off topic Century 16 Movie Theater shooting in Aurora

[TrueBlueGED]

Take away everyone's guns and you'd find out pretty quickly.

I think the British were thinking the same back in the day.

 

I bet the peasants of North Korea would like some weaponry about now. Or the peasants of Rwanda, for that matter. Oh, but none of these are the USA. I guess I don't have an argument, then, since we all think such things can never happen here, in our time.

 

We pass these rights down generation to generation just in case. One day these rights will mean everything...just because we may not be alive to see it doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Thank God you think you don't need those rights.

 

Again, you're both talking outside of reality. The reality is, if the government wants to start oppressing the crap out of us, no amount of AR-15s stashed in your basement is going to do you a damn bit of good if an MIA1 rolls down the street, or a drone targets you with a hellfire missile, or an Apache is patrolling the skies. It's all a bunch of garbage. The only way to remotely defend against a government assault is with military-grade, anti-armor weaponry. Does anybody think I should be able to purchase a stinger missile at Gander Mountain? Or how about a mortar, should those be readily available? Actually how about we go to the extreme that I should be able to purchase an F-22 to protect myself in case the government tries to enforce marshal law. This "protection against government oppression" is such an absurd fallacy.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Suuuure.

 

What's sad is he'll never have the chance to tell you "Told you so", because the internet will be down at the same time.

 

"We don't need a bunch of goons......we need skill and to score goals!"

 

And then Mr. Lucic comes along.

[darksabre]

Again, you're both talking outside of reality. The reality is, if the government wants to start oppressing the crap out of us, no amount of AR-15s stashed in your basement is going to do you a damn bit of good if an MIA1 rolls down the street, or a drone targets you with a hellfire missile, or an Apache is patrolling the skies. It's all a bunch of garbage. The only way to remotely defend against a government assault is with military-grade, anti-armor weaponry. Does anybody think I should be able to purchase a stinger missile at Gander Mountain? Or how about a mortar, should those be readily available? Actually how about we go to the extreme that I should be able to purchase an F-22 to protect myself in case the government tries to enforce marshal law. This "protection against government oppression" is such an absurd fallacy.

 

Not even a fallacy as much as a pipe dream. There's a lot of people out there who would love to take a shot at the US government; in fact they think it'll happen in their life time. That's why the NRA and all these wacky militias exist.

 

Jimbo and Bobby all wanna fight the Civil War over again.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Again, you're both talking outside of reality. The reality is, if the government wants to start oppressing the crap out of us, no amount of AR-15s stashed in your basement is going to do you a damn bit of good if an MIA1 rolls down the street, or a drone targets you with a hellfire missile, or an Apache is patrolling the skies. It's all a bunch of garbage. The only way to remotely defend against a government assault is with military-grade, anti-armor weaponry. Does anybody think I should be able to purchase a stinger missile at Gander Mountain? Or how about a mortar, should those be readily available? Actually how about we go to the extreme that I should be able to purchase an F-22 to protect myself in case the government tries to enforce marshal law. This "protection against government oppression" is such an absurd fallacy.

 

Wow.....wonder what career field you're headed for? ;)

[darksabre]

What's sad is he'll never have the chance to tell you "Told you so", because the internet will be down at the same time.

 

"We don't need a bunch of goons......we need skill and to score goals!"

 

And then Mr. Lucic comes along.

 

So you think it's realistic to expect the US Government to take up military arms against its own people? Without intervention from say....the UN? Or Canada? Or Britain? Or Mexico? Or any other country that would want to hit us while our pants are around our ankles?

 

There is no way, in modern times, that the United States will ever enact full military assault on its own people. It will never happen.

[Peppy22]

I know it's a difficult topic but I don't understand how someone can legaly buy that many guns.

[Weave]

Perhaps you are the one spreading misinformation. You are wrong about the wording of the 1994 assault weapons ban. I will give you that "easy" is perhaps not the best choice of words for an AR-15 modification, but it can be done with a little bit of cash and know-how.

 

And the addition of parts that the manufacturer is required to register with the federal government. And significant modifications to the AR receiver. In order to purchase those parts you must be registered with the federal government as being licensed to possess fully auto weapons. Regular, ordinary people are not, and can not, purchas the components necessary to perform this modification. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

 

The 1994 bill specifically banned 19 different types of military-style semi-automatic guns (AK-47s, Uzis, TEC-9s, etc.). The ban made it unlawful to “manufacture, transfer

or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon” made after September 1994, as well as large capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The AR-15 used by this kid in the theater shooting would have been banned.

http://home.comcast....jd/rkba/awb.htm

(The actual bill is a monster, so I don't expect anyone here to actually read it.)

 

To be clear, the point of bills like this isn't to eliminate such weapons, it is to make them harder to obtain and it also gives the police more jurisdiction to confiscate certain high-powered weapons without researching the legality of ownership.

 

Reread the 1st page of your link. The bill banned:

Any semiautomatic rifle made after 9/13/94, which can accept a detachable magazine and which has two or more of the following characteristics is a banned AW:

• Folding or telescoping stock,
  
• Pistol grip which protrudes conspicuously below the action of the gun,
  
• Bayonet mount,
  
• Flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor,
  
• Grenade launcher.
  

Like I said, plenty of guns were made, sold, and imported during this "ban", they just gave them non folding stocks without pistol grips, and took off the flash suppresors, etc. I know they were available from this time period because I have purchased them. Legally. Filled out all the paperwork.

[TrueBlueGED]

Wow.....wonder what career field you're headed for? ;)

 

I'm in the "against crappy arguments" field, but.....touche :P .

 

It's just ridiculous how people try to create outrageous justifications for wanting to own guns. Why can't it just be "The Second Amendment says I can own guns, I like my guns, and I don't want to give them up"...? Why is that so hard? Instead, it's "the government will be afraid of the peashooter in my closet!" If the government wants to shove a hellfire missile up your ass, having a few assault weapons isn't going to deter it. In fact, if ###### ever truly hit the fan, owning assault weapons is probably painting a giant target on your back for said hellfire missile.

[Weave]

I'm in the "against crappy arguments" field, but.....touche :P .

 

It's just ridiculous how people try to create outrageous justifications for wanting to own guns. Why can't it just be "The Second Amendment says I can own guns, I like my guns, and I don't want to give them up"...? Why is that so hard? Instead, it's "the government will be afraid of the peashooter in my closet!" If the government wants to shove a hellfire missile up your ass, having a few assault weapons isn't going to deter it. In fact, if ###### ever truly hit the fan, owning assault weapons is probably painting a giant target on your back for said hellfire missile.

 

Because there is no internet baddassery in, I just like to own guns. :D

[SwampD]

Again, you're both talking outside of reality. The reality is, if the government wants to start oppressing the crap out of us, no amount of AR-15s stashed in your basement is going to do you a damn bit of good if an MIA1 rolls down the street, or a drone targets you with a hellfire missile, or an Apache is patrolling the skies. It's all a bunch of garbage. The only way to remotely defend against a government assault is with military-grade, anti-armor weaponry. Does anybody think I should be able to purchase a stinger missile at Gander Mountain? Or how about a mortar, should those be readily available? Actually how about we go to the extreme that I should be able to purchase an F-22 to protect myself in case the government tries to enforce marshal law. This "protection against government oppression" is such an absurd fallacy.

How's that workin' out in Afghanistan?

So you think it's realistic to expect the US Government to take up military arms against its own people? Without intervention from say....the UN? Or Canada? Or Britain? Or Mexico? Or any other country that would want to hit us while our pants are around our ankles?

 

There is no way, in modern times, that the United States will ever enact full military assault on its own people. It will never happen.

Yeah, cuz history has proven over and over that that never happens. Somehow we'll be different, I just know it.

[darksabre]

How's that workin' out in Afghanistan?

 

Yeah, cuz history has proven over and over that that never happens. Somehow we'll be different, I just know it.

 

Britain doesn't have guns and their government seems to be doing just fine at not oppressing them.

 

This isn't the 1700s. This isn't the Middle Ages. This is a globalized time where the US striking out and oppressing its people will basically ensure its complete and total destruction.

 

The whole argument is the same as "my commercial air liner might go down so I brought my own parachute".

 

We don't need these silly pacifiers. They're pointless.

[Guest Sloth]

Britain doesn't have guns and their government seems to be doing just fine at not oppressing them.

 

This isn't the 1700s. This isn't the Middle Ages. This is a globalized time where the US striking out and oppressing its people will basically ensure its complete and total destruction.

 

The whole argument is the same as "my commercial air liner might go down so I brought my own parachute".

 

We don't need these silly pacifiers. They're pointless.

 

Agreed. :thumbsup:

[SwampD]

Britain doesn't have guns and their government seems to be doing just fine at not oppressing them.

 

This isn't the 1700s. This isn't the Middle Ages. This is a globalized time where the US striking out and oppressing its people will basically ensure its complete and total destruction.

 

The whole argument is the same as "my commercial air liner might go down so I brought my own parachute".

 

We don't need these silly pacifiers. They're pointless.

You're probably right. I don't know where you were shortly after 9-11, but it got really weird around here in the NYC area. The national furvor to go and kill brown people scared the ch!t out of me. As a liberal (vote mostly Dem), I was really glad I had my guns (never mind the fact that they are family guns and have been locked in a case for twenty years now).

[darksabre]

Now, to balance my point, I love guns. They're a ton of fun. I've owned several over the years and would love to collect them someday. I see no harm in having guns.

 

But am I going to be heartbroken if I can't own a full auto AK? Or a M82? No. Because I don't need it. They wont do me any good ever, for anything.

 

When and if the shizz ever hits the fan, it isn't going to matter how much killing my guns can do. We no longer live in an era of musketballs and bayonets. We live in an age where if the US decides it wants to kick our ######, we're just going to have to take it like men, because our stupid little militias wont stand a chance.

 

I'll take a wool blanket and a bottle of Rye. That'll do me more good than an AR-15 ever will.

 

You're probably right. I don't know where you were shortly after 9-11, but it got really weird around here in the NYC area. The national furvor to go and kill brown people scared the ch!t out of me. As a liberal (vote mostly Dem), I was really glad I had my guns (never mind the fact that they are family guns and have been locked in a case for twenty years now).

 

Nothin wrong with having them to protect yourself from the crazies. But we both know if anything got real the Army would have been in there stomping faces with the greatest of ease.

[SwampD]

Now, to balance my point, I love guns. They're a ton of fun. I've owned several over the years and would love to collect them someday. I see no harm in having guns.

 

But am I going to be heartbroken if I can't own a full auto AK? Or a M82? No. Because I don't need it. They wont do me any good ever, for anything.

 

When and if the shizz ever hits the fan, it isn't going to matter how much killing my guns can do. We no longer live in an era of musketballs and bayonets. We live in an age where if the US decides it wants to kick our ######, we're just going to have to take it like men, because our stupid little militias wont stand a chance.

 

I'll take a wool blanket and a bottle of Rye. That'll do me more good than an AR-15 ever will.

 

 

 

Nothin wrong with having them to protect yourself from the crazies. But we both know if anything got real the Army would have been in there stomping faces with the greatest of ease.

I'm not sure about that. There's no oil under my house. :devil:

[TrueBlueGED]

You're probably right. I don't know where you were shortly after 9-11, but it got really weird around here in the NYC area. The national furvor to go and kill brown people scared the ch!t out of me. As a liberal (vote mostly Dem), I was really glad I had my guns (never mind the fact that they are family guns and have been locked in a case for twenty years now).

 

And I can completely respect that. I'm not personally a gun owner, but I have plenty of friends who own them, and I have nothing against gun ownership in general. I just don't think some sensible regulations are going to cause the doom of freedom, that's all.

 

And frankly, if you want to be able to fight the government if ###### hits the fan, start becoming a programming nerd and elite hacker, that'll be way more effective than a few guns ;)

[Guest Sloth]

And I can completely respect that. I'm not personally a gun owner, but I have plenty of friends who own them, and I have nothing against gun ownership in general. I just don't think some sensible regulations are going to cause the doom of freedom, that's all.

 

And frankly, if you want to be able to fight the government if ###### hits the fan, start becoming a programming nerd and elite hacker, that'll be way more effective than a few guns ;)

 

Die Hard 4 showed that! lol That movie blew so bad...

[drnkirishone]

the problem with gun control is where does it end? it was we gotta ban full automatic weapons. It has mostly happened with only gun experts and what not being allowed to purchase them now. Now its we gotta ban semi automatics with clips. So lets say that happens. how long till we say lets ban every weapon type from 1777 on up?

 

I agree that me owning some rifles and shotguns won't stop a miltary strike from killing me and destroying my house. The right to bear arms to me is meant to provide a form of resistance to opression from my govt or a conquering one by making the cost of oppression so high that the oppressors can't sustain it.

 

Having said that, more work needs to be done to keep weapons out of the hands of maniacs

[...]

Even with the US arms catalog at there disposal, there's no way the government could simply storm the streets and not suffer for it, especially with an armed citizenry. Witness Iraq and Afgahnistan. A 1 million man army versus the remaining 299 million, even though the former is well equipped, is not the greatest of odds.

 

Not all of those million will take up arms against their own people, of course, nor will the 299 million fight back, but the point stands.

 

Vietnam is another great illustration of the point.

 

Reality? Did Hooker Chemical expect the city of Niagara Falls to build a neighborhood on a chemical dump? "It says in the contract there's a dump there, I don't know why they want the land, but surely they 'll never build houses there..."

 

Did the Japanese engineers think a tsunami would come and cause a nuclear meltdown? Did WE ever think there'd be a terrorist strike like 9/11 before it ever happened? Modern examples of a tragic short-sighted perspective abound. You can choose to ignore that reality, and stick with trying to pigeonhole "reality" to fit your world view, or accept the truth that human history shows ANYTHING is possible.

 

 

 

 

And frankly, if you want to be able to fight the government if ###### hits the fan, start becoming a programming nerd and elite hacker, that'll be way more effective than a few guns ;)

 

A few EMP bombs and a lot of the electronics are removed from the equation.

[wjag]

I would be personally in favor of a hand gun and semi-automatic gun ban.. I am okay with folks owning rifles and shotguns for hunting and that's about it.

[Peppy22]

the problem with gun control is where does it end? it was we gotta ban full automatic weapons. It has mostly happened with only gun experts and what not being allowed to purchase them now. Now its we gotta ban semi automatics with clips. So lets say that happens. how long till we say lets ban every weapon type from 1777 on up?

 

I agree that me owning some rifles and shotguns won't stop a miltary strike from killing me and destroying my house. The right to bear arms to me is meant to provide a form of resistance to opression from my govt or a conquering one by making the cost of oppression so high that the oppressors can't sustain it.

 

Having said that, more work needs to be done to keep weapons out of the hands of maniacs

 

problem is, everyone can turn into a maniac if something "special" happens. What I mean is... the friendly next door neighboor can still have a kneejerk reaction to something.

[drnkirishone]

problem is, everyone can turn into a maniac if something "special" happens. What I mean is... the friendly next door neighboor can still have a kneejerk reaction to something.

problem is anyone with access to the internet and the ability to follow written direction can also make IED's and go have a kneejerk reaction. Or as others said go grab some keys and go for some vehicular slaughter.

 

banning all guns won't fix the problem cause we humans are violent and destructive and we will just move on to the next best option

[TrueBlueGED]

Even with the US arms catalog at there disposal, there's no way the government could simply storm the streets and not suffer for it, especially with an armed citizenry. Witness Iraq and Afgahnistan. A 1 million man army versus the remaining 299 million, even though the former is well equipped, is not the greatest of odds.

 

Not all of those million will take up arms against their own people, of course, nor will the 299 million fight back, but the point stands.

 

Vietnam is another great illustration of the point.

 

Reality? Did Hooker Chemical expect the city of Niagara Falls to build a neighborhood on a chemical dump? "It says in the contract there's a dump there, I don't know why they want the land, but surely they 'll never build houses there..."

 

Did the Japanese engineers think a tsunami would come and cause a nuclear meltdown? Did WE ever think there'd be a terrorist strike like 9/11 before it ever happened? Modern examples of a tragic short-sighted perspective abound. You can choose to ignore that reality, and stick with trying to pigeonhole "reality" to fit your world view, or accept the truth that human history shows ANYTHING is possible.

 

It's pretty hard to equate foreign wars with civil wars, not the least of which would be the international forces that D4rk mentioned. And there's the collective action problem that not everybody would be on the same side.

 

Oh, and as evidenced by Germany, dictators can come to power through democratic means. I suppose we should abolish elections to prevent that from happening here :rolleyes:

 

 

the problem with gun control is where does it end? it was we gotta ban full automatic weapons. It has mostly happened with only gun experts and what not being allowed to purchase them now. Now its we gotta ban semi automatics with clips. So lets say that happens. how long till we say lets ban every weapon type from 1777 on up?

 

I agree that me owning some rifles and shotguns won't stop a miltary strike from killing me and destroying my house. The right to bear arms to me is meant to provide a form of resistance to opression from my govt or a conquering one by making the cost of oppression so high that the oppressors can't sustain it.

 

Having said that, more work needs to be done to keep weapons out of the hands of maniacs

 

You can make those kinds of arguments for anything though. For example, take freedom of the press. Do you really think the press should be able to publish troop movements in foreign wars? Probably not. But using your proposed logic, they should be able to, because it's a slippery slope and where does it stop?

[drnkirishone]

It's pretty hard to equate foreign wars with civil wars, not the least of which would be the international forces that D4rk mentioned. And there's the collective action problem that not everybody would be on the same side.

 

Oh, and as evidenced by Germany, dictators can come to power through democratic means. I suppose we should abolish elections to prevent that from happening here :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

You can make those kinds of arguments for anything though. For example, take freedom of the press. Do you really think the press should be able to publish troop movements in foreign wars? Probably not. But using your proposed logic, they should be able to, because it's a slippery slope and where does it stop?

well if we want to play that game. according to your logic we should ban cars, physical sports, beer, smoking, and eating utensils. cause all of them can and have been used to kill people.

 

comparing freedom of the press/publishing troops movements in a war to right to bear arms/banning guns is silly

[TrueBlueGED]

well if we want to play that game. according to your logic we should ban cars, physical sports, beer, smoking, and eating utensils. cause all of them can and have been used to kill people.

 

comparing freedom of the press/publishing troops movements in a war to right to bear arms/banning guns is silly

 

Of course we shouldn't ban all of those things, it's a ridiculous argument. But does that stop speed limits in residential areas? Have residential area speed limits led to the banning of automobiles? Of course not, and that's the point. Literally every regulation passed relating to anything has a potentially slippery slope--but we haven't slipped down those hypothetical slopes. I see no reason why firearm regulation is any more slippery than anything else.