If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   CNN Editorial: Average Americans don't need an AK-47. James Homes Editorial: I did ok without one. Fark Comments Editorial: You can't stop lunatics regardless of legislation   (cnn.com) divider line 315
    More: Stupid, Un-American, assault weapons, gun culture, Urban League, ordinary Americans, syndicated columnist  
•       •       •

1539 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 12:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



315 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-01 02:25:21 PM

Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.

Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.

Your statement implies that you either enjoy hyperbole or know nothing of guns. I'll assume mainly hyperbole with a side order of lack of experience.

Do you have no room in your view for someone who lives in a city yet enjoys shooting in a controlled environment or who travels to the countryside to shoot?


Your statement implies that you can't read. I didn't say specifically what the laws should be in a city vs in the country, I said they should be treated differently because the situations are different. I can tell you what I think they should be, but that's not what I did there.
 
2012-08-01 02:26:07 PM

kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?


media.skateboard.com.au
 
2012-08-01 02:27:39 PM

CPennypacker: I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.


Until, of course, they are relevant again, and at that point if you don't have them, you are screwed.

I love this line of thinking "Hey, we don't need them, because we're all like, civilized now". So were the Romans. And the Greeks. And Yugoslavians and Rwandans in 1985.
 
2012-08-01 02:27:57 PM

CPennypacker: DORMAMU: CPennypacker

First, I need to appologize for my wall o texts. On mobile, not easy to snip.

Second, I do have to commend you 4 remaining quite civil.

I suspect our current loop/circle of discussion is, in part, due to a divergance in definition.

To illustrate, you see firearms as weapons and only weapons (correct me if I am wrong). I view them as tools, just like cars, the net, an axe, even pools. Yes firearms are weapons, but weapons are tools to me.

Tools can be grossly misused or negligently used causing grave damage/destruction. But tools can also aid an individual to achieve their desired effect. Tools make tha desired effect easier, faster, or simpler to obtain.

Yes, there tools that are ridiculous and I question their practicality or general usefullness (file 100 round drum here.

A large part of my view of firearms as tools is my parents never kept them secret and started teaching me at a relatively young age how dangerous they were. When they felt I had matured enough, I was allowed to use them under very strict circumstances.

I am curious as to your experiences with firearms. Would you care to eloborate? This is no way meant as an ttack on your upbringing or your life experiences. It is merely an attempt to better understand you so I can work on understanding your position and argument better and stop the chinese fire drill we appear to be stuck in.

/strong military family history
//usmc vet
///mother owns a piece of american history: .32 cal model 1869 winchester lever action, perfectly functioning

I have a lot of hunters in my family and I have a lot of experience shooting at ranges. A lot of my family members own pistols and rifles. I live in NYC and do not own a gun. I enjoy guns. I see why people own them. But I also see that they are dangerous. I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Guns are tools, but they are dangerous tools and should be reglated as such. Thats my view. Cars are dangerous tools too. You need to pass a driving test and carry insurance. You need to pass inspections. We need similar implementations for gun ownership in my opinion.


Noted.

Now we get into the merky areas what is reasonable implmentations.
For the record, I am in favor of conceald carry permits & requiring a certification to get one.

I like the idea you but forth but have mixef feelings about implementation. An example would be repriprocity(cant spell) between areas. More to avoid nasty over complication and confusing boundries.

Ie drive to the range and clip the neighboring town and you are illegally posessing cause your training class was 30 mins shorter.
 
2012-08-01 02:28:52 PM
Gun nuts are insane and it's no use trying to discuss this issue with them. They are mostly cowards and will do anything to grow their arsenal for their fantasies.
 
2012-08-01 02:30:02 PM

CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.

Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.

Your statement implies that you either enjoy hyperbole or know nothing of guns. I'll assume mainly hyperbole with a side order of lack of experience.

Do you have no room in your view for someone who lives in a city yet enjoys shooting in a controlled environment or who travels to the countryside to shoot?

Your statement implies that you can't read. I didn't say specifically what the laws should be in a city vs in the country, I said they should be treated differently because the situations are different. I can tell you what I think they should be, but that's not what I did there.


You've already endorsed outlawing gun possession and indicated support for the laws of DC and Chicago that the supreme court said were unconstitutional due to the second amendment in this thread. Since you have advocated taking away gun ownership rights, why would I think that you don't see that as a good goal?
 
2012-08-01 02:30:58 PM

dittybopper: CPennypacker: I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Until, of course, they are relevant again, and at that point if you don't have them, you are screwed.

I love this line of thinking "Hey, we don't need them, because we're all like, civilized now". So were the Romans. And the Greeks. And Yugoslavians and Rwandans in 1985.


Anyone else ever notice that the "We need our guns to protect us from the government" people are always the ones projecting the crazy so hard they are the reason you want there to be gun control in the first place?
 
2012-08-01 02:31:09 PM

kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?


I'm having trouble locating it, but I've seen a study linked here several times in which armed forces members were interviewed about that possibility. Most of them were extremely conflicted. A good number said they'd refuse the order, and some even said they'd desert and fight it.

/it wouldn't be clean either way
 
2012-08-01 02:31:26 PM

kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?


I have several guns I've bought from individuals. No background checks, no registration. Bought or traded them at the range. I'm certainly not the only person to do this. Good luck getting all the guns, or even a large percentage of them.
 
2012-08-01 02:31:40 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]


I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.
 
2012-08-01 02:33:32 PM

Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.

Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.

Your statement implies that you either enjoy hyperbole or know nothing of guns. I'll assume mainly hyperbole with a side order of lack of experience.

Do you have no room in your view for someone who lives in a city yet enjoys shooting in a controlled environment or who travels to the countryside to shoot?

Your statement implies that you can't read. I didn't say specifically what the laws should be in a city vs in the country, I said they should be treated differently because the situations are different. I can tell you what I think they should be, but that's not what I did there.

You've already endorsed outlawing gun possession and indicated support for the laws of DC and Chicago that the supreme court said were unconstitutional due to the second amendment in this thread. Since you have advocated taking away gun ownership rights, why would I think that you don't see that as a good goal?


Uh, no I never endorsed outlawing gun possession. I indicated that I support localities deciding on the legality of guns for themselves. I advocate taking away gun ownership rights but not necessarily taking away gun ownership. Noted that you cannot tell the difference.
 
2012-08-01 02:34:36 PM
A drone is no match for overweight white trash men with AR-15s.
 
2012-08-01 02:34:56 PM

CynicalLA: Gun nuts are insane and it's no use trying to discuss this issue with them. They are mostly cowards and will do anything to grow their arsenal for their fantasies.


I wouldnt mind owning a small variety of firearms. mostly to learn the nuances of each and broaden my knowledge.

Also different firearms have different uses. You might have use for more than one, like multiple tools in your tool box to work around the house or on your car.

Guess I am a flipping gun nut
 
2012-08-01 02:35:00 PM

kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.


Many of the members of the military respect and enjoy guns. As another poster said, this would conflict them greatly and could lead to a fracturing of the military to the point of civil war.
 
2012-08-01 02:37:03 PM

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Until, of course, they are relevant again, and at that point if you don't have them, you are screwed.

I love this line of thinking "Hey, we don't need them, because we're all like, civilized now". So were the Romans. And the Greeks. And Yugoslavians and Rwandans in 1985.

Anyone else ever notice that the "We need our guns to protect us from the government" people are always the ones projecting the crazy so hard they are the reason you want there to be gun control in the first place?


Good point...
 
2012-08-01 02:37:26 PM

DORMAMU: CynicalLA: Gun nuts are insane and it's no use trying to discuss this issue with them. They are mostly cowards and will do anything to grow their arsenal for their fantasies.

I wouldnt mind owning a small variety of firearms. mostly to learn the nuances of each and broaden my knowledge.

Also different firearms have different uses. You might have use for more than one, like multiple tools in your tool box to work around the house or on your car.

Guess I am a flipping gun nut


Don't get me wrong, I love weapons and own a few myself. It's the fanatics that ruin it for everyone else.
 
2012-08-01 02:38:05 PM

kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.


In my extended family alone, I have 4 Iraq War vets and 2 Afghan vets, but I'm sure the local SWAT would take us out in two seconds. Guess what? The military is full of gunnuts and they will not follow orders to kill their own friends and family.
 
2012-08-01 02:39:17 PM

devildog123: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

I have several guns I've bought from individuals. No background checks, no registration. Bought or traded them at the range. I'm certainly not the only person to do this. Good luck getting all the guns, or even a large percentage of them.


That was my point in asking the question, a gun grab in my opinion would be pointless. But if they wanted to they could surely could go round up the ones they know about, nobody is stopping the military with an AK 47 or glock.

As far as whether the soldiers would obey or not, they will do as their told. Or do you think Kent State was some kind of fluke?
 
2012-08-01 02:41:51 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

In my extended family alone, I have 4 Iraq War vets and 2 Afghan vets, but I'm sure the local SWAT would take us out in two seconds. Guess what? The military is full of gunnuts and they will not follow orders to kill their own friends and family.


Guess what, they ship the soldiers to other parts of the country for this type of thing. Couldn't figure that out on your own?
 
2012-08-01 02:41:54 PM

kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.


You do realize that a lot of these guys that own guns are military and ex-military right? I know anti-gun people think that everyone is some redneck toothless hillbilly Stormfront member, but they really aren't. Do you really think the military would just go after most gun owners? They make up a lot of the private gun owners, and their fellow vets make up a big chunk of the rest of them. I don't think the military will do what you think they will. I sure as shait wouldn't have.
 
2012-08-01 02:44:22 PM

CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: CPennypacker: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

CPennypacker: Oh, I agree. As I said earlier, I like guns, and they have their purposes, but I don't think ownership should be a right. I think it should be legal and regulated.

Yet you're okay with areas outlawing gun ownership. You're not being honest.

Laws and Democracy, how do they work?

Also, gun ownership in a crowded city is different from gun ownership in a small town is different from gun ownership on a farm and should be treated differently legally. A misfire on a farm could put a hole in your barn. A misfire on a NYC subway could kill 7 people.

Your statement implies that you either enjoy hyperbole or know nothing of guns. I'll assume mainly hyperbole with a side order of lack of experience.

Do you have no room in your view for someone who lives in a city yet enjoys shooting in a controlled environment or who travels to the countryside to shoot?

Your statement implies that you can't read. I didn't say specifically what the laws should be in a city vs in the country, I said they should be treated differently because the situations are different. I can tell you what I think they should be, but that's not what I did there.

You've already endorsed outlawing gun possession and indicated support for the laws of DC and Chicago that the supreme court said were unconstitutional due to the second amendment in this thread. Since you have advocated taking away gun ownership rights, why would I think that you don't see that as a good goal?

Uh, no I never endorsed outlawing gun possession. I indicated that I support localities deciding on the legality of guns for themselves. I advocate taking away gun ownership ...


Your slide into personal insults has been noted as well. Rarely are personal attacks the hallmark of a sound position of argument.

We're just not going to see eye-to-eye. I'll never accept removal of second amendment rights, and you'd like to see a country where gun ownership can be made illegal legislatively by locality.

To this point, your main argument is effectively "In a city, guns are too dangerous because of all the people around." Almost everything is more dangerous when there are lots of people around.
 
2012-08-01 02:46:38 PM

devildog123: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

You do realize that a lot of these guys that own guns are military and ex-military right? I know anti-gun people think that everyone is some redneck toothless hillbilly Stormfront member, but they really aren't. Do you really think the military would just go after most gun owners? They make up a lot of the private gun owners, and their fellow vets make up a big chunk of the rest of them. I don't think the military will do what you think they will. I sure as shait wouldn't have.


It would really depend on whether the ones who don't comply could be painted as traitors or enemies of the state. The military had no problem opening up on unarmed college students, I doubt little has changed.

You think I'm antigun because why?
 
2012-08-01 02:47:57 PM

CynicalLA: DORMAMU: CynicalLA: Gun nuts are insane and it's no use trying to discuss this issue with them. They are mostly cowards and will do anything to grow their arsenal for their fantasies.

I wouldnt mind owning a small variety of firearms. mostly to learn the nuances of each and broaden my knowledge.

Also different firearms have different uses. You might have use for more than one, like multiple tools in your tool box to work around the house or on your car.

Guess I am a flipping gun nut

Don't get me wrong, I love weapons and own a few myself. It's the fanatics that ruin it for everyone else.


Snark withdrawn...
 
2012-08-01 02:48:33 PM

kapaso: devildog123: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

You do realize that a lot of these guys that own guns are military and ex-military right? I know anti-gun people think that everyone is some redneck toothless hillbilly Stormfront member, but they really aren't. Do you really think the military would just go after most gun owners? They make up a lot of the private gun owners, and their fellow vets make up a big chunk of the rest of them. I don't think the military will do what you think they will. I sure as shait wouldn't have.

It would really depend on whether the ones who don't comply could be painted as traitors or enemies of the state. The military had no problem opening up on unarmed college students, I doubt little has changed.

You think I'm antigun because why?


Do you not remember what happened as a result of the Kent State shootings? There were widespread riots. Now imagine if the people rioting had access to a fairly large cache of weapons.

/Does that seem smart?
 
2012-08-01 02:49:45 PM

Explodo: Your slide into personal insults has been noted as well. Rarely are personal attacks the hallmark of a sound position of argument.

We're just not going to see eye-to-eye. I'll never accept removal of second amendment rights, and you'd like to see a country where gun ownership can be made illegal legislatively by locality.

To this point, your main argument is effectively "In a city, guns are too dangerous because of all the people around." Almost everything is more dangerous when there are lots of people around.


No, thats not my main argument
 
2012-08-01 02:50:53 PM

kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

In my extended family alone, I have 4 Iraq War vets and 2 Afghan vets, but I'm sure the local SWAT would take us out in two seconds. Guess what? The military is full of gunnuts and they will not follow orders to kill their own friends and family.

Guess what, they ship the soldiers to other parts of the country for this type of thing. Couldn't figure that out on your own?


So, the military would segregate units via state-by-state or regionally or would they just use say New York guardsmen to send to Colorado to kill me and my family? You don't see where such a plan would end up? Civil War is the correct answer.

//doesn't matter, your scenario is fantasy.
 
2012-08-01 02:54:18 PM

redmid17: kapaso: devildog123: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

You do realize that a lot of these guys that own guns are military and ex-military right? I know anti-gun people think that everyone is some redneck toothless hillbilly Stormfront member, but they really aren't. Do you really think the military would just go after most gun owners? They make up a lot of the private gun owners, and their fellow vets make up a big chunk of the rest of them. I don't think the military will do what you think they will. I sure as shait wouldn't have.

It would really depend on whether the ones who don't comply could be painted as traitors or enemies of the state. The military had no problem opening up on unarmed college students, I doubt little has changed.

You think I'm antigun because why?

Do you not remember what happened as a result of the Kent State shootings? There were widespread riots. Now imagine if the people rioting had access to a fairly large cache of weapons.

/Does that seem smart?


I never said smart. I believe it is more than possible. The only thing a gun would do for you if the government decided to get them is ensure your quick death. You'll have to excuse my less than stellar opinion of what our military will and won't do, but if history is any guide they will do as they are told.
 
2012-08-01 02:56:44 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Ow! That was my feelings!: kapaso: Explodo: I guarantee you that if gun ownership were outlawed by a stripping of second amendment rights, nobody would volunteer to go and collect them because any group trying to forcibly remove guns would suffer a great deal of casualties. It'd be the true start of an armed revolt.

I doubt it, they would probably use swat teams or a military force, little difference really. Once the first few gun owners were put down with little problem the rest would fall in line. Of course the vast majority of gun owners in Arizona have unregistered firearms, so how would they know who has them and who doesn't?

[media.skateboard.com.au image 560x432]

I have come to doubt the actual bravery of a group that likes bravado so much. I could be wrong, maybe they will band together and put up the good fight, then the government would call in the military and it would be over in about two seconds.

In my extended family alone, I have 4 Iraq War vets and 2 Afghan vets, but I'm sure the local SWAT would take us out in two seconds. Guess what? The military is full of gunnuts and they will not follow orders to kill their own friends and family.

Guess what, they ship the soldiers to other parts of the country for this type of thing. Couldn't figure that out on your own?

So, the military would segregate units via state-by-state or regionally or would they just use say New York guardsmen to send to Colorado to kill me and my family? You don't see where such a plan would end up? Civil War is the correct answer.

//doesn't matter, your scenario is fantasy.


It's not my fantasy, I don't believe it will ever happen. Gun fanatics on the other hand talk about holding off the government with every other breath. They sound like fools to me.
 
2012-08-01 03:03:13 PM

BeesNuts: Carth: odinsposse: Aarontology: Seriously, please offer me a reasonable and rational explanation as to why someone who isn't a law enforcement officer needs to fire off that many bullets?

Law enforcement doesn't either.

I've always thought that the most reasonable standard for determining what firearms people could own would be "anything that police use." The police, after all, are civilians. They are far more like the traditional militia than any of those backwood yokel groups.

It would also be a good reason to restrain the militarization of police forces.

But police are expected to deal with criminals who may acquire their firearms illegally. We've learned shootouts turnout very bad when the police are out gunned.

Talking about the bank robbers that led to the creation of SWAT, are you?

Cause that event led directly to the creation of just what you're talking about... better equipped and better trained SPECIAL units of police. A SPECIAL unit that has access to SPECIAL weapons and is trained in SPECIAL tactics.

Or we could just give every cop in the country an M4A1 and a handful of grenades and flashbangs, full body armor, tanks and a LAW and watch crime drop to zero in just a few years!

/we're so farking weird about law in this country.
//Even weirder when we synthesize law and order with the second amendment.


Just an FYI, the cops in florence, KY each have a AR15 or M4 in their squad cars. I'll wait while you look at the wiki entry for florence.

If you give them money and means, PDs will buy bigger guns because they think it deters crime or makes up for small dicks, or they are brothers with the dealer or whatever.
 
2012-08-01 03:04:54 PM

Kome: I'm just gonna leave this here:
Link - Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed


The "study" does not differentiate between armed thugs/criminals and people licensed to carry.

Odds are if there is a gang shooting...both parties are armed.
 
2012-08-01 03:08:31 PM

Antimatter: Headso: Antimatter: Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!

I do actually, which is why I use a .40 165gr JHP rather then say, a 180 gr FMJ round.

It should stop at the walls quite nicely.

I have fired a .22 hollow point into a 50 gallon tupperware thing full of water and some of them went through to the other side, I can't see a couple sheets of drywall stopping it... But hey, I'm not yer neighbor so lock and load dude...

Good point. Might have to switch to some air-safety rounds or something.

Although honestly, I hope never to ever have to use it against a person.


We all like to make fun of each other on here for being stupid but the reality is most farkers are smarter and more mature and more responsible than the average person so at the end of the day it isn't even you guys people should be worried about being unsafe with your gun regardless of the rounds being used. I was just making a point about the dangers of people having and using guns to protect themselves in densely populated areas.
 
2012-08-01 03:25:18 PM

CPennypacker: Giltric: Wild dogs/coyotes run in packs.

Until the government can prevent that from happening I need at least 30 round mags.


The number of crimes committed with assault weapons with hi cap mags is less then the amount of voter fraud committed....so using logic provided by the anti voter ID crowd assault weapons and hi cap magazines should not be legislated.

Your point will be valid when voter fraud starts killing people


www.apfn.org
 
2012-08-01 03:41:44 PM
Nobody is interested in thinking rationally or solving problems anymore. Let's look at the guns vs. swimming pools are more deadly to kids debate.

Here's some hard data:

Pools -
Approximately 10% of households have a pool, though this can be as high as 40% in some areas

Pools - how many injuries?
83% of pool drownings occur at privately owned pools
Approx 300 kids aged four and under drown every year
Extrapolating -> means that approx 250 children die in private pools every year
Number of near-drownings in pools is not reported (number of near-drownings overall is 2700)

Pools - how do injuries occur?
Children can drown in two minutes
Most children who are drowned in private pools were last seen in the house, were out of sight for less than five minutes, and were under the supervision of one to two adults
Most drownings occur in pools that do not have complete isolation-fences

Guns -
Approximately 40% of households own at least one gun
Approximately 33% of households with children own at least one gun

Guns - how many injuries?
Unintentional shootings compose 20% of firearm-related fatalities for kids under 14
72 kids per year die as a result of unintentional shootings
800 kids per year treated at hospital as a result of an unintentional shooting
85% of victims are male

Guns - how do injuries occur?
Nearly all shootings occur in or around the home
50% occur at the victim's house, 40% occur at a friend's house
Most shootings occur when a gun is left loaded and accessible to children
More than half of gun-owning parents admit to leaving their guns loaded or unlocked
More than 70% of shootings involve handguns
A recent study showed that 50% of children who found a handgun were unsure whether it was real or a toy
A recent study showed that 90% of children who found a gun would pick it up and/or pull the trigger

Sources: drowning fact sheet and unintentional firearm injury factsheet

Some derived statistics:
300 drownings / 10% of households with a pool = 30 drownings per 1% of households having a pool

72 unintentional shooting fatalities / 40% of households with a gun = 1.8 unintentional shooting fatalities per 1% of households having a gun
800 unintentional shooting injuries / 40% of households with a gun = 20 unintentional shooting injuries per 1% of households having a gun
extrapolated 360 fatal shootings total / 40% of households with a gun = 9 fatal shootings total per 1% of households having a gun

72 unintentional shooting fatalities / 33% of parental households with a gun = 2.2 unintentional shooting fatalities per 1% of parental households with a gun


Anyway, time for a reasonable discussion on this. There are three ways you can assess gun ownership in the US - total number of guns sold, total number of gun owners, and total number of households with guns. I chose the third as being most relevant because it seems reasonable to assume that access to guns will vary on a house-by-house basis. Additionally, pool ownership is universally reported by number of households, rather than by individual ownership, and this allows us to have a common measuring stick.

The most important message is this: both types of injury described above are easily preventable. In the case of pools, the majority of drownings occur in less than 5 minutes, so presumably they could be mostly prevented by better adult supervision and a locking pool enclosure. In the case of guns, the majority of shootings occur when children are unsupervised at home with a loaded gun they can access, so presumably most of these shootings could be prevented by mandatory safe-storage laws.

As it just so happens, there are widely different state and local laws governing pool enclosures and gun safe-storage laws. We can effectively determine whether such measures can make pools and guns safe for children. In the case of pools, total-isolation pool fencing has been found to reduce fatalities by as much as 80%. Importantly, total isolation fencing must be employed; three-sided fencing allows access through the house, and does very little to influence drownings. In the case of guns, mandatory safe-storage laws cut child shooting fatalities by 23%.

Reducing the above quantities by the previously mentioned safety factors, we get:
60 reduced drownings / 10% of households with a pool = 6 drownings per 1% of households having a pool
55 reduced shooting fatalities / 33% of parental households with a gun = 1.7 shooting fatalities per 1% of parental households having a gun

Therefore, if you just look at accidental fatalities vs percentage of households owning, you get that pools are 15 times more dangerous than guns without regulations, or three times more dangerous than guns with regulation.

Relative danger is not the only measure of whether we should regulate something as a society. Both pools and guns have their own unique advantages and drawbacks for a community. One major issue is that I have only addressed accidental fatalities arising from the usage of guns, and the prevalence of intentional criminal misuse plays a critical role in the gun control debate. Also important is the fact that Americans are granted a right to own weapons in the Constitution. Both of these are separate issues from how relatively dangerous guns are, but they are two issues, among many, that must be addressed when engaging in a gun control debate.

I firmly believe that different groups of people hold the sovereign right to control what happens within their communities, and I fully support the right of a community to decide on unfettered, restricted, or no access to guns. However, lawmakers and advocates must hold themselves to a higher standard than they currently do- our politics shouldn't be driven by personal agendas and our advocates should have the integrity to accept the unbiased facts, and to not deny those facts even when it doesn't necessarily help their cause.

Gun advocates should have the integrity to accept that unintentional child fatalities can be reduced by 23% by the use of mandatory gun locks, while gun control advocates should have the integrity to admit that pools are significantly more dangerous to children than guns are. Both things are true, but neither fact is the end of the debate. Gun advocates should accept that just because pools are more dangerous than guns doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate guns, and gun control advocates should accept that there are valid reasons why someone wouldn't want to keep their self-defense gun locked up.

But until we can all fully understand what's going on, and honestly visit these questions, we're just going to make each other angry. I'm not going to give you my opinion, because that's not my goal here. What I have done for you is to demonstrate what a calm and rational assessment looks like, without trying to push an agenda. This little piece took me two hours to research and write up- really understanding an issue takes a lot of time and effort- so I understand that at some level we all have to rely on expert advocates to do our research for us. The critical thing is that we HAVE to be willing to consider all the pieces of evidence, and you HAVE to be sure that your expert advisers are going to give you the honest, whole truth.
 
2012-08-01 03:49:55 PM

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Until, of course, they are relevant again, and at that point if you don't have them, you are screwed.

I love this line of thinking "Hey, we don't need them, because we're all like, civilized now". So were the Romans. And the Greeks. And Yugoslavians and Rwandans in 1985.

Anyone else ever notice that the "We need our guns to protect us from the government" people are always the ones projecting the crazy so hard they are the reason you want there to be gun control in the first place?


A government that doesn't fear an armed populace has nothing to fear from an armed populace.

A government that *DOES* fear the people being armed probably should fear them.

In other words, a truly democratic and representative government has nothing to fear from an armed populace. No possible insurrection could gain even the tiniest foothold, as even the militia cases we've seen show. There just isn't any widespread support for overthrowing the government, nor should there be, because by and large the system works as intended. There is no reason for the government to fear an armed insurrection, because even if the flicker of an ember starts, the rest of us will piss on it before you can say "Abe Kabibble".

But assume for the sake of argument that the institutions of representative government have broken down. In that case, the government, which is no longer responsive to the people as a whole (or indeed even a significant segment of the people), does indeed have to fear an armed populace, because in that case it would rightfully worry that the people might rise up against it. That is why totalitarian governments tend to restrict the possession of arms to those it considers to be reliable supporters of the government.

Now, the US government has a pretty good (though by no means perfect) record of responding to the wishes of the people of the United States. I can see no reason to attempt to change it by violent means, because the institutions that allow for peaceful change are functioning as well as they ever have. But I'm not clairvoyant, and I can't tell you what is going to happen 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, or 200 years from now, and neither can you. All governments, no matter how well formed initially, eventually fall. It might not be tomorrow, but it will happen eventually. I just happen to take a longer view on it than most.

Think of an armed populace as the ultimate in checks and balances.
 
2012-08-01 03:52:08 PM

dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I think that the "right to bear arms" is antiquated and comes from a different time and is no longer relevant.

Until, of course, they are relevant again, and at that point if you don't have them, you are screwed.

I love this line of thinking "Hey, we don't need them, because we're all like, civilized now". So were the Romans. And the Greeks. And Yugoslavians and Rwandans in 1985.

Anyone else ever notice that the "We need our guns to protect us from the government" people are always the ones projecting the crazy so hard they are the reason you want there to be gun control in the first place?

A government that doesn't fear an armed populace has nothing to fear from an armed populace.

A government that *DOES* fear the people being armed probably should fear them.

In other words, a truly democratic and representative government has nothing to fear from an armed populace. No possible insurrection could gain even the tiniest foothold, as even the militia cases we've seen show. There just isn't any widespread support for overthrowing the government, nor should there be, because by and large the system works as intended. There is no reason for the government to fear an armed insurrection, because even if the flicker of an ember starts, the rest of us will piss on it before you can say "Abe Kabibble".

But assume for the sake of argument that the institutions of representative government have broken down. In that case, the government, which is no longer responsive to the people as a whole (or indeed even a significant segment of the people), does indeed have to fear an armed populace, because in that case it would rightfully worry that the people might rise up against it. That is why totalitarian governments tend to restrict the possession of arms to those it considers to be reliable supporters of the government.

Now, the US government has a pretty good (though by no means perfect) record of responding to the wishes of ...


I fear an armed populace.
 
2012-08-01 03:55:05 PM

blunttrauma: Kome: The slight majority of them even favor much stricter policies for obtaining assault weapons.

OK, what do this slight majority want to ban?


I don't know since I did not say "ban". Regulating is not the same as banning. Failing to make that distinction makes the entire rest of your post irrelevant... although interestingly enough your failure to make that important distinction is a pretty solid example of what exactly I was talking about in that post. So, thanks for that, but you haven't presented anything to me that gives us any room for an actual discussion so I hope you'll understand if I don't engage you in anything you mentioned.

Giltric: Kome: I'm just gonna leave this here:
Link - Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

The "study" does not differentiate between armed thugs/criminals and people licensed to carry.

Odds are if there is a gang shooting...both parties are armed.


From the published article and not simply the link I provided, they controlled for quite a number of potential confounds not listed in the story I linked to. If you'd like a full copy of the article (available from the American Journal of Public Health) I can e-mail it to you. With a fuller understanding of their methodology and analysis, I think you could give a more informed critique.
 
2012-08-01 03:57:07 PM
James Holmes killed a lot of people with a shotgun. In that particular situation, the shotgun was more lethal.
 
2012-08-01 04:00:08 PM

CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.


You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.
 
2012-08-01 04:00:37 PM

Kome: Giltric: Kome: I'm just gonna leave this here:
Link - Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

The "study" does not differentiate between armed thugs/criminals and people licensed to carry.

Odds are if there is a gang shooting...both parties are armed.

From the published article and not simply the link I provided, they controlled for quite a number of potential confounds not listed in the story I linked to. If you'd like a full copy of the article (available from the American Journal of Public Health) I can e-mail it to you. With a fuller understanding of their methodology and analysis, I think you could give a more informed critique.


Read the full article. The only thing it remotely controls for is victims under 21 as they cannot legally possess guns. Didn't control for felon status or whether or not the crime was drug/gang related.

/whoops
 
2012-08-01 04:01:40 PM

dittybopper: CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.

You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.


Is that what the people in the theater were doing that night? Planning a coup?
 
2012-08-01 04:02:00 PM

Fubini:

....I firmly believe that different groups of people hold the sovereign right to control what happens within their communities, and I fully support the right of a community to decide on unfettered, restricted, or no access to guns. However, lawmakers and advocates must hold themselves to a higher standard than they currently do- our politics shouldn't be driven by personal agendas and our advocates should have the integrity to accept the unbiased facts, and to not deny those facts even when it doesn't necessarily help their cause....


So, you believe that local jurisidiction should have the power to deny individual rights to their citizens? SCOTUS just reaffirmed that "no access to guns" violates the 2nd amendment.
 
2012-08-01 04:02:57 PM

badhatharry: James Holmes killed a lot of people with a shotgun. In that particular situation, the shotgun was more lethal.


Most people don't realize that when used within its range limitations, the shotgun is the deadliest small arm you can own. Ironically, they tend to be the last things banned/least regulated.
 
2012-08-01 04:04:13 PM

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.

You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.

Is that what the people in the theater were doing that night? Planning a coup?


The armed populace of the United States attacked them? Or was it a single deranged individual? I'm always getting the two confused.
 
2012-08-01 04:04:44 PM

redmid17: Kome: Giltric: Kome: I'm just gonna leave this here:
Link - Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

The "study" does not differentiate between armed thugs/criminals and people licensed to carry.

Odds are if there is a gang shooting...both parties are armed.

From the published article and not simply the link I provided, they controlled for quite a number of potential confounds not listed in the story I linked to. If you'd like a full copy of the article (available from the American Journal of Public Health) I can e-mail it to you. With a fuller understanding of their methodology and analysis, I think you could give a more informed critique.

Read the full article. The only thing it remotely controls for is victims under 21 as they cannot legally possess guns. Didn't control for felon status or whether or not the crime was drug/gang related.

/whoops


I should say relevant factor. They did control for plenty of other stuff. Here's this gem:

"However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1)."

Those factors pretty much fly in the face of any composition study of people legally carrying a gun, so I'm glad to see that you brought it up.
 
2012-08-01 04:05:05 PM

dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.

You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.

Is that what the people in the theater were doing that night? Planning a coup?

The armed populace of the United States attacked them? Or was it a single deranged individual? I'm always getting the two confused.


Was he not a member of the populace? Was he not armed? Or do you only get to count the people who don't go crazy and kill a bunch of people?
 
2012-08-01 04:05:18 PM
Even in countries with strict gun laws, such as Germany, you can't completely eliminate crazy shooters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

I'm a social liberal, vet, and gun owner. I support reasonable gun controls - * which we already have* for the most part. The private sale thing can be fixed by opening up the 4473 process to normal folks - when you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a form that collects your information, and he calls that in to a hotline (or enters it into a computer system). There is no reason the non-firearms dealer citizen should not be able to access a website, input someone's name, DOB, etc and get a yes - sale or no-do not proceed with sale. This would be easy enough to do on a smartphone, in the walmart parking lot, or wherever you are trying to conduct the sale. Would eliminate the gun show loophole too.

As for high-cap magazines, well, personally I think they're fun and cool and all that, but it wouldn't bother me if you had to have a CWP or FFL to buy them. That way they are sold only to folks who have had a background check done. Wouldn't eliminate the problem, but it *would* help.

Also - I fear the media, who seems to be mostly liberal, will never give up their "semi-automatic rifle that looks scary = assault rifle" conflation.

Last, I really, really fear that they WILL get a ban on selling ammunition online. This will vastly increase the cost of shooting sports and hunting for legitimate, legal firearms owners. For example, I shoot a particular caliber. Locally it is available in only one store, for over $45/box of 20. On the internet (with a scanned/emailed or faxed copy of my ID) I can get the exact same thing (same manufacturer, etc) for $17/box of 20, plus shipping. Any restrictions on sales of ammo (other than requiring ID) will just turn into an oligarchy of a few retailers dictating what ammo you can buy and for what price.
 
2012-08-01 04:07:34 PM

Headso: Antimatter: Headso: Antimatter: Headso: Antimatter: No Such Agency: 1. if you need a gun for home defense... how many shots are you expecting to fire without reloading?

As many as it takes to hit the attacker. Your going to miss a few times in a panic situation, at night, while scared. It's better to have the capacity then to not have it.

I hope you don't live in an apartment complex.. heh!

I do actually, which is why I use a .40 165gr JHP rather then say, a 180 gr FMJ round.

It should stop at the walls quite nicely.

I have fired a .22 hollow point into a 50 gallon tupperware thing full of water and some of them went through to the other side, I can't see a couple sheets of drywall stopping it... But hey, I'm not yer neighbor so lock and load dude...

Good point. Might have to switch to some air-safety rounds or something.

Although honestly, I hope never to ever have to use it against a person.

We all like to make fun of each other on here for being stupid but the reality is most farkers are smarter and more mature and more responsible than the average person so at the end of the day it isn't even you guys people should be worried about being unsafe with your gun regardless of the rounds being used. I was just making a point about the dangers of people having and using guns to protect themselves in densely populated areas.


Over penetration is actually a concern of mine. Not so much when I lived in the country, but living in the city, it's to be kept in mind.

Honestly, i'm terribly out of practive with my .40. Need to get some range time in, and refresh myself on how it points/shoots/etc.
 
2012-08-01 04:08:47 PM

rotarymike: Even in countries with strict gun laws, such as Germany, you can't completely eliminate crazy shooters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

I'm a social liberal, vet, and gun owner. I support reasonable gun controls - * which we already have* for the most part. The private sale thing can be fixed by opening up the 4473 process to normal folks - when you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a form that collects your information, and he calls that in to a hotline (or enters it into a computer system). There is no reason the non-firearms dealer citizen should not be able to access a website, input someone's name, DOB, etc and get a yes - sale or no-do not proceed with sale. This would be easy enough to do on a smartphone, in the walmart parking lot, or wherever you are trying to conduct the sale. Would eliminate the gun show loophole too.


The biggest issue with that approach is the liability. How are you going to handle someone with fake identification? Most people cannot distinguish between an average fake ID and a real one. Hell ever the police have issues with the new ones from China.
 
2012-08-01 04:10:04 PM

redmid17: Read the full article. The only thing it remotely controls for is victims under 21 as they cannot legally possess guns. Didn't control for felon status or whether or not the crime was drug/gang related.

/whoops


Um, that was an exclusionary criteria and not a controlled for variable. I'd suggest you may wish to re-read the full article. You may want to pay particular attention to the methods section and the limitations section if you'd like to actually critique it. They base their conclusions on the findings within the parameters they set up, and were careful to spell out serious methodological limitations that would make generalizing their conclusions problematic.
 
2012-08-01 04:10:34 PM

CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: I fear an armed populace.

You've got no reason to. Unless, of course, you are planning a coup to overthrow the government.

Is that what the people in the theater were doing that night? Planning a coup?

The armed populace of the United States attacked them? Or was it a single deranged individual? I'm always getting the two confused.

Was he not a member of the populace? Was he not armed? Or do you only get to count the people who don't go crazy and kill a bunch of people?


You said, and I quote, "I fear an armed populace". You used the collective term. You fear everyone being armed, not just those who would do harm from criminal or insane motives.

We have regulations to handle those who criminally misuse them, or who are too mentally unstable to own them. Those laws aren't perfect, but they strike a balance between the right of the people to be armed, and the sad necessity of disarming those who are are truly a danger to those around them.
 
Displayed 50 of 315 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report