Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Daily Mail)   Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 419
    More: Scary, Britain, samurai sword, samurai  
•       •       •

25129 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 1:57 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-25 12:04:31 AM  
Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.
 
2012-12-25 12:10:49 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim


Injured. Not killed, even.
 
2012-12-25 12:11:11 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


Not "any" other weapon, but access to planes is well regulated.
 
2012-12-25 12:19:08 AM  

SnarfVader: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Not "any" other weapon, but access to planes is well regulated.


Touché
 
2012-12-25 12:36:52 AM  

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...
 
2012-12-25 12:54:38 AM  

Elzar: This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms.


I've got bare arms right now! Come at me bro!
 
2012-12-25 01:12:03 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.
 
2012-12-25 01:37:01 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.
 
2012-12-25 02:04:00 AM  
ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.
 
2012-12-25 02:04:26 AM  
Since when is a gas mask a weapon ?
 
2012-12-25 02:04:56 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


We prefer our attacks supersized, with cheese.
 
2012-12-25 02:05:47 AM  

feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


They did make the crimes heck of a lot easier to accomplish, though.
 
2012-12-25 02:06:18 AM  
Maybe if he didn't have a shiatty piece of Chinese stainless steel he might have done more.

Not that doing more would have a good thing. I'm just saying he had a terrible mail order sword.
 
2012-12-25 02:06:24 AM  

feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


violence:crashing::sword:bike::gun:regional jet
 
2012-12-25 02:08:06 AM  

feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.



Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.
 
2012-12-25 02:09:52 AM  

KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.


Well in all fairness to the gun-obsessed culture of the US, humans ARE animals.


/Just sayin'
 
2012-12-25 02:09:59 AM  

KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.


Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
 
2012-12-25 02:11:48 AM  

kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.


Driving is a privilege, not a right.
 
2012-12-25 02:12:11 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.
 
2012-12-25 02:13:08 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.
 
2012-12-25 02:14:09 AM  

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.


Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.
 
2012-12-25 02:14:20 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.
 
2012-12-25 02:14:46 AM  

kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.


Correct but you also don't need a license to purchase a car only to legally operate. And a suspended license doesn't forfeit the vehicle just means you can't legally operate it. And if a car didnt have a driver it would just sit there... just like a gun. So your line of reasoning makes no sense.
 
2012-12-25 02:15:03 AM  

12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.


Yes, but we can't ruin his little fantasies now can we?
 
2012-12-25 02:15:06 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Since when is a gas mask a weapon ?


Well, if you put a scope and a folding stock on it ...
 
2012-12-25 02:15:39 AM  

Flappyhead: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.


I don't care if he is the president, I'm gonna finish, first.
 
2012-12-25 02:16:08 AM  
Seasons greetings, C*ntmitter.
 
2012-12-25 02:16:46 AM  

12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.


But it gives you a chance to at least fight. Look at Lybia...
 
2012-12-25 02:16:50 AM  

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.


Done in two.

This is as stupid as the folks saying "Hey look, 12 people got stabbed in China but lived...that's why we shouldn't have any gun regulations".
 
2012-12-25 02:17:02 AM  

Flappyhead: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.


Afterwards, however...
 
2012-12-25 02:17:15 AM  

phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.



So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.
 
2012-12-25 02:18:07 AM  

JSam21: Look at Lybia...


Yes please!

/Oh wait...I misread that
 
2012-12-25 02:18:36 AM  

12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.


You think the US is going to nuke itself?? Please stop the crazy talk. And just look at how well Afghanistan has fought back since 1979 against Russia and now against the United States. Small arms DO make a difference.

Flappyhead: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.


Why do anti-gun people make everything about sex??
 
2012-12-25 02:19:23 AM  

Triumph: In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Will you look at the size of that mallet? It must have been at least four quid.
 
2012-12-25 02:19:58 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Keep living that fantasy man. And don't forget to contribute to your HOA on time. And remember: no visible clotheslines. You're living in the land of the free, after all. Don't want no washing showing.
 
2012-12-25 02:20:57 AM  
Totally an apples to apples comparison here. Yessir.
 
2012-12-25 02:21:16 AM  

kmmontandon: The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


4.bp.blogspot.com

No sense in worrying yourself about encroaching tyranny, citizen.
 
2012-12-25 02:21:21 AM  

kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.
 
2012-12-25 02:22:14 AM  

NateAsbestos: Totally an apples to apples comparison here. Yessir.


Well you see in one case, people died. And in the other case (this one), people didn't die.

It's a perfect example of how sucky subby's critical thinking skills are.
 
2012-12-25 02:22:33 AM  
Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.
 
2012-12-25 02:23:20 AM  
Local resident Steven Oltay, 19, said he thought he heard the attack take place from his flat nearby.
He said: 'I was woken up last night by a woman screaming.
'Horrific screams, like an animal.
'I thought it was someone being murdered and almost ran out but decided against it.'


What a civilized society.
 
2012-12-25 02:23:53 AM  

Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.


So grenade launchers and stinger missiles for sale at Wal-mart with no restrictions, permits, or background checks? Or do you believe the Constitution allows us to regulate arms?
 
2012-12-25 02:24:26 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.


Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?
 
2012-12-25 02:25:32 AM  
In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?
 
2012-12-25 02:26:21 AM  

JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.


I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.
 
2012-12-25 02:26:28 AM  

simkatu: Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.

So grenade launchers and stinger missiles for sale at Wal-mart with no restrictions, permits, or background checks? Or do you believe the Constitution allows us to regulate arms?


Of course it does... but an out right banning of guns is stupid.

But those items you've listed can legally be purchased by citizens with proper licensing.
 
2012-12-25 02:26:55 AM  

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war
 
2012-12-25 02:27:07 AM  

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


Because they're irrational and paranoid idiots?
 
2012-12-25 02:28:06 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war


Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo isn't going to happen.

Sorry guys.
 
2012-12-25 02:29:21 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.
 
2012-12-25 02:30:06 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war


So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?
 
2012-12-25 02:30:07 AM  

Mrtraveler01: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.

Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?


The threat of violence quite often makes the use of violence unnecessary.

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


Some troops would defect. Others won't. I'm not going to just hope that the side I personally support comes out ahead in the numbers game. Why not hedge your bet with some extra support??

And again, the threat of violence often means you don't have to use it.
 
2012-12-25 02:31:03 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


It's so adorable how you think your Glock or even AR-15 will protect you from the NSA/CIA/FBI/whatever. Please, go on masturbating to your dreams of overthrowing a Democracy gone wrong.
 
2012-12-25 02:31:35 AM  
A two foot long samurai sword?

i.dailymail.co.uk
Paging Therion or another expert: please identify that piece of metal?
 
2012-12-25 02:32:07 AM  

OddLlama: AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?


The very fact that you think the Civil War was about freeing the slaves tells me you know NOTHING about U.S. History and any of your thoughts on why we have the 2nd Amendment is complete garbage.
 
2012-12-25 02:32:26 AM  
"Zero killed in non-mass spree non-shooting. Suspect disarmed by unarmed cop"
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-25 02:32:37 AM  

OddLlama: So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?


i.qkme.me
 
2012-12-25 02:32:54 AM  

zarberg: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

It's so adorable how you think your Glock or even AR-15 will protect you from the NSA/CIA/FBI/whatever. Please, go on masturbating to your dreams of overthrowing a Democracy gone wrong.


Funny, because the FBI uses Glocks and AR-15s.
 
2012-12-25 02:32:56 AM  

Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.


There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.
 
2012-12-25 02:33:36 AM  
GB has like 36 gun deaths a year to our 15000 our whatever obscene number it is, even though they are 1/6 the size. Gun control works there. Even police are discouraged from carrying. However its too late for the US to institute gun control like that. We have 300 million guns out there. It's not possible to get those returned. There are sensible things we can do to help things, like refusing to sell to just released mental patients or to folks that don't have any training in gun safety.
 
2012-12-25 02:33:47 AM  
Hey, even with socialized medicine, ASBOs, and legislation about even knives, crazy people are still crazy.

Oh, and why hasn't this been up yet?
farm2.staticflickr.com
 
2012-12-25 02:34:13 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: 12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.

You think the US is going to nuke itself?? Please stop the crazy talk. And just look at how well Afghanistan has fought back since 1979 against Russia and now against the United States. Small arms DO make a difference. Flappyhead: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.

Why do anti-gun people make everything about sex??


Make love, not war. :)
 
2012-12-25 02:35:23 AM  

kmmontandon:
The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


hint: we weren't a colony when the Second Amendment was written.
 
2012-12-25 02:35:26 AM  
Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.
 
2012-12-25 02:36:34 AM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


This...
 
2012-12-25 02:36:59 AM  

JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.


What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.
 
2012-12-25 02:37:30 AM  

Marcintosh: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.


All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.
 
2012-12-25 02:38:21 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: OddLlama: AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?

The very fact that you think the Civil War was about freeing the slaves tells me you know NOTHING about U.S. History and any of your thoughts on why we have the 2nd Amendment is complete garbage.


I was being snarky (Athough if you are trying to downplay the role slavery played in the war, well, whatever floats your boat, I'm not here to argue.). My original question was an honest one. There is not a single soldier I know including those in my family, that would go to war against american civilians for ANY reason.
 
2012-12-25 02:38:28 AM  
For all the "Obama is coming for our gunz" whackjobs here on FARK (you know who you are):

http://ftf-comics.com/?comic=obammer-part-1


Read that and the next two days of comics.
 
2012-12-25 02:38:40 AM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


Oh look this lame talking point again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusti ng -israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They've been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they're not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

Any other lame debunked talking points you care to share with the rest of the class today?
 
2012-12-25 02:39:27 AM  

simkatu: Marcintosh: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.

All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.


Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.
 
2012-12-25 02:39:49 AM  
Man is killed by a crossbow bolt passing directly through his heart. The detectives arrive. One of them finds the fatal crossbow bolt lieing near the body. Donning gloves, one detective carefully picks up the bolt, and begins to examine it. A few seconds later he starts to laugh, quietly at first. But within seconds, he is roaring with laughter.The other detective is at a loss.

"What's so funny?"
The laughing cop can barely speak....
"Take.....take this....over to Ballistics...."

/Well, the lab techs at Forensic Sciences thought it was funny...
 
2012-12-25 02:40:23 AM  

OddLlama: I was being snarky (Athough if you are trying to downplay the role slavery played in the war, well, whatever floats your boat, I'm not here to argue.).


Every libtard knows that it was clearly a war of Northern Aggression and the rights of the Southern States to secede because they wanted to keep slaves.
 
2012-12-25 02:44:44 AM  
Britain isn't "gunless" and no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?
 
2012-12-25 02:47:23 AM  

Mrtraveler01: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Done in two.

This is as stupid as the folks saying "Hey look, 12 people got stabbed in China but lived...that's why we shouldn't have any gun regulations".


It was 22. But yeah.


Mrtraveler01: Oh look this lame talking point again:


Thanks for saving me the trouble with that one.
 
2012-12-25 02:48:07 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.

So grenade launchers and stinger missiles for sale at Wal-mart with no restrictions, permits, or background checks? Or do you believe the Constitution allows us to regulate arms?

Of course it does... but an out right banning of guns is stupid.

But those items you've listed can legally be purchased by citizens with proper licensing.


Nobody is proposing any laws to take away our guns. Not even our AR-15s. They are proposing to stop the new sales of assault rifles, but this mythical gun ban of existing guns isn't ever going to happen here. Not without an Amendment or a new Supreme Court. Obviously we can restrict arm sales. You can't just go buy flame throwers, napalm, or whatever else you want with no restrictions.
 
2012-12-25 02:48:22 AM  

Marcintosh: Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.


i keep seeing more and more arguments like this recently. if the gubbmint really got too big for its britches, would you really just roll over and beg 'not too hard please'? i have no fantasies about making a last stand against a squad and an IFV, armed with a semiautomatic rifle, but why do you think the government at least makes a half-assed attempt at trying to keep itself in line?
 
2012-12-25 02:48:58 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.


Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month... for my safety and the safety of anyone I'm around in the chance I have to dischagre my weapon while on duty.
 
2012-12-25 02:50:17 AM  

mediaho: Britain isn't "gunless" and no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?


Gun nuts are overreacting and paranoid.

Also the sky is blue and water is wet.
 
2012-12-25 02:51:59 AM  

Mrtraveler01: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

Because they're irrational and paranoid idiots?


Or maybe because it's happened in every country of every political persuasion from Nazi to Commie to true blue American. General Pershing led US troops against US citizens who had peaceably assembled and petitioned the government, both of which are rights guaranteed by the constitution.
 
2012-12-25 02:52:30 AM  

JSam21: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.

Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month ...


Yeah, you can just walk into Walmart and pick buy a gun AFTER you clear a background check that is as as simple as a ten minute phone call.
 
2012-12-25 02:55:35 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: OddLlama: AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?

The very fact that you think the Civil War was about freeing the slaves tells me you know NOTHING about U.S. History and any of your thoughts on why we have the 2nd Amendment is complete garbage.


Let me guess. You are white and think that the South just fought for states rights and didn't really care if slavery was abolished, they
just wanted to do it at the state level?
 
2012-12-25 02:56:10 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.

Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month ...

Yeah, you can just walk into Walmart and pick buy a gun AFTER you clear a background check that is as as simple as a ten minute phone call.


Ok... so then whats the problem? Background check was done and its a legal purchase
 
2012-12-25 02:56:14 AM  

OscarTamerz: General Pershing


You have a citation for that? his wiki page doesn't seem to mention it.
 
2012-12-25 02:56:41 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Keep living that fantasy man. And don't forget to contribute to your HOA on time. And remember: no visible clotheslines. You're living in the land of the free, after all. Don't want no washing showing.


Oh Jesus, the Netherlands? Really? Speaking of dirty laundry hanging out, we hosted your Nazi-descended Queen in Chantilly VA this year. She spent four days shacked up at the Marriott trying to covertly influence the world through the Bilderberg meeting. Would ya do us all a favor and have a proper revolution to rid the world of her bullshiat?
 
2012-12-25 02:58:06 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.

Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month ...

Yeah, you can just walk into Walmart and pick buy a gun AFTER you clear a background check that is as as simple as a ten minute phone call.


Or is it just about where you can buy guns or whats checked in a background check?
 
2012-12-25 02:58:46 AM  

OddLlama: OscarTamerz: General Pershing

You have a citation for that? his wiki page doesn't seem to mention it.


I think he meant MacArthur and the Bonus Army.
 
2012-12-25 03:00:29 AM  
Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.
 
2012-12-25 03:02:29 AM  

Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.


May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"
 
2012-12-25 03:02:42 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: simkatu: Marcintosh: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.

All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.

Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.


Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.
 
2012-12-25 03:02:44 AM  

CthulhuCalling: OddLlama: OscarTamerz: General Pershing

You have a citation for that? his wiki page doesn't seem to mention it.

I think he meant MacArthur and the Bonus Army.


I don't think that would help his case much.
 
2012-12-25 03:05:25 AM  

Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...


Of course, in that case the man could have had a gun as well, and shot her from a distance before she even knew that she was threatened. Then she would be dead instead of alive. And then he could have taken her gun off her dead body, slipped away, then gone on a two gun rampage.

See, I can make up scenarios too.
 
2012-12-25 03:05:25 AM  

simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.


Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.
 
2012-12-25 03:05:40 AM  
Frequent news photo. Guess the country:
i.huffpost.com


Frequent news photo. Guess the country:
img.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-12-25 03:08:19 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...

Of course, in that case the man could have had a gun as well, and shot her from a distance before she even knew that she was threatened. Then she would be dead instead of alive. And then he could have taken her gun off her dead body, slipped away, then gone on a two gun rampage.

See, I can make up scenarios too.


but then the goddamn Batman swoops in to stop him, but at the last minute Robin betrays him for slapping him too many times! Batman's uncontrolled flatulence causes some disconcern! Robin sabotages the Batmobile to lose a wheel, causing the Joker to escape!
 
2012-12-25 03:08:54 AM  
mmm...Guiness.
 
2012-12-25 03:09:23 AM  

JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"


Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.
 
2012-12-25 03:10:53 AM  

CthulhuCalling: Gordon Bennett: Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...

Of course, in that case the man could have had a gun as well, and shot her from a distance before she even knew that she was threatened. Then she would be dead instead of alive. And then he could have taken her gun off her dead body, slipped away, then gone on a two gun rampage.

See, I can make up scenarios too.

but then the goddamn Batman swoops in to stop him, but at the last minute Robin betrays him for slapping him too many times! Batman's uncontrolled flatulence causes some disconcern! Robin sabotages the Batmobile to lose a wheel, causing the Joker to escape!


but then selena gomez offers the joker some Vicodin which he OD's on in justin biebers' hotel room so justin cries. fark this I'm tired.
 
2012-12-25 03:13:01 AM  

simkatu: All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.


Don't have so much as a water gun, but some of my neighbors are armed and I'm glad of it. Keeps the crooks guessing.

You have a point about drones (technology). The main reason the American revolution and the Enlightenment was able to occur was because the top weapon technology of the day was affordable and available to the masses. It was a quirky period in history that is similar to what's happening today in the information technology arena.
 
2012-12-25 03:13:04 AM  

simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.


Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.
 
2012-12-25 03:13:05 AM  

mediaho: ... no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?


You sure about that?
 
2012-12-25 03:14:53 AM  

simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.


And most people who own ARs or variants of ARs don't have 100 round mags. But they are used for hunting varment. They make 100 round mags for my glock... does that make that a military style weapon? And by your definition, wouldn't that make 99% of handguns military style weapons, since they aren't made for hunting?
 
2012-12-25 03:15:06 AM  

KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.



Yeah, who would want to use a weapon on a human who is attacking them.  That would be ridiculous.
 
2012-12-25 03:16:23 AM  

CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.

Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.


Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.
 
2012-12-25 03:17:41 AM  

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


This has only been brought up a few dozen times so far, and my response has become increasingly polished, so let me take a swing at this...

We are not talking about the government as it exists now or the army as it exists now. Obviously, there is no significant armed opposition to our army since very few think the status quo is so unbearable right now.

The point is that things change. There is no way to predict what the country will be like 5 years from now, much less 20. It could be plague, it could be civil war, it could be an asteroid strike. It could be indefinite martial law. It would be incredibly dense to try to plot these scenarios out - because if we could, we would just avoid them.
 
2012-12-25 03:18:59 AM  

KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.


Not as many as you seem to think. I got to know a moderately wealthy Brit and his wife spending holiday in California with some friends of mine. They spent a couple days going to the local shooting range so this man could remember how it felt to shoot firearms again. He hadn't fired one since his service days. He said it was near impossible to get clearance to own a firearm in England even to cull the overpopulated deer herd that lived on his property.
 
2012-12-25 03:19:37 AM  

simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.

Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.

Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.


You're describing an 'assault weapon', which is a political confabulation. An assault rifle is a completely different beast, but used interchangeably by the media and politicians to muddy the waters.
 
2012-12-25 03:20:37 AM  

simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.

Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.

Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.


Yes... like a pistol grip on a rifle automatically made it an "assault rifle" along with an adjustable stock.
 
2012-12-25 03:22:37 AM  

CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.


Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.
 
2012-12-25 03:23:11 AM  

JSam21: Yes... like a pistol grip on a rifle automatically made it an "assault rifle" along with an adjustable stock.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-12-25 03:24:00 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: mediaho: ... no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?

You sure about that?


Yes. No serious people are suggesting that. It's absurd.
 
2012-12-25 03:25:58 AM  

CthulhuCalling: JSam21: Yes... like a pistol grip on a rifle automatically made it an "assault rifle" along with an adjustable stock.

notsureifserious.jpg


Notserious.jpg
 
2012-12-25 03:26:45 AM  

simkatu: Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.


wait a sec, you say that nobody hunts with an AR, but then you say that people do? I know plenty of hunters that hunt with an AR15, up to and including deer, but it's not really suited for that (and yes, I feel that an AR15 is inappropriate for taking a deer, but possibly an AR10). Plenty of varmint, hog and predator hunters use the AR platform. Whether it's used for hunting or not is just a red herring. Plenty of people at the range shoot the AR because they enjoy the hobby and the AR is a good platform for building a customized gun.
 
2012-12-25 03:27:08 AM  

simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.

Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.


Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?
 
2012-12-25 03:28:35 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

And most people who own ARs or variants of ARs don't have 100 round mags. But they are used for hunting varment. They make 100 round mags for my glock... does that make that a military style weapon? And by your definition, wouldn't that make 99% of handguns military style weapons, since they aren't made for hunting?



The irrational people (which includes the media) define a "military style weapon" or an "assault weapon" as anything that has a curved magazine, something on the end of the barrel (doesn't matter what it is) and a comfortable handle/grip set-up.  Oh, it helps if it's black... because black looks more evil.

It's never the crazy person behind the gun that causes the chaos.... it's the way the gun looks.

BTW, you can get high-capacity magazines for practically every gun.

ww3.cad.de
 
2012-12-25 03:28:46 AM  
http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/crime/20 12/12/18/bath_school_bombing_rem embering_the_deadliest_school_massacre _in_american.html

Mentally unstable people will kill with what they have on hand. But they will kill. You cannot ban all weapons and gaurantee public security at all times. Stop promising it to people... Either by disarming them or arming them. Both the liberals and the NRA are wrong.

Think you CAN gaurantee security, if you disarm the people enough? Ala Saudi Arabia? Look at Lybia, Syria, or Iran. You will have to regularly repress the people and/or kill them in far more numbers than irresponsible or illegal gun use leads to in America today.

Whether the public is armed or not, it is not NRA nuts, CCP afficianadios or hunters that we are really worried about. It is crazy people. With guns. Or knives (china last week), or swords (uk today), or dynamite (us 80 yeas ago). What we need is not gun control but crazy control. More mental health services not more gun regulation.

And yes. It's hard for an American civilian to take on the US Army with an AR15. But can the 1mil man army, half of which are desk clerks, take on 100 million civilians with Glocks and AR15s? Not easily. Might stall the government long enough to come to their senses. Maybe not. But gotta love having a fighting chance.

Still, all this worry of gun violence... You are much more likely to die in a car accident or from Cancer.
 
2012-12-25 03:30:27 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.

Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.

Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.

Yes... like a pistol grip on a rifle automatically made it an "assault rifle" along with an adjustable stock.


There's no way to please everyone, so we shouldn't even try? I can own a gun this big, so why not THIS big? People will always say there's little difference at the exact line in the sand that's drawn. Duh. Little difference between driving with BAC of .079 and .080, but one could mean a felony conviction and the other no punishment at all. We still need to start with some sort of line.
 
2012-12-25 03:31:29 AM  

simkatu: Pray 4 Mojo: mediaho: ... no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?

You sure about that?

Yes. No serious people are suggesting that. It's absurd.


Fair enough.

That said... I don't see any "serious" gun owners/supporters suggesting that guns should just be handed out to anyone with the money to pay for it.

So what's the problem?
 
2012-12-25 03:31:53 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


Attacks such as those at Sandy Hook are statistical anomalies. Also, guns are not the problem.
 
2012-12-25 03:32:09 AM  

CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.

wait a sec, you say that nobody hunts with an AR, but then you say that people do? I know plenty of hunters that hunt with an AR15, up to and including deer, but it's not really suited for that (and yes, I feel that an AR15 is inappropriate for taking a deer, but possibly an AR10). Plenty of varmint, hog and predator hunters use the AR platform. Whether it's used for hunting or not is just a red herring. Plenty of people at the range shoot the AR because they enjoy the hobby and the AR is a good platform for building a customized gun.


And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?
 
2012-12-25 03:33:18 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: simkatu: Pray 4 Mojo: mediaho: ... no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?

You sure about that?

Yes. No serious people are suggesting that. It's absurd.

Fair enough.

That said... I don't see any "serious" gun owners/supporters suggesting that guns should just be handed out to anyone with the money to pay for it.

So what's the problem?


Exactly!
 
2012-12-25 03:33:46 AM  

tukatz: It's never the crazy person behind the gun that causes the chaos.... it's the way the gun looks.

BTW, you can get high-capacity magazines for practically every gun.


True. Under the old AWB, if I take my old trusty Ruger 10/22 and drop the receiver into an aftermarket body with a adjustable stock and pistol grip, it suddenly becomes an 'assault weapon'. My Mossberg 930 becomes an a an 'assault weapon' just by changing out the stock. Neither of these changes do anything to effect the performance of the firearms at all and are merely cosmetic.
 
2012-12-25 03:34:16 AM  
No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.
 
2012-12-25 03:36:26 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


Got my patch:
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-25 03:37:16 AM  

CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.


This. A million times this.
 
2012-12-25 03:37:19 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


Glad you have read the SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment and also have an understanding of how super sonic rounds react to hitting something... here's a hint... they break up.
 
2012-12-25 03:38:03 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.

Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.

Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?


Ones that don't intend to kill lots of humans with a gun that has been designed specifically designed to kill lots of humans. My family has thousands of acres of hunting ranch property. We run boarding rooms for them during the seasons. Nobody ever brings an AR15 to hunt. Not in 30 years that I know about.
 
2012-12-25 03:38:18 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


The times they are a changing. The 2nd Amendment does not mean exactly the same thing it meant when it was ratified in 1791.
 
2012-12-25 03:38:41 AM  

JSam21: Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?


I can tell you what a real hunter isn't.

It isn't a guy shooting an AR from his pickup at deer by a feeder.
 
2012-12-25 03:39:15 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes.


www.imfdb.org
 
2012-12-25 03:41:05 AM  

log_jammin: JSam21: Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?

I can tell you what a real hunter isn't.

It isn't a guy shooting an AR from his pickup at deer by a feeder.


Totally... there should be a law against that.
 
2012-12-25 03:41:32 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

May I point you to District of Columbia v. Heller...
 
2012-12-25 03:41:45 AM  
i80.photobucket.com

weirdnewsfiles.com

I'm sure if you're willing to post something from a left wing rag like the Washington Post that cites nothing to support its article nothing will change your mind but would you care to name the army bases where these IDF soldiers are located? Are they wearing bikini BDUs? I have a friend who works for UBS in Zurich, their home office, and when he retired from the army they gave him his Sig Sauer machine gun.

The referendum that the Washington Post was referring to was actually rejected by 56% of the vote and a majority of the cantons last year. Too bad they didn't have the journalistic integrity to mention that.
 
2012-12-25 03:44:05 AM  

JSam21: And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?


.308 is an appropriate caliber for taking larger game. Depending on locality, you can hunt with a semiautomatic rifle, so now you're just arguing how it looks.
 
2012-12-25 03:45:15 AM  

simkatu: JSam21: simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.

Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.

Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?

Ones that don't intend to kill lots of humans with a gun that has been designed specifically designed to kill lots of humans. My family has thousands of acres of hunting ranch property. We run boarding rooms for them during the seasons. Nobody ever brings an AR15 to hunt. Not in 30 years that I know about.


So if I showed up with an AR variant chambered in .308 and good optics to hunt deer... would I not be a real hunter?
 
2012-12-25 03:46:51 AM  
At least we all agree that all serious people think that we should screen better for mental illness and criminal past at licensed dealers. Can we start there? NRA seems to think there is absolutely zero we can do to help at the point of sale. I disagree strongly.
 
2012-12-25 03:49:00 AM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


Switzerland's number of firearms is 47,500 per 100,000 people. Their firearm homicide rate is 0.52 per 100,000 people. Their overall murder rate is 0.70 per 100,000.

The United Kingdom's number of firearms is 6,200 per 100,000 people. Their firearm homicide rate is 0.04 per 100,000 people. Their overall murder rate is 1.20 per 100,000.

In case anyone was interest.
 
2012-12-25 03:49:43 AM  

CthulhuCalling: JSam21: And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?

.308 is an appropriate caliber for taking larger game. Depending on locality, you can hunt with a semiautomatic rifle, so now you're just arguing how it looks.


Right... but AR variants are made in .308... so the poster that said NO ONE can hunt real game with an AR is wrong.

So now let's get to the real issue... should weapons be outlawed or restricted by caliber?
 
2012-12-25 03:49:59 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: JSam21: simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.

Nobody hunts with AR15s period. They do sell 100 round magazines. Sometimes even to kooks that plan on killing lots of humans at once. That's the point. Never once heard of a hunter going out to shoot game with his AR. Maybe blast them around for fun or to kill varmints, but not real hunters.

Ok... but what is a "real hunter"?

Ones that don't intend to kill lots of humans with a gun that has been designed specifically designed to kill lots of humans. My family has thousands of acres of hunting ranch property. We run boarding rooms for them during the seasons. Nobody ever brings an AR15 to hunt. Not in 30 years that I know about.

So if I showed up with an AR variant chambered in .308 and good optics to hunt deer... would I not be a real hunter?


You'd be a kook if you showed up with an AR15. I don't care if you use depleted uranium tipped exploding bullets. That is just kooky.
 
2012-12-25 03:50:39 AM  

JSam21: So if I showed up with an AR variant chambered in .308 and good optics to hunt deer... would I not be a real hunter?


No you wouldn't. You'd be a "tacticool" blowhard with too much time and money on his hands.
 
2012-12-25 03:51:43 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo:

www.imfdb.org


Too soon! Funny!
 
2012-12-25 03:53:16 AM  

simkatu: At least we all agree that all serious people think that we should screen better for mental illness and criminal past at licensed dealers. Can we start there? NRA seems to think there is absolutely zero we can do to help at the point of sale. I disagree strongly.


Well at point of sale... there really isn't much that can be done. Unless you change medical privacy laws in the US no one can know your medical history without your permission. Should we require that people turn over medical records for inspection before being allowed to purchase firearms? I wouldn't mind that actually.
 
2012-12-25 03:53:56 AM  

Mrtraveler01: OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.

Oh look this lame talking point again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusti ng -israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They've been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they're not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

Any other lame debunked talking points you care to share with the rest of the class today?


Civilians still own 47.5 guns per 100 people.
 
2012-12-25 03:54:49 AM  

simkatu: So if I showed up with an AR variant chambered in .308 and good optics to hunt deer... would I not be a real hunter?

You'd be a kook if you showed up with an AR15. I don't care if you use depleted uranium tipped exploding bullets. That is just kooky.


If he showed up with an AR chambered for .308, he would have an AR10, which is a completely different beast. He'd probably look ridiculous, but if the locality permitted taking game with a semiautomatic rifle, ain't nothing wrong with it.
 
2012-12-25 03:55:28 AM  

JSam21: CthulhuCalling: JSam21: And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?

.308 is an appropriate caliber for taking larger game. Depending on locality, you can hunt with a semiautomatic rifle, so now you're just arguing how it looks.

Right... but AR variants are made in .308... so the poster that said NO ONE can hunt real game with an AR is wrong.

So now let's get to the real issue... should weapons be outlawed or restricted by caliber?


No. They should hand out 6 inch shells and 14 foot long barrel guns that shoot 13 miles to everyone that isn't a felon. There is no sensible line in the sand so don't make one. Woohoo!
 
2012-12-25 03:55:35 AM  

simkatu: JSam21: simkatu: Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.

So grenade launchers and stinger missiles for sale at Wal-mart with no restrictions, permits, or background checks? Or do you believe the Constitution allows us to regulate arms?

Of course it does... but an out right banning of guns is stupid.

But those items you've listed can legally be purchased by citizens with proper licensing.

Nobody is proposing any laws to take away our guns. Not even our AR-15s. They are proposing to stop the new sales of assault rifles, but this mythical gun ban of existing guns isn't ever going to happen here. Not without an Amendment or a new Supreme Court. Obviously we can restrict arm sales. You can't just go buy flame throwers, napalm, or whatever else you want with no restrictions.



And the last time our government banned "assault weapons" (Thor's blessed hammer, I hate that term) it had no noticeable impact on the crime rate or firearm homicide rate in our country. It is nothing but an appeasement gesture.
 
2012-12-25 03:55:46 AM  

simkatu: At least we all agree that all serious people think that we should screen better for mental illness and criminal past at licensed dealers. Can we start there? NRA seems to think there is absolutely zero we can do to help at the point of sale. I disagree strongly.


Not disagreeing with you...

But how do we go about screening for mental illness? Outside of prior commitments and/or criminal acts... this seems totally impractical.
 
2012-12-25 03:59:29 AM  

JSam21: So now let's get to the real issue... should weapons be outlawed or restricted by caliber?


That's never been the issue with the pols or anyone screaming for gun control. They're focusing on magazine capacity and method of operation- mainly due to ignorance and stupidity by confusing any black rifle as an 'assault rifle'. A few of them every now and them get heart palpitations when they discover that people can pick up a Barrett or MacMillan and jump on TV crying about how people can now take down airplanes, but that's pretty rare.
 
2012-12-25 04:00:37 AM  

simkatu: JSam21: CthulhuCalling: JSam21: And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?

.308 is an appropriate caliber for taking larger game. Depending on locality, you can hunt with a semiautomatic rifle, so now you're just arguing how it looks.

Right... but AR variants are made in .308... so the poster that said NO ONE can hunt real game with an AR is wrong.

So now let's get to the real issue... should weapons be outlawed or restricted by caliber?

No. They should hand out 6 inch shells and 14 foot long barrel guns that shoot 13 miles to everyone that isn't a felon. There is no sensible line in the sand so don't make one. Woohoo!


Sim... I'm trying to have a legitimate debate here. I've not once said that everyone should have access to weapons without restrictions. But since an AR10, which is an AR variant chambered in .308, can be used for hunting large game, then why are all AR variants automatically only for killing people? Or is it only the ones that shoot .223 rounds? Do you know what the AR stands for?
 
2012-12-25 04:03:12 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


You really do not know a lot about guns, do you?

You do realize that the type of gun from which a bullet is fired has absolutely real impact on force of the bullet, right? You can find semi-automatic civilian hunting rifles that fire the exact same ammunition as these semi-automatic military style rifles. So, fire that bullet from an AR-15 or from a Ruger (either the 5.56x42mm or the .223 Remington) and they will, for the most part, behave the same way. There will be some minor variations in performance, but not enough to make a difference in your ridiculous example of shooting through your neighbor's houses. The main difference between a military style and a civilian semi-automatic rifle is visual. That is it. There might be some minor differences as in better gas feed system, less recoil, etc., but these will vary from gun to gun. Against some civilian rifles and in some categories the military style will do better. In others it will not. Seems to me that you and so many other people are afraid of these guns simply because of the way they look. And that is irrational.
 
2012-12-25 04:05:17 AM  

simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.

Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.

Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.


And that ban had no noticeable affect on crime or firearm homicide rates. Military style semi-automatic rifles are hardly ever used in crimes. And their use in shootings like this or the Batman shooting or any other such incident are statistical blips.
 
2012-12-25 04:05:47 AM  
I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.
 
2012-12-25 04:07:07 AM  

Mrtraveler01: mediaho: Britain isn't "gunless" and no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?

Gun nuts are overreacting and paranoid.

Also the sky is blue and water is wet.


I favorited you for the MANY incredibly reasonable posts you have made in this thread.

Every sane person in this country (including President Obama) knows that there is no real way for us to disarm at this point. There are just too many guns out there. If there was some "everyone turn in your guns" law enacted (LOL) only about 20% of gun owners would comply (and they are the 20% that should be allowed to have guns in the first place, because they are trying to be responsible ). The shiatty little urban thugs didn't get their guns through legal channels anyway, and no law, or amendment, or fairy princess tap dance among the daffodils will convince even ONE of them to turn in their guns.

We've fashioned a rod for our own backs.
 
2012-12-25 04:10:42 AM  

log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.


No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.
 
2012-12-25 04:11:38 AM  

LaBlueSkuld: They did make the crimes heck of a lot easier to accomplish, though.


You what makes crimes a lot easier to accomplish? Victims who are unable to fight back.
 
2012-12-25 04:11:44 AM  
Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

home.comcast.net

What a hellhole. Truly.
 
2012-12-25 04:12:25 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: JSam21: CthulhuCalling: JSam21: And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?

.308 is an appropriate caliber for taking larger game. Depending on locality, you can hunt with a semiautomatic rifle, so now you're just arguing how it looks.

Right... but AR variants are made in .308... so the poster that said NO ONE can hunt real game with an AR is wrong.

So now let's get to the real issue... should weapons be outlawed or restricted by caliber?

No. They should hand out 6 inch shells and 14 foot long barrel guns that shoot 13 miles to everyone that isn't a felon. There is no sensible line in the sand so don't make one. Woohoo!

Sim... I'm trying to have a legitimate debate here. I've not once said that everyone should have access to weapons without restrictions. But since an AR10, which is an AR variant chambered in .308, can be used for hunting large game, then why are all AR variants automatically only for killing people? Or is it only the ones that shoot .223 rounds? Do you know what the AR stands for?


I have a friend back in New York who sometimes hunts in Pennsylvania with a semi-automatic AK-47. For him it depends on the mood that he is in. The AK-47 actually makes for a decent hunting rifle. In fact, many guns designed to kill humans make for decent hunting rifles.

/He hunts with a rifle in Pennsylvania because in most of New York you can only hunt deer with a shotgun fitted with a rifled barrel and using slugs (or with black powder rifles).
 
2012-12-25 04:12:29 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-25 04:15:08 AM  

JSam21: No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.


They are made solely for the purpose of killing people . Just like swords.
 
2012-12-25 04:16:06 AM  

log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.


I don't think you will find a gun owner that will state that ANY gun is as dangerous as a flower. Even a .22 has the power to maim or kill. But to answer a previous question, this picture suggests that yes, you can hunt with an AR15 (no, that isn't me. I use a Remington 700)
 
2012-12-25 04:16:55 AM  

James F. Campbell: Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

What a hellhole. Truly.


have you tried their cuisine?
 
2012-12-25 04:16:59 AM  

Mock26: The AK-47 actually makes for a decent hunting rifle.


If you're hunting the broad side of a barn.
 
2012-12-25 04:19:17 AM  

CthulhuCalling: this picture suggests that yes, you can hunt with an AR15


Yes you can. and you can kill a bear with a .22. There's documented cases and everything. That doesn't mean you should, or it's mart of you.

CthulhuCalling: I use a Remington 700


smart man.
 
2012-12-25 04:20:18 AM  

log_jammin: JSam21: No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.

They are made solely for the purpose of killing people . Just like swords.


I think "solely" is a stretch... but they are really, really good for killing people. Why is that a problem?

I have mine 'cause it's fun to shoot AND it's really good for killing people.
 
2012-12-25 04:20:19 AM  

log_jammin: Mock26: The AK-47 actually makes for a decent hunting rifle.

If you're hunting the broad side of a barn.


You do not know much about guns, do you?
 
2012-12-25 04:22:10 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: log_jammin: JSam21: No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.

They are made solely for the purpose of killing people . Just like swords.

I think "solely" is a stretch... but they are really, really good for killing people. Why is that a problem?

I have mine 'cause it's fun to shoot AND it's really good for killing people.


Ok I think i've been misunderstood with this quote. I don't see a problem with it at all... and the person who said that they were solely made for killing people is who I was sayng is wrong.
 
2012-12-25 04:22:57 AM  

Mock26: You do not know much about guns, do you?


I know enough to know that ak-47s are not known for their accuracy.
 
2012-12-25 04:24:33 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


The problem with that way of reasoning is that the government will make sure they are always much better armed. This is why the US is a police state, where every small town has a SWAT team with paramilitary weapons and why government control and power are everywhere. You are already living under a tyranny, and the misguided notions that guns equal freedom is actually used by the tyrants to fool a large part of the public in to believing they are living in a free country. You are not. You are living in a tyrannic olicharchy that has become so efficient that they succeed in having a large part of the population voting against their own interests.
 
2012-12-25 04:25:34 AM  

CthulhuCalling: OddLlama: OscarTamerz: General Pershing

You have a citation for that? his wiki page doesn't seem to mention it.

I think he meant MacArthur and the Bonus Army.


Yep
 
2012-12-25 04:25:39 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: I think "solely" is a stretch... but they are really, really good for killing people. Why is that a problem?

I have mine 'cause it's fun to shoot AND it's really good for killing people.


I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm just saying be honest about it. the AR line(and many others) was developed for the military to kill people. Period. Does that mean they should be banned on that basis alone? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean that isn't what the were designed and built for.
 
DuX
2012-12-25 04:28:02 AM  
What the hell have our gun threads come to?
This is a sad state of affairs when we're +150 posts in and nobody has used the term "CLIP" followed by the obligatory lower lip quivering response full of righteous indignation.
I always hear it in Pee-Wee Herman's voice: "It's not a CLIP, it's a MAGAZINE!"

Fark, I am disappoint.
C'mon, get with the program.

/Clip.
 
2012-12-25 04:28:19 AM  

log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.


Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you? Those us who are defending guns are not saying or even implying that guns are as dangerous as a flower. But, if you put a gun down on the ground then it really is as dangerous as a flower. Well, that is not true. You could stub your toe on the gun or trip over it or possibly cut your foot if you stepped on it barefoot, but it really is just a tool. The potential danger of a gun comes from the manner in which it is used and by the person using it. There are millions of legally owned military style semi-automatic firearms in this country that will never be used in an illegal manner. They are owned by responsible gun owners who simply enjoy shooting. And, yes, some people do use those firearms to hunt. It is not really traditional, but some people hunt with pistols. They simply enjoy hunting. Nothing wrong with that. And given all of this, why should we ban a certain style of firearm because a handful of irresponsible people decide to use them to gun down kids in a school or people in a theater? Why punish the rest of us for the acts of a handful of criminals? Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.
 
2012-12-25 04:28:46 AM  
So are you anti gun people more scared of the top gun or the bottom one? the top one is all black with a pistol style grip while the other is pretty boring in the old wood style..
farm7.staticflickr.com
Because its the same gun. I photoshopped the images of before and after I changed the stock to lighten it for target shooting. Ruger 10/22 in case you were wondering. and I even have a 25 round magazine for it along with 3 or 4 10 round mags.
 
2012-12-25 04:29:38 AM  

Mock26: Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you?


you won't see the irony in that comment.
 
2012-12-25 04:31:30 AM  

BeSerious: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.


Yes, the government will "win", if you can go so far as to call it a "win".

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


As in all of the threads of late, THIS!

Bears repeating. That was the intent of the law. Let the people maintain some measure of defense.

Democracy, is first and foremost, by the people. Sure, right now we have a voting procedure that works, kind of. We have a voice. The ability for people to retain some of their power is what maintains those rights.

We all have politician's that we feel would be the death of us all if they were to come into real power, now imagine one step worse, a set of them that decided they didn't need to listen to polls and votes. This is how many other countries in the world work right now. It's a travesty. What amounts to slavery, genocide, violence at whim toward whatever group of people the gov' decides are it's enemies this week.

As I noted above, sure, the may not win, but "victory" will be too costly for some years yet. Take away guns, and that factor of fear goes away, puts on the table a less costly means to their goals.

We don't need that kind of revolution now, but if history shows us anything, we will eventually.
 
2012-12-25 04:33:32 AM  

log_jammin:
I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm just saying be honest about it. the AR line(and many others) was developed for the military to kill people. Period. Does that mean they should be banned on that basis alone? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean that isn't what the were designed and built for.


firearms were originally designed to kill people. later on they were found to be handy for killing food too. Guns kill. That's what they were designed for. They don't care what they are pointed at when the trigger is pulled. That is up to the person pulling the trigger.
 
2012-12-25 04:34:03 AM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


The difference is that Switzerland is one of the richest countries of the world with an extremely stable economy, low unemployment, very good education for all, highly democratic, and extremely cohesive social structure, a long history of anti-militarism and neutrality, and little problems with crime, poverty or other social issues. There is no other country quite like Switzerland.

The Swiss are with almost no exception, very nice, well-educated, and extremely boring people.
 
2012-12-25 04:34:58 AM  

log_jammin: Mock26: You do not know much about guns, do you?

I know enough to know that ak-47s are not known for their accuracy.


Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns. I have fired more than a few civilian model AK-47s and they are very accurate. How many have you actually fired? Sure, they might not be as accurate as say the M16, but they are accurate enough to hit a human sized figure at several hundred yards.

Also, check out this video of a guy test firing an AK-47 that is brand new. You will see how accurate it is. Oh, and his misses are close enough that if was hunting a deer he would have hit the deer.
 
2012-12-25 04:38:32 AM  

CthulhuCalling: firearms were originally designed to kill people. later on they were found to be handy for killing food too. Guns kill. That's what they were designed for. They don't care what they are pointed at when the trigger is pulled. That is up to the person pulling the trigger.


yeah, I'm not sure what your point is here. I know that "guns don't kill, people do". I know guns can be used to hunt even if they were originally designed to kill people. I never claimed those things were not true.

all I said was that the AR line was designed from the ground up as human killing device, and claiming that one variant makes for an OK deer gun doesn't change that fact.
 
2012-12-25 04:41:08 AM  

log_jammin: Mock26: Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you?

you won't see the irony in that comment.


A typo (to vs. too) has nothing to do with reading comprehension. It is simply a typo. Funny, though, how you did not respond to the rest of my post.. Too afraid to do so?
 
2012-12-25 04:42:16 AM  

Mock26: Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns.


Yeah dude. you got me. I'm a college kid at Berkley and I've never touched a gun in my life. They totally make me cry n'stuff.

Mock26: Also, check out this video of a guy test firing an AK-47 that is brand new.


Just for shiats and giggles I think I'll google "ak 47 accuracy" and...well what do you know! same video! well case closed, it must be like some super accurate sniper rifle!
 
2012-12-25 04:43:56 AM  

Mock26: log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.

Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you? Those us who are defending guns are not saying or even implying that guns are as dangerous as a flower. But, if you put a gun down on the ground then it really is as dangerous as a flower. Well, that is not true. You could stub your toe on the gun or trip over it or possibly cut your foot if you stepped on it barefoot, but it really is just a tool. The potential danger of a gun comes from the manner in which it is used and by the person using it. There are millions of legally owned military style semi-automatic firearms in this country that will never be used in an illegal manner. They are owned by responsible gun owners who simply enjoy shooting. And, yes, some people do use those firearms to hunt. It is not really traditional, but some people hunt with pistols. They simply enjoy hunting. Nothing wrong with that. And given all of this, why should we ban a certain style of firearm because a handful of irresponsible people decide to use them to gun down kids in a school or people in a theater? Why punish the rest of us for the acts of a handful of criminals? Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.


If I could favorite this from my phone I would.
 
2012-12-25 04:45:01 AM  
You know who know how to deal with swords
I'm tired of reading all this BS, if the panicked idiots win I'm also fine with that. They always get what they deserve.
/Merry fuking x-mas
 
2012-12-25 04:45:08 AM  

Mock26: It is simply a typo


I wasn't referring to your typo.

Mock26: Funny, though, how you did not respond to the rest of my post.. Too afraid to do so?


I didn't respond to it because it was full of a shiat ton of assumptions about what you think I believe and what I don't. and the reason you made those assumptions is because of your poor reading comprehension. Hence...the irony that slipped right passed you.
 
2012-12-25 04:45:10 AM  

log_jammin: all I said was that the AR line was designed from the ground up as human killing device, and claiming that one variant makes for an OK deer gun doesn't change that fact.


guns are efficient killers regardless of what you think they were 'intended' to kill. Take for example my Remington 700. It's a pretty reliable and standard target/deer rifle. Add a Harris bipod, a Leopuld scope, exchange the stock for a Kevlar one and you have an M-24 sniper rifle. My Mossberg 590 FLEX goes from being a tactical room broom to a game gun in about 30 seconds.
 
2012-12-25 04:49:04 AM  

CthulhuCalling: guns are efficient killers regardless of what you think they were 'intended' to kill. Take for example my Remington 700. It's a pretty reliable and standard target/deer rifle. Add a Harris bipod, a Leopuld scope, exchange the stock for a Kevlar one and you have an M-24 sniper rifle. My Mossberg 590 FLEX goes from being a tactical room broom to a game gun in about 30 seconds.


Ok? and?
 
2012-12-25 04:56:03 AM  

Mock26: log_jammin: Mock26: You do not know much about guns, do you?

I know enough to know that ak-47s are not known for their accuracy.

Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns. I have fired more than a few civilian model AK-47s and they are very accurate. How many have you actually fired?


How many versions are in the Call of Duty's?
/snerk

The AK-47 is actually fairly well re-purposed as a sniper(for those that didn't know)...

/Isn't the Dragonuv a refitted AK-47(in origin at any rate) for larger caliber, longer barrel, and semi-auto?

Really, with modern technology being what it is, interchangable or upgradable parts for different calibers, most guns are classed according to similarities in the firing and feed mechanisms. M-16/AR 15/whatever can shoot an amazing variety if you replace the right parts.

/partial to the bullpup design myself
//g-11 and p90 have interesting feeds that accomplish the same effect though
 
2012-12-25 04:59:54 AM  

log_jammin: CthulhuCalling: guns are efficient killers regardless of what you think they were 'intended' to kill. Take for example my Remington 700. It's a pretty reliable and standard target/deer rifle. Add a Harris bipod, a Leopuld scope, exchange the stock for a Kevlar one and you have an M-24 sniper rifle. My Mossberg 590 FLEX goes from being a tactical room broom to a game gun in about 30 seconds.

Ok? and?


It doesn't matter what you think it was intended for. If the gun performs acceptably in another function, it makes no difference what it's intended design use was. That doesn't mean you'll get laughed out of the hunting camp showing up with an AR.
 
2012-12-25 05:01:52 AM  
What was this guy's angle?

/oh, I see it in the photo, 90 degrees.
//perhaps he was clearing some bush.
 
2012-12-25 05:05:43 AM  

Mock26: Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.


Except it's more like wanting to ban cars, but those are already well-regulated and you knew that would lose you the argument, so you pulled out the strawman of the thing that wasn't used as a weapon.

You can argue for guns and not be disingenuous, you know.
 
2012-12-25 05:06:35 AM  
www.tvgoodness.com

The most dangerous people don't need guns.
 
2012-12-25 05:08:52 AM  

CthulhuCalling: It doesn't matter what you think it was intended for. If the gun performs acceptably in another function, it makes no difference what it's intended design use was. That doesn't mean you'll get laughed out of the hunting camp showing up with an AR.


Read this carefully please....I never said, nor do I believe, that it matters what the gun was originally intended for. I only stated what it WAS originally intended for.
 
2012-12-25 05:15:39 AM  

CthulhuCalling: James F. Campbell: Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

What a hellhole. Truly.

have you tried their cuisine?


Countries that sell spray cheese in a can and yogurt in a tube aren't allowed to criticise other countries' food.
 
2012-12-25 05:17:04 AM  

Gordon Bennett: CthulhuCalling: James F. Campbell: Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

What a hellhole. Truly.

have you tried their cuisine?

Countries that sell spray cheese in a can and yogurt in a tube aren't allowed to criticise other countries' food.


The fark? How are you going to sell spray cheese in a bottle? That doesn't even make sense!
 
2012-12-25 05:20:27 AM  
In the meantime, I want to wish each and every one of you farkers a Merry Christmas and I hope to hell we can have one day of peace on earth.

/I have argued with many of you.
//fark it all. I wish you the best.
 
2012-12-25 05:30:21 AM  

starsrift: Mock26: Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.

Except it's more like wanting to ban cars, but those are already well-regulated and you knew that would lose you the argument, so you pulled out the strawman of the thing that wasn't used as a weapon.

You can argue for guns and not be disingenuous, you know.


Not being disingenuous at all. The call to ban military style semi-automatic rifles is stupid and will do no good (just as it did no good with the Brady Bill from 1994-2004). It is an irrational response to this latest shooting tragedy. So, I created a hypothetical but equally irrational response towards drunk driving and alcohol as an example to show how irrational it was. And it was the appropriate choice. It is not the car that makes the drunk driver kill someone. It is the alcohol. Either way, calling for the banning alcohol or banning cars because of drunk drivers is as irrational and stupid a response as calling for the banning of military style semi-automatic rifles because of a handful of incidents such as Sandy Hook.
 
2012-12-25 05:32:43 AM  

phrawgh: kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.


What about rocket launchers? Those are arms.
 
2012-12-25 05:33:15 AM  

log_jammin: Mock26: Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns.

Yeah dude. you got me. I'm a college kid at Berkley and I've never touched a gun in my life. They totally make me cry n'stuff.

Mock26: Also, check out this video of a guy test firing an AK-47 that is brand new.

Just for shiats and giggles I think I'll google "ak 47 accuracy" and...well what do you know! same video! well case closed, it must be like some super accurate sniper rifle!


So, if you have never fired a gun before in your life, let alone an AK-47, then commenting on the accuracy of the AK-47 makes you a fool.

As for the video, I never made the claim that it was some sort of super accurate sniper rifle. Hades, I never even made a hint along those lines. That video was in response to your specious claim that AK-47s were inaccurate, and the video proved you wrong. Of course, I did not expect you to admit that you were wrong.
 
2012-12-25 05:33:52 AM  

Mock26: Not being disingenuous at all. The call to ban military style semi-automatic rifles is stupid and will do no good (just as it did no good with the Brady Bill from 1994-2004). It is an irrational response to this latest shooting tragedy.


I'd like to think you stopped here.
 
2012-12-25 05:50:23 AM  

Wayne 985: phrawgh: kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

What about rocket launchers? Those are arms.


And they can be purchased by civilians with proper licensing
 
2012-12-25 05:52:10 AM  

simkatu: GB has like 36 gun deaths a year to our 15000 our whatever obscene number it is, even though they are 1/6 the size. Gun control works there. Even police are discouraged from carrying. However its too late for the US to institute gun control like that. We have 300 million guns out there. It's not possible to get those returned. There are sensible things we can do to help things, like refusing to sell to just released mental patients or to folks that don't have any training in gun safety.


I think you under estimate the power of a generous gun buy back.
 
2012-12-25 05:52:47 AM  
Masterful troll, subby. Masterful. I doff my Fez to thee, sir.

/+whatever the going rate is and an extra eleventy on top...
 
2012-12-25 05:54:06 AM  
What the issue is with gun debates is what people think is what one person thinks another person needs. If you don't feel the need to have a gun, don't buy one. But your opinion shouldn't infringe on the right of another to have the option to buy a gun.

Happy Holidays to everyone. Enjoy your families today.
 
2012-12-25 06:16:25 AM  

LeftOfLiberal: simkatu: GB has like 36 gun deaths a year to our 15000 our whatever obscene number it is, even though they are 1/6 the size. Gun control works there. Even police are discouraged from carrying. However its too late for the US to institute gun control like that. We have 300 million guns out there. It's not possible to get those returned. There are sensible things we can do to help things, like refusing to sell to just released mental patients or to folks that don't have any training in gun safety.

I think you under estimate the power of a generous gun buy back.


And preventing more from entering society.
 
2012-12-25 06:17:22 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Mrtraveler01: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.

Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?

The threat of violence quite often makes the use of violence unnecessary.


Are you suggesting that our past or present government has had tyrannical ideations that were unactionable in the face of our well-armed citizenry? Can you provide any evidence to support such a claim?
 
2012-12-25 06:35:51 AM  

starsrift: Mock26: Not being disingenuous at all. The call to ban military style semi-automatic rifles is stupid and will do no good (just as it did no good with the Brady Bill from 1994-2004). It is an irrational response to this latest shooting tragedy.

I'd like to think you stopped here.


You do realize, of course, that I was not actually calling for a ban on vodka or alcohol in general, right?
 
2012-12-25 06:52:29 AM  

Mock26: So, if you have never fired a gun before in your life, let alone an AK-47, then commenting on the accuracy of the AK-47 makes you a fool.


Lean what sarcasm is. You might find that identifying sarcasm would be beneficial to you.

Mock26: and the video proved you wrong.


also, the definition of "proof" and "proved" might help as well.
 
2012-12-25 06:54:30 AM  
I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.
 
2012-12-25 06:57:03 AM  

barron: I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.


It's like a stew of crazy.
 
2012-12-25 06:59:09 AM  

barron: I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.


Good advice.

When you get off that paranoid schizophrenia trip, do let us know how you find dealing with logic for the first time.
 
2012-12-25 07:02:07 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Isn't the Dragonuv a refitted AK-47(in origin at any rate) for larger caliber, longer barrel, and semi-auto?


Yes.
What makes the AK platform inaccurate is cheap manufacturing and poor fitting of the parts. The choice of round and the piston system don't help.
You can make a stamped receiver cheaply and leave lots of wiggle room (which keeps dirt and fouling from affecting what goes on under the hood). The gun will cost very little and run like a champ, but don't expect to win many matches at the hundred yard line.
Tighten the whole thing up and it becomes a pretty nice weapon.
...But the Armalite is still Americas iPod compared to Russias generic blue nokia.

As for the British, they are still working on gun control after the Cumbria shootings since the legislation after the Dunblane massacre was apparently incomplete.
They have reduced shootings, but this just means criminals are emboldened to attack with whatever is at hand.

/And I must say this mans knife collection is pathetic. I've seen better blades in a dime store.
/Spend some money on cold steel at least.
 
2012-12-25 07:08:10 AM  

barron: I see a lot of people attacking the second amendment on this site. Consider the following - Obama is arming the Mexican drug dealers, he's arming the Muslim Brotherhood (guns and F16's), America is 16 Trillion in debt with no way to repay it (at some point China will call the note). When the dollar collapses do you believe the politicians want us armed or disarmed?

Apply logic to the situation not emotion.


As opposed to the good old days when Reagan was merely selling arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

Both sides are bad, so vote Republican.
 
2012-12-25 07:11:30 AM  

Trapper439: As opposed to the good old days when Reagan was merely selling arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.


and don't forget, he was also banning certain kinds of guns.
 
2012-12-25 07:13:12 AM  

Raptop: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Mrtraveler01: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.

Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?

The threat of violence quite often makes the use of violence unnecessary.

Are you suggesting that our past or present government has had tyrannical ideations that were unactionable in the face of our well-armed citizenry? Can you provide any evidence to support such a claim?


Sometime around 1776...
 
2012-12-25 07:17:37 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-E u rope-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The only category we outdo anybody in are deaths(USA, USA, USA!). And the drug war spilling over from Mexico easily accounts for that, which is why the drug legalization movement is snowballing. Granted, the data is whopping THREE WHOLE YEARS OLD, so I'm sure there's been a miracle happen since and the UK really is the gunless utopia of legend. America is the more violent society. Absolutely. Totally. For sure and for realsie.
 
2012-12-25 07:26:35 AM  
also in the UK, the government can jail you for racist things you put on the internet, and break apart your family based on your political affiliation.
 
2012-12-25 07:28:33 AM  

Jarhead_h: which is why the drug legalization movement is snowballing.


I honestly think if we ended the drug war and curtailed the number of foreign wars, our violence statistics would drop faster than a pigeon hit with a .223.
The gun control argument is easier when you start from a low violence culture.
 
2012-12-25 07:31:08 AM  

Jarhead_h: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x636]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-E u rope-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The only category we outdo anybody in are deaths(USA, USA, USA!). And the drug war spilling over from Mexico easily accounts for that, which is why the drug legalization movement is snowballing. Granted, the data is whopping THREE WHOLE YEARS OLD, so I'm sure there's been a miracle happen since and the UK really is the gunless utopia of legend. America is the more violent society. Absolutely. Totally. For sure and for realsie.


A big part of the problem is that as the huge post-WWII generation has aged, crime has gone down all over the industrialized world - and any crackpot anywhere can claim success for any anti-crime measure that has been initiated because crime went down, right? Concurrence.
Often mistaken for causation.
 
2012-12-25 07:36:42 AM  

log_jammin: Trapper439: As opposed to the good old days when Reagan was merely selling arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

and don't forget, he was also banning certain kinds of guns.


Not entirely.
The AWB was Clinton's work, and closing the Machine gun registry was Charlie Rangal's fetish.
The Firearm owners protection act setup a method for instant background checks, banned gun registration, and allowed owners safe passage with their firearms (among other things).
It was really to reign in the ATF's abusive practices against owners and dealers.
The Hughes amendment was a fly in the ointment of otherwise good things.

/But I did not speak up, for I didn't own any machine guns.
 
2012-12-25 07:41:03 AM  

way south: The Hughes amendment was a fly in the ointment of otherwise good things.


maybe, but he still banned a type of gun.
 
2012-12-25 07:49:30 AM  

kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.


that was like epic dumb... lol
derpmeter to 15+...  thank you for the laugh.

/i hope that was intentional  O.o
 
2012-12-25 07:50:51 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Looks up chart of logical fallacies -

- False Claim
- Ambiguity
- Strawman

Conclusion: 3/10 - weak troll.
 
2012-12-25 07:51:39 AM  
One thing is absolutely guaranteed here on Fark™...  If there is a gun thread, there will be an epic number of posts in a very short time and they will always almost perfectly mirror every single other gun thread that has ever been on Fark™.
 
2012-12-25 07:52:41 AM  
Your men can't kill women with a samurai sword? How friggin pathetic do you have to be to not be able to pull that off
 
2012-12-25 07:55:44 AM  

iserlohn: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Looks up chart of logical fallacies -

- False Claim
- Ambiguity
- Strawman

Conclusion: 3/10 - weak troll.


remember... you must account for bites as well...  i think the current going rate is 2 bites = .5 bonus troll points if i am not mistaken... but its a kind of scale though... so as the number of bites goes up, the number of points does at a much lower rate up to a max of 11/10.  Though i have to admit, i don't recall seeing anyone get that high except pocketninja.

/Sorry if i missed anyone.
 
2012-12-25 07:58:12 AM  
the best troll so far is subby's trolltastic headline... 226bites as of this post

subby: 9/10  so far....

Merry Christmas and may God keep and Bless you.
 
2012-12-25 07:58:52 AM  
I just love the argument "having guns keeps us from being over run by tyranny". Last I heard, Australia was not run by tyrants...How about those awfull Brits? Don't even get me started on those crazy Canadians!
 
2012-12-25 08:02:26 AM  

lj1330: I just love the argument "having guns keeps us from being over run by tyranny". Last I heard, Australia was not run by tyrants...How about those awfull Brits? Don't even get me started on those crazy Canadians!


you know what i love?  these cookies the wife made... tea cookies, snickerdoodles, rolo cookies (rolos in the middle of a chocolate cookie), rugala (apricot), thumbprints, kiss cookies (kind of like a thumbprint but with a hershey's kiss in the middle), and gingerbread...
 
2012-12-25 08:12:18 AM  

BeSerious: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.


So which is it? Guns are these Evil Incarnate devices, each imbued with the foreskin of satan (which explains the penis infatuation right)? Or are they the Nerf pea-shootersers you're claiming they are here?
 
2012-12-25 08:13:38 AM  

Mock26: Mrtraveler01: OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.

Oh look this lame talking point again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusti ng -israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They've been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they're not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

Any other lame debunked talking points you care to share with the rest of the class today?

Civilians still own 47.5 guns per 100 people.


Dear gun owners (of which I am one)

Please don't bother posting information about firearms in Switzerland (which is where I am posting this from). The info about the gun depots is not quite accurate. Storage of assault weapons at local armories is voluntary. Most marksmen and hunters do not do so since they would not be able to get them for training or competition.

Anyone who firmly believes that the most effective method of preventing abuse is to ban a commodity that is already available in huge quantities is not listening to anything. Save your breath.

After all, banning drugs and alcohol instantly and completely prevented their abuse, so I can see no reason why wouldn't it work equally well with firearms.
 
2012-12-25 08:16:38 AM  

JSam21: 12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.

But it gives you a chance to at least fight. Look at Lybia...


Yeah, look at Lybia. They're livin' the high life now!
Anyone who truly thinks that every gun nut in the country combined would stand any kind of chance against the U.S. armed forces is a fool.
This is one of the many reasons people laugh at you.
This is one of the ways that we know you're incapable of reading a situation and coming to a realistic conclusion.
Your inability to understand such basic concepts is why you're not taken seriously.
You have every right to voice your opinions but be aware that airing such drivel tips off the rest of us to the fact that you're idiots and your opinions simply don't count.
 
2012-12-25 08:20:25 AM  

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


I have wondered about this. No-one appears to take into account the mass defections (at least) that would ensue if the Armed Forces were told to fire on their own people.
 
2012-12-25 08:39:45 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


Well if that is the case, go to Congress and ask for that following arms be completely legalized: high explosives, booby traps, mines, etc. That is because small arms are pretty damn worthless against a modern military. IEDs and suicide bombers however can be effective against a modern military. Then go to your state legislature and demand that they form a state militia with high performance jet fighters, tanks, etc. uncontrolled by the national government and that they must get a stockpile of nuclear-armed missiles in order to keep Washington back.

If you don't do what I suggest, then I dare say that your claim that we need those guns to beat back tyrants is nothing more than a sham.
 
2012-12-25 08:41:32 AM  
Merry Christmas, subby! I got you the gift of go fark yourself.
 
2012-12-25 09:04:34 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


And yet pools still kill more children a year than guns. Where is the irrational and emotional pleas to ban pools? They serve no purpose other than recreation and death.
 
2012-12-25 09:04:56 AM  

ZeroPly: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

This has only been brought up a few dozen times so far, and my response has become increasingly polished, so let me take a swing at this...

We are not talking about the government as it exists now or the army as it exists now. Obviously, there is no significant armed opposition to our army since very few think the status quo is so unbearable right now.

The point is that things change. There is no way to predict what the country will be like 5 years from now, much less 20. It could be plague, it could be civil war, it could be an asteroid strike. It could be indefinite martial law. It would be incredibly dense to try to plot these scenarios out - because if we could, we would just avoid them.


So you gun owners are all doomsday preppers? Do you also store food and medical supplies? After all, an army marches on its stomach.
 
2012-12-25 09:07:11 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.
 
2012-12-25 09:11:45 AM  
www.barnrunner.com
 
2012-12-25 09:18:55 AM  

MyRandomName: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

And yet pools still kill more children a year than guns. Where is the irrational and emotional pleas to ban pools? They serve no purpose other than recreation and death.


When was the last time a pool killed 26 children at once?
 
2012-12-25 09:21:37 AM  

MarkEC: Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.

How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.


Without the proper training and discipline, all you have is an unruly mob. That is hardly the type of organization that is going to protect us from whatever you think you are protecting us from. It is time that you take your responsibility seriously. You need to go to your local sheriff and tell him that you want him to organize a unit that is actually capable of defending all of us.

You are shirking your duties. You want all of us to believe that you are fine, loyal Americans and this is the chance to prove it.

It would also be a good idea for the sheriff to set up a armory where all of the weapons could be stored and ready for you when the big war starts. That is what all good militias do.
 
2012-12-25 09:25:30 AM  
This is a bit OT as I just avoid gun threads but considering that the store in question I am talking about is going to be open for business today and I worry about them, here we go.

In our neighborhood we have, for lack of a better term a bodega, although it is run by a nice family from Viet Nam (don't know the Vietnamese equivalent of convenience store, so it will have to suffice). Just a few months before I moved in with my old man, the bodega was robbed and yeah, we live in da 'hood, the store has iron bars over all the doors and windows, etc., but we shop there because it's close and they have good prices on soda, Arizona tea and cigarettes. So the old cat who owns the place was robbed at gunpoint one day in June (I moved here in September of last year). My old man was apparently walking in just as the robber was walking out and was questioned by police for a description. He couldn't really remember-we don't always pay attention to these things. But after he talked to the old cat, said hey you should get a gun. Old cat says, I don't want a gun, we're peaceful, etc., but we don't want to get robbed either. My old man brought in his glock to show the owners (there is also a wife and son who work the store at various times), brought it in unloaded and sans clip about a week later to show the store owner. Old cat decides to get a gun to protect himself and his business. Several months later, he has another robber try to rob him. Shoots the guy in the shoulder, calls the cops. Robber went to jail, old cat is still working at the store to this very day. I think the crook was surprised when a quiet, somewhat rude old guy pulled out a gun and just shot him for being a threat. Again, OT, really not to do with the horrible shootings and deaths we've had recently, but it it wasn't for a citizen's right to bear arms, including our immigrant citizens, there could've possibly been an awful, horrid tragedy. And while we only are shoppers at this bodega, we've gotten to know all of these folks and care about them, so a loss of any of them would have been a deep cause for grief and mourning in our house. Also, most assailants tend to be really shocked when a person actually fights back, whether it is self defence or any other means. They expect to intimidate and I think that the element of surprise and shock is what got my old store owner away alive.

/CSS
 
2012-12-25 09:29:51 AM  

Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...


If she had been carrying a gun, that implies that there would be a lax gun law.

So there would have been thousands of victims.

---

Also she might have shot that dude, but he had it comming.
 
2012-12-25 09:30:24 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

And yet pools still kill more children a year than guns. Where is the irrational and emotional pleas to ban pools? They serve no purpose other than recreation and death.

When was the last time a pool killed 26 children at once?


Adana Turky, February of this year.
a damn burst killed ten workers.

/It was an "assault pool".
/killing children one at a time is better than doing it wholesale?
 
2012-12-25 09:31:43 AM  

MarkEC: Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.

How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.


Not a "gun fanatic" but I would take them up on that offer in a heartbeat.
 
2012-12-25 09:34:27 AM  

specialkae: This is a bit OT as I just avoid gun threads but considering that the store in question I am talking about is going to be open for business today and I worry about them, here we go.

In our neighborhood we have, for lack of a better term a bodega, although it is run by a nice family from Viet Nam (don't know the Vietnamese equivalent of convenience store, so it will have to suffice). Just a few months before I moved in with my old man, the bodega was robbed and yeah, we live in da 'hood, the store has iron bars over all the doors and windows, etc., but we shop there because it's close and they have good prices on soda, Arizona tea and cigarettes. So the old cat who owns the place was robbed at gunpoint one day in June (I moved here in September of last year). My old man was apparently walking in just as the robber was walking out and was questioned by police for a description. He couldn't really remember-we don't always pay attention to these things. But after he talked to the old cat, said hey you should get a gun. Old cat says, I don't want a gun, we're peaceful, etc., but we don't want to get robbed either. My old man brought in his glock to show the owners (there is also a wife and son who work the store at various times), brought it in unloaded and sans clip about a week later to show the store owner. Old cat decides to get a gun to protect himself and his business. Several months later, he has another robber try to rob him. Shoots the guy in the shoulder, calls the cops. Robber went to jail, old cat is still working at the store to this very day. I think the crook was surprised when a quiet, somewhat rude old guy pulled out a gun and just shot him for being a threat. Again, OT, really not to do with the horrible shootings and deaths we've had recently, but it it wasn't for a citizen's right to bear arms, including our immigrant citizens, there could've possibly been an awful, horrid tragedy. And while we only are shoppers at this bodega, we've gott ...


glad to hear that the family got through that.

You bring up a good point. Most crooks are going to be shocked when confronted by a person with a handgun. They are not prepared for a gun fight. Surveillance videos often show crooks fleeing the scene when the intended victim has a gun and shows a willingness to use it. Those videos show up on TV all the time.

That is why I find it so funny when the gun nutz tell us that they expect to get into a big shoot out with the people invading their homes. That is going to happen about one percent of the time. Unless, of course, you are running a meth lab in your house and the competition wants you out of the way.
 
2012-12-25 09:43:37 AM  

JSam21: MarkEC: Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.

How many of your "US gun fanatics" would decline the invite from the local sheriff to come to a day of training and shooting at the local gun range?
The lack of local governments in not having the training that is the reason for the "well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is not a justification to take away the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.

Not a "gun fanatic" but I would take them up on that offer in a heartbeat.


Same here.
"You mean I get to go play with guns all day and its the law? sweet!"

Historical note tho: the bulk of the military force at the time the 2nd was crafted were militia forces. What the founders wanted was to standardize their training and ranks to make it easier to use them in wars.
The idea of keeping hundreds of thousands of paid enforcement officers would have been more alien to them than the modern rifle.

It was the lack of money for training that kept militia service from becoming more of a thing.

/dunno about stateside prices, but a box of 223 here will run you fifteen bucks.
/$120 to load one soldier with an absolute minimal, multiply that by a hundred guys and you're quickly talking real money.
/not counting the additional catering and equipment, plus compensation for their time if the training is mandatory.
 
2012-12-25 09:45:40 AM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-25 10:03:08 AM  

BeSerious: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.


A handful of hapless farmers against the might of the Royal British Empire?  Hmphh...

www.mnartists.org
 
2012-12-25 10:04:14 AM  
British people love disarmed peoples.

They loved poorly armed Indians, Africans, Arabs, and Asians.

They did not enjoy the company of well armed Americans.
 
2012-12-25 10:07:12 AM  
"Woman seriously hurt" vs. 20+ people dead.

I'll take it, subby.
 
2012-12-25 10:11:54 AM  

sblafren: http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/crime/20 12/12/18/bath_school_bombing_rem embering_the_deadliest_school_massacre _in_american.html

Mentally unstable people will kill with what they have on hand. But they will kill. You cannot ban all weapons and gaurantee public security at all times. Stop promising it to people... Either by disarming them or arming them. Both the liberals and the NRA are wrong.

Think you CAN gaurantee security, if you disarm the people enough? Ala Saudi Arabia? Look at Lybia, Syria, or Iran. You will have to regularly repress the people and/or kill them in far more numbers than irresponsible or illegal gun use leads to in America today.

Whether the public is armed or not, it is not NRA nuts, CCP afficianadios or hunters that we are really worried about. It is crazy people. With guns. Or knives (china last week), or swords (uk today), or dynamite (us 80 yeas ago). What we need is not gun control but crazy control. More mental health services not more gun regulation.

And yes. It's hard for an American civilian to take on the US Army with an AR15. But can the 1mil man army, half of which are desk clerks, take on 100 million civilians with Glocks and AR15s? Not easily. Might stall the government long enough to come to their senses. Maybe not. But gotta love having a fighting chance.

Still, all this worry of gun violence... You are much more likely to die in a car accident or from Cancer.


Your rational thoughts will NOT be tolerated in this thread. I bid you good day sir!
 
2012-12-25 10:18:28 AM  

treecologist: "Woman seriously hurt" vs. 20+ people dead.

I'll take it, subby.


The catch is you have to eat British food.

/need a ride to the airport?
 
2012-12-25 10:18:40 AM  
At least the Brits don't let the police have arms that they are not allowed to possess.   Americans just want to ban weapons for the civilians.
 
2012-12-25 10:23:11 AM  
I was wondering why they called this a samurai sword. Japanese swords with curved blades are illegal in the UK. Traditional English swords are not illegal. So farking stupid.
 
2012-12-25 10:26:22 AM  

Jarhead_h: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x636]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-E u rope-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html


Different countries have different definitions of "violent crime".
Film at 11.
 
2012-12-25 10:29:29 AM  

Triumph: In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Aww how cute, you think that our small arms keep the government's tanks, bombers, and artillery in check!
 
2012-12-25 10:35:39 AM  

badhatharry: I was wondering why they called this a samurai sword. Japanese swords with curved blades are illegal in the UK. Traditional English swords are not illegal. So farking stupid.


Was going to say this. Looking at the photo, I don't even see Japanese-style swords there. I just see the machete next to what looks like a couple of straight-edge swords. Didn't know that traditional English swords were still allowed. I don't think they'd be any less dangerous.
 
2012-12-25 10:35:48 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


LOL you have a lot of faith in your country peeps - besides you are NOT allowed to be armed with a TANK or an A10, so keep living your delusions, the people of the usoa cannot defend themselves from their government :p if you have assault rifles, then they have a APC :p
 
2012-12-25 10:37:24 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Triumph: In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Aww how cute, you think that our small arms keep the government's tanks, bombers, and artillery in check!


The civilians are in charge in America. That's why the president, Secretary of Defense, etc. must be civilians.  It is important that the civilians and military remember that.  Even if the right to bear arms is symbolic, it is a good reminder of who supposedly is in charge.
 
2012-12-25 10:37:37 AM  

Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.


HEHE if you are a troll.

But I doubt it so you are now on the wanker list.
 
2012-12-25 10:40:22 AM  

CreativeFarkHandle: badhatharry: I was wondering why they called this a samurai sword. Japanese swords with curved blades are illegal in the UK. Traditional English swords are not illegal. So farking stupid.

Was going to say this. Looking at the photo, I don't even see Japanese-style swords there. I just see the machete next to what looks like a couple of straight-edge swords. Didn't know that traditional English swords were still allowed. I don't think they'd be any less dangerous.


I had to look it up. I think it is similar to our assault weapons ban. They ban the weapon of choice of psychos even though it makes no logical sense.
 
2012-12-25 10:43:40 AM  

Vegetative reproduction: So you gun owners are all doomsday preppers? Do you also store food and medical supplies? After all, an army marches on its stomach.


No, but my gun-hating neighbors do, which is just as good.

/which of us do you think is going to go hungry?
//a smart person would think twice about joining a revolution that mandates destroying the status quo that protects them
///but like I said, they hate guns
 
2012-12-25 10:47:11 AM  

The One True TheDavid: A two foot long samurai sword?

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x382]
Paging Therion or another expert: please identify that piece of metal?


Could be a wakizashi
 
2012-12-25 10:47:20 AM  
When the time comes I know a lot of fitters and turners (and prop makers ;) who can provide me with as much SMALL arms as I like. And gun powder is not exactly rocket science (though it did lead to it.)

So I do not really need a weapon right this second, in fact it could be dangerous to me because I have a bird sitting on my arm and she could set it off :D

And if I did happen to need a weapon right this moment, I would firstly throw the bird at them (Australian Magpie) then follow it up with a stubbie, before grabbing my luvly replica of King Lionheart's sword that is within reaching distance.
 
2012-12-25 10:54:40 AM  
Oh, look. One injured in an attack on one person.

Meanwhile, in America, two killed plus the gunman and two injured in an ambush on volunteer firefighters.

But, no, I'm sure the gun nuts have a point and that the only part of any proposed solution to gun violence that doesn't make sense is controlling the prevalence of guns.
 
2012-12-25 11:06:47 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: When was the last time a pool killed 26 children at once?


Pools are more like serial killers than spree killers.
 
2012-12-25 11:07:19 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: OddLlama: AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?

The very fact that you think the Civil War was about freeing the slaves tells me you know NOTHING about U.S. History and any of your thoughts on why we have the 2nd Amendment is complete garbage.


Oh wow, of course someone spewing the unenlightened opinions you have been would assert that the Civil War was not about slavery. The experts - historians with Ph.D.s who have spend their entire adult lives analyzing the Civil War -- agree that it was, given the primary evidence of what was discussed among Southern leaders and at secession conventions. Thus the issue is settled. Then there are uneducated internet loudmouths who argue otherwise.

If you hadn't already, you just made everything you assert even less credible.
 
2012-12-25 11:09:42 AM  

Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.




So, you're saying drugs should be legal? After all, banning drugs only created a black market.
 
2012-12-25 11:12:30 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 injured victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims dead

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


FTFA
 
2012-12-25 11:17:52 AM  
Good thing the lady didn't have a gun: yay?
 
2012-12-25 11:22:28 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


I'm glad you decided this now, in light of the second most deadly school shooting in American history, and not the first. It doesn't make you sound like a complete fraud at all.
 
2012-12-25 11:23:01 AM  

mithras_angel: http://ftf-comics.com/?comic=obammer-part-1



Left Wing Bed-Wetter Comics. Got it.
 
2012-12-25 11:26:08 AM  
Oh wow, Michael Moore said:
And here's the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds -- i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work.

huffpo
 
2012-12-25 11:26:27 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: When was the last time a pool killed 26 children at once?


cameroncrazy1984: advocate for action on the second most deadly school shooting in American history, but has little to say on the first.

Emotionally driven fraud, or just happens to put his foot down the SECOND time something happens?

You decide.
 
2012-12-25 11:33:52 AM  
I'll never understand why Britain paints those squiggly lines on their streets. I think their lane paint guy has been down the pub too long.
 
2012-12-25 11:36:47 AM  

mithras_angel: For all the "Obama is coming for our gunz" whackjobs here on FARK (you know who you are):

http://ftf-comics.com/?comic=obammer-part-1


Read that and the next two days of comics.


That part about don't bother burying yer gunz was stupid as shiat. Obviously buried gunz iz moar secyur.
 
2012-12-25 11:38:41 AM  
OMG. All those weapons! What a horrible thing to happen!

His alleged victim, who suffered stab wounds to the legs arms and face is said to be in a serious but not life threatening condition in hospital.

Somehow that doesn't sound the same as "several killed, several injured in gun spree."

Fark has become nothing but a troll site. Everyone of us manipulated daily by these kinds of headlines so Drew can make more money. Merry Christmas, Drew.
 
2012-12-25 11:43:46 AM  
Coulda cured that quick with 1200 feet per second, but noooo.

Piers Morgan giddy with sweaty delight
 
2012-12-25 11:50:58 AM  
One person hurt vs. 26 people dead? Clearly those Brits have a lot to learn from America (i.e. guns are a much more efficient weapon to use for mass killings)

I love these recent spat of stories that are being used to try and establish how the nuts going on a rampage phenonmen is a worldwide issue even though this story (and the one about the recent attack on China) actually support the position of gun control advocates. Nutcases are dangerous but nutcases with easy access to guns are deadly
 
2012-12-25 11:51:14 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


Cherry-picked quotes are cherry-picked.

1. The Constitution did not include a poison pill that preserved the right to revolution against Constitutional government. The right to "bear arms" (e.g. serve in the ranks of the militia) was preserved so that the federal government couldn't prevent the states from keeping their own bodies of troops to prevent/put down slave rebellions. Notice that nearly all the quotes about counterbalancing standing armies come from Virginians and other Southerners.

2. The founders WERE worried about standing armies becoming a political force that could be misused by a tyrant. We got less and less worried about that over the decades and centuries. Today, the standing army is absolutely powerful, and no civilian uprising or rebellion by state troops could do more than annoy it a little. Fortunately, the standing army has been kept well clear of politics.
 
2012-12-25 11:52:55 AM  

LeftOfLiberal: simkatu: GB has like 36 gun deaths a year to our 15000 our whatever obscene number it is, even though they are 1/6 the size. Gun control works there. Even police are discouraged from carrying. However its too late for the US to institute gun control like that. We have 300 million guns out there. It's not possible to get those returned. There are sensible things we can do to help things, like refusing to sell to just released mental patients or to folks that don't have any training in gun safety.

I think you under estimate the power of a generous gun buy back.


The shop is buying them back? What's with the term "buy-back?" The government didn't sell them to me in the first place, so they can't buy them back. A gun buy-back is really a "turn-in."

What if they're not for sale?
 
2012-12-25 11:54:15 AM  

Mock26: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.

Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.

This. A million times this.


Saying something a million times doesn't make it any less stupid.
 
2012-12-25 11:57:35 AM  

lj1330: I just love the argument "having guns keeps us from being over run by tyranny". Last I heard, Australia was not run by tyrants...How about those awfull Brits? Don't even get me started on those crazy Canadians!


Lost points with Canada. Have you been following what Harper has been doing?
 
2012-12-25 12:11:50 PM  
Damn another anti-gun / gun thread.

cdn.uproxx.com
 
2012-12-25 12:17:06 PM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


Japan, where the government doesn't hand out Sig Sauers and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than Switzerland, with the Swiss murder rate being more than 100% higher. So much for guns preventing murder.
 
2012-12-25 12:22:35 PM  

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


Agreed to in one of our (U.S.) trilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico - if one country has severe domestic unrest - military from the other two countries will be used to 'subdue' it.
This was put in place because soldiers shouldn't be expected to draw arms against their countrymen.

So yeah. It's been addressed.
 
2012-12-25 12:28:55 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


Some folks in New York and Oklahoma City would like to have a word with you.
 
2012-12-25 12:33:14 PM  

kombat_unit: Oh wow, Michael Moore said:


The only people in this debate refusing to acknowledge the entire scope of the problem are the gun nuts who refuse to recognize the fact that the only way a murderous lunatic can't shoot someone is if they don't have a gun, so I'm not sure why you seem surprised.

Armed guards at soft targets? Okay, let's talk about it, but let's not ignore the repeatedly-proven fact that they can't always stop a shooter in time to prevent significant loss of life.

Expanded mental health support? Absolutely. There are tons of reasons besides mass shooters to do that.

But close the gun show/private sale loophole, restrict the destructive power of the available weapons, require people to undergo more stringent background checks (since states aren't even required to send mental health evaluation results to the database for inclusion) and just generally try to make it harder for lunatics to get hold of them and harder for them to wrack up mass body counts if they do?

Well clearly THAT's the one thing that certainly won't work at all for unspecified reasons so we shouldn't even be talking about it.
 
2012-12-25 12:39:21 PM  

kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


As a gun owner I wish the 2nd amendment drum beaters would see this flaw in the whole "protect ourselves against tyranny " argument. IF that argument held true, you and I should be legally allowed to buy and arm an F22 and an M1 Abrams and all types of helicopter gunships and surface to air missiles.....
Do we really think that civilians owning current military hardware is the right thing to do? Because that is what it would take to achieve weapons parity with the US military.

I don't think I need a tank and I DO NOT think the 2nd amendment applies to our day and times. It needs to be rewritten. ( I also don't think that banning guns will stop crazy people from doing awful things nor will arming elementary school principals. Bans on firearms are not the answer)
 
2012-12-25 12:40:57 PM  

Mock26: Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.

The times they are a changing. The 2nd Amendment does not mean exactly the same thing it meant when it was ratified in 1791.


Well, then it needs to be re-written.
 
2012-12-25 12:42:54 PM  
Local resident Steven Oltay, 19, said he thought he heard the attack take place from his flat nearby.
He said: 'I was woken up last night by a woman screaming.
'Horrific screams, like an animal.
'I thought it was someone being murdered and almost ran out but decided against it.'


CLUCK, Cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck

Chicken shiat wuss.
 
2012-12-25 12:43:49 PM  
Functional difference between semi-auto versions of post-WWII military rifles, and semi-auto hunting rifles. (WWII and before military rifles pretty much ARE hunting rifles).

Hunting rifle. Stock is below the line of the barrel, to make a comfortable sight plane and keep optics more compact and less likely to catch on brush. Fixed magazine of five rounds (sometimes limited by hunting laws to three). No flash suppresser because unneeded. Generally a high-powered cartridge if intended for large game, such as .30-06, .308 or 7mm Magnum.

ohiohuntingproperties.com

Military-style rifle. Stock is in line with barrel to reduce muzzle climb. Pistol grip allows the stock to be this high. Flash suppressor/compensator makes it hard to spot shooter, aids in night-time shooting, and reduces muzzle climb. Detachable magazine holds 20-30 rounds, and allows up to 100-round drumbs. Smaller cartridge such as 5.56 NATO or 7.62X39 Russian allows shooter to carry more reloads, and further reduces recoil, allowing very high rates of fire.

upload.wikimedia.org

It's not cosmetic; there's a large difference.
 
2012-12-25 12:47:27 PM  

mbillips: Functional difference between semi-auto versions of post-WWII military rifles, and semi-auto hunting rifles. (WWII and before military rifles pretty much ARE hunting rifles).



That's obviously not a semi-auto hunting rifle, but this is:

cdn2.armslist.com
 
2012-12-25 12:56:28 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


Yet we are allowing the government to slowly and egregiously subvert the fourth and fourteenth amendments virtually unchallenged.
 
2012-12-25 01:04:06 PM  
Amusing that this hasn't turned into a cop hate thread. Let me try:

US cop: needs a gun to feel like he has authority and to compensate for the lack of fitness tests a cop has.

UK police officer: Wrestles a sword wielding maniac to the ground armed with only a pair of handcuffs.
 
2012-12-25 01:08:25 PM  

badhatharry: PC LOAD LETTER: Triumph: In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Aww how cute, you think that our small arms keep the government's tanks, bombers, and artillery in check!

The civilians are in charge in America. That's why the president, Secretary of Defense, etc. must be civilians.  It is important that the civilians and military remember that.  Even if the right to bear arms is symbolic, it is a good reminder of who supposedly is in charge.


My comment reminded me of a scene from the Dark Knight and Egypt.
The military(Bane) puts his hand on the politicians shoulder: "Do you feel in charge?"
 
2012-12-25 01:11:33 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


If you're concerned with national security, how many American civilians has the US government killed compared to the collective likes of Adam Lanza or the Columbine killers?
 
2012-12-25 01:27:47 PM  

mbillips: Flash suppressor/compensator makes it hard to spot shooter,


Protip: Flash suppressors intent is to prevent blinding the shooter.
 
2012-12-25 01:32:34 PM  

Wayne 985: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

If you're concerned with national security, how many American civilians has the US government killed compared to the collective likes of Adam Lanza or the Columbine killers?


76 men, women, and children were killed at Waco.  The Trail of Tears killed thousands.
 
2012-12-25 01:49:45 PM  

badhatharry: 76 men, women, and children were killed at Waco.  The Trail of Tears killed thousands.


So... A Doomsday cult that committed mass suicide when they were surrounded and a travesty that happened 30-odd years before slavery was even banned.
 
2012-12-25 02:09:11 PM  

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: JSam21: 12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.

But it gives you a chance to at least fight. Look at Lybia...

Yeah, look at Lybia. They're livin' the high life now!
Anyone who truly thinks that every gun nut in the country combined would stand any kind of chance against the U.S. armed forces is a fool.
This is one of the many reasons people laugh at you.
This is one of the ways that we know you're incapable of reading a situation and coming to a realistic conclusion.
Your inability to understand such basic concepts is why you're not taken seriously.
You have every right to voice your opinions but be aware that airing such drivel tips off the rest of us to the fact that you're idiots and your opinions simply don't count.


Your inability to understand that in an American Revolution it would not be 100% of the military vs 100% of the people is why everyone laughs at you. You don't think there will be large factions of the military siding with the people?
 
2012-12-25 02:10:43 PM  

feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.
 
2012-12-25 02:11:10 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Well if that is the case, go to Congress and ask for that following arms be completely legalized: high explosives, booby traps, mines, etc. That is because small arms are pretty damn worthless against a modern military. IEDs and suicide bombers however can be effective against a modern military. Then go to your state legislature and demand that they form a state militia with high performance jet fighters, tanks, etc. uncontrolled by the national government and that they must get a stockpile of nuclear-armed missiles in order to keep Washington back.

If you don't do what I suggest, then I dare say that your claim that we need those guns to beat back tyrants is nothing more than a sham.


I work for a gentleman who own the largest private air force in the world with fully equipped and operational fighter jets. The US does not have a monopoly.
 
2012-12-25 02:15:35 PM  

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


This is not exactly the same thing, but I question whether/how many people would really, truly put up an armed resistance. Mostly what we see today is people jump up and declare "This is an outrage!". Then a little time passes and nearly everyone sort of slowly sits back down and goes back to their TV and their internet, or whatever. I wonder, really, what magnitude of governmental offense would it take to prompt a "people's response" that goes beyond a compound or two in Montana or Wyoming? We've become a pretty complacent lot.
 
2012-12-25 02:19:14 PM  

Langdon_777: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

LOL you have a lot of faith in your country peeps - besides you are NOT allowed to be armed with a TANK or an A10, so keep living your delusions, the people of the usoa cannot defend themselves from their government :p if you have assault rifles, then they have a APC :p


Bullshiat. My boss personally owns roughly 60+ fully armed fighter jets.

Source:

http://drakenintl.com/
 
2012-12-25 02:23:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

And yet pools still kill more children a year than guns. Where is the irrational and emotional pleas to ban pools? They serve no purpose other than recreation and death.

When was the last time a pool killed 26 children at once?


This is what the argument really boils down to, justifying some outrage.

Not the amount of people dying over time, the amount that die at one time.

How is this more outrage inducing? Do survivors of dead kids from some other source have it easier? "Oh, your kid died from a car crash, I'm sooo envious.."

Irrational argument born of shock is irrational.
 
2012-12-25 02:24:08 PM  

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

As a gun owner I wish the 2nd amendment drum beaters would see this flaw in the whole "protect ourselves against tyranny " argument. IF that argument held true, you and I should be legally allowed to buy and arm an F22 and an M1 Abrams and all types of helicopter gunships and surface to air missiles.....
Do we really think that civilians owning current military hardware is the right thing to do? Because that is what it would take to achieve weapons parity with the US military.

I don't think I need a tank and I DO NOT think the 2nd amendment applies to our day and times. It needs to be rewritten. ( I also don't think that banning guns will stop crazy people from doing awful things nor will arming elementary school principals. Bans on firearms are not the answer)


See my above post. As a civilian you CAN own fighter jets and tanks.
 
2012-12-25 02:34:00 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: See my above post. As a civilian you CAN own fighter jets and tanks.


It's still irrelevant. Most of the action would be with ground troops keeping order. If our government changed or was conquered by a force that sought wholesale slaughter, yeah, we're screwed depending on how ignorant the government manages to keep the troops. (would be no easy feat in this era of communication)

If it involves a dictator that wants to maintain a workforce, or only wants to slaughter a specific portion, it would have to be done with different means. Soldiers prodding the sheeple at gunpoint to get them to do what you want them to do.
 
2012-12-25 03:04:14 PM  

KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.


Guns were used to kill/injure people for a few hundred years before they got accurate enough to use in hunting.
 
2012-12-25 03:07:59 PM  

ibsalamander: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.

And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.


How about this prarphasing of it, then: The right of the people to own and become familiar with firearms will not be infringed, because it may become necesary to call up a citizen levy.
 
2012-12-25 03:17:12 PM  

Langdon_777: LOL you have a lot of faith in your country peeps - besides you are NOT allowed to be armed with a TANK or an A10, so keep living your delusions, the people of the usoa cannot defend themselves from their government :p if you have assault rifles, then they have a APC :p


In WWII Japan had Tanks, and APC's and fighter planes and radio and aircraft carriers.....but they were afraid to invade the mainland for fear of armed US citizens....try again you coward.
 
2012-12-25 03:46:29 PM  

Virtue: Langdon_777: LOL you have a lot of faith in your country peeps - besides you are NOT allowed to be armed with a TANK or an A10, so keep living your delusions, the people of the usoa cannot defend themselves from their government :p if you have assault rifles, then they have a APC :p

In WWII Japan had Tanks, and APC's and fighter planes and radio and aircraft carriers.....but they were afraid to invade the mainland for fear of armed US citizens....try again you coward.


[citation needed]
 
2012-12-25 04:01:32 PM  

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.


Thanks to an unarmed cop willing to risk his own life going hand-to-hand against a sword-wielding maniac. Besides being unbelievably courageous, it's extremely good fortune that a) he was there, b) willing to do what probably 99.9% of the rest of us wouldn't, and c) wasn't killed himself. That one incident used up a lot of the universe's store of luck.
 
2012-12-25 04:01:36 PM  

Mrtraveler01: AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo isn't going to happen.

Sorry guys.


He said before the second American Civil war began and then began the war that created JesusLand.
 
2012-12-25 04:12:28 PM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


Is it cultural then? The USA and GB are much more closely related than USA/Switzerland or GB/Switzerland. It's unlikely to be wealth, as the US is as wealthy/wealthier than Switzerland. The UK has never had a gun culture in the way that the US does, so is it the gun culture in the US that is the issue?
 
2012-12-25 04:17:44 PM  

log_jammin: I know enough to know that ak-47s are not known for their accuracy.


Depends on what you mean by "accuracy".

An AK is not a match rifle. You're not going to be very effective with it if you are shooting 1" bullseyes at the range from a bench rest.

However, it is able to consistently hit a 9" plate at 200 yards. Hold a 9" plate over your sternum. Get the picture? It's accurate enough to do it's job.
 
2012-12-25 04:26:12 PM  

DuncanMhor: The UK has never had a gun culture in the way that the US does, so is it the gun culture in the US that is the issue?


Unlikely. It's ghetto/gang culture that is the issue. Depending on municipality, between 60% and 90% of murder victims have criminal records and/or known gang affiliations.

The vast majority of murders are committed by blacks, against other blacks.

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov

FYI, you don't see a lot of blacks at "gun culture" events (hunting, shooting matches, etc).
 
2012-12-25 04:30:06 PM  

clyph: DuncanMhor: The UK has never had a gun culture in the way that the US does, so is it the gun culture in the US that is the issue?

Unlikely. It's ghetto/gang culture that is the issue. Depending on municipality, between 60% and 90% of murder victims have criminal records and/or known gang affiliations.

The vast majority of murders are committed by blacks, against other blacks.

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 274x226]

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 278x238]

FYI, you don't see a lot of blacks at "gun culture" events (hunting, shooting matches, etc).


More than 3/4 of firearms deaths in 2009 were non-blacks.

So are we pretending that homicide is the only gun problem or are you just a racist prick?
 
2012-12-25 04:52:32 PM  
 
2012-12-25 05:28:40 PM  

clyph: DuncanMhor: The UK has never had a gun culture in the way that the US does, so is it the gun culture in the US that is the issue?

Unlikely. It's ghetto/gang culture that is the issue. Depending on municipality, between 60% and 90% of murder victims have criminal records and/or known gang affiliations.

The vast majority of murders are committed by blacks, against other blacks.

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 274x226]

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 278x238]


You are reading that top graph wrongly, which may be understandable, since it's extremely misleading.
What it is actually illustrating is that out of 100.000 blacks about 25 comitted homicide in 2005, while out of 100.000 whites about four committed homicide. And since there are more than five and a half as many whites as blacks, it works out to approximately the same number of black and white killers, as the lower graph shows.
 
2012-12-25 05:53:53 PM  

give me doughnuts: ibsalamander: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.

And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.

How about this prarphasing of it, then: The right of the people to own and become familiar with firearms will not be infringed, because it may become necesary to call up a citizen levy.


Equally disingenuous IMHO. Why turn the sentence around, hmmm? Why swap clauses like that? Also, changing the wording is tantamount to challenging the Amendment. It's at least admitting that the original intent has been lost. Is that what you want?
 
2012-12-25 06:05:28 PM  
I propose we scrap the 2nd Amendment. Let's re-write it the way we want it, then put it to a vote.

New Amendment:

The right of the people to own firearms shall not be infringed.

Period.

I'm pro gun-control, but all this dancing around the interpretation of a text is kind of silly to me when we all know, regardless of the actual text in question, that the issue is whether American citizens should be allowed a Constitutional guarantee of private gun ownership.

So let's have that debate rather than the semantic brawling.
 
2012-12-25 06:16:40 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Langdon_777: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

LOL you have a lot of faith in your country peeps - besides you are NOT allowed to be armed with a TANK or an A10, so keep living your delusions, the people of the usoa cannot defend themselves from their government :p if you have assault rifles, then they have a APC :p

Bullshiat. My boss personally owns roughly 60+ fully armed fighter jets.

Source:

http://drakenintl.com/


True, if by fully armed you mean unarmed. Those are used as adversarial trainers, not rented out for ground strikes.
 
2012-12-25 06:50:40 PM  
You are 100% incorrect. The entire mission of the MB-339 fleet is ground attack.
 
2012-12-25 06:54:31 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: More than 3/4 of firearms deaths in 2009 were non-blacks.


Funny how you have to include suicide in order to pad your numbers.

How exactly does it matter what method someone uses to end their own live? If you're serious about offing yourself, you do it in a serious manner. Or is suicide somehow less traumatic to that person's family if they jump off a cliff or stand in front of a speeding train instead of eating a bullet?
 
2012-12-25 07:22:10 PM  

clyph: Vegan Meat Popsicle: More than 3/4 of firearms deaths in 2009 were non-blacks.

Funny how you have to include suicide in order to pad your numbers.


Funny how you ignore your own glaring mistake.
 
2012-12-25 07:33:52 PM  

clyph: How exactly does it matter what method someone uses to end their own live? I


Why are you asking me? You're the one who intentionally ignored all the data so you could make a "point"?

I'll assume the answer to my last question is "both and I'm also a moron".
 
2012-12-25 07:34:51 PM  

kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


I'm not sure why people say things that incredibly farking stupid.

Have you looked at the news today?

Specifically, have you noticed any articles about Syria?

You didn't happen to catch the ones last year about Libya either, did you?

A popular revolution is still very much possible today, they're still happening right now, as I type this. There is no possibility of one in the US today, but not because the weapons held by the population are inadequate to take on the government. The only reason one isn't possible today is that there is no national consensus that things have gotten so bad that the government must be removed by force, and while our government has some serious flaws, it's not likely to get that bad in our lifetimes.

But that is no reason to remove the right of the population to own the means for dealing with such a contingency if it ever occurs.
 
2012-12-25 07:45:54 PM  

DarkVader:
Specifically, have you noticed any articles about Syria?


The Syrian civil war has been going on for 1 year, 9 months, 1 week and 4 days, and I'm not sure the rebels are winning. If the Syrian government weren't too afraid of global reactions to use chemical weapons, they would have lost by now.

You didn't happen to catch the ones last year about Libya either, did you?

Without the help of a NATO airforce, the Libyan rebels would have been slaughtered.
 
2012-12-25 08:10:24 PM  

Dansker: OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.

Japan, where the government doesn't hand out Sig Sauers and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than Switzerland, with the Swiss murder rate being more than 100% higher. So much for guns preventing murder.



www.banyanbranch.com

i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-12-25 08:10:49 PM  

Dansker: DarkVader:
Specifically, have you noticed any articles about Syria?

The Syrian civil war has been going on for 1 year, 9 months, 1 week and 4 days, and I'm not sure the rebels are winning. If the Syrian government weren't too afraid of global reactions to use chemical weapons, they would have lost by now.


The American revolution went on for 8 years, 4 months, 2 weeks and a day. I'm not sure what your point is with how long the Syrian revolution has been going on. And I'm not sure chemical weapons would change the outcome even without international action being almost a certainty, they're nasty but chemical wars have been fought before.

You didn't happen to catch the ones last year about Libya either, did you?

Without the help of a NATO airforce, the Libyan rebels would have been slaughtered.


And without help from the French, the Dutch and the Spanish, the American revolutionaries would have been slaughtered. Again, what's your point exactly?

Revolutions don't happen in a vacuum. And a few things to keep in mind about the US - the majority of people who have ever been in the US military aren't now, they're ordinary citizens, likely armed, and they still have their military training. If the situation with the US government got so bad that a popular revolution became a real possibility, it's also likely that the military wouldn't be a unified force, they're Americans too, and there would be a significant component of the military that would participate in a revolution. America also has enemies elsewhere in the world, some of which might support a revolution here.

Again, I'm not saying that a revolution in this country is likely or necessary. We've got one of the better presidents we've ever had in office right now, and while I don't agree with him on everything (particularly guns) I do think he's doing the best job possible with the obstructionist right wing nutjobs in congress. I fully expect that he'll leave office on schedule in 2016, and not even consider trying to turn himself into a dictator. The congresscritters that aren't reelected will continue leaving office peacefully as well. And elections will continue to be relatively fair, notwithstanding the right wing efforts at disenfranchisement.
 
2012-12-25 08:15:03 PM  

DarkVader: Dansker: DarkVader:
Specifically, have you noticed any articles about Syria?

The Syrian civil war has been going on for 1 year, 9 months, 1 week and 4 days, and I'm not sure the rebels are winning. If the Syrian government weren't too afraid of global reactions to use chemical weapons, they would have lost by now.

The American revolution went on for 8 years, 4 months, 2 weeks and a day. I'm not sure what your point is with how long the Syrian revolution has been going on. And I'm not sure chemical weapons would change the outcome even without international action being almost a certainty, they're nasty but chemical wars have been fought before.

You didn't happen to catch the ones last year about Libya either, did you?

Without the help of a NATO airforce, the Libyan rebels would have been slaughtered.

And without help from the French, the Dutch and the Spanish, the American revolutionaries would have been slaughtered. Again, what's your point exactly?


You just made it for me.
 
2012-12-25 08:25:25 PM  
ibsalamander SmartestFunniest 2012-12-25 02:10:43 PM


feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.

And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.


Whats really disingenuous is trying to interpret the Bill of Rights without having read the Federalist Papers, for example, you
 
2012-12-25 08:26:08 PM  

Dansker: DarkVader: Dansker: DarkVader:
Specifically, have you noticed any articles about Syria?

The Syrian civil war has been going on for 1 year, 9 months, 1 week and 4 days, and I'm not sure the rebels are winning. If the Syrian government weren't too afraid of global reactions to use chemical weapons, they would have lost by now.

The American revolution went on for 8 years, 4 months, 2 weeks and a day. I'm not sure what your point is with how long the Syrian revolution has been going on. And I'm not sure chemical weapons would change the outcome even without international action being almost a certainty, they're nasty but chemical wars have been fought before.

You didn't happen to catch the ones last year about Libya either, did you?

Without the help of a NATO airforce, the Libyan rebels would have been slaughtered.

And without help from the French, the Dutch and the Spanish, the American revolutionaries would have been slaughtered. Again, what's your point exactly?

You just made it for me.


That revolutions don't happen in a vacuum? I'm not sure how that helps suggest that the population should be disarmed. Disarmed populations can simply be oppressed, they have no chance to fight back, and they're not going to get external support when they have no chance to even begin to fight.
 
2012-12-25 08:53:12 PM  

ibsalamander: give me doughnuts: ibsalamander: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.

And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.

How about this prarphasing of it, then: The right of the people to own and become familiar with firearms will not be infringed, because it may become necesary to call up a citizen levy.

Equally disingenuous IMHO. Why turn the sentence around, hmmm? Why swap clauses like that? Also, changing the wording is tantamount to challenging the Amendment. It's at least admitting that the original intent has been lost. Is that what you want?



No, that is the original intent.
 
2012-12-25 09:34:51 PM  

Dansker: clyph: DuncanMhor: The UK has never had a gun culture in the way that the US does, so is it the gun culture in the US that is the issue?

Unlikely. It's ghetto/gang culture that is the issue. Depending on municipality, between 60% and 90% of murder victims have criminal records and/or known gang affiliations.

The vast majority of murders are committed by blacks, against other blacks.

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 274x226]

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 278x238]

You are reading that top graph wrongly, which may be understandable, since it's extremely misleading.
What it is actually illustrating is that out of 100.000 blacks about 25 comitted homicide in 2005, while out of 100.000 whites about four committed homicide. And since there are more than five and a half as many whites as blacks, it works out to approximately the same number of black and white killers, as the lower graph shows.


Per capita, though, blacks do have a higher homicide rate.
 
2012-12-25 09:50:12 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


You have ignored the fact that the Constitution does not sanction treason. The Founding fathers did not permit armed insurrection against the United States. See Whiskey Rebellion.
 
2012-12-25 09:50:41 PM  

ibsalamander: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.

And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.


It is not disingenous at all. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has changed over the years. So go ahead and disagree with the pro-gun interpretation all you want, it will not change the fact that the Supreme Court has issued rulings that support the current pro-gun interpretation.
 
2012-12-25 10:13:33 PM  
Well, I'm convinced. We should get rid of all gun control laws and live in a Randist paradise.
 
2012-12-25 10:26:11 PM  

Virtue: Langdon_777: LOL you have a lot of faith in your country peeps - besides you are NOT allowed to be armed with a TANK or an A10, so keep living your delusions, the people of the usoa cannot defend themselves from their government :p if you have assault rifles, then they have a APC :p

In WWII Japan had Tanks, and APC's and fighter planes and radio and aircraft carriers.....but they were afraid to invade the mainland for fear of armed US citizens....try again you coward.


I'm on the pro-gun side but just about everyone knows the Yamamoto quote is falsely attributed to him.
 
2012-12-25 10:47:53 PM  

Mock26: ibsalamander: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.

And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.

It is not disingenous at all. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has changed over the years. So go ahead and disagree with the pro-gun interpretation all you want, it will not change the fact that the Supreme Court has issued rulings that support the current pro-gun interpretation.


I could be wrong but it seems to me that the hard-line conservatives in this country are "strict constructionists" when it comes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Having driven through South West Texas with the radio on a few times I can assure you that these guys devote endless hours to unearthing the supposed motives of various 18th century lawmakers. It is not framed in contemporary terms.

Regardless, it seems to me that the 2nd Amendment is pretty much the only authority cited by gun enthusiasts, so it does, in fact, seem disingenuous to accept

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As a substitute for

"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"

Like there's never enough time and space to type the whole thing out.
 
2012-12-25 10:53:48 PM  

Dansker: OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.

Japan, where the government doesn't hand out Sig Sauers and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than Switzerland, with the Swiss murder rate being more than 100% higher. So much for guns preventing murder.



There is a movie called Freakonomics and they deal with corruption in Sumo Wrestling and then superficially with the rest of Japanese society. The police have a solve rate of 95%+ of their homicide cases but they fudge their stats by declaring a number of murder victims "found bodies" not homicide victims. The corruption is so bad that it's discussed openly in movies like Akira Kurosawa's The Bad Sleep Well and in a number of Takeshi Kitano's Yakuza and cop movies. Kitano was the teacher in Battle Royale but is a well known Japanese tough guy actor. The Yakuza is the largest criminal organization in the world and living in Japan means you're either minutes from a sea or an epically polluted river you can dump a weighted body in. Lots of construction and industry also allows for easy disposal in a furnace or a foundation. Nobody knows what the true Japanese murder rate and they actually interviewed a homicide detective in Freakonomics who resigned over how corrupt his police department was.

The Japanese population are kept disarmed at the command of the Yakuza who run the police departments through the pols. The pols allow all the companies to spend 20% of their gross on "entertainment" i.e. booze and prostitutes. All vice is controlled by the Yakuza who get their cut from the whores and clubs and turn around and pay off the pols who keep the cops in check and pay them off as well. It's a dirty little system but ironclad and anybody who tries to rock the boat gets whacked.

It's like Kansas City under the Pendergast gang where the whorehouses operated as cabarets with on stage live sex shows, restaurants had completely nude waitresses and old man Pendergast made Harry Truman VP when he found out FDR was dying and was able to designate the next president of America during world war II. Charlie Binagio and Tommy Gargotta were the top guys in the KC mafia and they got out of line and got whacked and to make sure everybody got the message Pendergast left their bodies in the KC Democratic headquarters. They ran the rackets on 5% of the government contracts and that's what lost Harry Truman his third term, the blatant corruption of the "five percenters."


Sorry about the long post.
 
2012-12-25 10:56:30 PM  

ibsalamander: Regardless, it seems to me that the 2nd Amendment is pretty much the only authority cited by gun enthusiasts, so it does, in fact, seem disingenuous to accept

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As a substitute for

"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"

Like there's never enough time and space to type the whole thing out.


The militia clause is merely justification. The right is enumerated as belonging to the people, not to the militia. Regardless of any militia membership/involvement, the people retain the right to keep and bear arms.
 
2012-12-25 11:29:01 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

Noah Webster

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


Except guns don't stand up to tanks well, the two most disarmed nations in the world, Japan and England, are monarchies in name only, and Jefferson had little reason to expect that we'd get 200+ years of peaceful transfers of power under our belts. He also didn't predict our ability to sue to overturn unjust laws.
 
2012-12-25 11:42:55 PM  

JSam21: No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.


The flaw with that argument (on both fronts, although I am pro-choice on abortion because I don't think a fetus is a person) is this:

Someone is having it forced on them. In the case of the abortion, it is the infant. In the case of the gun it is the person who gets shot with the gun.

For the most part, people who are against guns aren't against guns because they don't want you having fun shooting targets, or they don't want you to feel safe in your home. They (including me) are upset because statistics show that whether you chose to have a gun or not, there is a much better chance of a gun impacting your life than in countries that regulate their guns.

And of course, someone will jump in with the car argument, (no, the other one, the fact that we regulate cars is a pretty good comparison) that cars kill more people that guns do. Yep. They do. They also have way more utility and hours of use compared to guns. Guns are good for hunting. They are good for having fun. They are lousy for self-protection. Having a gun makes you less likely to have your next birthday. Cars are good for getting to work. They are good for moving stuff from one place to another. They are good for getting home. They are good for having fun. They are good for going shopping, etc., etc. Guns now kill more people in 10 states than cars do.

(That said, when you figure in pollution and wars to get gas into the car equation they probably kill lots more people, but the guns kills lots of people in the wars too.)

I'm personally in favor of getting rid of guns. I'm also in favor of pollutionless self-driving cars that take human stupidity out of the equation. They sooner we can just focus on killing each other with the spread of communicable diseases the better. (Although, I am currently trying to build a robot girlfriend in my basement, so I'm even working on that!)
 
2012-12-26 12:07:07 AM  

HoratioGates: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

Noah Webster

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Except guns don't stand up to tanks well, the two most disarmed nations in the world, Japan and England, are monarchies in name only, and Jefferson had little reason to expect that we'd get 200+ years of peaceful transfers of power under our belts. He also didn't predict our ability to sue to overturn unjust laws.


You are assuming a revolution would occur in a vacuum and there would be neither any support from other nations (like the first American Revolution) and no one from the military would side with the rest of the American population.
 
2012-12-26 12:18:08 AM  

HoratioGates: Jefferson had little reason to expect that we'd get 200+ years of peaceful transfers of power under our belts.


Just as you have little reason to expect today's power balance to last.

The point is that they had the wisdom to allow for things that can change, and not always for the better, best be prepared as well as you can.

Unlike some around here who pine over our present perfect little utopia(as if...).
 
2012-12-26 12:22:10 AM  
Gotta love how everyone thinks that better regulations on deadly weapons equals, and ONLY equals, "THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS TO MAKE US ALL SLAVES!" or some other conspiracy theory idiocy.

Then they whine about how every other offered solution costs too much, takes too long, won't work, or "Fark them". Or say that "If they don't have guns, they'll just kill people with everything from homemade nuclear bombs to lightsaber-wombats, so why bother?".
 
2012-12-26 12:28:35 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Gotta love how everyone thinks that better regulations on deadly weapons equals, and ONLY equals, "THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS TO MAKE US ALL SLAVES!" or some other conspiracy theory idiocy.


Wow, I've honestly never seen such a disingenuous post on fark before.

Talking about civics and what it takes to maintain democracy =/= conspiracy theory

/seriously, that takes the cake in the intellectually dishonest category.
//Working overtime to get the title for 2012?
 
2012-12-26 12:37:57 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Gotta love how everyone thinks that better regulations on deadly weapons equals, and ONLY equals, "THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS TO MAKE US ALL SLAVES!" or some other conspiracy theory idiocy.

Then they whine about how every other offered solution costs too much, takes too long, won't work, or "Fark them". Or say that "If they don't have guns, they'll just kill people with everything from homemade nuclear bombs to lightsaber-wombats, so why bother?".


Really? "Everyone" thinks that?
 
2012-12-26 12:38:04 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


i3.kym-cdn.com


I'd like to describe a scenario (in modern times, please, not the 18th or 19th century) in which undisciplined civilians with small arms have a remote chance against the modern United States army, navy, airforce and marines. If you can, I'll write to my congressman immediately to have you appointed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as you'll have performed the military equivalent of creating a perpetual motion device.
 
2012-12-26 12:41:20 AM  

ibsalamander: I propose we scrap the 2nd Amendment. Let's re-write it the way we want it, then put it to a vote.

New Amendment:

The right of the people to own firearms shall not be infringed.

Period.

I'm pro gun-control, but all this dancing around the interpretation of a text is kind of silly to me when we all know, regardless of the actual text in question, that the issue is whether American citizens should be allowed a Constitutional guarantee of private gun ownership.

So let's have that debate rather than the semantic brawling.


What constitutes people? What is a firearm? What is infringement?
 
2012-12-26 12:48:48 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Keizer_Ghidorah: Gotta love how everyone thinks that better regulations on deadly weapons equals, and ONLY equals, "THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS TO MAKE US ALL SLAVES!" or some other conspiracy theory idiocy.

Then they whine about how every other offered solution costs too much, takes too long, won't work, or "Fark them". Or say that "If they don't have guns, they'll just kill people with everything from homemade nuclear bombs to lightsaber-wombats, so why bother?".

Really? "Everyone" thinks that?


Everyone that's pro-gun on Fark, anyways. And on Facebook, on Twitter, in the comments section of any article or video about the issue...
 
2012-12-26 12:50:55 AM  

bonobo73: I'd like to describe a scenario (in modern times, please, not the 18th or 19th century) in which undisciplined civilians with small arms have a remote chance against the modern United States army, navy, airforce and marines. If you can, I'll write to my congressman immediately to have you appointed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as you'll have performed the military equivalent of creating a perpetual motion device.


Are you saying that because the military outclasses the civilian population in terms of pure firepower, that we should just toss our rights out the door? So if they get some people that speak really well, we get to toss the First, too? Build some really biatchin' barracks, and the Third goes?
 
2012-12-26 12:55:55 AM  

sblafren: http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/crime/20 12/12/18/bath_school_bombing_rem embering_the_deadliest_school_massacre _in_american.html

Still, all this worry of gun violence... You are much more likely to die in a car accident or from Cancer.


Depends on what state you're in. http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunsvscars.pdf.

Cars have gotten safer. Why haven't guns?
 
2012-12-26 12:58:31 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Pray 4 Mojo: Keizer_Ghidorah: Gotta love how everyone thinks that better regulations on deadly weapons equals, and ONLY equals, "THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS TO MAKE US ALL SLAVES!" or some other conspiracy theory idiocy.

Then they whine about how every other offered solution costs too much, takes too long, won't work, or "Fark them". Or say that "If they don't have guns, they'll just kill people with everything from homemade nuclear bombs to lightsaber-wombats, so why bother?".

Really? "Everyone" thinks that?

Everyone that's pro-gun on Fark, anyways. And on Facebook, on Twitter, in the comments section of any article or video about the issue...


This is the problem in a nutshell. The failure in this "debate" is yours, not gun owners/supporters. You have pretty clearly said said that you know what all of us think... AND that we are idiots.

That's a petty awesome framework for a reasonable discussion.
 
2012-12-26 01:11:21 AM  

CthulhuCalling: bonobo73: I'd like to describe a scenario (in modern times, please, not the 18th or 19th century) in which undisciplined civilians with small arms have a remote chance against the modern United States army, navy, airforce and marines. If you can, I'll write to my congressman immediately to have you appointed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as you'll have performed the military equivalent of creating a perpetual motion device.

Are you saying that because the military outclasses the civilian population in terms of pure firepower, that we should just toss our rights out the door? So if they get some people that speak really well, we get to toss the First, too? Build some really biatchin' barracks, and the Third goes?


I'm saying anyone who thinks that owning a private collection of small arms in any way contributes meaningfully to preserving the United States as a constitutional republic is a mental midget who greedily buys into fantasies provided happily by the gun manufacturing industry.
 
2012-12-26 01:18:08 AM  

bonobo73: I'm saying anyone who thinks that owning a private collection of small arms in any way contributes meaningfully to preserving the United States as a constitutional republic is a mental midget who greedily buys into fantasies provided happily by the gun manufacturing industry.


Can you give me tomorrow's Powerball numbers? That'd be awesome... thanks.
 
2012-12-26 01:28:31 AM  

bonobo73: I'm saying anyone who thinks that owning a private collection of small arms in any way contributes meaningfully to preserving the United States as a constitutional republic is a mental midget who greedily buys into fantasies provided happily by the gun manufacturing industry.


By that logic, a vote is just as much of a futile gesture, in no way contributes meaningfully.
 
2012-12-26 01:38:30 AM  

bonobo73: sblafren: http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/crime/20 12/12/18/bath_school_bombing_rem embering_the_deadliest_school_massacre _in_american.html

Still, all this worry of gun violence... You are much more likely to die in a car accident or from Cancer.

Depends on what state you're in. http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunsvscars.pdf.

Cars have gotten safer. Why haven't guns?


Guns are much safer than they used to be, the technology for them just peaked earlier than the technology for cars.

Drinking and driving awareness, lower limits and harsher punishments, etc also weigh heavily on the decrease in auto deaths.

Really though, it's apples and oranges. Guns are a violence problem, car deaths are usually a result of accidental use.

If you want a good chart, pony up a graph that only shows accidental fatalities where human intent doesn't factor into it. That's what "safety" is all about really, avoiding accidents.
 
2012-12-26 02:05:13 AM  

ibsalamander: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.

And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.


I think you should be able to carry a gun in a movie theater.  Where I live I can and I do.

I also own 18 firearms including one fully automatic 'machine gun'.   I have more than 1000 rounds of ammunition.   You can call that an arsenal if you want.  I can certainly make the argument that I am sober and well adjusted.
 
2012-12-26 02:09:34 AM  

bonobo73: ibsalamander: I propose we scrap the 2nd Amendment. Let's re-write it the way we want it, then put it to a vote.

New Amendment:

The right of the people to own firearms shall not be infringed.

Period.

I'm pro gun-control, but all this dancing around the interpretation of a text is kind of silly to me when we all know, regardless of the actual text in question, that the issue is whether American citizens should be allowed a Constitutional guarantee of private gun ownership.

So let's have that debate rather than the semantic brawling.

What constitutes people? What is a firearm? What is infringement?


A Constitutional Amendment never spells out details. Its purpose is to convey a basic right to act as a guide to legislation and court decisions.

For example, the Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What is excessive bail? What's an excessive fine? What is cruel? What unusual?
 
2012-12-26 02:38:10 AM  

feckingmorons: ibsalamander: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.

And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.

I think you should be able to carry a gun in a movie theater.  Where I live I can and I do.

I also own 18 firearms including one fully automatic 'machine gun'.   I have more than 1000 rounds of ammunition.   You can call that an arsenal if you want.  I can certainly make the argument that I am sober and well adjusted.


My original point was that everyone draws the line somewhere. Even in the old West they checked their guns at the entrance to a courthouse, for example.

You think I should be able to carry a gun in a movie theater? I don't even want to have to carry car keys. Here in L.A. the crazies outnumber the sane. No guns for us please.
 
2012-12-26 03:05:08 AM  

ibsalamander: My original point was that everyone draws the line somewhere. Even in the old West they checked their guns at the entrance to a courthouse, for example.

You think I should be able to carry a gun in a movie theater? I don't even want to have to carry car keys. Here in L.A. the crazies outnumber the sane. No guns for us please.


If you don't want to exercise your Constitutional rights, that is your choice. That doesn't mean that my choice gets taken away from me.
 
2012-12-26 04:22:16 AM  

omeganuepsilon: bonobo73: I'm saying anyone who thinks that owning a private collection of small arms in any way contributes meaningfully to preserving the United States as a constitutional republic is a mental midget who greedily buys into fantasies provided happily by the gun manufacturing industry.

By that logic, a vote is just as much of a futile gesture, in no way contributes meaningfully.



Your electoral vote is equal to mine and to every other citizen in the United States. That's far more parity than you would ever hope to enounter in a fight with the US Armed Forces.

We have an opportunity to vote every year, at multiple levels (city, county, state, local congress, local governor). As volunteers, donors, lobyists, and elected officials we have multiple opportunities to participate in our democracy. In each of these ways you have a very concrete way of impacting government and making changes happen.

Historically, civil rights have been extended several times over the last 200 years. At no time has any progress come about as a result of individual gun ownership.

But if you want, please go ahead and insist that individual gun ownership is a meaningful way to defend and perpetuate our civil rights.

You'll have this guy cheering you along:

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-26 04:36:38 AM  

CthulhuCalling: ibsalamander: My original point was that everyone draws the line somewhere. Even in the old West they checked their guns at the entrance to a courthouse, for example.

You think I should be able to carry a gun in a movie theater? I don't even want to have to carry car keys. Here in L.A. the crazies outnumber the sane. No guns for us please.

If you don't want to exercise your Constitutional rights, that is your choice. That doesn't mean that my choice gets taken away from me.


I never suggested taking away your rights, just letting you know that guns are not wanted or needed in my community. Hell, we banned leaf blowers and plastic bags here in Santa Monica, but they are going to take a laissez-faire attitude regarding gun ownership / concealed-carry? I highly doubt it.

Also, your choice affects me, while the reverse is not the case. As a musician I have had to play my fair share of bars and public events. One thing that I have to deal with constantly in my line of work is alcohol-fueled violence. Sometimes it's a brawl, sometimes the band gets surrounded by rowdy people who don't want the music to end even though we were booked til midnight and the place closes at 2AM. People are of course checked at the door, but the parking lot can be a scary place, given the violence all around, when you don't know if the angry drunk guy just went outside to cool off, or if he's going for the 9mil he keeps in the glovebox.
 
2012-12-26 07:07:57 AM  

DarkVader: That revolutions don't happen in a vacuum? I'm not sure how that helps suggest that the population should be disarmed. Disarmed populations can simply be oppressed, they have no chance to fight back, and they're not going to get external support when they have no chance to even begin to fight.


See, liberals build this thing they call a "narrative" that is essentially a replacement for religion in their minds. The current "narrative" is that every gun owner in the US that isn't a member of the military or police forces harbors dreams of charging out into the open field Rambo-style, shooting up Army tanks and predator drones by the zillions with their little handguns and endless supply of bullets, and single-handedly turning the country into their own insane crypto-fascist patriotic paradise. This "narrative" is believed and reinforced using the same methods religions use, to the point where many liberals would literally rather commit suicide than admit their "narrative" actually isn't related to reality in any way.

This is why most liberals scoff at the concept of the 2nd Amendment being an important guarantee of liberty, because they honestly think that if it doesn't enable an instant total overthrow of the government, then there are no possible benefits it can have. And since they are the "nuanced" and "intelligent" ones (according to more of those "narratives"), if there are no benefits they can think of (like being able to inflict an unacceptably high casualty rate among the "organic robots" the liberals like to think of soldiers and cops as being, without realizing how the soldiers and cops might have feelings and opinions sympathetic to those they're being sent out to kill), there are obviously no nuances to be found, nor any intellectual reason why there should be a 2nd Amendment.
 
2012-12-26 07:31:00 AM  

Mock26: Dansker: clyph: DuncanMhor: The UK has never had a gun culture in the way that the US does, so is it the gun culture in the US that is the issue?

Unlikely. It's ghetto/gang culture that is the issue. Depending on municipality, between 60% and 90% of murder victims have criminal records and/or known gang affiliations.

The vast majority of murders are committed by blacks, against other blacks.

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 274x226]

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 278x238]

You are reading that top graph wrongly, which may be understandable, since it's extremely misleading.
What it is actually illustrating is that out of 100.000 blacks about 25 comitted homicide in 2005, while out of 100.000 whites about four committed homicide. And since there are more than five and a half as many whites as blacks, it works out to approximately the same number of black and white killers, as the lower graph shows.

Per capita, though, blacks do have a higher homicide rate.


Sure, but that's a completely different thing from "the vast majority of murders are comitted by blacks."
 
2012-12-26 09:15:53 AM  

Mock26: ibsalamander: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.

And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.

It is not disingenous at all. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has changed over the years. So go ahead and disagree with the pro-gun interpretation all you want, it will not change the fact that the Supreme Court has issued rulings that support the current pro-gun interpretation.


Except that all of the contemporary writings support the pro-individual-right standpoint, which people conveniently ignore...
 
2012-12-26 10:02:30 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


The problem with this argument is that modern warfare has completely neutered it. Case in point:

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Apache Goddamn Helicopters. They have them. You don't.

Any little citizen militia going up against this is going to look like an 8 year old's pee wee football team playing the Baltimore Ravens. So what exactly is the point? other than insuring that insane people can slaughter others more efficiently...
 
2012-12-26 10:37:35 AM  

DarkVader: Dansker: DarkVader: Dansker: DarkVader:
Specifically, have you noticed any articles about Syria?

The Syrian civil war has been going on for 1 year, 9 months, 1 week and 4 days, and I'm not sure the rebels are winning. If the Syrian government weren't too afraid of global reactions to use chemical weapons, they would have lost by now.

The American revolution went on for 8 years, 4 months, 2 weeks and a day. I'm not sure what your point is with how long the Syrian revolution has been going on. And I'm not sure chemical weapons would change the outcome even without international action being almost a certainty, they're nasty but chemical wars have been fought before.

You didn't happen to catch the ones last year about Libya either, did you?

Without the help of a NATO airforce, the Libyan rebels would have been slaughtered.

And without help from the French, the Dutch and the Spanish, the American revolutionaries would have been slaughtered. Again, what's your point exactly?

You just made it for me.

That revolutions don't happen in a vacuum? I'm not sure how that helps suggest that the population should be disarmed. Disarmed populations can simply be oppressed, they have no chance to fight back, and they're not going to get external support when they have no chance to even begin to fight.


No, the point is that none of your examples show "hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. " They only succeded or survive thanks to outside pressure or intervention by foreign governments.
Contemporary history has far more examples of revolutions and rebellions failing. See the Tamil Tigers, the Shia uprising in Iraq after the Gulf War, the Kurdish fight for independence et al..
 
2012-12-26 10:45:44 AM  

OscarTamerz: Sorry about the long post.


Oh, no need to apologize, it was very entertaining.
But it doesn't change the fact that your comparison between Switzerland and the UK is meaningless, just like mine between Japan and Switzerland.
If you want to look at the effect of banning guns in the UK, this is the kind of stats you need:
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-26 10:48:53 AM  

Tatterdemalian: DarkVader: That revolutions don't happen in a vacuum? I'm not sure how that helps suggest that the population should be disarmed. Disarmed populations can simply be oppressed, they have no chance to fight back, and they're not going to get external support when they have no chance to even begin to fight.

See, liberals build this thing they call a "narrative" that is essentially a replacement for religion in their minds. The current "narrative" is that every gun owner in the US that isn't a member of the military or police forces harbors dreams of charging out into the open field Rambo-style, shooting up Army tanks and predator drones by the zillions with their little handguns and endless supply of bullets, and single-handedly turning the country into their own insane crypto-fascist patriotic paradise. This "narrative" is believed and reinforced using the same methods religions use, to the point where many liberals would literally rather commit suicide than admit their "narrative" actually isn't related to reality in any way.

This is why most liberals scoff at the concept of the 2nd Amendment being an important guarantee of liberty, because they honestly think that if it doesn't enable an instant total overthrow of the government, then there are no possible benefits it can have. And since they are the "nuanced" and "intelligent" ones (according to more of those "narratives"), if there are no benefits they can think of (like being able to inflict an unacceptably high casualty rate among the "organic robots" the liberals like to think of soldiers and cops as being, without realizing how the soldiers and cops might have feelings and opinions sympathetic to those they're being sent out to kill), there are obviously no nuances to be found, nor any intellectual reason why there should be a 2nd Amendment.


I'm impressed you could get all that from a random Dane's comments about Syria and Libya. Let me commend your use of imagination.
 
2012-12-26 10:51:06 AM  

Lettuce Pray: Apache Goddamn Helicopters. They have them. You don't.

Any little citizen militia going up against this is going to look like an 8 year old's pee wee football team playing the Baltimore Ravens. So what exactly is the point? other than insuring that insane people can slaughter others more efficiently...


Keep on building that narrative. When you finally impose your perfect authoritarian rule over all the plebs and bourgeois, the look on your face when another Stalin jiu-jitsus your latter-day Trotsky into exile will make it all worthwhile.

/well, no, it really won't
//freedom is always worth fighting for, even when the free people take it for granted
 
2012-12-26 11:06:26 AM  

bonobo73: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 400x525]


I'd like to describe a scenario (in modern times, please, not the 18th or 19th century) in which undisciplined civilians with small arms have a remote chance against the modern United States army, navy, airforce and marines. If you can, I'll write to my congressman immediately to have you appointed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as you'll have performed the military equivalent of creating a perpetual motion device.


Lettuce Pray: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

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

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

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

The problem with this argument is that modern warfare has completely neutered it. Case in point:

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 225x225]

Apache Goddamn Helicopters. They have them. You don't.

Any little citizen militia going up against this is going to look like an 8 year old's pee wee football team playing the Baltimore Ravens. So what exactly is the point? other than insuring that insane people can slaughter others more efficiently...


To the both of you, I would like to point out the rebels in Afghanistan. They've been doing a mighty fine job fighting a war since 1979, first against the Russians and now against the United States.

Furthermore, both of you are assuming a revolution wold occur in a vacuum, unsupported by any outside nations (unlike the foreign support the colonies has in 1776) and that NONE ONE in the American military has any thoughts or feelings and is totally incapable of doing anything other than 100% supporting a war against their fellow countrymen.

In closing, fark you, you are both insane.
 
2012-12-26 11:08:03 AM  

Tatterdemalian: DarkVader: That revolutions don't happen in a vacuum? I'm not sure how that helps suggest that the population should be disarmed. Disarmed populations can simply be oppressed, they have no chance to fight back, and they're not going to get external support when they have no chance to even begin to fight.

See, liberals build this thing they call a "narrative" that is essentially a replacement for religion in their minds. The current "narrative" is that every gun owner in the US that isn't a member of the military or police forces harbors dreams of charging out into the open field Rambo-style, shooting up Army tanks and predator drones by the zillions with their little handguns and endless supply of bullets, and single-handedly turning the country into their own insane crypto-fascist patriotic paradise. This "narrative" is believed and reinforced using the same methods religions use, to the point where many liberals would literally rather commit suicide than admit their "narrative" actually isn't related to reality in any way.

This is why most liberals scoff at the concept of the 2nd Amendment being an important guarantee of liberty, because they honestly think that if it doesn't enable an instant total overthrow of the government, then there are no possible benefits it can have. And since they are the "nuanced" and "intelligent" ones (according to more of those "narratives"), if there are no benefits they can think of (like being able to inflict an unacceptably high casualty rate among the "organic robots" the liberals like to think of soldiers and cops as being, without realizing how the soldiers and cops might have feelings and opinions sympathetic to those they're being sent out to kill), there are obviously no nuances to be found, nor any intellectual reason why there should be a 2nd Amendment.


Well spoken, sir.
 
2012-12-26 11:15:01 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: To the both of you, I would like to point out the rebels in Afghanistan. They've been doing a mighty fine job fighting a war since 1979, first against the Russians and now against the United States.


When they fought the Russians they had the overt help of a large number of well financed arab fighters, and the covert help of several foreign governments, including the US.
In their current fight, the Taliban are nowhere near regaining power over the national government.
 
2012-12-26 11:43:39 AM  
That's it, no more Toshiro Mifune movies for you crazy yobs.
 
2012-12-26 11:49:27 AM  

bonobo73: I'd like to describe a scenario (in modern times, please, not the 18th or 19th century) in which undisciplined civilians with small arms have a remote chance against the modern United States army, navy, airforce and marines. If you can, I'll write to my congressman immediately to have you appointed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as you'll have performed the military equivalent of creating a perpetual motion device.


Religously motivated forces, aided by foreign fighters, wealthy sponsors and gun runners use inhospitable terrain to wage a costly guerrilla war that persists so long that it forces the withdrawal of two so-called Superpowers.

Course, that's Afghanistan, where tribal guerrilla warfare has been the national sport for millennia.

Do I get to pick a branch?
 
2012-12-26 11:58:06 AM  

bonobo73: omeganuepsilon: bonobo73: I'm saying anyone who thinks that owning a private collection of small arms in any way contributes meaningfully to preserving the United States as a constitutional republic is a mental midget who greedily buys into fantasies provided happily by the gun manufacturing industry.

By that logic, a vote is just as much of a futile gesture, in no way contributes meaningfully.


Your electoral vote is equal to mine and to every other citizen in the United States. That's far more parity than you would ever hope to enounter in a fight with the US Armed Forces.


I know you missed the point on purpose.

One gun or one vote won't make a difference, but collectively, they do, when a whole populace employs them.

Your problem is that you do not have the rights, logic, or fairness on your side. Your argument is more emotional than rational.

That is why your side is doomed to lose. You posts are so thick with such logical fallacies such as straw men or red herrings.(and really too many to list here).

I smell desperation. It's a moral argument you're fighting. Guns are "icky" and you don't like them. That's fine, you don't have to use them, you don't even have to watch most of us use them in public.

When you seek to limit what others do with their rights is where you cross the line. Sure, criminals need to be punished or locked up, but the vast majority of us are not criminal.

Now, have you noticed it yet? I find entertaining that the supposedly liberal anti-gun nuts, want done to people's rights as anti-gays would have done in their relative area of anti-.
 
2012-12-26 12:38:25 PM  
Oooh, I like that, "One gun or one vote won't make a difference, but collectively, they do, when a whole populace employs them."

I'm adding that to my internet arguing repertoire.
 
2012-12-26 12:53:43 PM  

Kit Fister:

It is not disingenous at all. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has changed over the years. So go ahead and disagree with the pro-gun interpretation all you want, it will not change the fact that the Supreme Court has issued rulings that support the current pro-gun interpretation.

Except that all of the contemporary writings support the pro-individual-right standpoint, which people conveniently ignore...


The Constitution itself states that the purpose of the militia is to "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress (emphasis added) Insurrections and repel Invasions." So the idea that an individual right to own guns exists in order to SUPPORT insurrection is nonsense. That an individual right to "bear arms" in self defense exists is arguable, and is the current court position, but extending that to a right to resist the government is ridiculous.
 
2012-12-26 01:03:02 PM  

mbillips: That an individual right to "bear arms" in self defense exists is arguable,


no it's not.
 
2012-12-26 01:11:27 PM  

mbillips: Kit Fister:

It is not disingenous at all. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has changed over the years. So go ahead and disagree with the pro-gun interpretation all you want, it will not change the fact that the Supreme Court has issued rulings that support the current pro-gun interpretation.

Except that all of the contemporary writings support the pro-individual-right standpoint, which people conveniently ignore...

The Constitution itself states that the purpose of the militia is to "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress (emphasis added) Insurrections and repel Invasions." So the idea that an individual right to own guns exists in order to SUPPORT insurrection is nonsense. That an individual right to "bear arms" in self defense exists is arguable, and is the current court position, but extending that to a right to resist the government is ridiculous.


Except that TJ and many other founders repeatedly stated in writings that a government that no longer represents the people should be cast off, and supported the notion.

So, you apparently fail to read historical texts and references.
 
2012-12-26 01:40:08 PM  

mbillips: Kit Fister:

It is not disingenous at all. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has changed over the years. So go ahead and disagree with the pro-gun interpretation all you want, it will not change the fact that the Supreme Court has issued rulings that support the current pro-gun interpretation.

Except that all of the contemporary writings support the pro-individual-right standpoint, which people conveniently ignore...

The Constitution itself states that the purpose of the militia is to "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress (emphasis added) Insurrections and repel Invasions." So the idea that an individual right to own guns exists in order to SUPPORT insurrection is nonsense. That an individual right to "bear arms" in self defense exists is arguable, and is the current court position, but extending that to a right to resist the government is ridiculous.


"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." ~Ben Franklin

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." ~Lincoln

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And 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 the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify 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." ~Jefferson
 
2012-12-26 01:47:13 PM  

Kit Fister: mbillips: Kit Fister:

It is not disingenous at all. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has changed over the years. So go ahead and disagree with the pro-gun interpretation all you want, it will not change the fact that the Supreme Court has issued rulings that support the current pro-gun interpretation.

Except that all of the contemporary writings support the pro-individual-right standpoint, which people conveniently ignore...

The Constitution itself states that the purpose of the militia is to "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress (emphasis added) Insurrections and repel Invasions." So the idea that an individual right to own guns exists in order to SUPPORT insurrection is nonsense. That an individual right to "bear arms" in self defense exists is arguable, and is the current court position, but extending that to a right to resist the government is ridiculous.

Except that TJ and many other founders repeatedly stated in writings that a government that no longer represents the people should be cast off, and supported the notion.

So, you apparently fail to read historical texts and references.


Thomas Jefferson frequently talked out of his ass, and he had almost nothing to do with writing the Constitution; he was in France at the time of the convention. Sure, there were some inflammatory statements at the time we were forming a republican government about an expectation of future tyranny that would require revolution to overthrow, but 200 years hence, with no such tyranny extant, we can kind of discount that as guys speculating on the future and being wrong.

e.g., Madison said this:

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." - Speech at the Constitutional Convention, June 29, 1787

Whargarble. We've had a sizable standing army since 1812, and a massive one since 1940, yet still rightly consider ourselves a free people.

Tyranny, btw, is ACTUAL TYRANNY. LIke, with a dictator and political prison camps. It's not having to pay your taxes and fill out government paperwork before you can add on to your house.
 
2012-12-26 01:53:34 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: mbillips: Kit Fister:

It is not disingenous at all. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has changed over the years. So go ahead and disagree with the pro-gun interpretation all you want, it will not change the fact that the Supreme Court has issued rulings that support the current pro-gun interpretation.

Except that all of the contemporary writings support the pro-individual-right standpoint, which people conveniently ignore...

The Constitution itself states that the purpose of the militia is to "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress (emphasis added) Insurrections and repel Invasions." So the idea that an individual right to own guns exists in order to SUPPORT insurrection is nonsense. That an individual right to "bear arms" in self defense exists is arguable, and is the current court position, but extending that to a right to resist the government is ridiculous.

"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." ~Ben Franklin

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." ~Lincoln

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And 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 the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify 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." ~Jefferson


You can argue, as these sources do, that there is a right to overthrow a government enshrined in natural law. You cannot, however, find that right in the U.S. Constitution. It's not in there. It is specifically denied there, in fact, because there are several references to putting down insurrections. The implied reasoning is, as long as constitutional government exists, there will be no need to overthrow it because it preserves liberty.
 
2012-12-26 01:54:01 PM  
You dolt, we had a revolution in 1861, less than one hundred years after the country was founded. What makes you think we won't have another??

Did you SERIOUSLY forget about the American Civil War?? How farking stupid are you??

Maybe you forgot about how Lincoln WAS a tyrant? How he suspended habeas corpus??

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
 
2012-12-26 01:55:57 PM  

Dansker: OscarTamerz: Sorry about the long post.

Oh, no need to apologize, it was very entertaining.
But it doesn't change the fact that your comparison between Switzerland and the UK is meaningless, just like mine between Japan and Switzerland.
If you want to look at the effect of banning guns in the UK, this is the kind of stats you need:
[img.photobucket.com image 817x650]


Interesting graph, but you do know that correlation does not prove causation, right? What evidence do you have that the downward trend in "all" violent crimes was due to the ban on guns and not other changes? Look at Australia's ban on all hand guns and semi-automatic firearms from 1996. After the ban the number of murders in the country steadily dropped, though it does fluctuate from year to year. Many proponents of banning guns point to this as proof that banning guns works. However, what they always fail to take into consideration is that the number of murders in Australia has been trending downward since the mid 1960s. So, what evidence is there that the ban in England has directly resulted in the drop of "all" violent crimes?
 
2012-12-26 02:00:24 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: You dolt, we had a revolution in 1861, less than one hundred years after the country was founded. What makes you think we won't have another??

Did you SERIOUSLY forget about the American Civil War?? How farking stupid are you??

Maybe you forgot about how Lincoln WAS a tyrant? How he suspended habeas corpus??

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


We had a rebellion in 1861 (as we did in 1775, although because the colonial rebellion resulted in a revolutionary new form of government, you can call it a revolution). A revolution overthrows the existing government and replaces it. For the Civil War to be a revolution, it would have required an attempt to replace the federal government, not just escape it.

Habeus corpus made no sense in the face of the reality of a war of rebellion. You can't give a defense lawyer to every POW as long as the war is being waged. And habeus corpus WASN'T suspended for criminal suspects, just for rebel prisoners.
 
2012-12-26 02:04:18 PM  

Mock26: Dansker: OscarTamerz: Sorry about the long post.

Oh, no need to apologize, it was very entertaining.
But it doesn't change the fact that your comparison between Switzerland and the UK is meaningless, just like mine between Japan and Switzerland.
If you want to look at the effect of banning guns in the UK, this is the kind of stats you need:
[img.photobucket.com image 817x650]

Interesting graph, but you do know that correlation does not prove causation, right? What evidence do you have that the downward trend in "all" violent crimes was due to the ban on guns and not other changes?


None and I didn't claim I did. But the stats should dispell the idea that banning guns made their society more violent.
Personally, I think that gun proliferation or lack thereof has no significant effect on crime levels, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.
 
2012-12-26 02:05:48 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: You dolt, we had a revolution in 1861, less than one hundred years after the country was founded. What makes you think we won't have another??


Two reasons. First, there are no issues as divisive as slavery, or within two orders of magnitude of slavery, that could lead to a secessionist rebellion. And second, such a rebellion would be impossible with the modern standing army and modern communications/transportation.

Now, if we have a civil collapse, as is highly possible in the next century because of population/environmental disconnect, then we could have a revolution, but we're not going to have one because teabaggers are cranky.

 
2012-12-26 02:08:12 PM  

mbillips: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: You dolt, we had a revolution in 1861, less than one hundred years after the country was founded. What makes you think we won't have another??

Did you SERIOUSLY forget about the American Civil War?? How farking stupid are you??

Maybe you forgot about how Lincoln WAS a tyrant? How he suspended habeas corpus??

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

We had a rebellion in 1861 (as we did in 1775, although because the colonial rebellion resulted in a revolutionary new form of government, you can call it a revolution). A revolution overthrows the existing government and replaces it. For the Civil War to be a revolution, it would have required an attempt to replace the federal government, not just escape it.

Habeus corpus made no sense in the face of the reality of a war of rebellion. You can't give a defense lawyer to every POW as long as the war is being waged. And habeus corpus WASN'T suspended for criminal suspects, just for rebel prisoners.


My God, you are an idiot. Lincoln imprisoned newspaper editors who published anything Lincoln did not agree with. And the Civil War WAS a revolution. It replaced the government the Southern States were under with the Confederacy. Don't try to discount it just because you were too stupid to remember it.
 
2012-12-26 02:10:18 PM  

mbillips: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: You dolt, we had a revolution in 1861, less than one hundred years after the country was founded. What makes you think we won't have another??


Two reasons. First, there are no issues as divisive as slavery, or within two orders of magnitude of slavery, that could lead to a secessionist rebellion. And second, such a rebellion would be impossible with the modern standing army and modern communications/transportation.

Now, if we have a civil collapse, as is highly possible in the next century because of population/environmental disconnect, then we could have a revolution, but we're not going to have one because teabaggers are cranky.


Impossible?? Yeah, that's what they said when a bunch of farmers took on the British Empire in 1776. Alos, your assumption that anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment is a member of the Tea Party is insulting, so go fark yourself.
 
2012-12-26 02:29:52 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: mbillips: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: You dolt, we had a revolution in 1861, less than one hundred years after the country was founded. What makes you think we won't have another??


Two reasons. First, there are no issues as divisive as slavery, or within two orders of magnitude of slavery, that could lead to a secessionist rebellion. And second, such a rebellion would be impossible with the modern standing army and modern communications/transportation.

Now, if we have a civil collapse, as is highly possible in the next century because of population/environmental disconnect, then we could have a revolution, but we're not going to have one because teabaggers are cranky.

Impossible?? Yeah, that's what they said when a bunch of farmers took on the British Empire in 1776. Alos, your assumption that anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment is a member of the Tea Party is insulting, so go fark yourself.


So you think gun control's going to cause a revolution? Mmm hmmm. Go get 'em, Wolverine; I'll just be over here with the idiots (and the tanks and the attack helos, and the sensor drones, etc.). The revolution will not be televised, because any "uprising" of a handful of gun nuts would be handled by the cops in a matter of hours. I say this as a gun nut myself (I own somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 handguns and close to a dozen long arms).

1776 was a long time ago, and those farmers were separated from the central government by a sea voyage that took weeks if not months. We've had recent goofball attempts at rebellion (Waco, the Montana Freemen), and you see how far they got.
 
2012-12-26 02:36:41 PM  
When did I say "Gun control will cause a revolution"??

I know 4th graders with a higher level of reading comprehension than you do. I thought the Liberal Left were supposed to be the 'smart ones'. How in the hell can you be this farking stupid??

Gun control will not cause a revolution, however gun control is unAmerican in case the need of a revolution should occur.

And as far as your belief that no revolution could ever succeed because of the police and the military, that is also absurd to think that the police & military would act like droids with 100% loyalty to a government so corrupt it sparked a revolution.

You have guns?? Seriously, get rid of them. Idiots like you owning firearms is the #1 arguing point in support of gun control.
 
2012-12-26 02:49:42 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: mbillips: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: You dolt, we had a revolution in 1861, less than one hundred years after the country was founded. What makes you think we won't have another??

Did you SERIOUSLY forget about the American Civil War?? How farking stupid are you??

Maybe you forgot about how Lincoln WAS a tyrant? How he suspended habeas corpus??

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

We had a rebellion in 1861 (as we did in 1775, although because the colonial rebellion resulted in a revolutionary new form of government, you can call it a revolution). A revolution overthrows the existing government and replaces it. For the Civil War to be a revolution, it would have required an attempt to replace the federal government, not just escape it.

Habeus corpus made no sense in the face of the reality of a war of rebellion. You can't give a defense lawyer to every POW as long as the war is being waged. And habeus corpus WASN'T suspended for criminal suspects, just for rebel prisoners.

My God, you are an idiot. Lincoln imprisoned newspaper editors who published anything Lincoln did not agree with. And the Civil War WAS a revolution. It replaced the government the Southern States were under with the Confederacy. Don't try to discount it just because you were too stupid to remember it.


"Anything Lincoln did not agree with" consisting of false Confederate propaganda intended to stir up a repetition of the draft riots. Wilson and Roosevelt threw people like that in prison, too.

The Constitution explicitly lays out when the writ of habeus corpus may be suspended. Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (emphasis added)

Lincoln was definitely stretching the powers of the executive (Article I refers to the Congress), but the Constitution doesn't say the president CAN'T suspend the writ of habeus corpus; it just says it can't be suspended except in time of rebellion (e.g. 1861-65).
 
2012-12-26 02:55:23 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: When did I say "Gun control will cause a revolution"??

I know 4th graders with a higher level of reading comprehension than you do. I thought the Liberal Left were supposed to be the 'smart ones'. How in the hell can you be this farking stupid??

Gun control will not cause a revolution, however gun control is unAmerican in case the need of a revolution should occur.

And as far as your belief that no revolution could ever succeed because of the police and the military, that is also absurd to think that the police & military would act like droids with 100% loyalty to a government so corrupt it sparked a revolution.

You have guns?? Seriously, get rid of them. Idiots like you owning firearms is the #1 arguing point in support of gun control.


OK, Mr. Civil Discourse (seriously, what are you, 12?), what current political issue could lead to a second (third?) American revolution? I say there's currently no viable path to that outcome, and spelled out why. You haven't laid out your argument.
 
2012-12-26 03:00:29 PM  

mbillips: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: When did I say "Gun control will cause a revolution"??

I know 4th graders with a higher level of reading comprehension than you do. I thought the Liberal Left were supposed to be the 'smart ones'. How in the hell can you be this farking stupid??

Gun control will not cause a revolution, however gun control is unAmerican in case the need of a revolution should occur.

And as far as your belief that no revolution could ever succeed because of the police and the military, that is also absurd to think that the police & military would act like droids with 100% loyalty to a government so corrupt it sparked a revolution.

You have guns?? Seriously, get rid of them. Idiots like you owning firearms is the #1 arguing point in support of gun control.

OK, Mr. Civil Discourse (seriously, what are you, 12?), what current political issue could lead to a second (third?) American revolution? I say there's currently no viable path to that outcome, and spelled out why. You haven't laid out your argument.


I certainly hope there is no reason for another revolution. I'm not sitting here planning to takeover the country. One of the great strengths of the 2nd Amendment is it makes the government fear it's people, hopefully enough to stay in line.

However, I'm sure no one in 1812 could have predicted the Civil War in 1861, so why should I have to predict why and when the next revolution will happen just to keep my rights?
 
2012-12-26 04:00:19 PM  
Please read through, the first statement might mislead you.

1. Because there are a lot of guns in the US, there is more gun violence. If you got rid of all the guns, fewer people would be killed. It's much harder to kill someone other ways. Gun-rights supporters need to acknowledge this.

2. Because there are a lot of cars in the US, many people die in car crashes. If you got rid of all the cars, it would save lives--but we accept automobile-related deaths as part of the cost of having the freedom to own cars. Far fewer people die from guns than cars in the US.

3. Even if the federal government banned all guns today, there would still be plenty of guns around fifty or a hundred years from now. This is because there's already 200 to 350 million here, and if they were banned most people wouldn't turn them in. Plus, people would just buy them illegally. Drugs are illegal too, but that hasn't stopped drugs from being available.

So, even if we agree that gun violence is bad and that removing all guns would save lives, we should be able to see that we can't remove all guns and even if we could, it seems an arbitrary removal of freedom to ensure some small increase in safety.

Bottom line, we need to look at why people become mass murderers and how we might be able to prevent some of these rampages in the future by identifying and treating the mentally ill before they go off the deep end.
 
2012-12-26 04:21:18 PM  
we should ban swords
 
2012-12-26 04:28:10 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Oooh, I like that, "One gun or one vote won't make a difference, but collectively, they do, when a whole populace employs them."

I'm adding that to my internet arguing repertoire.


By all means.

I really didn't think I'd have to be the one to say it, given that specific argument it was in response to is what some people say about voting all of the time.

Sure, I feel a bit disenfranchised as much of the next guy(not all laws that come across the desk are votable by the general populace, which ties it into this topic all the more, one could see the situation worsening easily), but I still take my opportunity to vote when it comes along. Not quite specified as a duty, but in the spirit of things, it is exactly that.

My one vote doesn't have any real power by itself. That much is true. When in the thousands and millions, it's an indomitable force....only so far as any government is willing to pay attention to such things.

In any such government, the first step is always to remove any and all power from the people. Education all the way to physical force. Keep the people ignorant and powerless. This is how a plethora of past tyrannical leaders have retained power, some still do to this day. Hamstringing the internet is a very modern version of this, not to mention the whole absense of guns.

Sure, many countries now have a democracy that didn't in past years. How does anyone really think it came to be that way? People with guns earned it(in a large part, the US). To pretend that it's an infallible state of being is naive in an extreme, even our founders knew that much 200+ years ago. In the grand scope of things there needs to be some balance of power, within the government itself, and between rulers and their followers.

That people don't see this is, entertaining(hence the threads on fark) yet saddening. People that don't see the forest for the trees. When half the populace just can't see in that scope, yet vote and elect officials based on their petty desires, it's sad.

It's like Stockholm syndrome when you get right down to it. The ignorant and powerless want to keep it that way, maintain their delusional bliss.
 
2012-12-26 05:27:03 PM  
bonobo73:

"I'd like to describe a scenario (in modern times, please, not the 18th or 19th century) in which undisciplined civilians with small arms have a remote chance against the modern United States army, navy, airforce and marines. If you can, I'll write to my congressman immediately to have you appointed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as you'll have performed the military equivalent of creating a perpetual motion device."


For the sake of trolling, regarding your original point: research Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As an example of effective small arms against a non-US modern mechanized military force research the Arab Spring; in particular the countries of Libya and Syria.

Undisciplined people get real disciplined fast when other people try to kill them. See the Sandy Hook massacre, in which a school teacher locked her students inside cover before taking a bullet.
 
2012-12-26 05:34:32 PM  

Webgrunt: Please read through, the first statement might mislead you.

1. Because there are a lot of guns in the US, there is more gun violence. If you got rid of all the guns, fewer people would be killed. It's much harder to kill someone other ways. Gun-rights supporters need to acknowledge this.

2. Because there are a lot of cars in the US, many people die in car crashes. If you got rid of all the cars, it would save lives--but we accept automobile-related deaths as part of the cost of having the freedom to own cars. Far fewer people die from guns than cars in the US.

3. Even if the federal government banned all guns today, there would still be plenty of guns around fifty or a hundred years from now. This is because there's already 200 to 350 million here, and if they were banned most people wouldn't turn them in. Plus, people would just buy them illegally. Drugs are illegal too, but that hasn't stopped drugs from being available.

So, even if we agree that gun violence is bad and that removing all guns would save lives, we should be able to see that we can't remove all guns and even if we could, it seems an arbitrary removal of freedom to ensure some small increase in safety.

Bottom line, we need to look at why people become mass murderers and how we might be able to prevent some of these rampages in the future by identifying and treating the mentally ill before they go off the deep end.


The difference here is that most people killed by cars die in accidents, while most people killed by guns are deliberately murdered.
 
2012-12-26 05:43:19 PM  

Valarius: As an example of effective small arms against a non-US modern mechanized military force research the Arab Spring; in particular the countries of Libya and Syria.


The Syrian rebels don't seem to be winning, and the Libyans would have lost without a NATO airforce.

Undisciplined people get real disciplined fast when other people try to kill them.

The Libyan fighters, both men and women, had received 18 months of military training under conscription during Ghadaffi's regime.
 
2012-12-26 08:49:21 PM  
Here are 2 interesting graphs from the Australian government showing that there were 2 homicide peaks after their gun grab in 1997 with the first coming 1998 and the second and worst coming in 2002. Needless to say the government ignores both. The stats are 5 years old and it makes you wonder how bad things are currently to have this delay in posting stats.

Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number)

www.aic.gov.au

Even more interesting are their rape statistics. Since the blokes don't have to worry about getting their wiggly wagglys shot off by the Sheilas the rape rate has increased by 51% and Australian women are 3 times more likely to be raped than American women.

Sexual assault victims from 1995 to 2007 (number per month)

aic.gov.au

Reported sexual assaults have increased by 51 percent since 1995, at an average of four percent each year.

There's absolutely no analysis for why this trend is happening either except for the one line telling it has happened. So sorry about all the rapey rapey going on ladies, it's all for the good of the country, eh wot! Lay back and think of Oz.
 
2012-12-26 09:17:59 PM  

BeSerious: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.


Yeah, we'll just send the marines in and wipe up that pitiful insurgency and be outta Afghanistan before my dinner cools.

i141.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-26 09:21:24 PM  

trappedspirit: Yeah, we'll just send the marines in and wipe up that pitiful insurgency and be outta Afghanistan before my dinner cools.


Genius.
 
2012-12-26 09:40:49 PM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: You are assuming a revolution would occur in a vacuum and there would be neither any support from other nations (like the first American Revolution) and no one from the military would side with the rest of the American population.


Chances are, if there were an uprising, it would be the American military that have swore to support and defend the Constitution on one side, and some people trying to attack the Constitution on the other side. Provided a person were to be interested in freedoms and rights and thought the U.S. Constitution was a good way to ensure those, they would probably not find themselves on the "could we borrow some guns to get this revolution going" side.
 
2012-12-27 12:27:56 AM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
The difference here is that most people killed by cars die in accidents, while most people killed by guns are deliberately murdered.


Depends on whether you are talking all intentional deaths by gun or if you exclude suicides... Because since suicide doesn't count as 'murder' legally, then you would be wrong. At least in 2011.

Total number of deaths in 2011: 2,512,873
Total number of deaths by firearms in 2011: 32,163 (1.28% of deaths in 2011)
Total number of homicides by firearms in 2011: 11,101 (34.5% of firearm deaths in 2011, 0.44% of total deaths in 2011)
Total number of suicides by firearms in 2011: 19,766 (61.5% of firearm deaths in 2011, 0.79% of total deaths in 2011)

More people die of Alcohol induced cirrhosis (16,634) than gun homicides. Maybe we should ban alcohol... wait. We tried that, and it made things worse.

The 'children' argument is a fallacy as well, and at best an emotional appeal.
Total number of children (age 0-15, since that is the closest age cutoff to 18) deaths in 2011: 33,523

Now, since children under 1 years of age usually die of things unrelated to guns, lets remove them. The ones that might have died from guns are so small as to be statistically insignificant, and will be picked up in the children in the other age groups.

Total number of children deaths 1-15 in 2011: (33,523 - 23,910): 9,613

I did a little independent research on all mass shootings in 2011, and only found 3 children killed (out of 24 total deaths, incidentally, the youngest was 11 years old, and all the children deaths fall into the age range above).

Total number of children deaths 1-15 by mass shootings in 2011: 3

So, that kind of blows a hole in the 'do it for the children' argument over so-called 'assault weapons'.

Banning guns, or even just scary ones, is not the answer. The deaths are rare enough to be statistically meaningless. We should work instead on preventing the deaths and massacres through education and improving the mental health care in this country. That would do FAR more for the safety of the countries citizens (as well as possibly preventing other types of deaths not related to firearms) than banning guns, magazines, ammo, or whatever.

(source for most of the data I used is here)

Calling for banning/heavy restrictions on firearms is an emotional response to a problem that has a more logical solution. Solutions should never be emotional when it comes to rights.
 
2012-12-27 12:42:24 AM  

tgambitg: Calling for banning/heavy restrictions on firearms is an emotional response


Snipped for the sake of brevity, but THIS!

Equally emotional to shooting your spouse if you catch them in bed with another person.

Kneejerk reactionarianism is the same in both cases.

/why yes I do believe I made up a word.
 
2012-12-27 03:26:33 AM  

Lettuce Pray: So what exactly is the point?


Ask the French or Belgian resistance.

Ask the rebels in Chechnya, Syria, or Libya.

Hell, ask the insurgents who are fighting the US Military to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Attack helicopters are great in open warfare. They're a lot less useful against a resistance movement, unless you don't give a fark about collateral damage. It's one thing when the civilians being accidentally killed are brown people who speak the wrong language, pray to the wrong god, and live half-way around the world. It's a lot different when they're people just like you living a couple hours away.
 
2012-12-27 05:36:45 AM  

OscarTamerz: Here are 2 interesting graphs from the Australian government showing that there were 2 homicide peaks after their gun grab in 1997 with the first coming 1998 and the second and worst coming in 2002. Needless to say the government ignores both. The stats are 5 years old and it makes you wonder how bad things are currently to have this delay in posting stats.

Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number)

[www.aic.gov.au image 636x383]

Even more interesting are their rape statistics. Since the blokes don't have to worry about getting their wiggly wagglys shot off by the Sheilas the rape rate has increased by 51% and Australian women are 3 times more likely to be raped than American women.

Sexual assault victims from 1995 to 2007 (number per month)

[aic.gov.au image 600x354]

Reported sexual assaults have increased by 51 percent since 1995, at an average of four percent each year.

There's absolutely no analysis for why this trend is happening either except for the one line telling it has happened. So sorry about all the rapey rapey going on ladies, it's all for the good of the country, eh wot! Lay back and think of Oz.


As someone said to me recently: Interesting graph, but you do know that correlation does not prove causation, right?
 
2012-12-27 05:41:40 AM  

clyph: Ask the rebels in Chechnya, Syria, or Libya.


The Chechnians lost, the Syrians don't seem to be winning, and the Libyans would have been slaughtered if they hadn't been supported by a NATO airforce.

Oh, and black people do not commit the vast majority of murders in the US.
 
2012-12-27 10:29:08 AM  

Dansker: clyph: Ask the rebels in Chechnya, Syria, or Libya.

The Chechnians lost, the Syrians don't seem to be winning, and the Libyans would have been slaughtered if they hadn't been supported by a NATO airforce.

Oh, and black people do not commit the vast majority of murders in the US.


Again, you are COMPLETELY ignoring that the first American Revolution was supported by foreign powers.
 
2012-12-27 11:11:17 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Dansker: clyph: Ask the rebels in Chechnya, Syria, or Libya.

The Chechnians lost, the Syrians don't seem to be winning, and the Libyans would have been slaughtered if they hadn't been supported by a NATO airforce.

Oh, and black people do not commit the vast majority of murders in the US.

Again, you are COMPLETELY ignoring that the first American Revolution was supported by foreign powers.


I don't see what that has to do with Chechnia, Syria or Libya. Or now.
 
2012-12-27 12:05:04 PM  

CthulhuCalling: Marcintosh: Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.

i keep seeing more and more arguments like this recently. if the gubbmint really got too big for its britches, would you really just roll over and beg 'not too hard please'? i have no fantasies about making a last stand against a squad and an IFV, armed with a semiautomatic rifle, but why do you think the government at least makes a half-assed attempt at trying to keep itself in line?


Don't be an ass.
Besides. the government doesn't need guns.  Look at Iraq - on a well orchestrated lie, the US went in and did what it did.  If you have decedents, they'll be paying off the debt we allowed to happen meanwhile we've cultivated a hatred of immense proportions.
So if you have no fantasies, why bother to own the Bushything?  You only need a single shot to do yourself.

your last bit is undecipherable as I read it. - sorry just don't unnerstan it.
 
2012-12-27 03:11:53 PM  

OscarTamerz: Here are 2 interesting graphs from the Australian government showing that there were 2 homicide peaks after their gun grab in 1997 with the first coming 1998 and the second and worst coming in 2002. Needless to say the government ignores both. The stats are 5 years old and it makes you wonder how bad things are currently to have this delay in posting stats.

Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number)

[www.aic.gov.au image 636x383]

Even more interesting are their rape statistics. Since the blokes don't have to worry about getting their wiggly wagglys shot off by the Sheilas the rape rate has increased by 51% and Australian women are 3 times more likely to be raped than American women.

Sexual assault victims from 1995 to 2007 (number per month)

[aic.gov.au image 600x354]

Reported sexual assaults have increased by 51 percent since 1995, at an average of four percent each year.

There's absolutely no analysis for why this trend is happening either except for the one line telling it has happened. So sorry about all the rapey rapey going on ladies, it's all for the good of the country, eh wot! Lay back and think of Oz.


Murders in Australia have been trending downwards since the 1960s. And it is disingenuous for the government (or anyone else for that matter) to say that the decline since the ban has been because of the ban. As for the spikes, considering that there were similar spikes before the ban they really are nothing but statistical anomalies.

As for sexual assaults, what is the trend before 1995? Has it been trending steadily upwards longer than the one year before the ban? Without this information one cannot really say if the ban had anything to do with it. Of course, you cannot really do that anyway, but if it was trending upward for years before the ban then it becomes even less likely that the ban had anything to do with it.
 
2012-12-28 09:37:13 AM  

ibsalamander: I propose we scrap the 2nd Amendment. Let's re-write it the way we want it, then put it to a vote.

New Amendment:

The right of the people to own firearms shall not be infringed.

Period.

I'm pro gun-control, but all this dancing around the interpretation of a text is kind of silly to me when we all know, regardless of the actual text in question, that the issue is whether American citizens should be allowed a Constitutional guarantee of private gun ownership.

So let's have that debate rather than the semantic brawling.


I agree.

But it shouldn't be easy and I believe my bolts should be help completely off premise - I collect them from the local "oh-you-wish-to-use-your-hand-arm" group before I get to have fun.
 
Displayed 419 of 419 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report