Here it is the libs are coming after our guns by kaneman

I saw some of Maddow's show last night and I thought she made some good points....

1) Why should handgun owners be allowed to have those extra-sized clips? For what good or purpose? They used to be outlawed, but they became legal again not that long ago. Some insane mf-er gets a pistol and fires off 31 rounds??!! Who the fuck needs 31 rounds pal?

2) Every single bullet made should have a stamp on it. It's easy technology. That would not infringe on anyone's rights to have a weapon or ammo, but it would allow law enforcement to have a tool to begin investingating gun deaths. By not having id's on the bullets, only murderers are protected.

So what's wrong with what Maddow said....hmmmmm?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Who the fuck needs 31 rounds pal?

Someone who needs to kill a lot of people/animals quickly.

There are 3 reasons for arms.

1. Hunting or self-defense against animals.
2. Self defense against criminals.
3. Self defense against government.

Most gun rights activists talk about #1 and #2. But the real bottom line reason for the constitutional right to bear arms is #3. It is the right that enables all the other rights to exist.

It is not acceptable in our society to talk about armed revolution. But you have to remember the 2nd Amendment was written by people who got to where they were precisely because of armed revolution. It makes sense they would support that right.

So why do we need 31 rounds? We don't--not right now. But we want the RIGHT to keep it, just in case. We can't guarantee that our govt won't ever turn into the Third Reich.

It is also the very reason govt wants to take it away--how can they exert the kind of control they want if 31 rounds are loose and unidentified out there?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You'll probably despise me more than ever for saying this.....but I saw Maddow last night and I thought she made some excellent points....

1) Why should handgun owners be allowed to have those extra-sized clips? For what good or purpose? They used to be outlawed, but they became legal again not that long ago. Some insane mf-er gets a pistol and fires off 31 rounds??!! Who the fuck needs 31 rounds pal?

It isn't a matter of need or want. It is a matter of by what right does the government think it should tell me what I can spend my money on? Do you honestly need a car with a 2 liter engine? You can get to 55 mph with a 1 liter engine. And you'll do less damage to the environment with only 1 liter of displacement spewing your toxins into the environment.

I'll give up my 30 round magazines as soon as the government gives up all of theirs.

Quote:

2) Every single bullet made should have a stamp on it. It's easy technology. That would not infringe on anyone's rights to have a weapon or ammo, but it would allow law enforcement to have a tool to begin investingating gun deaths. By not having id's on the bullets, only murderers are protected.

Maryland requires all new handguns to come with 2 fired pieces of brass. These are turned into the Maryland State Police when the gun is purchased. The unique identifies of firing pin and extractor claw, if present, are then supposed to be catalogued so the MD state police can use them to clear handgun crime. Guess how many handgun crimes have been cleared with over 10 years of data? None.

Assuming ammunition begins to be sold with unique identifiers. You buy a box of ammunition. You discharge several rounds at a gun range. I pick up a piece of your brass from the range floor. I reload it. I use it in my gun to murder someone. Here's a bit of advice. When you are in jail for murder, if you drop the soap in the shower, it's gone.

Next question?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:27 PM

STORYMARK

Yeah, those extra few rounds will make the world of difference against a tank or missile.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Yeah, those extra few rounds will make the world of difference against a tank or missile.

Tanks and missiles don't win all wars.

For example, we're still in Iraq AND Afghanistan. And I'm pretty sure we lost Vietnam.

Speaking of Afghanistan, didn't the Russians have tanks and missiles too?

Extra rounds make a huge difference in guerilla warfare.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:45 PM

Also concerning bullet stamps, I know people who make their own ammunition. Not saying the stamps are a bad idea, but there are several ways around it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:00 PM

TRAVELER

I had a friend who reloaded ammunition for several people involved in trap shooting. We never got the same shells back. He just kept them all in one container and you got whatever he loaded. So there would be no way to trace ammunition.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:16 PM

Our government does not use the tools they have been given. Then they ask for more tools. With every new law our freedom dies a little.

If these requests for new laws and new restrictions are a result of the Gifford shooting, then how do they address the crazy?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:05 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I find it very frustrating that no one but me has brought up the lack of affordable, effective and discrete, mental health care as a root cause of this.

But no, too easy to blame all the symptoms, keep taking cough syrup for tuberculosis, yanno ?

Or maybe even addressing how he got so messed up in the first damn place, that'd be a bloody start.

But no, blame a tool, blame an inanimate object, blame anything but the society that cranks out people so broken that they're capable of such deeds, cause THAT, would start pointing fingers at US - wouldn't it now ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I find it very frustrating that no one but me has brought up the lack of affordable, effective and discrete, mental health care as a root cause of this.

Do you really think mental health care, the way it is normally practiced, could have prevented this tragedy?

I'm thinking "effective mental health care" is as a common as a "nurturing childhood." The poor dude obviously had neither.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:37 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Yeah, those extra few rounds will make the world of difference against a tank or missile."

Or against phone tapping, databases and bank transactions records. The best defense against a restrictive government is the ballot box and a little bit of thought.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:42 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"It is a matter of by what right does the government think it should tell me what I can spend my money on?"

Because there are reasonable limits that should be placed on who can acquire what kind of 'arms' (baby with a nuke launcher example). Unless you think it should be entirely unrestricted, in which case you leave the matter up to the individual's purchasing power and good judgment.

Which by the numbers show that good judgment is sadly lacking: "In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30896 deaths from firearms ..."

'Reasonable limits' is an idea you ducked in the previous thread, and here you seem to be flogging your 'I can do anything I want' slogan, so I thought I'd bring it here.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Yeah, those extra few rounds will make the world of difference against a tank or missile."

Or against phone tapping, databases and bank transactions records. The best defense against a restrictive government is the ballot box and a little bit of thought.

The actual quote is; "There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"It is a matter of by what right does the government think it should tell me what I can spend my money on?"

Because there are reasonable limits that should be placed on who can acquire what kind of 'arms' (baby with a nuke launcher example). Unless you think it should be entirely unrestricted, in which case you leave the matter up to the individual's purchasing power and good judgment.

And I gave an example of how we had NO limits at one time. Those limits were curtailed and we are NO safer for it. Now, Do you want to go all the way to the Gulag before you say that we've gone far enough?

The SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you. Period. Full stop. If the police don't have to protect you, then to whom does the responsibility fall? It falls to you. Now, I don't believe in telling someone to do a job and not giving them the best tools that we can afford to do the job. But that seems to be how the government wants it.

Quote:

Which by the numbers show that good judgment is sadly lacking: "In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30896 deaths from firearms ..."

And this study from the University of Pennsylvania agrees with you.
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%2
0Updated%202009%20Section%201.pdf
It shows firearms related deaths of ~30,000 in 2005. That sure sounds like a lot. But in reality it is 0.000109% of the population. And this study by the US Census bureau in 1999 shows firearms are a much lower risk.
http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm
You see, the 30,000 figure probably also includes police justifiable shootings, defensive shootings, suicides, accidental shootings and criminals shooting criminals. You don't cite a study, so I can't be certain. The US census bureau only includes homicides.

Based on the census bureau figures do you want to address motor vehicle accidents, falls, poisoning, death by fire, drowning, ingestions and inhalation, and medical malpractice before we get to firearms?

Quote:

'Reasonable limits' is an idea you ducked in the previous thread, and here you seem to be flogging your 'I can do anything I want' slogan, so I thought I'd bring it here.

There are no reasonable limits. We have been following a progressive agenda for nearly 80 years and the lie keeps getting repeated; just one more law will make us safe. One more "reasonable" gun law. The problem is, people interested in a disarmed population are deciding what constitutes "reasonable".

I have asked you to come back to me with supportable facts. You continue to return with appeals to emotion. I'm going to start ignoring you unless you document your facts. You have ignored my facts and supporting documentation and shifted the argument to a different tack each time.

Here's my question to you; How would returning to no limits put as at more risk?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:57 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"And I gave an example of how we had NO limits at one time."

You mean the example where you claim kids could get guns and we had NO school shootings? None? Or only that you didn't bother to look any up? Did you consider all the other changes that have taken place that have everything to do with gangs and drugs? With increased mobility? I suspect not. Example? Hardly - merely your completely unsupported supposition that two things were related, without any solid facts or analysis to relate them together in a real historical way.

And your 1999 figures are not only out of date, they are seriously incomplete. Your figure for ACCIDENTAL gun deaths is about 1,100.

The 2008 figures for total firearms CONVICTION-ASSOCIATED MURDERS is ~ 11,000+. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_pri
sons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html Don't you think that this is a problem of judgment?

Then you can add in guns deaths from accidents - since I can't find statistics for that year let's call it 1,000.

What about shootings that didn't result in a convictions - anonymous drive-bys, or known gang-related for which no one will come forward? Or for which there is insufficient evidence for a conviction? Don't you think they should count?

Are there any figures for non-fatal injuries? How about non-fatal injuries that result in permanent disability?

How about property damage? DAMN! I sure killed the clothes in my closet!

Before I get on a roll and start totaling up ALL of the death, injury and damage due to firearms, I think you'd better settle on that 30,00 DEAD figure.

" We have been following a progressive agenda for nearly 80 years ..."

Please, this strains all notions of reality.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Based on the census bureau figures do you want to address ... medical malpractice before we get to firearms?

Speaking of medical malpractice, iatrogenesis is estimated in Wikipedia to kill roughly 225,000 people in the USA per year and is the third largest killer after heart disease and cancer.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Iatrogenesis

More conservative estimates put the death rate between 44,000 to 98,000 annually. Either way, it's a damn lot of people. Even the lowest estimates is higher than deaths caused by guns.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9728&page=1

Figure in this is AFTER we make those doctors go to med school and get licenses and such. What else can we try?

Should we try doctor control and ban doctors? No, that's silly right? Surely there is a way to keep doctors AND bring the staggering number of people they kill down a notch. Cause, you know, doctors are sometimes really useful and they DO save lives as well. Once you're committed to that, you work to find a solution within those parameters.

Children like to ban things. With kids, it is all or nothing. As we grow older, we learn to moderate our reactions, deal with gray areas and complex issues. Negotiate. Fine tune. Throw out the bathwater without the baby inside.

Now if you can work with that mindset with doctors, you can do it with guns.

Guns are also sometimes really useful and save lives as well.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:32 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Speaking of childish all or nothing thinking - please CTS, try to recall I never said anything about banning - just reasonable limits. It is you and H-ware who are engaged in all-or-nothing arguments.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:34 PM

Kiki's got a point concerning the arguement.

I'm not sure where I stand on reasonable gun limits. I don't like the idea the the government taking away people's freedoms, even if it's a right I will likely never exercise, but I also don't see the point in massive handgun clips. I just can't figure out how you would justify 31 bullets as for hunting game or self defense.

My grandpa had a few guns, and I vaguely remember him talking about one of the rifles. He mentioned something about magazine sizes and I asked why he didn't have a bigger one. He said something to the effect of "there's no point in having more than 5 rounds unless you intend to kill people." I don't remember what kind of gun it was, but I was small at the time. He let me shoot it and I remember seeing a bright flash come out of the end of the barrel right before it knocked me on my ass (there was only the one shot loaded he took gun safety very seriously).

I guess my point in that was, I don't have much of a knowledge base concerning firearms, but someone I knew who does believed about 5 shots was enough for anyone and I'm inclined to agree. Concerning whether that should be enforced by law... I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with that part.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
...try to recall I never said anything about banning - just reasonable limits...

Out of curiosity, could I ask what your reasonable limits are?

My post re gun banning wasn't addressed to you necessarily, but to all gun control advocates in general. Most gun control advocates want dramatic restrictions introduced, and a LOT of different types of guns and munitions to be banned outright. (This 31 rounds that's oft mentioned in this thread for example.)

I suspect some of your reasonable limits includes the banning of some high end weaponry as well.

I will reiterate I support the right to own warfare weaponry as a deterrent to the unchecked explosion of government control. The ownership of arms, even without using them, is self-defense against the govt's powers.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:28 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

CantTake:

You are 100% correct.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The ownership of arms, even without using them, is self-defense against the govt's powers.

I know where that belief comes from, but I don't think it's relevant anymore. As was stated previously, the Govt. has every weapon at their disposal, so what damn good is a little Glock gonna do anyone? Go out on the street, armed with multiple 31-shot magazines, and you're gonna get blown away long before you even see your "enemy."

Virginia Tech massacre
Fort Hood Massacre
Tucson Massacre

All these bloodbaths were made infinitely worse by the use of automatic handguns with big clips.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:22 AM

Quote:
... so what damn good is a little Glock gonna do anyone?

It's called guerilla warfare.

How did we win the American Revolution? How did Vietnam win against us? How did Afghan win against the Russians? How are the Iraqis and Afghans still keeping us there? Shouldn't we have won those wars by now?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
... so what damn good is a little Glock gonna do anyone?
It's called guerilla warfare.

What does gorilla warfare have to do with this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:52 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Who the fuck needs 31 rounds pal?
Someone who needs to kill a lot of people/animals quickly.

There are 3 reasons for arms.

1. Hunting or self-defense against animals.
2. Self defense against criminals.
3. Self defense against government.

Most gun rights activists talk about #1 and #2. But the real bottom line reason for the constitutional right to bear arms is #3. It is the right that enables all the other rights to exist.

It is not acceptable in our society to talk about armed revolution. But you have to remember the 2nd Amendment was written by people who got to where they were precisely because of armed revolution. It makes sense they would support that right.

So why do we need 31 rounds? We don't--not right now. But we want the RIGHT to keep it, just in case. We can't guarantee that our govt won't ever turn into the Third Reich.

It is also the very reason govt wants to take it away--how can they exert the kind of control they want if 31 rounds are loose and unidentified out there?

CTS,

Once more, you nailed it.

I get quite sick of hearing people use the 2A as their right to hunt, or their right to self defense against criminals, trespassers, etc.

But I also say that there's a reason that they didn't say that the people had a right to a musket. They recalled a time when the people could have been guaranteed a right to a rapier, and it wouldn't have done them any good which a government, foreign or domestic, came for them with muskets.

The most solid real second amendment case in the US is Waco. The govt. began attacking the compound *before* they knew that the Branch Davidians had guns.

IIRC, the first shots were fired by an FBI sniper, into the window, at the kids inside. Someone then shot out, in a standard, Heart of Gold style showdown. *Then* the FBI made its illegal firearms case, and sent in the ATF.

Here's the problem: (Oh, one of many)

When Clinton and Reno sent Wesley Clark in to lead the attack, he sent in tanks with incendiary rounds and chemical incendiary powder fired into the basement.

Wesley Clark, Clinton, is in the Erik Prince category of "Really fucking evil." There are some tales of what he did in Yugoslavia that makes this abundantly clear.

Also, anyone who watched any of the debates for 2004 democratic nomination, or any of his town hall meetings, knows that Wesley Clark is really fucking smart. That's a dangerous combination.

The Branch Davidians did not have a right to tanks, incendiary rounds, or chemical weapons. A rather sticky point could be made that under the Geneva Conventions which we were supposedly still adhering to at the time, the US Govt. didn't have a right to chemical weapons.

The snag with this rather sticky point is that what the govt. is supposed to have or supposed to do don't have a whole lot of bearing on reality of what they actually do. This is one of the thing which people who call for "govt. regulation" to solve a problem don't get.

Ergo, the Branch Davidians had a second amendment right to defend themselves. Not with guns. With arms. Those arms being whatever would have been necessary to defend against whatever the govt. was *actually* potentially going to use against them.

In this case, what they needed was at the very least, an anti-tank artillery battery. Knowing that if they had actually deployed one, the US govt. would have send in helicopter snipers and air strikes, they were going to need RPGs and anti-aircraft systems.

Where does this end? I say on the world "defense." Meaning the Branch Davidian compound did not have the right to its own nuke, but it did have a right to it's own anti-ballistic missile shield.

Now, if this republic is not going to guarantee those rights, we are going to have to form one which does. Otherwise, the result is sure to be tyranny.

ETA: Story has a point. You can argue that the first Zulu war was won by guys with spears, and therefore, a spear was sufficient defense. Japan was defeated by nukes. Any future scenario needs to not only take that into account, but needs to take out past and future weapons as well.

The Native Americans were defeated in part by small pox, which was spread in part, intentionally, much like HIV was spread intentionally by the WHO in Africa and the former Soviet Union. Biological warfare is reality. Guns ain't gonna stop it, even if you kill the guys who started it, and usually, you know, they were doctors, and didn't get labeled as combatants.

I would like to see development of purely defensive weapons. I'd like to see this idea implemented by countries like South Korea and Taiwan, who *know* that attacking China would just give the commies an excuse to invade, but have trillion dollar economies which will be taken over or destroyed if they did. Ergo, the money is there to build this technology, we just have to do it. And if done right, we don't need to fear those technologies. A bunch of guys are not going to come to my door with an anti-nuke battery and the cure for small pox, and if they come with guns, I want to nail them with a tranq.

ETA: Jong sort of has a point, except that aside from fort hood which I think was an FN57, weren't the other two gunmen carrying Glocks?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:17 AM

BYTEMITE

I concede kiki has a point about drugs and gangs. And I also concede DT's point about "arms" instead of weapons.

Mostly I just want to say that holing up in a fortified compound with your own kids is a really stupid tactic. I think people are missing what really wins battles for guerrilla fighters: mobility, technology denial, and hearts and minds combat. If you're mobile it's harder to hit you with chemicals/biological and artillery precision strikes. If you have people who like you more than the jerks chasing you, they're willing to risk their necks a bit to put you up for a night. And if you can sneak on a base at night and wonk up some helicoptors and tanks, not only can they not bring those against you, but you also have some classic lol material.

This is where suicide bombing gets foolish, because they're trying for the sabotage strategy, but the method and approach eventually loses the hearts and minds battle. The best guerrilla fighter would actually kill no one, because somehow somewhere killing will turn the hearts and minds against you. The best tactic is to just make the bastards lose so much money that the war becomes unwinnable. This is why Robin Hood has such good PR.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:26 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
How did Afghan win against the Russians? How are the Iraqis and Afghans still keeping us there?

Don't forget stinger missiles, IED's, car bombs, suicide vests - BIG factors in these conflicts. Should the 2nd ammendment preserve citizens' right to all/any of these? Where should we draw the line?

(Another factor in guerrilla warfare is the terrain - jungle in vietnam, mountains and desert in Afghanistan - combined with a lack of infrastructure.)

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:29 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I'll give up my 30 round magazines as soon as the government gives up all of theirs.

The government also has tanks, planes, helicopters and nukes - should citizens be allowed these too? Some guy might want to have his own tank, and aren't you infringing on his freedom if you deny him that right?

Again, where do you draw the line?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:57 AM

Quote:
The government also has tanks, planes, helicopters and nukes - should citizens be allowed these too? Some guy might want to have his own tank, and aren't you infringing on his freedom if you deny him that right?

Again, where do you draw the line?

Quote:
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.

Would said citizen be a member of a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State by any chance? That's where I would draw the line.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:09 AM

Another appeal to emotion vomited forth by 1kiki. Imagine my surprise.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"And I gave an example of how we had NO limits at one time."

You mean the example where you claim kids could get guns and we had NO school shootings? None? Or only that you didn't bother to look any up? Did you consider all the other changes that have taken place that have everything to do with gangs and drugs? With increased mobility? I suspect not. Example? Hardly - merely your completely unsupported supposition that two things were related, without any solid facts or analysis to relate them together in a real historical way.

National Firearms Act of 1934. Look it up.

The first national firearms law. Instituted under and with the blessing of FDR, a progressive president.

Remember the year, 1934. I'll be coming back around to that later on.

Quote:

And your 1999 figures are not only out of date, they are seriously incomplete. Your figure for ACCIDENTAL gun deaths is about 1,100.

The 2008 figures for total firearms CONVICTION-ASSOCIATED MURDERS is ~ 11,000+. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_pri
sons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html Don't you think that this is a problem of judgment?

Then you can add in guns deaths from accidents - since I can't find statistics for that year let's call it 1,000.

What about shootings that didn't result in a convictions - anonymous drive-bys, or known gang-related for which no one will come forward? Or for which there is insufficient evidence for a conviction? Don't you think they should count?

Are there any figures for non-fatal injuries? How about non-fatal injuries that result in permanent disability?

How about property damage? DAMN! I sure killed the clothes in my closet!

Before I get on a roll and start totaling up ALL of the death, injury and damage due to firearms, I think you'd better settle on that 30,00 DEAD figure.

30,000 dead. Okay, let's use that for a yardstick. It is still ~0.000109% of the population of the US. Percentages under 1 are considered statistically insignificant. But there are many causes of death and injury that outstrip firearms.

But just wailing and gnashing of teeth isn't enough for 1kiki. No. Let's cry and moan over all the stuff. The ephemeral, replaceable THINGS that can get damaged by a gun.

You must have a conniption fit when you spill coffee on yourself. All the wasted money on ruined clothing!!!111!!!

Quote:

" We have been following a progressive agenda for nearly 80 years ..."

Please, this strains all notions of reality.

1934. FDR. Progressive president. Founder of numerous entitlement programs. Supporter of the NFA. 2011-1934=77 years. Nearly 80 years.
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act (interesting, modeled after Nazi Germany's 1938 Law on Weapons by Senator Thomas Dodd. http://jpfo.org/common-sense/cs34.htm )
1972 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms created
1986 Law Enforcement Officer's Protection Act
1990 Crime Control Act
1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

All these laws, at a Federal Level, and can you honestly say the streets are safer than they were in 1937?

I asked you these before and you avoided the questions, so, answer all the questions I ask you or I'll just brand you a libtard thread bomber troll and assume you have nothing to add to the conversation.

Based on the census bureau figures do you want to address motor vehicle accidents, falls, poisoning, death by fire, drowning, ingestions and inhalation, and medical malpractice before we get to firearms?

Do you want to go all the way to the Gulag before you say that we've gone far enough?

How would returning to no limits put as at more risk?

So, 4 answers or you are a libtard thread bomber troll. Try using the "reply with quote" function so you don't have to strain your memory.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The ownership of arms, even without using them, is self-defense against the govt's powers.

I know where that belief comes from, but I don't think it's relevant anymore. As was stated previously, the Govt. has every weapon at their disposal, so what damn good is a little Glock gonna do anyone? Go out on the street, armed with multiple 31-shot magazines, and you're gonna get blown away long before you even see your "enemy."

Because tanks need fuel. Jets need a place to land. Helicopters need ammunition. Everyone who operates them needs food, parts to maintain them and a safe place to sleep.

The first rule is to hit 'em where they ain't. Read your Nathan Bedford Forrest. Trucks, supply dumps, repair depots, rear area bases and manufacturing facilities are where you would be hitting. All of them are relatively soft targets.

Quote:

Virginia Tech massacre
Fort Hood Massacre
Tucson Massacre

All these bloodbaths were made infinitely worse by the use of high-powered automatic handguns with big clips.

I guarantee you, a 9mm is not high powered. The 5.7mm pistol the Major used at Fort Hood is also not a high powered pistol round.

If any of the shooters had been trained to do the job the results would have been infinitely worse. Look up Youtube videos of Jerry Miculek. He works with a 6-8 shot Smith and Wesson revolver. He is so fast it beggars description. With his level of training there would have been a CROWD when he was done.

Quote:

Also, FWIW, I thought Obama did a magnificent job last night at the memorial service.

I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, but yes.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:22 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Would said citizen be a member of a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State by any chance?

I don't know myself... but you're saying not, I take it?

You're interpreting it as the right to keep and bear small arms?

My interpretation would be different. First of all I think the FF's were thinking of the citizens defending the state from an outside threat. I don't think they had in mind citizens having to fight the government and were talking about that... But if we do take that interpretation, as some people in this thread have, I have argued that the citizens would need more than small arms against the forces the US government has at its disposal - so the FF's would be scandalised and horrified at your curtailing citizens' rights to own tanks and bazukas etc...

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
I'll give up my 30 round magazines as soon as the government gives up all of theirs.

The government also has tanks, planes, helicopters and nukes - should citizens be allowed these too? Some guy might want to have his own tank, and aren't you infringing on his freedom if you deny him that right?

Again, where do you draw the line?

It's not personal. It's just war.

There are many tanks in private hands. Several individuals have tank collections. Also, private individuals own not only piston engined fighters, bombers and attack planes, but also jet powered models as well. Some of which had types in service in the US military until the 1990's. There are lots of helicopters in private hands.

There are many events around the country where competitors come together to shoot black powder cannon. Admittedly, you need some wide open spaces for this sort of sport, but they can be very destructive. Good for us the BATFE does not consider any arm using black powder as a firearm and they are unregulated.
http://www.hatchergun.com/blkpwdrcannon.htm

Don't punish possession, punish misuse.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
I thought Obama did a magnificent job last night at the memorial service.

I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, but yes.

What other shoe would that be?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:50 AM

Quote:
I don't know myself... but you're saying not, I take it?

You're interpreting it as the right to keep and bear small arms?

My interpretation would be different. First of all I think the FF's were thinking of the citizens defending the state from an outside threat. I don't think they had in mind citizens having to fight the government and were talking about that... But if we do take that interpretation, as some people in this thread have, I have argued that the citizens would need more than small arms against the forces the US government has at its disposal - so the FF's would be scandalised and horrified at your curtailing citizens' rights to own tanks and bazukas etc...

It's not personal. It's just war.

It's not entirely clear whether the amendment is meant to protect personal ownership of arms and not just 'small arms' or ownership of arms as part of a well regulated militia. Either way, if the citizens were part of a well regulated militia I don't see any problem with them having tanks, bazookas, jets, etc... I'm not curtailing anyone's rights, I'm just trying to understand them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:56 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Percentages under 1 are considered statistically insignificant. But there are many causes of death and injury that outstrip firearms.

But just wailing and gnashing of teeth isn't enough for 1kiki. No. Let's cry and moan over all the stuff. The ephemeral, replaceable THINGS that can get damaged by a gun.

You lost me here.

There are a number of cases where values below 1% are in fact significant... Such as certain chemicals being toxic in the parts per million range. I think human life might also fall under that heading, and I question whether it is in fact replaceable.

I prefer the risk/choice based argument myself. But to each their own.

Quote:
All these laws, at a Federal Level, and can you honestly say the streets are safer than they were in 1937?

That may be a factor of population growth and world-screwed-up-ness more than the laws. However, unnecessary, draconian, and bureaucratic laws do contribute to world-screwed-up-ness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:16 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I find it very frustrating that no one but me has brought up the lack of affordable, effective and discrete, mental health care as a root cause of this.

But no, too easy to blame all the symptoms, keep taking cough syrup for tuberculosis, yanno ?

Or maybe even addressing how he got so messed up in the first damn place, that'd be a bloody start.

But no, blame a tool, blame an inanimate object, blame anything but the society that cranks out people so broken that they're capable of such deeds, cause THAT, would start pointing fingers at US - wouldn't it now ?

-Frem

Guns have a certain popularity as weapon of choice with the angry society haters. If the trend was to drive a car into large crowds then we'd be talking about how do we stop that from happening.

Loughner was kicked out of the college he was attending and told he couldn't return until he had a clean bill of mental health, whatever that means. How do you tell an unstable person they're unstable and need help? Who takes that responsibility on? What would make anyone think they would listen?

fwiw - I'll never be convinced that a society that has guns to the extent that we do is a healthy one, or doesn't have some mental health issues of its own. CTS says she feels the need for having a gun to protect her from her government - does that sound like we're in a good place?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA

So the answer to defending oneself against a threat is to cast away that defense as a secondary threat without ever acknowledging the primary one ?

I reject that, categorically.

And so long as those calling for "reasonable restrictions" outright ADMIT total prohibition is their goal, no - I will not surrender one goddamned inch to them, period.

Cause prohibition worked SO WELL with Booze, and SO WELL with Drugs, yeahhhhh.

If you cannot see how asinine it is, we got nothin to talk about.

Now I do have ideas on actual compromise, but until I am convinced such a compromise isn't just another thinly veiled move towards total prohibition, I refuse to offer them, despite having done so before around here.

And one final note, find damn near any massacre, genocide, or massive cultural slaughter in recent history, and note what happened just prior to it.
While I admit the source is biased, this chart does speak for itself.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

You have to understand, ever since I was but a wee little child, MY first question when someone wants me to ground arms is WHAT ARE YOUR INTENTIONS ?
And you know, I have yet to recieve any answer to that which didn't encourage me to BOLSTER my defenses, thank you kindly.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Again, where do you draw the line?

Why should we even HAVE a line?

Let look at the question from another perspective.

Let's say Al, Bob, and Charlie are regular average guys, except their full time jobs are to be "the government." At home, working their asses away making cars and tshirts and computers, are regular average guys Dick, Ed, Fred.

Now, Al, Bob, and Charlie not only have the power to make laws, execute laws, and interpret laws in court, they also have loads and loads of weapons. From pistols all the way to the nuclear bomb.

What keeps Al, Bob, and Charlie from making whatever kind of law they want, rape the environment, defraud the working class, pimp out the future of the children, oppress the poor, and suck the economy dry so they and their ultra-elite cronies can become even more ultra-elite?

Why draw a line between why Al, Bob, and Charlie can be trusted with all those weapons and nuclear bombs, and not trust Dick, Ed, and Fred? What makes the first 3 so special?

"Government" doesn't magically make its people more trustworthy or more honorable or less evil. Government is just a group of men/women. People outside of government are just a group of men/women.

Why say one group of men/women can be entrusted with warfare weapons, and the other group of men/women isn't?

And what would naturally happen if you did?

Now some weapons are so dangerous and powerful that one cannot fathom their being owned by individuals. That is, it is thought that nuclear weapons are "safe" with the govt because they are collectively owned and operated in a structured monkeysphere with checks and balances. One lone nut can't launch an a-bomb; you'd need at least say, 50 nuts in unanimous agreement. Since that is hard to come by, we're usually pretty safe from a-bombs.

You want to put group ownership restrictions on certain weapons that match the conditions that exist in the govt? OK, I can live with that.

But no double standards. If Al, Bob, and Charlie can do it, then Dick, Ed, and Fred should have the freedom to do it too. Or at least, have freedom to store weapons so that if Al, Bob, and Charlie ever go way too far, Dick, Ed, and Fred can actually resist.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:57 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

You're assuming by this: "I'll never be convinced that a society that has guns to the extent that we do is a healthy one, or doesn't have some mental health issues of its own" that I am suggesting that we should take away everyone's guns? I'm not, I'm suggesting that the problem is the lack of trust, earned or otherwise. If you trusted your gov would you feel the need to have guns? If you trusted your neighbors more, would you feel the need to have guns? The answer isn't better government through more guns, it's just better government.
BTW if you don't see the total irony in the fact that whenever someone even suggests we might be better off with less guns the comment is usually met with some gun owner saying they'd kill before they'd give up their guns... then yeah, we're on opposite ends of this.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
I thought Obama did a magnificent job last night at the memorial service.

I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, but yes.

What other shoe would that be?

In the words of Rahm Emanuel, Obama's departed chief of staff; "Never waste a good crisis." I'm waiting for the push to make hay while the public is still focused on the tragedy. I don't know what form that might take, but these are politicians we're talking about. I expect any member of the species to drape themselves in the shrouds of the fallen to push their agenda.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:
All these laws, at a Federal Level, and can you honestly say the streets are safer than they were in 1937?

That may be a factor of population growth and world-screwed-up-ness more than the laws. However, unnecessary, draconian, and bureaucratic laws do contribute to world-screwed-up-ness.

I believe you are approaching the problem from a perspective that laws deter crime. I believe that laws encourage crime. Using an economic model, tariffs and trade restrictions increase the incidence of smuggling. Supply has fallen while demand remains and the price goes up. Higher prices for the product act as an inducement for others to risk the penalties for breaking the law.

This may not hold exactly true for personal crimes, but remember that any time someone murders for profit, they are validating my theory.

It is this exact logic that underscores the fallacy of the current government's assertion that US guns are being smuggled into Mexico. I'm going to buy a high priced AR-15 in the US, when I can buy an AK-47 in Ecuador for approximately $15. Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
If you trusted your gov would you feel the need to have guns? If you trusted your neighbors more, would you feel the need to have guns? The answer isn't better government through more guns, it's just better government.

That's EXACTLY right. The entire gun control debate is about trust.

I grew up in military dictatorships and police states. I never met a govt I can trust. So gun control advocates might call me paranoid and suspicious. And I would call them naive and gullible. Maybe one day, I'll be proven wrong, that good God, I could have trusted my govt all along because it is filled with good and kind people. I hope so. That would be a very pleasant way to be wrong.

Short of that, it is a matter of maximizing trust. I trust a govt with checks and balances more than a govt with none whatsoever. Between two govts with the same checks and balances, I would trust the govt who, in addition, has to answer to an armed citizenry more than the govt who doesn't.

Incidentally, do even know who are all those people you call "government"? If you do, how well do you have to know them to be able to trust them?

See, though I know some of their names and what they look like and what they say they stand for, I don't know any of them. I've never spent more than 5 minutes with any of them. They are strangers who look good on TV. Why should I trust them?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:27 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
If you trusted your gov would you feel the need to have guns? If you trusted your neighbors more, would you feel the need to have guns? The answer isn't better government through more guns, it's just better government.
That's EXACTLY right. The entire gun control debate is about trust.

I grew up in military dictatorships and police states. I never met a govt I can trust. So gun control advocates might call me paranoid and suspicious. And I would call them naive and gullible. Maybe one day, I'll be proven wrong, that good God, I could have trusted my govt all along because it is filled with good and kind people. I hope so. That would be a very pleasant way to be wrong.

Short of that, it is a matter of maximizing trust. I trust a govt with checks and balances more than a govt with none whatsoever. Between two govts with the same checks and balances, I would trust the govt who, in addition, has to answer to an armed citizenry more than the govt who doesn't.

Incidentally, do even know who are all those people you call "government"? If you do, how well do you have to know them to be able to trust them?

See, though I know some of their names and what they look like and what they say they stand for, I don't know any of them. I've never spent more than 5 minutes with any of them. They are strangers who look good on TV. Why should I trust them?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

I don't trust any of them, and think we should hold them more accountable and to a greater degree than we currently do, but I don't feel the need for a gun for that. They'll lie, cheat and steal, but will they march on my house? It's never been clear to me what these evil intentions are that are so feared... will they start wars I disagree with? Did that. Will having a gun stop that? No.
I really don't think the Gov gives a damn whether I have a gun or not in terms of it influencing they're behavior either - they're not sitting there wishing, "if only we could get their guns away from them so we can..."
You're having grown up in a police state does help me understand you position though.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:27 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Would said citizen be a member of a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State by any chance?

I don't know myself... but you're saying not, I take it?

You're interpreting it as the right to keep and bear small arms?

My interpretation would be different. First of all I think the FF's were thinking of the citizens defending the state from an outside threat. I don't think they had in mind citizens having to fight the government and were talking about that... But if we do take that interpretation, as some people in this thread have, I have argued that the citizens would need more than small arms against the forces the US government has at its disposal - so the FF's would be scandalised and horrified at your curtailing citizens' rights to own tanks and bazukas etc...

It's not personal. It's just war.

It's funny how you can change your view from talking to people on the Internet (by the way, I meant 'one' not 'you' personally) just didn't want to sound too pompous. I never had a clue why Americans were so attached to their firearms. Now I really get how the 2nd amendment is so enmeshed in your national psyche. I really quite like the idea of well armed militias being able to be mobilised to defend themselves.

I don't think it sounds as if that is the reason why most people want their guns. They like them... they're big kids toys.... they like hunting...they want to defend themselves from home invasion, they don't want the government telling them what to do...

I think if you were going to follow the 2nd amendment to its logical conclusion, you would firstly be calling for the immediate disbandment of your enormous standing army/navy/airforce. A large, well armed, hugely equiped government run military is probably one of the worst things you can if you are trying to avoid tyranny, and makes a mockery of encouraging militias. In fact its one of the features of any tyranny, along with the capacity to imprison, torture and execute citizens because they pose a national threat to the state.

I've posted this before, but Switzerland has something of this model, a small standing army, but compulsory national service, which includes compulsory arms ownership (for those who have completed the service). What you have is a large trained and armed population ready to defend themselves against invasion. I might add that there are fairly tough laws about how you keep your guns and ammo, and I think they require inspection every so often. The Swiss are kind of the opposite to the US in other ways, they love laws. I mean love them.

I do believe that Switzerland has fairly high of high gun deaths, but I may be wrong on that and I can't be bothered finding gun death stats to prove or disprove it.

I guess the other thing that bothers me is the dishonesty around the outcome of high gun ownership, which is blatantly high levels of gun death and injury, partoicularly from the likes of NRA type organisations. Increased guns = increased gun deaths. It's kind of human nature, if more drugs are available more people will use them, more will suffer addiction issues, health and social problems etc. Same with alcohol. Same if you don't have laws re alcohol and driving. The issue is whether you can be honest enough to say....we know what the fall out is, but this is an issue of freedom, so we are prepared to put up with and accept the negatives consequences in order that our rights are not infringed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
I thought Obama did a magnificent job last night at the memorial service.

I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, but yes.

What other shoe would that be?

In the words of Rahm Emanuel, Obama's departed chief of staff; "Never waste a good crisis." I'm waiting for the push to make hay while the public is still focused on the tragedy. I don't know what form that might take, but these are politicians we're talking about. I expect any member of the species to drape themselves in the shrouds of the fallen to push their agenda.

A month ago it looked like Republicans had Obama in a box. Now it seems he has outflanked, outsmarted, and out-maneuvered Republicans, and he has them in a box. How can John Boehner continue attacking Obamacare and symbolically vote to repeal it when the entire process now looks like the partisan vitriol that Obama condemned so eloquently to the entire nation last night? Jeeez, Boehner didn't even attend the memorial service last night. I don't know why he was absent, but as the new Speaker he should have been there supporting his fallen House member. He did give one of his teary-eyed speeches in Congress earlier, but his mojo is running dry fast. Not his tear ducts, just his mojo. Meanwhile, Obama is cruising with a new life and new popularity after his lame-duck accomplishments and great speech last night.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:00 PM