be uncertain.



And to put this into context, I'm not even suggesting people in the US losing their guns. Only looking at losing some of them and/or the more powerful...

I believe that your empathy for us is sincere, but no thank you.

:D

-stray-

- - - Updated - - -


And, what is enough to protect your personal freedom? Surely we can discuss that? Was the 6000 odd rounds of ammunition bought by James Holmes (Aurora) for his four guns too much? Would 20 rounds and two hand guns be enough to server as protection? Or do you need access to as many guns as you want?

When the 2nd amendment was created do you think they envisaged :-
(1) Modern high performance weapons?
(2) Modern high figure death rates?

I do not understand why you think that this is simply a matter of "me" protecting "my" personal freedom. Are you honestly of the opinion that we [Americans] are so self-centered that we cannot grasp the concept of ideology or philosophy as to how it affects us beyond a personal level? Are we, in your opinion, incapable of thinking in a manner that considers other points of view?

6000 rounds. He only fired a fraction of that number, didn't he?

4 guns. He only used one. No one else in the theater was armed so he got away with it.

2 handguns and 20 rounds for protection. Personal protection is only one facet of the issue.

2nd Amendment; visualization.

1) Were the Founders aware that technology advances? Were they able to compare the weapons at their disposal versus those available to the ancient Greeks or Romans, for example?

2) In a nation of 300+ million, gun deaths do not even represent a drop in the bucket. We live in a free country. There is no guarantee that we will be safe (although, by and large, we are). America is not a padded crib. It can be a very dangerous place, guns or not.

:D

-stray-

[Neil]

That's the brilliance of the 2nd Amendment. As long as the average [American] man or woman is in possession of of weapons of this type, we do not have to take action against the government. The weapons themselves, in private hands, act as a deterrent.

Paranoid? Seriously, Neil.

Consider Senator Diane Feinstein’s latest proposal. This particular scheme includes the photographing and fingerprinting of non-criminal gun owners.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Looking at your links...

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Isn't this using the system exactly as its suppose to be used? Democracy in action? Or are gun owners beyond this system? Isn't it the same system that's dictated your existing gun laws and restrictions? The ones you're currently defending?



How would they go about confiscating these guns? What would they do if citizens refused to relinquish them?Don't know... Tricky business... But if the law is passed, and citizens refused to relinquesh them, then surely they are going against the very democratic system they're so infavour of protecting? Other countries have managed to adjust their gun ownership laws to small degrees...



Actually, technology has advanced; human nature remains the same. Civilization is a reflection of that nature at any given time. You're at peace with Germany, now. The future will always be uncertain.Not true... Human culture changes... When was the last witch burned? I'm happy to predict:-
1) Although we went to war with Germany twice last century, we won't this one...
2) The americans have never had to rise up against their government over the past few centuries, and won't this one.



I do not understand why you think that this is simply a matter of "me" protecting "my" personal freedom.Well, the "personal protection" argument seems to be used all too often... Do americans typically buy guns for personal protection, or in preparation for armed uprisings against the state?



6000 rounds. He only fired a fraction of that number, didn't he?All very fair points. If you/we indeed decide that reducing the number of guns in circulation, and their power, will not inturn reduce murders and mass shootings, then indeed its pointless. But my gut feel is, gun ownership in the US is too relaxed, and this is reflected in the regularity of their use, often by the very people you do not want to have them.



2nd Amendment; visualization.
1) Were the Founders aware that technology advances? Were they able to compare the weapons at their disposal versus those available to the ancient Greeks or Romans, for example?
2) In a nation of 300+ million, gun deaths do not even represent a drop in the bucket. We live in a free country. There is no guarantee that we will be safe (although, by and large, we are). America is not a padded crib. It can be a very dangerous place, guns or not.RE 1 - Not sure of why Greek and Romans come into this? The 2nd amendment is being used in defense of the current ownership of guns in the US. It's fair to say, when it was drawn up, it didn't envisage individuals having the kind of horrific fire power they can easily obtain today.

RE 2 - Well that's fine. Here in the UK we're happy to stick with 30mph speed limits instead of reducing them down to 20mph, even though that would save lives. We weigh up the -ves of lives lost with +ve effects of the higher speeds. As long as the majority of the US population is happy that their ease off access to huge amounts of powerful firearms is worth the price (and there is price there of some sort), then fine...

But just to suggest blindly, the 2nd amendment is spot on, and all current gun restrictions are fine and dandy seems amazing to me. You mean the very people you mistrust so much, have got it absolutely right?! :)

[facestabber]

Neil I have to take issue about defending our laws. In the US we have what is called Ex Post Facto laws. Which means that laws cannot be enacted which retroactively criminalize an act which was legal prior to a law enacted. So any type of ban on guns which states ownership is a crime and asks the people to relinquish them is completely against our laws and what our Constitution was designed to protect its people from. Senator Feinstein is a nut anyways and if she did intact express interest in confiscating guns she has dangerously over stepped her bounds as an agent of govt. Her attitude is exactly what gun owners fear.

Interesting enough our corrupt and democratically controlled city of Chicago just reached 500 murders for 2012. I don't know the stats but I can safely say the overwhelming majority were committed by felons using illegally obtained guns. The criminals will always find a way. Heroin cocaine both illegal yet the market demands them. No doubt discussion and action are needed but I just can't justify knee jerk reactions of rewriting founding laws based on a small minority of human pieces of shit determined to kill.

[babomb]

So if we try to remain on the topic of gun ownership, I must admit being generally confused at trying to endorse the need for powerful assault rifles to protect you/us from the government...

The stepping stones we've seem to have taken - unless I've missed something is - you/we need guns, lots of them, and powerful ones, because we don't trust the government, and the evidence for that is the deficit (unless I misunderstood)? Which, they either created on purpose or through mismanagement? I'm having trouble joining up the dots here...

Can you explain what signs of malicious intent there is from your governemt that should ring alarm bells for your freedom?



And lets remember cultural upbringing is a strong force. It's the reason many don't bat an eyelid at stoning rape victims to death in Iran. And it's the reason why we're (UK) so passionate about queuing! There's clearly a strong cultural force in the US surrounding guns... Which I suspect is why our views/feelings differ...
The deficit? Seriously? This is just proof that you clearly have no idea what's really going on in the US!
Maybe you missed this is one of my last posts:


Neil, I don't know how else to explain it. Maybe your government is not as authoritarian as ours. Our presidents don't need the consent of congress to do anything anymore. They passed a law that gives them the power to incarcerate US citizens without due process. They passed a law that makes protesting anywhere near a federal building or where any politician that's protected by the secret service is, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The cops here beat and tase people daily, for exercising their rights.
Our government has created an atmosphere where they're allowed to do whatever they please, unrestricted by the checks and balances built into the system. They use our tax dollars to bail out financial institutions that blatantly break the law instead of holding them accountable.
They disregard and trample the rights of the people daily. They do not represent the people anymore. This is an incredibly bad situation for a nation founded on the concepts of freedom. And this just keeps happening at a quicker and quicker pace.
To you, an outsider looking in, this seems to be about guns and the laws regarding them. But to us this is just another case of the government taking away our rights. Just another instance of a president curtailing the checks and balances that the constitution put in place to protect us.
Our president has already said that this new gun legislature will happen without having to go through congress. That's not the way things are supposed to be done. There's a reason why these things are supposed to go through congress. it's a checks and balances safeguard.
It's to the point where the only things we can trust our government to do is lie, spend our tax dollars, and actively work to deny us our rights. They lie to us on such a regular basis that we have no choice but to always assume they're lying and withholding information.
We don't choose this! This isn't the way we want things. But it's just the way things are. Maybe you have to be from here, and experience it to understand it.
What's happening is that they're systematically taking away the peoples ability to resist them. This is evident. This is not paranoia, this is not about the deficit.
The mainstream media does NOT report on this stuff. Because they're owned by the same corporations that own the politicians. Big government and big business have fused together. And they're actively removing the checks and balances that were put in place by the constitution to protect the interests of the people.


Habeas corpus (English pronunciation: /ˌheɪbiəs ˈkɔrpəs/; Latin: "you have the body") is a writ (legal action) which requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court.[1][2] This ensures that a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention—that is, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to the prisoner's aid. This right originated in the English legal system, and is now available in many nations. It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. This was phased out when they passed the NDAA. The NDAA gives them the power to incarcerate citizens for an indefinite amount of time, without ever being formally charged with a crime. They are not allowed legal counsel. They just sit in prison. Luckily, there are still some judges that value freedom and don't just play along with this.
Then you have the bailouts, where tax money was used to rescue rich folks that broke the law.

The people urged several politicians to appeal the indefinite detention under the NDAA, which they did. But it failed and indefinite detention is now an option, as legal as it can be without having the support of the people.
Can they just come and get you in the middle of the night in the UK, under suspicion of terrorism or political agitation, and hold you as long as they want without bringing you before a judge, and without even a public defender?

The fear is that as they continue to trample on civil liberties, that anyone who stands in opposition of that can be considered a domestic terrorist, and detained indefinitely.
The idea behind the right to bear arms is not that the citizens would unite in force to attack the most powerful military in the world. It's that the citizens would have a means to resist if/when the nations leaders become so overbearing and begin using warpowers against citizens to detain them and force them to comply with unconstitutional laws and subject us to civil rights violations.
Well, the ability to detain us arbitrarily has already been established. Or right to public assembly to make our voices heard has been curtailed.
Some of us don't see the whole 2nd amm issue as a standalone issue. We see a pattern here, where lawmakers are actively taking away our ability to exercise our constitutional and civil rights. Taking away our right to bear arms is really just the nail in the coffin.

So you ask "am I missing something"? YES! You are missing alot. You have no idea what our government is doing to the people of this country. You mistakenly believe that this is about guns, and protecting the people from those with them. This is about removing the peoples ability to determine their own future and the future of this country. This is about Fascism. And it's only getting worse. This is why we feel we need guns to protect ourselves from a government that's determined to legislate away ALL of our constitutional rights so that we have no choice but to accept whatever they want to do.
We've tried peaceful assembly. They send their shock troops out to crack skulls when we assemble. And now they've passed a law that makes protesting anywhere near a government building a federal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. And if you are charged under that law, you automatically lose your 2nd amm rights because you're now a felon.
This also strikes a blow to the 1st amm. We're no longer able to march on washington to make our grievances and voices heard. This establishes a pattern that shows that our leaders are only interested in furthering their own aganda, and strengthening their own power. They care nothing about the people. We are sheep to them. We're an annoyance to them in their endeavors. It's a power struggle between those who believe they have the ability to do whatever they want, at the expense of the rightful owners of this country.
And once our abilities to effect change, and make our voices heard are completely done away with, that's when things will REALLY get bad.
And this won't only be bad for US citizens. This will be bad for the entire world!!

This is why I said that you should familiarize yourself with the situation here. Because you obviously have no clue. It's also why I said people should be careful to avoid becoming "useful idiots".
Here's that definition again:

In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
The term has been used to refer to Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication was that, although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used. The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naïvely believe to be a force for good.

[krisvds]

Babomb, not meaning to be disrespectful or anything, but naming anyone disagreeing with your theory a useful 'idiot' and so on... Frankly it comes across as condescending. Though i have done this myself on a couple of occassions. ;)
You could even say you are being the 'useful idiot' for the NRA's, the Tea Party's and others cause.

Democratic rights are, and this is where Europe and America share more than they fear or believe under stress by an economical, harsh neoliberal system that clearly is granting powerful multinationals more power than simple citizens. Look at the economical crisis; some banks had to be saved with tax payers money because those responsible had 'gambled' their money away in dubious constructions where they had created a financial bubble. Were these bankers held responsible? Not in the States and not over here in Europe either. Banks where considered too big to fail. In Brussels there are currently more people working for lobby groups than there are for the European parliament... Meanwhile the Greek are becoming a nation where a majority are becoming 'working poor' fast.
Lasw are being written and changed constantly protecting a harsh and injust system that is crushing people at an alarming rate.

The cynical thing here is that if you think sitting at home on top of your arsenal will instill fear in these kinds of people I fear you are dead wrong. While you are preparing to take arms against your 'oppressive and fascist' government the 1% are walking to the bank, whistling. Atlas Shrugged tucked away under their arm in all likelyhood ...

[strayrider]

Response to Neil (sorry, the unstable nature of your current BB precluded me responding in the normal fashion. I was kicked off twice, losing everything that I had written…).

Isn't this using the system exactly as its supposed to be used? Democracy in action? Or are gun owners beyond this system? Isn't it the same system that's dictated your existing gun laws and restrictions? The ones you're currently defending?

Sure, members of the Senate are permitted to introduce bills for consideration so long as those bills do not involve the imposition of new taxes or the authorization of the spending of federal money. What you need to understand, however, is that this is not “democracy in action”. The United States is not a democracy. We are a republic.

Patrick Henry warned us of individuals like Dianne Feinstein…"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined..."

Don't know... Tricky business...

(A: They’d have to resort to force; kicking in doors; house-to-house searches and seizures.)

But if the law is passed, and citizens refused to relinquesh them, then surely they are going against the very democratic system they're so in favour of protecting?

No, because the individuals demanding that firearms be relinquished would be operating against the principles of a republic. Common sense would compel us to disobey them.

Other countries have managed to adjust their gun ownership laws to small degrees...

Okay.

Not true... Human culture changes... When was the last witch burned? I'm happy to predict:

1) Although we went to war with Germany twice last century, we won't this one...

2) The Americans have never had to rise up against their government over the past few centuries, and won't this one.

True, human culture changes. I have already agreed with you on this particular point. My argument is that human nature is static. In terms of cognition and emotion we are no different than humans of 2500 years ago. While our knowledge has advanced (hence the changes in culture (thank God for the Renaissance)); our baser instincts remain intact.

1) I was simply making the point that the future is uncertain, not suggesting that England and Germany will go to war anytime soon (if ever).

2) We do not have to stage an armed revolution in order to “rise up”. Shit, what do you English think we are? An unwashed mass of trigger-happy rebels?

BTW: have you checked out the record number of guns sold in America over the past few weeks since our impetuous leader started his gun control blather? The 2nd Amendment ROCKS!

Well, the "personal protection" argument seems to be used all too often... Do Americans typically buy guns for personal protection, or in preparation for armed uprisings against the state?

Granted, that is a common, valid argument. I specifically own guns for several reasons, hence the variety of firearms in my personal collection. Oh, did I say “collection”? How NRA assholish of me. What I meant to say was “in my personal arsenal”. Regardless, I am not the spokesman for the typical American. I cannot tell you why others own firearms.

If you/we indeed decide that reducing the number of guns in circulation, and their power, will not in turn reduce murders and mass shootings, then indeed it’s pointless [to argue?].

It is never “pointless” to argue/debate an issue, however, there are currently so many firearms of the type that Feinstein wants to ban in circulation that her gun grab/registration scheme will do nothing to reduce mass shootings. Some people might “turn them all in” or submit to registration, but the problematic among us will do neither.

But my gut feel is, gun ownership in the US is too relaxed, and this is reflected in the regularity of their use, often by the very people you do not want to have them.

Why should the exercising of an inherent right be anything but relaxed? The fact that people who should not have access to firearms have access to firearms is a reflection of a broken system. First repair the system. Focus on the people who are the source of the problem, not on the people who are not causing the problem because they are not the cause of the problem. Is this not common sense?

RE 1 - Not sure of why Greek and Romans come into this? The 2nd amendment is being used in defense of the current ownership of guns in the US. It's fair to say, when it was drawn up, it didn't envisage individuals having the kind of horrific fire power they can easily obtain today.

I used the Greeks and Romans as examples of technological advancement. Honest. Go back and check.

The Constitution was drawn up to separate the branches of government. The Bill of Rights was drawn up to recognize and guarantee the natural (inherent) rights of the individual and also to limit governmental authority over the individual. The 2nd amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It really doesn’t matter what the Founders envisioned in terms of technology. They recognized that, in order to protect the natural rights of liberty, the common citizen should be armed. If potential adversaries are armed with modern weapons, it is silly to suggest that citizens should stick with muzzle loaders. I’m not implying that you think Americans should only own muzzle loaders, Neil, only that this is a common argument from the anti-gun left. Nor am I implying that everyone on the left is anti-gun. Let’s keep the debate clean, shall we?

What I personally believe that they did not envisioned a society in which persons who are mentally ill or inclined toward criminal behavior as being permitted to walk freely among us. They didn’t do this to us. We did it to ourselves. The old boys must be spinning in their graves.

I’m not suggesting that mentally ill persons be treated as criminals, BTW; however, certain of them do need closer professional supervision than they are currently receiving.

RE 2 - … As long as the majority of the US population is happy that their ease off access to huge amounts of powerful firearms is worth the price (and there is price there of some sort), then fine...

It does not matter what the majority of the US population is happy with. The US is not a democracy. We, for example, have an inherent right to keep and bear arms; we do not have an inherent right to be happy (or feel safe) regardless of what most people might think. In terms of the latter two; we can strive to be happy or feel safe, but we are never guaranteed that we will achieve either goal. You play the cards that you are dealt. You dance with the one who brung you.

But just to suggest blindly, the 2nd amendment is spot on, and all current gun restrictions are fine and dandy seems amazing to me. You mean the very people you mistrust so much, have got it absolutely right?!

I am forwarding nothing “blindly”. The 2nd Amendment is “spot on” because it is.
Where did I state that all current gun restrictions are “fine and dandy”? Am I missing something here?

:D

-stray-

[Neil]

Neil I have to take issue about defending our laws. In the US we have what is called Ex Post Facto laws. Which means that laws cannot be enacted which retroactively criminalize an act which was legal prior to a law enacted. So any type of ban on guns which states ownership is a crime and asks the people to relinquish them is completely against our laws and what our Constitution was designed to protect its people from. Senator Feinstein is a nut anyways and if she did intact express interest in confiscating guns she has dangerously over stepped her bounds as an agent of govt. Her attitude is exactly what gun owners fear.I thought Ex Post Facto meant you couldn't be charged for something if it was legal at the time, even if it's now illegal? But I'll bow to your greater knowledge of your system...


Interesting enough our corrupt and democratically controlled city of Chicago just reached 500 murders for 2012. I don't know the stats but I can safely say the overwhelming majority were committed by felons using illegally obtained guns. The criminals will always find a way. Heroin cocaine both illegal yet the market demands them. No doubt discussion and action are needed but I just can't justify knee jerk reactions of rewriting founding laws based on a small minority of human pieces of shit determined to kill.
Well, we here have guns legislation based on preventing the minority of druggies, rapists, angry kids, violent husbands, suicidal women getting hold of guns easily, at the expense of us trustworthly individuals not generally being able to own one. I don't care if I don't have a gun... as I don't need one... And if this keeps guns out of the grasp of the kind of people I mentioned, I'm more than happy...

Now, we here in the UK are a very different case to the US. You already have more guns than people, and as we can see your culture has a very tight connection to fire arms, so I'm not suggesting our model for you.

But I will reiterate, I don't get this approach that more and more guns, of more and more power, equates to more freedom, or a better step for society on the whole...

- - - Updated - - -


BTW: have you checked out the record number of guns sold in America over the past few weeks since our impetuous leader started his gun control blather? The 2nd Amendment ROCKS!

Sorry to respond to only one point from your fair and candid response, but I thought it beauifully highlighted our different views on this matter.

The idea of people going out in record numbers, to buy guns, many of which are assault rifles, terrifies me. In reality, is a single one of these rifles really even required? Really? What purpose do they really serve other than to fulfill, a somewhat greedy I wan' it! It does again come across as paranoid... I need an assault rifle... cos?

I just can't get my head around this mindset... Vaste numbers of more guns in circulation, some of extremely high power, is good because? I think this just highlights beautifully our cultural differences towards guns...

[Mr. Clean]

My dad sent me this in an email....cracks me up :lol: :lol: :lol:


At the top of my Christmas list


A must have in every home in America !

For everyone who would rather not have

a gun in the house!

In view of the recent Supreme Court ruling,

sales of this new product may skyrocket.

Washington thinks they are going to take

away our guns, so check this out. I like it!

NAIL GUNS! AND, you don't even have

to REGISTER them or have LICENSES

for them!

AND, you don't have to worry about them

being CONCEALED!

Just a LOT of good stuff to do with THIS!

Once in a while something so totally cool

comes out that even a guy who doesn't

normally even know what he'd like for

Father's Day or Christmas would

immediately ask for it:

Thank you, DeWalt!!!

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/382844_184916654984340_501202051_n.jpg

New Nail Gun, made by DeWalt

It can drive a 16-D nail through a 2x4 at 200 yards.

This makes construction a breeze, you can sit in your lawn chair and build a fence.

Hundred round magazine.

Someone invades your home, just nail em!

[Neil]

^^ Did the rounds a few years back if I recall - http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/nailgun.asp

[Mr. Clean]

I find it hard to believe that people could actually think it was anything other than a joke. I'm kinda surprised snopes wasted their time. Got a good laugh out of me.

[babomb]

The idea of people going out in record numbers, to buy guns, many of which are assault rifles, terrifies me. In reality, is a single one of these rifles really even required? Really? What purpose do they really serve other than to fulfill, a somewhat greedy I wan' it! It does again come across as paranoid... I need an assault rifle... cos? We've given you reasons. You won't accept them because the logic differs from your own national/world view.

Here's a link to an article. Notice the last passage, where Senator John Mcain is quoted as saying "The war on terror has been extended to us at home"-meaning this bill makes it legal for American citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/22/the-national-defense-authorization-act-explained/
This means the right to Habeas Corpus is no longer guaranteed.

Here's another link.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/leading-edge-legal-advice-everyday-matters/2012/aug/1/i-object-i-disagree-can-i-now-say-so-publicly/
This is the anti-protest bill, aka-Trespass Bill.

This establishes a pattern.
Many believe that this government today, is the one the constitution was written to protect us from.



Babomb, not meaning to be disrespectful or anything, but naming anyone disagreeing with your theory a useful 'idiot' and so on... Frankly it comes across as condescending. Though i have done this myself on a couple of occassions. ;)
You could even say you are being the 'useful idiot' for the NRA's, the Tea Party's and others cause. If somehow I'm being used as a useful idiot to advance the cause of liberty, then, well, I'm ok with that.
I'm not in the NRA or the Tea Party. I'm your average American citizen.:annoyed:


Democratic rights are, and this is where Europe and America share more than they fear or believe under stress by an economical, harsh neoliberal system that clearly is granting powerful multinationals more power than simple citizens. Look at the economical crisis; some banks had to be saved with tax payers money because those responsible had 'gambled' their money away in dubious constructions where they had created a financial bubble. Were these bankers held responsible? Not in the States and not over here in Europe either. Banks where considered too big to fail. In Brussels there are currently more people working for lobby groups than there are for the European parliament... Meanwhile the Greek are becoming a nation where a majority are becoming 'working poor' fast.
Lasw are being written and changed constantly protecting a harsh and injust system that is crushing people at an alarming rate. And what's your take on that?


The cynical thing here is that if you think sitting at home on top of your arsenal will instill fear in these kinds of people I fear you are dead wrong. While you are preparing to take arms against your 'oppressive and fascist' government the 1% are walking to the bank, whistling. Atlas Shrugged tucked away under their arm in all likelyhood ... I'm not sitting on an arsenal. I don't even own an assault rifle. I don't stockpile weapons or ammo. I don't own any weapons that are on the list of firearms covered under the new proposed gun legislation.
But I believe people should be allowed to own them. And I understand and support the reasons for doing it.
I see where this country is headed. In the direction of collectivism. I really don't want to see that happen.

[Neil]

We've given you reasons. You won't accept them because the logic differs from your own national/world view.

Here's a link to an article. Notice the last passage, where Senator John Mcain is quoted as saying "The war on terror has been extended to us at home"-meaning this bill makes it legal for American citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/22/the-national-defense-authorization-act-explained/
This means the right to Habeas Corpus is no longer guaranteed.

Here's another link.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/leading-edge-legal-advice-everyday-matters/2012/aug/1/i-object-i-disagree-can-i-now-say-so-publicly/
This is the anti-protest bill, aka-Trespass Bill.

This establishes a pattern.
Many believe that this government today, is the one the constitution was written to protect us from.
Those link are quite worrying!? Surely it's not as black & white (dire) as that though? Can't believe those sorts of actions would take place?

[Publius]

Those link are quite worrying!? Surely it's not as black & white (dire) as that though? Can't believe those sorts of actions would take place?

You're right, it really isn't as dire as that. But whether we are actually close to tyranny in the United States right now is beside the point. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to create an environment where tyranny is practically impossible. A people cannot disarm, realize their government is edging towards tyranny, and expect the government to allow the people to arm themselves THEN. The people must be armed from a time when tyranny is basically unthinkable, and hopefully things will stay that way.

You don't wait to buy fire insurance (or a fire extinguisher) until you smell smoke.

[babomb]

Those link are quite worrying!? Surely it's not as black & white (dire) as that though? Can't believe those sorts of actions would take place? That's separate from the Patriot act too. The Patriot Act has provisions for warrantless wiretaps, no knock raids, and gives the President the ability to bring the country to war without congressional oversight.
This was all done in the wake of 9/11. Ever since then there's been this gradual push toward loss of liberty and privacy, in the name of anti-terrorism.
There's the TSA(Transportation Security Agency) that routinely violates the rights of air travelers. And now they're gonna extend the TSA to interstate travel on highways.
There's also a push for cybersecurity provisions which basically gives the government the ability to police the internet. They already track and store peoples personal information and online activity. The data is stored in these places called "fusion centers". Fusion centers are privately owned corporations that process and analyze the data collected on citizens, then disseminate that information to government agencies and advertising agencies.

Less than a year ago Trapwire went public. And it was discovered that Trapwire had been being used since at least 2006. Trapwire uses networked security cameras to watch people, it has facial recognition and behavior analysis built into it. The system watches people for suspicious behavior, identifies the individual if possible, and flags that person in the system so that any law enforcement or federal agency can access those Trapwire reports. There's an even more invasive and overbearing system being developed by the department of defense and Microsoft, using New York City as the testing platform. It's called the DAS(Domain Awareness System) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/08/nypd-microsoft-surveillance-system)

So, as you can see, it's not simply the government that's destroying this country and violating peoples liberties. It's a perfect union of government and corporations.
And YES, it really is that dire. When government starts to legislate constitutional rights out of existence, and gets away with it, it just keeps happening.
This country is becoming a totalitarian state. A Corporatocracy, ruled by the Power Elite. It's a collective of corporations, banks, and government. This does not serve the interests of the people. These people care nothing about citizens. All economic and political policies are created to serve the interests of the banks, corporations and government.
This is why many of us are so protective over what rights we have left, and why we don't trust them when they say they want stricter gun control policies. They make it seem like it's for the greater good, to make citizens safer. But we know from experience that they don't really care about the people. They don't do anything purely out of the best interest of the people. They've proven this time after time. So you can be sure that more gun control isn't purely in the interest of the people, there's an ulterior motive in this that benefits them. That's a certainty.
They're so secretive about everything too. So we have no real way to know what's really going on in our country. So to be safe, many of us automatically assume that there's some sort of greed motivated agenda that extends the power of government and corporations at the expense of the people. Because that seems to always be the case.

[Neil]

^ I thought all the scary stuff was Bush and Rumsfeld? How he ever got elected for second term bemuses me!?

But you suggest these knee jerk over reactions to civil liberty are still going on?

[Publius]

^ I thought all the scary stuff was Bush and Rumsfeld? How he ever got elected for second term bemuses me!?


Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. All the same policies and programs are going on as usual. Only difference is that some on the left are no longer concerned because now "their guy" is running the show, and some on the right are now concerned because "the other guy" is running the show.

[Neil]

^^ lol! It's interesting because Obama is looked upon very differently over here (it's safe to say).

[Publius]

^^ lol! It's interesting because Obama is looked upon very differently over here (it's safe to say).

Well, Europeans may be more used to being under a higher level of government surveillance (CCTV cameras on every street corner, etc.), so perhaps that particular type of civil liberties issue is less of a concern to Europeans. The funny thing is that Bush seemed to be something of an international pariah due to Guantanamo and "enhanced interrogation" of terrorists. Guantanamo is still open, but no one really seems to care anymore. And Obama abandoned enhanced interrogation in favor of expanded use of drone strikes. Apparently waterboarding high-level Al Qaeda members is intolerable, but summarily blowing them to bits with Hellfire missiles is just dandy.

[babomb]

^^ lol! It's interesting because Obama is looked upon very differently over here (it's safe to say). That's because the mainstream media made him into a messiah.
It's actually funny though that you guys see him that way. Because he doesn't think well of Britts. One of the 1st things he did after taking office was to give back the bust of Winston Churchill. The reason he did that was because he sees Churchill as a colonialist, he sees Britain as a colonial power, and he sees the US as a colonial tyrant.
Obama is an anti-colonialist. He has strong feelings about the British occupation of Kenya. He has a half brother named George that lives in a corrugated tin shack in Kenya, and hasn't helped him out because George doesn't share his militant beliefs toward the British occupation of Kenya.
But you can be sure that the way people abroad see him has been carefully crafted by the media and this administrations PR team.
You can't believe anything that comes from the American media or it's foreign subsidiaries.
You have to do your own research on everything.

This is the problem with Obama. Nobody really knows him. Nobody knows what his personal beliefs are. People support him based on the way he's portrayed by the liberal mainstream media. They portray him as a charismatic democrat, who's ultimate goal is to fix all the injustices that the US has caused at home and abroad. A leader that truly cares about the people, and puts their needs and well being above politics.
Which is certainly NOT the reality! But you can't tell anyone that. As soon as anyone is critical about Obama, his brainwashed minions immediately assume that you're just a racist. They learned that from the media too!

I have many facebook friends that are big Obama supporters. After the last election I went around asking them exactly why they are such supporters, and why they believe in him so much.
Many of them responded that it's not so much that they believe in him, but that he scared them less than Romney. Lesser of the 2 evils there, which is what American politics is about.
However, the more vocal Obama supporters, the one's who really believe in him, said that "They believe in their heart that he's just the best candidate that America has to offer". When I asked exactly why, they couldn't really give a specific answer. These are the same people that went around acting like they just elected a brand new president that was gonna fix all the nations problems. But in reality, they just re-elected the same guy that did basically nothing for the country in his 1st term. His re-election wasn't based on what he did for the country, or policies that he created that made things better. It was all based on his charismatic personality on screen, the way the media portrayed him and his family, and the fact that he wasn't Romney.

[facestabber]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/breaking-illinois-bill-to-ban-all-modern-firearms/

Hope this link works. Brief synopsis is Illinois senate president is calling for a ban on all guns. And gun owners would have to turn them into the State Police. If this is in fact true it would illustrate the exact politician Babomb and others have expressed concern over.

[krisvds]

If somehow I'm being used as a useful idiot to advance the cause of liberty, then, well, I'm ok with that.
I'm not in the NRA or the Tea Party. I'm your average American citizen.:annoyed:

And I never said you were. I was just mirroring your use of the term. Annoying isn't it? Again, not meaning to be disrespectful here. Sometimes you'll have to forgive me for English being my third language (Dutch is my mother tongue and French my second language) which will inevitably lead to less subtle phrasings and whatnot. Especially on a forum where you just type away.


I'm not sitting on an arsenal. I don't even own an assault rifle. I don't stockpile weapons or ammo. I don't own any weapons that are on the list of firearms covered under the new proposed gun legislation.
But I believe people should be allowed to own them. And I understand and support the reasons for doing it.

In all of yOur posts I read a certain, and in my case, shared concern on how big the influence of powerful multinationals is getting in local politics and basic law-making. The tax system in Belgium for instance was reorganised in such a way that the bigger corporations pay less than 1% taxes, while simple employees will see close to one third of their monthly wages go to social security and so on. A system I believe in as long as everyone contributes in a fair and equal way.

A marriage of greedy neoliberal economics and politics leads to less freedom. This 'collective' of corporations, banks, and government as you call it. But the arms industry means big business. Wont the American arms lobby do everything they can to protect their best interests? Wont concerns over how much money is being made, how many people are working for the industry and so on outweigh any concerns over personal freedom or security. The argument that private gun ownership wil hold back this evolution towards a more tiranical government is to me, academic. It just wont stop these people. The occupy movement is far more worrying for these cold hearted bastards than gun ownership because it could become a global movement (in many ways it is). No need for guns to get them on their knees. Real power is in your wallet.

You always talk of Romney and Obama as if they were essentially the same. Are their standpoints in this debate the same? I'm asking out of pure curiosity (not a rethorical question). Would Romney walk the same path towards stricter gun control? Do these two politicians think the same on social security? Employment, Taxes? Surely there must be some basic ideological differences leading to different views in politics?
In Europe the press often presents the States as a divided nation. On a political and a social level. Ideas on gun ownership and social security are two prime examples.

[babomb]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/breaking-illinois-bill-to-ban-all-modern-firearms/

Hope this link works. Brief synopsis is Illinois senate president is calling for a ban on all guns. And gun owners would have to turn them into the State Police. If this is in fact true it would illustrate the exact politician Babomb and others have expressed concern over. I live in IL!! This is basically the culmination of everything I've been talking about. I saw something about this on facebook earlier today. I feel sick to my stomach right now.
It figures that this would start in IL. This is what I've been talking about. They're taking full advantage of these firearms related incidents. They're not happy with reasonable gun laws. They're going for all out disarmament. Like I've been saying, they don't care about the constitution, they're instituting a system where the state controls everything we do. And there's alot of citizens that support this kind of shit. They have no idea what they're actually supporting. They think it's just about guns. In reality it's all about control, and they just don't/won't see it for what it is.

- - - Updated - - -


In all of ypur posts I read a certain, and in my case, shared concern on how big the influence of powerful multinationals is getting in local politics and basic law-making. The tax system in Belgium for instance was reorganised in such a way that the bigger corporations pay less than 1% taxes, while simple employees will see close to one third of their monthly wages go to social security and so on. A system I believe in as long as everyone contributes in a fair and equal way. That's basically how it is here too. Like you say, if everyone contributes it's not that bad. But here in the US there's a large percentage of people that don't contribute. This government does nothing to fix it or discourage it.


A marriage of greedy neoliberal economics and politics leads to less freedom. This 'collective' of corporations, banks, and government as you call it. But the arms industry means big business. Wont the American arms lobby do everything they can to protect their best interests? Wont concerns over how much money is being made, how many people are working for the industry and so on outweigh any concerns over personal freedom or security. The argument that private gun ownership wil hold back this evolution towards a more tiranical government is to me, academic. It just wont stop these people. The occupy movement is far more worrying for these cold hearted bastards than gun ownership because it could become a global movement (in many ways it is). No need for guns to get them on their knees. Real power is in your wallet. Problem is that they've now designated areas that people aren't allowed to assemble in. And they're the exact areas that you would want to protest at. Government buildings, public events like sports games, anywhere that politicians and other officials are present and secret service is providing security. They can also arbitrarily declare an area as a zone where public assembly is not legal. The penalty for protesting in one of these areas that are off limits is a federal offense that can carry up to a ten year incarceration.


You always talk of Romney and Obama as if they were essentially the same. Are their standpoints in this debate the same? I'm asking out of pure curiosity (not a rethorical question). Would Romney walk the same path towards stricter gun control? Do these two politicians think the same on social security? Employment, Taxes? Surely there must be some basic ideological differences leading to different views in politics?
In Europe the press often presents the States as a divided nation. On a political and a social level. Ideas on gun ownership and social security are two prime examples.

[strayrider]

Sorry to respond to only one point from your fair and candid response, but I thought it beauifully highlighted our different views on this matter.

S'okay. These point/counter point debates can become long-winded and hard to follow. :D


The idea of people going out in record numbers, to buy guns, many of which are assault rifles, terrifies me. In reality, is a single one of these rifles really even required? Really? What purpose do they really serve other than to fulfill, a somewhat greedy I wan' it! It does again come across as paranoid... I need an assault rifle... cos?

You have no need to be terrified. The guns are over here, not over there. In reality, yes, these guns are required. I'll venture that there might be some greed involved in that certain people may simply be buying the guns now in hopes of selling them later for a profit; however, I cannot say that every (or even most) gun purchase(s) is (are) a case of "I want it!" greed and neither can you. It is kind of disheartening to me that you seem to be of the opinion that Americans...ALL Americans...are driven by greed and nothing else. This is a stereotype, of course, and I really don't know where to lay the blame for it.

As for paranoid: I need a semi-automatic rifle for the reasons that I have detailed in previous posts. If you do not understand the concept; then you do not understand. Fair 'nuff.


Vaste numbers of more guns in circulation, some of extremely high power, is good because? I think this just highlights beautifully our cultural differences towards guns...

It is neither bad nor good. It simply is. Plus, these guns are not in "circulation". Most (but not all) of them end up in the hands of responsible people who will utilize in the in the proper way (e.g., deterrent against asshole politicians, home/personal defense, sporting purposes, etc.).

:D

-stray-

[babomb]

It is kind of disheartening to me that you seem to be of the opinion that Americans...ALL Americans...are driven by greed and nothing else. This is a stereotype, of course, and I really don't know where to lay the blame for it. It's because that's how the media portrays Americans. For most people from around the world, their ideas about America are based on media exposure. Which is stuff like MTV, the Kardashians, the various news agencies, political commentary by idiot celebrities, dramatic fictional and reality(which is anything but) based TV shows and politicians.
It's important to note that this media based view of America does not represent real Americans. These are high profile Americans that lead a lifestyle that's nothing like the lives of average Americans. You see the evidence that this is largely the way Americans are viewed in the views expressed by people from abroad in threads like this.
It's been difficult in this thread to get across the point that our freedoms and constitutional rights are constantly under attack. Because this isn't something that the media makes any attempt to display. There's simply no way to make people understand the gravity of the situation over here without them being here to see it. Someone couldn't even come here for a visit and understand it. They'd have to come here and stay with an average working class family for an extended period, and have that family open up their lives to them. Average working class people are the heart of America. And their day to day lives, and the problems they face aren't accurately depicted on TV. TV shows and movies glamorize certain aspects of America. I can't speak for anyone else on this board, but there's nothing glamorous about my day to day life. I don't have the luxury of having things just because I want them. My lifestyle bears no resemblance to that of the Kardashians, One Tree Hill, The Hills, Runs House, things aren't like they were in shows like Growing Pains, Charles In Charge, or any of the various 80's movies.
People may not even be aware of how the media has shaped their view of America. Because obviously any intelligent adult would understand that things aren't like they show on TV. But the media is the business of sensationalism. So what others see in the media represents an extremely small percentage of America.

Most Americans are drowning in job stress and day to day difficulties of all sorts. But if your view is based on what the media shows, you'd assume that Americans don't have real problems, they have problems that are all self created and based on selfish wants that aren't being fulfilled.

[Neil]

^^ hard to underestimate American's love affair for the gun though isn't it? - There Are 15,000 More Gun Stores In America Than Grocery Stores

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12#ixzz2H2hF0MCh

[Danny]

It is kind of disheartening to me that you seem to be of the opinion that Americans...ALL Americans...are driven by greed and nothing else. This is a stereotype, of course, and I really don't know where to lay the blame for it.

Its mostly the media. Americans are portrayed in the media as a nation of greedy, self centred, xenophobic fundamentalist Christian rednecks who view education as something to scorn and hate or up their own ass soccer moms who want the world wrapped in cotton wool and everything to be sue worthy. Both stereotypes sold as gun loving dullards who think america is the be all end all utpoia all other countries adore and aspire to be.

Of course i know thats patently bullshit as much as all english people talking with a plumb in their mouth and enjoying high tea after a game of critic and damning the poor. Trouble is America dont help itself by exporting names like kim kardashian or paris hilton but names like carl sagan or ,hell, to younger people, martin luther king jr remain obscure oddities barely referenced and never a subject or note.

Still i imagine its much the same in reverse with Englands exports being bloody X factor winners or piers morgan...

[babomb]

^^ hard to underestimate American's love affair for the gun though isn't it? - There Are 15,000 More Gun Stores In America Than Grocery Stores

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12#ixzz2H2hF0MCh Well, I don't think it's as prevalent as you think it is. I don't know anyone who fits that description. Most people I know own guns of some sort. But none of them seem to be in a love affair with them.
And the strange thing is that the people that you're talking about, the guys with bumper stickers and a dozen or more guns, THOSE are the people that are the least likely to ever be involved in a gun related death or crime. They're the ones that are trained with them, that know how to handle them, have the most respect for them. They also know that the quickest way to lose the right to own them is to be stupid with them. They really value them, and don't want to lose them.
Any gun owner knows that a gun is the most dangerous in the hands of people who fear them and see them as death machines, and those who have no experience with them.
As to there being 15,000 more gun stores than grocery stores, I'm not sure how true that is. But you also have to take into consideration the nature of those businesses. Do wal-marts count? Because most wal-marts sell groceries and guns.
Many large chain stores that sell guns are large sporting good stores. So they aren't strictly gun stores. I'm sure you have it pictured differently, where there's just all these stores that are just there to sell guns, and they outnumber grocery stores. With just every type of gun you can imagine, and you can see guys walking out with assault rifles slung over their shoulder, anti-tank rockets and grenade launchers. Guys with camo face paint on, with knives strapped to their arms and bandoleers criss crossed over their chests, hiding behind cars and moving stealthily to avoid detection. Guys driving monster trucks with gun bumper stickers with phrases relating to mass murder and hoarding ammunition.
I think if you were to spend any time around people that are involved in the gun culture here, you'd quickly find that it isn't at all the way you imagine it. People that are really into guns aren't war mongers, they aren't violent dangerous people. They're enthusiasts, like car enthusiasts, or computer enthusiasts.
If you walk into a computer enthusiasts basement, you'd see multiple computers. So someone who knows nothing about computers would ask themselves why this person needs 8 different computers. But when you get down to it, 1 computer is possibly a home media server, another is a gaming rig, another might be for graphic design/CAD, a couple might be cheap white box machines that are for kids so they don't damage one of the more expensive machines that has a specific purpose. Others are just older machines that might only have nostalgic worth and are just there as display items because this person has spent time collecting them, and configuring them, so they're proud of them.
Same with guns. You don't know much about guns, so when you see someones collection you just see several guns that look very similar and wonder why that person would need 8 guns. But 1 might be a simple AR15 that's 15 years old, and another might be a newer AR15 that has a completely different receiver or barrel, maybe it's chambered for a completely different round. Maybe this person intends to sell a couple off but just hasn't had the time, or maybe it's sentimental value because of where he bought it or how he got it that makes him keep it, or maybe he just put alot more money into it than he'll ever get for it on a resale.
The fact is that you don't know anything about guns except that they kill people. And based on that single fact that you know about them, you think that you're qualified to say that someone only needs 1, or that this person doesn't need 1 at all, and why should this person be allowed to own 6 that are displayed on his wall. In your mind, they have a single solitary purpose. And owning 1 is as good as owning 10. Because they're just death machines, and the more a person owns the more likely it is that someone will die by 1 of them. Frankly, it's an ignorant position to take on the matter. And I know you think it's a righteous ignorance, but ignorance is ignorance.

There seems to be this insidious idea bubbling to the surface today, that America has had too much freedom for too long, and it's bad for us and for the rest of the world. It's a steaming pile of dogshit.

[strayrider]

Dig it.

The media. That must be why I am so uniformed concerning certain viewpoints. I do not watch television. I work too much to waste time with that bullshit.

As for "love affair with guns". Speaking only for myself...bullshit. I love my family. I love my friends. I love my cats. I love my nation and the God of my understanding.

I try my best to love people in general. Some deserve this expenditure of emotion; some do not.

Firearms are simple tools that serve a variety of functions and they do not deserve my love. Sort of like my telescope...well, I do feel kind of affectionate toward the "scope". Focusing in on Jupiter, binary stars, and Messier objects makes my l'il heart go "pitter-patter".

:D

-stray-

Oh and as for gun stores outnumbering grocery stores? Could this be the result of the big conglomerates in the grocery industry running the little mom and pop places out of business? I do not not know the answer. Honestly, I do not care.

[babomb]

Its mostly the media. Americans are portrayed in the media as a nation of greedy, self centred, xenophobic fundamentalist Christian rednecks who view education as something to scorn and hate or up their own ass soccer moms who want the world wrapped in cotton wool and everything to be sue worthy. Both stereotypes sold as gun loving dullards who think america is the be all end all utpoia all other countries adore and aspire to be.

Of course i know thats patently bullshit as much as all english people talking with a plumb in their mouth and enjoying high tea after a game of critic and damning the poor. Trouble is America dont help itself by exporting names like kim kardashian or paris hilton but names like carl sagan or ,hell, to younger people, martin luther king jr remain obscure oddities barely referenced and never a subject or note.

Still i imagine its much the same in reverse with Englands exports being bloody X factor winners or piers morgan... And this is a big problem, really. You have the media reporting on things, according to their own agenda. The liberal media, which seems to be the most prevalent, always seems to have a statist view on things. So their spin on things is always that the state knows what's best, as long as the state is democrat controlled, and those who oppose are backwater hicks who's view on things is backward and selfish. Or, those who oppose do so for personal selfish reasons such as religion.
Which is the case with the education argument. It comes back to this idea that liberty is a selfish value. Which seems to be an idea that's being promoted alot these days.
It's not that Christians or rednecks view education as something to scorn or hate. It's that they don't like the idea of their children having the values of the state forced on them. I'm not religious myself. But I support freedom of religion.
Many Christians choose to do home schooling. And the state seems to want to intrude on that at any opportunity, because the state doesn't like anything being outside of their control. The state is uncomfortable with the Christian value system because they aren't the authority on it. But they feel they can regain some of that control through propaganda, and controlling the popular opinion on Christian's and their value system. Which is why Christians are portrayed as backwater hicks that scorn and hate education.
It's total media manipulation. It's done so that people become used to the idea that the state is the authority on everything. People who reject the state as total authority, those are the people who have a problem with things like taxation without representation, they value individual liberty as opposed to a collectivist view, which means they're people who will stand up to the state. And to the state, that's unacceptable.
This comes back to the issue of Tyranny. Which is what the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from. Which is why the 2nd amendment is under attack. Even though citizens with guns don't pose a large threat to the authority of the state, they are still a thorn in their side. Which is really what the gun control debate is truly about. Control, not safety.

[Danny]

Oh lord. So CNN had someone on to debate the topic of gun control with peirs morgan. Do they get someone from like the NRA? or ,i dont know, a cop? nope. they get ALEX FUCKING JONES.
He ranted for ten minutes straight with no pause for breath calling peirs morgan a "redcoat hatchet man for the new world order", took the piss out of his accent and generally acted like a psychopath then ended with "by the way ive got 50 guns myself".
-and of course all the comments on european websites? "well thats a typical american for you"
seriously. alex jones? did they expect a rational debate or what? :lol:

[Staredge]

^^ hard to underestimate American's love affair for the gun though isn't it? - There Are 15,000 More Gun Stores In America Than Grocery Stores

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12#ixzz2H2hF0MCh

Bullshit. This is part of the problem. 61000 of the "licensed firearms dealers" are collectors. IIRC, you need the FFL to own full-auto weapons (yes, there are people who own them privately. Operating tanks and cannons as well), certainly to trade them. I would guess that an overwhelming majority of them do NOT actively sell guns. They aren't dealers......but it sure makes for a good headline, doesn't it? As was said before.....does every Walmart and Kmart that sells guns also have to have an FFL, or just the corporate office? If so, that reduces the numbers as well. (not to mention the mom and pop places out west that sell guns AND butter)

I love statistics....they can say whatever you want them too.

[babomb]

Oh lord. So CNN had someone on to debate the topic of gun control with peirs morgan. Do they get someone from like the NRA? or ,i dont know, a cop? nope. they get ALEX F*CKING JONES.
He ranted for ten minutes straight with no pause for breath calling peirs morgan a "redcoat hatchet man for the new world order", took the piss out of his accent and generally acted like a psychopath then ended with "by the way ive got 50 guns myself".
-and of course all the comments on european websites? "well thats a typical american for you"
seriously. alex jones? did they expect a rational debate or what? :lol: That's because Alex Jones was the one that started the petition to deport Peirs Morgan. It was a well thought out move on the part of the liberal media. They knew how Alex Jones was gonna act, and they planned it out so that they could use that as fuel for the anti-gun fire.
The disturbing part was that after Alex did his whole bit, they brought Allen Dershowitz on. He and peirs went on about Alex, and then made the case that Alex's other beliefs made him unfit to be a gun owner. Then Jon Stewart continued that idea tonight on the daily show.
And this is a major new development in the gun control debate. And shows what I've been saying about the ways that the media shapes ideas about things.
What they're saying is that people who believe that the 2nd amendment is there to protect the people from a tyrannical government are paranoid crackpots that are so unhinged that they shouldn't be allowed to own guns in the 1st place. Making the case that peoples political beliefs alone should be basis for losing constitutional rights.
This is an extremely disturbing thing! This not only strikes a blow to the 2nd amendment. It also alienates anyone who's political ideas are outside of the status quo.
This is not accidental. This is a very deliberate act on the part of the American propaganda machine. This sets the stage to make it much easier to phase out the constitution.
This makes it unpopular to be protective over the constitution, and paints those who are protective over it in a bad light.
Meanwhile, last Friday there was a bill introduced to repeal the 22nd amendment, which would abolish term limits on the Presidency.
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-joint-resolution/15

So it seems that as the constitution is being attacked more and more aggressively by our government, that there's a media campaign being waged that aims to make crackpots and public enemies of those who want to protect it!?
I find it hard to believe that any outsider could look at the US government and think that they just want to make the country a better place to live for the citizens.
Maybe if this government were more respectful of the constitution, and stopped trying to make it obsolete, people wouldn't be so paranoid about their rights being taken away. And wouldn't feel the need to cling to guns to protect themselves from a government that seems hell bent on destroying the constitution.
The situation is that this government has been hijacked by powerful corporations. And the constitution is a hindrance to their goals.

- - - Updated - - -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXg2WsNCrW4

[Publius]

^^ hard to underestimate American's love affair for the gun though isn't it? - There Are 15,000 More Gun Stores In America Than Grocery Stores

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12#ixzz2H2hF0MCh

It's hard to imagine how they could have made that statistic MORE misleading. The number of "grocery stores" comes from a Food Marketing Institute fact page (http://www.fmi.org/research-resources/supermarket-facts) listing only the number of supermarkets with more than $2 million per year in revenue. There are few gun stores as big as any one of those 36k supermarkets. The number of "gun stores" includes every small mom and pop gun store in the country, plus many thousands of individuals whose "store" is their home address, and hold a firearms dealer license only because they want to engage in one or two transactions per year that require a dealer license.

[SBEADER]

........

[Mike70]

I'm more worried about the fact that the govt. can now seize your property at the border during re-entry to the US including your computer, money, electronic devices, etc. without probable cause, without any sort of suspicion of criminal activity, with zero reason at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25458533

if you voted for Obama you need to be utterly f*cking ashamed of yourself.

[SBEADER]

........

[Mike70]

Hope and change hahaha.....

yeah, there has been change alright - for the worse. the govt. has shutdown twice, the federal "law enforcement" agencies are out of control, and WORST of all, the relationship between the States (many of them extremely powerful states) and the federal govt. is beginning to unravel. I am an ardent believer in State's rights and a strict constructionist in relation to the constitution. Obama should be impeached and tried for abuse of power and about a thousand other things.

I am also becoming more convinced than ever that the democratic party has to be destroyed by any means for the good of the Republic.

[Darkest Hour]

M70 the record states (nothing personal) that you were deployed by leviathan twice.
Agency and army.
I too feel bad of the things I have done and brought to fruition by my little piece of the pie when you look at big pic.

DH

[SBEADER]

.....

[Legion2213]

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE AND NEITHER IS THE REST! WE KICKED TYRANNICAL ASS THE FIRST TIME AND BRING IT ON AGAIN IF NECESSARY! im tired of this debate even though it will never end. and a certain someone said it best "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!" GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Although I 100% respect that the US has the 2nd amendment and fully support the right of all American folks to bear arms (and if I was a US citizen I would bear many, many arms indeed, just because I could), I can assure you that the redcoats will not be invading the US again anytime in the near future.

Seriously, shouty, ranting posts like this don't do 2nd amendment supporters (or the image of) any favours IMO.

Happy new year HPoDers. :)

[SBEADER]

.....

[Darkest Hour]

Same to you and yours Legion
(post more SB but be careful not to tread into certain territory,one guy posted like you and people ignored and belittled him).

DH

[SBEADER]

......

[Crappingbear]

Better know how to get by, the gov is cutting services to the bone.

[zombieparanoia]

Oh come on, Americans are way too fat and lazy to actually go to revolution. Look at Syria, how many americans would be willing to give up their wifi, running water, electricity, 10,000 channels and air conditioning to "fight the man"? Exactly zero. The will to endure hardship has been sapped by generations of soft living.

That's why all you hear is "a reckonin is a'coming" from the fools who think their countrymen have the collective stones to take on their own military. Those who think a revolution is possible need to take a hard look at their supply of groceries that are shelf stable, no power means no refrigeration, no fuel means no cars and limited heat. All they'd have to do is cut power fuel shipments and water for 3 days and everyone in every major city will capitulate. They already have the means to shut down electronic communication at the push of a button, they've done it several times in the US already. How will the revolutionaries organize without being intercepted by the NSA et al? Messenger pigeons?

"the military would be on the side of the people"? yeah right. All they have to do is label you domestic terrorists and you get the same treatment as insurgents in Iraq. It is "Army Strong" not "Army Smart" for a reason. The military would fight domestic revolutionaries as hard and as ruthlessly as any other enemy they face, you would after all be trying to kill them, and they don't take kindly to you shooting their brothers in arms.

Sure, there'd be small pockets of militias, but those would get crushed pretty quickly, it's not like your military has been perfecting it's anti-insurgent and urban warfare capabilities for the last decade against hardened enemies instead of soft amateurs. Your right to bear arms is a ruse, you can flatten all the small arms fire you want on the side of an Abrams. Or you can just wait for the Reapers to come and get you in your beds while you sleep. Shame about your family and neighbours, collateral losses and all that.

So just keep on dreaming and telling yourself the guns are to "fight tyranny" when the rest of the world knows you own them because you have insecurities about your collective manhoods.

[SBEADER]

........

[zombieparanoia]

Wow that's amazing military insight seeing just how well those weapons worked in Iraq and Afghanistan ..

Really? Go ahead and point out all those military victories the insurgents had. The only way insurgents win is by waiting for the occupier to go home due to cost of maintaining long distance campaigns, unfortunately for the american militias "Sons of obesity", the US military would be holding home turf advantage too. Remember Fallujah? the insurgents killed 4 military contractors/mercenaries and in response fallujah was basically leveled in a one sided battle between armor with air support and insurgents with rpgs and Ak-47s. How many did the US lose?

The weapons worked well, the soldiers did their jobs and crushed that civilian uprising, just like they would if american born terrorists started killing soldiers.

[SBEADER]

.......

[zombieparanoia]

Leaderless resistance? Against the best armed and trained military in the world? yeah right, give your head a shake if you think that's ever going to happen. There is literally more likely chance of a zombie apocalypse than a successful, countrywide leaderless resistance uprising in the US. Who's running fallujah today? Actually the iraqi government. anywhere outside of Kabul? The taliban. You remember them right? the guys who retreated to pakistan and waziristan instead of trying to be stupid and take on the US military in a shoot out.

[Neil]

da974B1gSUw

Richard Martinez blames the NRA and government. Obviously the individual behind the gun that shot his son is in the mix too... But had he not had access to those guns (so easily)...

[SBEADER]

.......

[Publius]

Richard Martinez blames the NRA and government. Obviously the individual behind the gun that shot his son is in the mix too... But had he not had access to those guns (so easily)...
He's a little short on details about what additional regulations would have prevented this. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S., with background checks, 10-day waiting period, and handgun registration. At about the same time as this incident, someone fatally shot three people at a Jewish museum in Belgium, which has even stricter gun controls than California. There is no conceivable way we'll get stricter gun controls on a national level in the United States than Belgium has.

[Neil]

He's a little short on details about what additional regulations would have prevented this. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S., with background checks, 10-day waiting period, and handgun registration. At about the same time as this incident, someone fatally shot three people at a Jewish museum in Belgium, which has even stricter gun controls than California. There is no conceivable way we'll get stricter gun controls on a national level in the United States than Belgium has.

I understand your point, but feel you're not being entirely fair in your analogy.

Do strong gun restrictions stop gun crime (murder)? Of course not. We have strong gun control here in the UK, but do we still gave deaths (murder) with guns? Of course. But because guns are harder to come by - definately for spur of the moment killings - they're simply not used.

To go back to your comparison, there's a reason maybe why the US has a far higher death per X population than Belgium. Some of it will be cultural and down to other reasons, but I suspect a huge proportion will be, make guns available more easily to people who want to kill people with them... they'll kill people with them!

A mentally unstable teenager hits breaking point - Would you prefer he has guns more/less easily accessible?

ps: I'm not suggesting removing all guns in the US, just pointing out my view on their use/availability.

[SBEADER]

Sociopaths are born that way its genetic and a simple mri of the brain. clearly shows the remarkable difference from a normal person.A Sociopath by there very nature will never obey any laws or moral codes....

[Neil]

Sociopaths are born that way its genetic and a simple mri of the brain. clearly shows the remarkable difference from a normal person.A Sociopath by there very nature will never obey any laws or moral codes....
That, or I guess made into one by repeated bruising by society...

[SBEADER]

The western world chooses emotion over science until that changes the problems with violence won't have any solutions. sad to say....

[Publius]

A mentally unstable teenager hits breaking point - Would you prefer he has guns more/less easily accessible?
As an abstract hypothetical question about an ideal controlled environment, divorced from questions about the effectiveness of specific policies at influencing that variable (or their possible unintended consequences), certainly I would pick "less easily." But I was responding to Martinez's claim that the NRA is to blame for this incident (which didn't involve a teenager, and no one has explained what the NRA did that allowed this incident to occur).

[SBEADER]

It leads one to wonder why are left wing people so violent. Why do they fixate on gun violence when hands feet bats and knives are the leading cause of murder in the USA. Why do they hide. behind liberalism when they aren't in any way shape or form liberals.Why do they habour such intense raceism and misogyny why is history repplete with there ethnoreligious genocide ???

[AcesandEights]

It leads one to wonder why are left wing people so violent. Why do they fixate on gun violence when hands feet bats and knives are the leading cause of murder in the USA. Why do they hide. behind liberalism when they aren't in any way shape or form liberals.Why do they habour such intense raceism and misogyny why is history repplete with there ethnoreligious genocide ???

Do you actually believe this partisan tripe? Talk issues and stop looking for shallow arguments that prop up a one-dimensional worldview filled with this us vs. them crap.

[SBEADER]

......

[shootemindehead]

The National Socialists were right wing lad.

Just because Die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei had sozialistische in its title doesn't make it a left wing party. It was a social model based on an right wing nationalist building block. Hitler abhorred the left wing.

He banned the German Communist Party. He banned the German Socialist Party. He banned trade unions for christ's sake, the very staple of left wing workers ideology.

[SBEADER]

.........

[shootemindehead]

Socialism only means a social model. Don't confuse socialism (small c), a social model, with Socialism (Big C), the left wing ideology.

The nazis had a social model based on right wing ideologies. They were as far from left wing as you can get.

In addition, Bolshevism morphed into Stalinism, which not what the Communist experiment was supposed to be about. Stalin highjacked the success of the revolution for his own ends and it certainly is indicative of Socialism by any means.

[SBEADER]

The nazis were left wing fascists there state system of the group over the individual is exactly the same as the bolshevists because its based on the exact same doctrines of socialism ecact same 10 planks of comunisim exactly the same ......The nazis were extreme left wing socialsts thats well known and documented historical fact......ps by definition all true fascisim is lefy wing...

[Mr. Clean]

I disagree with the point about us hanging onto our guns because of "insecurities". Our guns definitely give us a better opportunity to rebel if we were required to do so.

However.... It is true about America being in a tight spot...


"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Over the past decade, our pledge has become practically meaningless.....More and more denounce God's existence....Politicians have made us very much divisible by slapping labels on us...black, white, rich, poor, republican, democrat....we fight and shit on each other because of these labels........people constantly allow the government to shit on our liberties and not to mention justice is an absolute joke in our country...

[SBEADER]

......

[shootemindehead]

The nazis were left wing fascists there state system of the group over the individual is exactly the same as the bolshevists because its based on the exact same doctrines of socialism ecact same 10 planks of comunisim exactly the same ......The nazis were extreme left wing socialsts thats well known and documented historical fact......ps by definition all true fascisim is lefy wing...

You couldn't more wrong even if you tried. The nazis were a right wing, ultra nationalist, totalitarian party. They were the polar opposite of left wing. They despised the Communist movement.

They launched a 4 year war against it for fuck sake and locked up or shut down the left wing elements within their own country.



And this isn't the forum to go into a lengthy history for you.

[SBEADER]

......

[shootemindehead]

You have an awful lot of reading to do.

;)

[SBEADER]

.....

[shootemindehead]

Ha ha...

You REALLY have an awful lot of reading to do.

[SBEADER]

......

[shootemindehead]

You're engaging in revisionism yourself lad.

;)

and you'll find few people with any knowledge of the nazis and WWII biting.

[SBEADER]

......

[shootemindehead]

Yeh yeh, whatever.

Bye bye.

I have much better things to do.

[SBEADER]

......

[zombieparanoia]

Whoops. I guess someone did some reading after all...

[SBEADER]

........

[shootemindehead]

You're making the mistake of associating an organisation, or a person within an organisation using some socialist elements in their policy and jumping to the conclusion that that was their entire manifesto.

After WWI the majority of political movements adopted some elements of socialist ideals, because of the rise of working class left-wing ideology throughout Europe. Even German conservative movements adopted some socialist ideals. The reason being a majority of the German population was disillusioned with the old power base that had led Germany into a devastating war and were wanting something different. Other countries also had right wing and traditional conservative political entities use elements of Socialism as part of their attempts to woo the public as well.

You have to remember that a lot of social changes were promised to working class people during WWI, especially in Britain and Germany. Many of them never materialised.

But, this doesn't mean that those parties were "left-wing", or even "socialist". It isn't as simplistic as that.

The German Workers Party, indeed, started off as a (semi) "socialist" party, but mainly drew its core from conservative WWI veterans. Groups such as the Freikorps and other right wing conservative and nationalist movements were drawn to what the party had to say as unemployment was extremely rife in Germany at the time, Socialist musings on that particular issue began to make much sense to many people, regardless of where their political compass pointed. The leader of the party, Anton Drexler, professed anti-monarchist and anti-Marxist views and this appealed to many unemployed Germans of both political wings at the time. Drexler generally assumed the contemporary nationalist positions and was fiercely opposed to the rising Communist and left-wing movements of European politics at the time.

It was this version of the party that Hitler, as a right wing nationalist, was sent to investigate by his army regiment in September 1919.

He later joined in October, after finding himself in agreement with the views of Drexler.

In actual fact, the German Workers Party was little more than a sounding off club for disenfranchised and disgruntled, unemployed Germans. There was no real leadership, no organisation, no proper direction. This appealed to Hitler, as he'd rejected politics, both left and right, up to that stage. Here, he saw the opportunity to create his own political movement, free of the constructs and restraints of the limited political views espoused by traditional left and right organisations. Hitler quickly started to direct the party's momentum and after he achieved leadership and formed the National Socialist German Workers Party, changed the party's make up from a disorganised group of largely aimless individuals into a new nationalist concern with a serious view to power, vehemently opposed to American style capitalism and Russian style communism with a complete hatred of the Marxist groups within Germany that had looked like they were on the verge of a Russian style revolution in the wake of WWI. This further increased the appeal of the nazis to traditional German conservatives and centrists, as they greatly feared this scenario. In fact the largest voter group of the nazis were middle class conservatives, who had lost everything in the post war period.

You are making the assumption that because the nazis don't conform to the modern style conservative outlook (which has little, to no bearing on the politics of the early 20th Century), that they were left wing and while it may go some way to salving your limited political bubble, it doesn't make you any less wrong.

[SBEADER]

.......

[Publius]

The Nazis sort of defy classification. It's almost like they tried to pick the worst ideas from every part of the political spectrum and mash them together into one movement.

[EvilNed]

The Nazis sort of defy classification. It's almost like they tried to pick the worst ideas from every part of the political spectrum and mash them together into one movement.

But they did it in style.

[MoonSylver]

But they did it in style.

Love the uniform! Who's your tailor!?!

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lju2yzw55U1qa3e57o1_500.png

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/a6/a62c23e32bd0c1d43c27a2b2abeae4e23bdf63c08f85a16286 3c8869376fbb1f.jpg

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/b5/b5b2b2d326a73ba3fd0890ec6f568a676fda8d1e2c0d0c3612 0354ebcce80f90.jpg

http://www.moolf.com/images/stories/Funny/Adolf-Hitler-Funny-Pictures/Adolf-Hitler-Funny-Pictures-2.jpg

http://www.imagesbuddy.com/images/36/2013/06/100-fabulous-glitter.gif

:lol:

[Mr. Clean]

The Nazis sort of defy classification. It's almost like they tried to pick the worst ideas from every part of the political spectrum and mash them together into one movement.

Agreed!