Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumAre Guns Killing Our Freedom Instead of Defending It?
An intelligent take on guns and the gun culture in the wake of the recent shootings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/why-the-love-of-guns-is-k_b_1828169.html
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Their self-promoting premise that lowly human life takes a backseat to glorious deadly weapon possession is now the accepted one, now that their obscene bullshit has preyed on so many weak-minded people.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)there is never talk about how to deal with reducing gun deaths only that if anything is done to affect gun proliferation, things would be worse. Oh, and, of course, there is the catch all of a constitutional interpretation that is bought and paid for by the NRA and their henchman in the courts (the ones who ironically deride judicial activism themselves).
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)Not the simple freedom to own firearms, but protecting the populace from oppression.
It's not about your neighbor buying a handgun, it's about our freedom as a SOCIETY.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)It's about an entire populace that's free and able to take up arms.
My Glock (and I do own one) plus all of the other firearms owned by our society give us the ability to resist opression, whether foreign or domestic. That's exactly what the founding fathers intended.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...there's a remake coming soon.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)...but let's play along for a moment...
How effective have our trillions of dollars worth of military equipment been at actually controlling people (Iraq and Afghanistan immediately come to mind)? An armed populace is the absolute best protection against oppression.
The founding fathers had this figured out over 200 years ago. Why is it such a difficult concept for you?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)my personal favorite, Vietnam.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)...and true of ALL of the conflicts involving an armed populace.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Ya Basta
(391 posts)There are so many examples of this all throughout history. That alone should illustrate to the clueless posting in this thread that size is not the only factor in the outcome of warfare.
Not you glacierbay, but to the others posting in this thread. The ones who obviously don't know what they're talking about. Might I suggest starting with the classic Sun Tzu The Art of War. Maybe you'll learn something and see how your anti-gun prejudice is making you look ignorant on this topic.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...working through that one on my e-reader for a bit. It's not exactly a 'light' read.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)the problem. i'm not hearing about too many gun battles that our soldiers are losing.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)i don't think any military powerful enough to invade the mainland is going to have to worry about the guns in people's houses.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)We have, by far, the mightiest military force on the planet and WE have not ever been able to subdue a local population with the will and the means to resist.
Waltons_Mtn
(345 posts)The fact that the local population have guns has no real effect at all. If the government would remove the rules of engagement and we could kill indiscriminately the local population could not resist at all. We would simply use our bigger guns to wipe any resistance off the face of the earth and repopulate with NASCAR fans. IMO that is what the drone attacks are all about. Change the rules a bit. Allow for a bit of indistrimate killing.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)sometimes based on false information, but not indiscriminate. Examples of indiscriminate bombing would be the firebombing during WW2.
Waltons_Mtn
(345 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and you know what they say about military and intelligence.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The oil would stop. The officers and soldiers would desert. The American population would not volunteer to replace them. Anti-war riots would rise, as well as political opposition.
Waltons_Mtn
(345 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)accidently hitting Soviet flagged freighters in Hanoi harbors, Soviet military advisers etc. by aircraft. The idea was to avoid bringing the Soviets into an active role, turning it into World War Three.
What you are talking about are war crimes under the law of armed conflict. I don't know about the Army at that time, but in the Air Force during my 20 years, JAGs and commanders give periodic speeches telling us to disobey and report any unlawful orders, including killing civilians.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)samsingh
(17,571 posts)Response to samsingh (Reply #124)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)history at University.
funny - i'm one of the 1%ers but i'd rather pay higher tax for the benefit of others. I don't see gun supporters offering any ideas to curb gun violence. They only speak about credentials, present opinions like they are facts, and then accuse others of doing the same thing.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)first and foremost, end the drug war and improve infrastructure in the inner cities.
We do present a lot of facts.
I don't see anti gun folks offering any ideas that actually work. Most of them are culture warriors.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)you'd have to actually have an open mind to understand what the gun control proponents are suggesting. Funny to call 'gun control proponent' culture WARRIORS. Does the irony escape you?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and I do have an open mind, not so sure about yours.
Not at all. Reading posts from gun control advocates in the US, Australia, and Canada, there is a tinge of anti ruralism and a lot of regional bigotry. There is even a peer reviewed study to go with it.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932
samsingh
(17,571 posts)i only care that innocent people are being shot with guns - lots of people because of the technical capability of guns that are available today (centuries after the second amendment was written). I am looking for solutions to stop people from getting killed.
that's it. no bigitory. no hatred of guns (i personally really like guns), and certainly nothing against rural residents as i have been one myself.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I was speaking in general terms. Ideally both sides work together to find:
what works in current regulation and fix holes and problems (like states doing a half assed job in reporting data to NICS, which was the major factor in Cho at VT) and ditch what is simply theater.
I think informed discussions without the usual buzz words would actually be worth it. Wanting to return fail ideas like the AWB for no logical reason does nothing other than electing a plutocrat who happens to have Robert Bork as one of his advisers. If you have have people with no technical knowledge of a technical subject, you get the AWB, that banned nothing and you get this Canadian regulation:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm
This explains sections four and five
Of course everyone is looking for solutions, I prefer to deal with the actual issues and not distractions.
"I've trained in small unit tactics with local police & SWAT teams as well as being a student of military history".
you asked me first about my qualifications. I'm not sure what the above means in terms of credibility.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it smart."
samsingh
(17,571 posts)but if you're trying to imply i'm not smart - i have a measured genius level IQ.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)My 2nd grade teacher used to draw stars on my tests with grape scented (artificially) purple marker. I'd say that puts us on even footing.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)You ever been on the receiving end of it?
The scenario envisioned in Red Dawn is very real. That's how we were defeated in Vietnam, they enemy wore us down politically and with an endless supply of manpower and willingness to take the causalities.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Best gungeon post ever!
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)try proving what I said wrong.
You ever been on the receiving end of guerrilla warfare?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Patronizing "you're too uneducated to understand", insults, and pretending to know more than he really does is the height of civil and intellectual discourse.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)ellisonz
(27,709 posts)I hope our gun-loving friends are practicing their Mandarin.
Missycim
(950 posts)Chinese who invade in the new movie, its the North Koreans. LOL
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)This is not news.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Response to DanTex (Reply #54)
Waltons_Mtn This message was self-deleted by its author.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)The voice over at the end was put in at the insistance of the studio
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)much more heavily equiped and trained, sapping untold amounts of resources.. and they "lost"?
Any guerilla movement in history would be overjoyed to "suffer" such a "loss".
Hell, they'd have parades to it.
A tip: This is D.U. We're really not supposed to be proud to display ignorance here.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)One of my thesis was the effects of guerrilla warfare on an occupying force. What's yours?
Response to glacierbay (Reply #127)
Waltons_Mtn This message was self-deleted by its author.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Even when we did burn vils, drop bombs indiscriminately, machine gun non combatants, all we did was make the enemy more determined to defeat us.
We were defeated politically, morally, and the North had an endless supply of manpower and were more than willing to suffer the casualties.
Tell me, what's your experience with guerrilla warfare?
Response to glacierbay (Reply #136)
Waltons_Mtn This message was self-deleted by its author.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)and it didn't work out to well for them did it?
When you have a fanatical, determined enemy, fighting on their own soil, willing to absorb the casualities, then it doesn't matter how bigger or better armed you are or what the ROE's are, eventually you're going to lose.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and they wondered why there was not popular uprising during Tet.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)samsingh
(17,571 posts)I appreciate and acknowledge it.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)and I hope you didn't take my question to you as a slight.
I know that we are on opposite sides of this issue but you'll notice that I don't engage in insults or name calling, I prefer a civil, honest debate and I do appreciate the other sides views even if I disagree with it.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)Very few have the courage to go fight in battle and i admire those that have fought for our freedom.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The constant stress is very hard on the occupying troops. They crack under the strain of not being able to relax and escape the constant fear. They lose professionalism, they refuse to serve, they go back to their home country a mess, no longer a productive member of society. They do not fully complete missions, but merely "say" they do. Their equipment decays due to constant use and sabotage and lack of spare parts. Supplies don't get through. Occupying troop movements and other intelligence information is constantly being leaked. Military leaders are assassinated selectively, with the competent and loved killed and the incompetent and hated promoted into their place. Small units are routinely destroyed by ambush, resulting in occupying soldiers only patrolling in larger units, thus patrolling fewer areas and losing control over large swaths of the area to local warlords and leaders.
The free movement of people and supplies suffers, guaranteeing inefficiency and lost production of the occupied lands. It becomes a giant money pit.
All that nifty stuff, that high-explosive ultra-accurate stuff, is useless if you don't have a target to point it at.
spayneuter
(134 posts)are you proceeding through life harboring some weird fantasy that Americans are going to sacrifice their rights to insure your fragile psyche isn't offended?
samsingh
(17,571 posts)not me.
Waltons_Mtn
(345 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Waltons_Mtn
(345 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The last scene said something about non occupied part of the US regrouped.
My guess is that NATO allies helped by providing troops and interdicting freight ships and cargo aircraft, cutting their supply lines. Without spare parts for their aircraft, mission capable rates would drop to the point of being lawn art.
and I doubt the "Wolverines" were the only insurgent group. Warsaw Pact and Cuban troops would be spread thin in such a large area as half the US, making them and their logistical infrastructure more vulnerable to partisans. That would stop their tanks.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)samsingh
(17,571 posts)was not part of the orginal package.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)PREDATED it.
I'll post it here for you so you can read it over and over... then get back to me when you find the part that actually GRANTS the right. I'll give you a hint... it identifies a PRE-EXISTING right that shall not be infringed upon by the federal government. When will people learn to read and comprehend?
"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."
Get back to me when you find the part that says "the federal government, empowered by the states, does hereby grant the right to..."
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)"The Second Amendment came after the 1776 and was not part of the orginal package."
I don't understand your point. The 2nd Amendment certainly did come after 1776. So did the U.S. Constitution to which the Bill of Rights were attached. What was your point again?
samsingh
(17,571 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)was ratified in 1787 and the Bill of Rights in 1789, well after 1776, the year the Declaration of Independence was signed. All documents were created by our "Founding Fathers". You apparently did not have a point.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)has been bought by interest groups.
why don't you do some research on what the Founding Fathers were intending to do. I have, and it wasn't to arm everyone with automatic weapons to slaughter civilians.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Wow! Where is THIS happening??? I'm hooked up to the interweb and I have not seen ANYTHING about people with automatic weapons slaughtering civilians. Is it Sudan? What could our founding fathers have done to arm anyone in Africa?
samsingh
(17,571 posts)been something.
Do these people's lives don't count?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)did the shooter use an automatic weapon. The last criminal use of automatic weapons in the U.S. (that got reported in the media anyway) that I can recall was the infamous North Hollywood Bank shootout in February 1997.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Right?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)B movies.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Look, it does not matter whether or not armed revolution is possible or not.
What matters is what the Constitution says.
The Constitution says that the people are supposed to keep and bear arms suitable for infantry use. Period.
Whether or not the people will make a suitable military force today is irrelevant.
The Constitution gives them the right to keep the tools that allow them to try.
That is all that matters.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Why should I give two cents on a bloggers opinion? He also blames the Empire State shooter for the wounding of innocent people when in reality, it was the NYPD.
Violent crime, including those involving firearms, has been decreasing for the last 20 years, that is fact according to the FBI's UCR.
Guns aren't killing our freedom, whether you want to accept it or not, private ownership of firearms is one of the greatest freedoms a citizen can have.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)at best, a gun would be arguably an enabler of these other freedoms.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)destruction of the govt. is one of the greatest freedoms a citizen can have.
spayneuter
(134 posts)samsingh
(17,571 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I have no love for my firearms and I don't know anyone who has love of their firearms, what I do love is the sport of target shooting or competition shooting. You really should stop with the stereotyping of gun owners.
I also love the fact that I live in a country that I have the right to own firearms and I live in a state that I have the right to carry a firearm, open or concealed, although I rarely do.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)- ban all guns
- doesn't have any useful ideas
- doesn't think in facts
and yet hypocritically, we're asked to not make stereotypes of the pro-gun group.
btw - target shooting is really cool
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)always have since the founding. While prohibitionists are rare, the other extreme is nonexistent, unless you know someone that actually thinks a ten year old should be able to order an FN P90, full auto, off of Amazon.
So, let's discuss the "degree that works" that everyone will be happy or at least equally pissed off about.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)he stayed away from the cliches about cowboys, which has nothing to do with it, and rocket launchers. Going to a shooting range once makes him an expert on the "gun culture"? That is like claiming to be a world traveler after going to Epcot. At best he projected his reaction to millions of people.
As a banker, he is a greater threat to freedom than anyone else.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)how so?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)more often. IIRC, he coined the term bankster.
http://m.thomhartmann.com/blog/2012/02/transcript-thom-hartmann-greece-michigan-dealt-same-hand-banksters-30-january-12
samsingh
(17,571 posts)but they are not a threat to freedom, any more than the other billionaires that are trying to eliminate the middle class. Walmart scions come to mind.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)a very, very long time. omg. funny!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)We're in the gungeon here, loony ideas are the norm...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)with transparency and oversight, rather than the privately owned Fed.
Auditing the Fed was one of the few things Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders agree on. Unless you are saying Bernie Sanders and Thom Hartmann are closet "conspiracy nuts"............................................................................................
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Missycim
(950 posts)with having something real backing our money, instead of just printing it?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Last I heard, he was against nationalizing anything and for privatizing everything. Since most of my "education" or propaganda on this issue is from the left end of the scale, you are not really the progressive you think you are. Are you accusing Bernie Sanders and Thom Hartmann of being Ron Paul nuts? Are you admitting being to the right of me?
In essence you are accusing a self described socialist, Bernie Sanders, of being a libertarian, you might want to think before you post.
Can you show me an example of nationalizing the Fed=gold standard? Most people would call me a socialist (which I do believe in a mixed economy). Might want to give up on trying to paint us as being a bunch of right wing radicals, that straw just slipped out of your hand.
http://www.monetary.org/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)straw is completely out of your reach. I'm guessing Thom Hartmann and Bernie Sanders isn't either.
Just in case we are clear: I said nationalize the Fed and create a government owned central bank similar to Bank of Canada.
Verb:
Transfer (a major branch of industry or commerce) from private to state ownership or control.
Make distinctively national; give a national character to.
Now can you show me were anyone supporting the gold standard is for the government taking over the fed and creating a central bank? Last I checked, they would call that socialism.
So, do you have any other false accusations to make?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm guessing there are more than a few Ron Paul gold standard advocates among the pro-gunners in here though.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but the gold standard thing predates Ron Paul. I'm surprised I had to actually explain it to you, when I said nationalize the fed or have a government owned national bank. I would be surprised if Ron Paul actually supports government owned anything.
I'm guessing you saw "down with the Fed" and "bankster" and assumed it equaled Ron Paul? That exposes shallowness on your part.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I was just wondering it you were into some loony economic theory. Looks like you are leaning towards MMT, which is a bit loony, but you are right, not right wing. It's nice to see you're not a gold nut.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it is not loony. It has nothing to do with any economic theory and everything to do with the belief that some functions should not be in corporate hands. Control of the money supply is one of them.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Gun vs bigger gun? Guns aren't a magic talisman with a 100% perfect characteristics, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective for defense of self and from tyranny. Guns are VERY effective against home invasions especially.
Asymmetric warfare silly (guerilla). Do you really think EVERY USA military service member would stick with a tyrannical fascist state in a civil war? No defections? Get real. England said the same nonsense in the late 1700's, now they're our little buddies. Freedom always prevails in the end.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)there is ample proof of guerrilla warfare helping to defeat a much bigger and better armed foe. Vietnam comes to mind, first the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu, then our defeat. We can't seem to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan even though we clearly hold the technological edge.
Can you say for certain that sometime it the future that this country won't fall under a tyrannical govt.?
> there is ample proof of guerrilla warfare helping to defeat a much bigger and better armed foe.
HILARIOUS! The cited cases (Nam & Afghanistan) only happened the way they did because there were huge powers funneling weapons & money to the guerrilla forces.
Gun-religionists MUST ignore reality & logic to keep their NRA-approved Talking Points in one piece.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)the fact remains that a guerilla force is capable of defeating a bigger and better armed foe.
Laugh all you want, but the facts are the facts.
> What difference does it make who armed them
You're so clueless you think this is actually an argument. SUPER HILARIOUS!!!
to the google power!
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I know it was a long time ago, but I don't remember seeing any Russians or Chinese shooting at me.
You can throw all the insults and cute little smilies you want, don't mean a thing when it comes to facts. I suggest you try posting facts instead of insults.
Have a good day
You haven't presented any facts, just lies.
Enjoy your delusions. If it keeps you from shooting your guns at innocent people, I'm all for it!
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I won't engage in a conversation with you.
You have a good life.
Response to glacierbay (Reply #56)
Post removed
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert
Mail Message
At Mon Aug 27, 2012, 04:33 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
?????
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=66011
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
YOUR COMMENTS:
insulting a fellow DU'er w/o provocation
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Aug 27, 2012, 04:49 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree with the alerter, although I'm no fan of guns.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Hidden for being disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive ... and for being a douchebag.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Another alert by someone losing the argument and grasping to find something to shut him down. The seemingly outrageous comment objected to is actually a with pretty benign comment, even in the real world.
Alerter, get a life.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: This comment violates Community Standards
Thank you.
Amazing, ain't it.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 28, 2012, 09:58 AM - Edit history (2)
I meant that it was amazing that his post was allowed to stand, and Juror #5's comment was, well, just nutty.
I just won't respond to Bongbong anymore.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)> I don't remember seeing any Russians or Chinese shooting at me.
What the HELL are you talking about? Get a grip, gun-relgionist. Methinks you've stroked your Precious one too many times!
spayneuter
(134 posts)And how does one pronounce it?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> And how does one pronounce it?
It's the sound that occurs when a person shoves one of their guns down their throat.
Response to bongbong (Reply #64)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #67)
Post removed
rl6214
(8,142 posts)You know that's all he/she's got
spayneuter
(134 posts)who were right next door. Are you still on summer vacation from jr. high?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> You are apparently ignorant of the 17 years the Soviets tried unsuccessfully to defeat the Afghanis
You are apparently ignorant of the billions given to the Afghanis by the USA.
Are you still on summer vacation from Pre-school?
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)...the Afghans were getting slaughtered until we armed them with more advanced weaponry including Stinger missiles. Did you sleep through Charlie Wilson's War or something?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)military history from movies? We were hardly the only ones giving them aid. That said, the Afghans' biggest problem was lacking command structure, doctrine, and training. They did not pay enough attention to logistics and securing rear areas. Important thing to remember, arm chair generals and mall ninjas talk about tactics and tactical cool, professionals talk about logistics.
http://edocs.nps.edu/AR/org/CSRC/csrc_jan_02.pdf
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)To make fruitless arguments that only further emphasize the point you are seeking to dismiss?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)simply pointing out the problems were more complex than any one weapons system. Granted Soviet air superiority was a problem for the Afghans, and that was the only major advantage the USSR had. Depending on there the gunships were based, they could have attacked the airfields where they were based by targeting the tank farm (fuel storage) and POL infrastructure. Destroying the craft themselves would have been gravy. Want to piss of a fighter pilot? Remind him or her of this: NKAWTG.
Oneka
(653 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 28, 2012, 06:30 AM - Edit history (1)
HILARIOUS! The cited cases (Nam & Afghanistan) only happened the way they did because there were huge powers funneling weapons & money to the guerrilla forces.
In the USA we have over 100,000,000 gun owners, an estimated 200,000,000+ small arms, countless Billions of rounds of small arms ammo. Those "huge powers" you mentioned above? Yeah thats us, genius. If american gun owners were to ever become
a guerrilla force, we wouldn't need "huge powers" we ARE, huge power.
Gun-religionists MUST ignore reality & logic
Heh, reality and logic, seem to be lost on you.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Around the time President Obama was elected, there was rampant speculation here on D.U. about the possibility that President Bush would refuse to relinquish his office. There is constant talk about Conserviatives wanting to implement such a tyranny.
So, why do you think it can't/won't/wouldn/t occur, either right- or left-wing derived?
samsingh
(17,571 posts)aspects of life
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)For gun-religionists, it's about fear, and being able to shoot thugs (wink, wink) whenever you want to.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)much eyewash, intended to somehow justify the otherwise unjustifiable need to go around armed 'just in case' that has pervaded much of our culture. Red Dawn, indeed. Sounds more like the pot-bellied overaged idiots that dress in camos and prance through the Michigan (or Georgia) woods in practice 'search and destroy' missions designed to take out the commie-socialist-pinko-n----er-lovers who want to 'take over our country'. Remember Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies".
rDigital
(2,239 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)> Cool straw man
Oh, so all the documented history of modern-day militias, some of which have documented connections to Klan and other hate groups, is all a fantasy?
I'm relieved!
rDigital
(2,239 posts)a few fringe idiots is proof of nothing.
Sadly, it seems you are not interested in civil discourse and wish to make every conversation adversarial and offensive. I think you're trying to bait posters into getting posts hidden or worse. I'm not sure why you do it, but it doesn't help your cause when all you're doing is griefing.
I wish you well on your adventures, but there's a better way. Take care, friend.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)some future government becomes so tyrannical that U.S. citizens are going to have to take up arms against it? Really?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)NO, and I doubt many do, except the most fanatical and they have a way of thinning their own herd.
Anyone who wishes for a future govt. to become tyrannical so they can go off to fight is, in my opinion, a fucking idiot who has no idea what real warfare is.
They usually are just a bunch of chickenhawks who would shit themselves at the first shot fired, IOW, RW assholes.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)'patriotic' window-dressing to go around carrying a gun, 'just in case'.
Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #161)
glacierbay This message was self-deleted by its author.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Crowing about it and harassing people in the Gungeon isn't going to change anything.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)I've read your posts and you approach this issue from an emotional standpoint. I don't know a single gun owner who wants to "be able to shoot thugs (or anybody else) whenever they want".
> I don't know a single gun owner who wants to "be able to shoot thugs (or anybody else) whenever they want".
Aren't you special! I bet you're working from a huge sample size. Do you know every gun owner in the USA?
More logic FAIL from the gun-relgionists. Same as always!
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)then I suggest, instead of the usual insults, prove it wrong.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)OK, newbie-troll, this is my only lesson to you:
Try to use logic in your arguments, not NRA Talking Points, lies, and logical fallacies.
Do you burn the water a lot when you try to boil it?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)nothing.
Good Bye.
Let me know when you find somebody that can prove a negative!
You'll make history, since you'll be the first guy to ever do it!
Such children! Amazingly stupid trolls the NRA is sending over these days!
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)... of the admonition against wrestling with a pig. You'll only get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.
Don't waste your time on the mythological little fellows that live under bridges.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)With my background and circle of friends, I'll wager that I know more gun owners than you.
> ith my background and circle of friends, I'll wager that I know more gun owners than you.
Ohhh, a bet! Is it for $10,000 like R-money's bet?
This is so hilarious on so many levels! What are you, 8 years old?
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)I'm stating that I believe I have a larger base of experience with gun owners.
How is that funny?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> How is that funny?
Because it has nothing to do with anything.
What are you, 10 years old? Use a "high-tech" search engine like www.google.com to find all about "the perils of anecdotal & hearsay evidence".
This lesson in "Grade School Argumentation" is free from me, but future lessons in the basics of thought will cost you money.
When you learn some more junior-high school concepts about debate, let me know. Then we can start working on 9th grade stuff.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)If you have empirical evidence to prove this, I'm willing to view it. Otherwise, your claim is based in anecdote.
I, at least, have relationships with many actual gun owners. In the absence of proof of their motivations, I believe that I have a better insight into the issue than you.
> You're the one who claimed that the motivation behind gun ownership was a desire to shoot people.
I never said that was the only motivation. If you think that there isn't a single gun-owner out of the millions who hasn't fantasized about shooting "thugs" (wink wink), I have a bridge to sell you. All the gun-porn on youtube - these are "sane" gun-nuts, right? Machine-gun fests, blowing up stuff - that's all just a bunch of fun, right?
About that bridge - I own it, but I'll sell it to you, and you can collect tolls. You'll get rich....
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)...and if nobody gets injured, who are you (or anybody) to find fault with people who are so inclined enjoying that?
Most priests have good intentions. The rare few want to molest little boys.
Most parents love their children and want to care for them. The rare few drown them in the bathtub.
Of COURSE there are some people who buy guns for purposes or with motivations that most of us would consider harmful to society. That wasn't the gist of your claim, however. I contend that the vast majority of gun owners have no desire to shoot people...even "bad" people.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Do you? You seem to speak for them a lot.
spin
(17,493 posts)If so it would be logical to assume that those gun owners who have concealed carry permits would also wish to do the same. They probably would go looking for trouble so they could enjoy blowing someone away and in fact they would be vigilantes.
Currently there are over 800,000 people in Florida who have valid concealed weapons permits. Florida also has a victim rights law called "Stand Your Ground."
Why then do we not see far more incidents in which a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit provoked an attack from a street thug in hopes of killing him? After the Trayvon Martin shooting the Tampa Bay TImes analyzed all the homicides it could find in Florida since the "Stand Your Ground" law passed seven years ago where this law was used as a defense.
The Tampa Bay Times could only find 200 such cases or an average of 28.6 per year.
In the most comprehensive effort of its kind, the Tampa Bay Times has identified nearly 200 "stand your ground'' cases and their outcomes. The Times identified cases through media reports, court records and dozens of interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys across the state.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece
Now surely if your theory that many gun owners are looking for a chance to kill a thug, we would see far more of these cases. If only 25% of those who legally carry a firearm in Florida or 200,000 were hoping to have the chance to use it, surely in seven years we would see at least a thousand if not tens of thousands of incidents in which a legally armed civilian shot an attacker. It's not that hard to be a vigilante and attract the attention of a criminal if you are foolish enough to wish to do so.
My father once told me of a man in Pittsburgh in the 1940s who enjoyed fighting and would walk into a bar or store in the Hill District and flash a large wad of bills. He would then leave and walk down dark streets. He was a very mean character.
spayneuter
(134 posts)Thanks a lot, appeaser.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> Whereas it is all so much nobler to submit to the tender mercies of the thugs.
Or you could just spend your time building Strawman "arguments", one of the only hobbies gun-relgionists have (besides stroking their Precious)
spayneuter
(134 posts)Look up there ^^^^^^
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)I really hope you're a vet or something with that username.
bad sofa king
(55 posts)freedom from government oppression and the freedom to protect oneself from the criminal element. Both threats are very real, more so for some than others of course.
Clames
(2,038 posts)No. Not even close. Doesn't even have the basic facts right:
This morning, a gunman killed a former co-worker and injured eight others outside the Empire State Building in New York City
A gunman killed the former co-worker. The NYC police injured the rest.
No surprise you'd latch onto this article. This quote is interesting though.
Most self-styled anarchists are not committed to any greater cause than their own imagined fears and a desperate need for control...
Replace "anarchists" with "anti-gun extremists" and that pretty much wraps up that article very nicely.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)You can't ride in on the fail boat and then tell everyone else they're "sunk". The article is chock full of strawmen and falsehoods.
Oh, and the comments after the article are a real hoot too. No one is falling for this schtick anymore. Blog away, Sweetie.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The trolls sent over today are really pathetic quality.
Is the NRA strapped for funds or something?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)they sent you to troll.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I love how the gun-relgionists' brains start sputtering when they try any sort of rebuttal that isn't an NRA approved Talking Point.
All they end up with is a variant of "I'm rubber, you're glue". That's the problem with going off-script when you're an NRA-trained parrot.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)As if talking points are a bad thing.
What it shows is that is you, and others, are effectively ceding the argument to your opponents.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)handing over that freedom because they are afraid and scared and don't realize that THEY are The Very Government that They want to have all the guns. Uniforms can have them but civilians can not.
What kind of sense does that make?
None.
The real freedom(?) you are advocating will be a Facist Regime.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)When our forefathers talked about fear of a standing army, they were talking as Englishmen, not Americans. The Brits have not had a large standing army since the English Civil War, and Cromwell's New Model Army. Remember that the Brits had to hire mercenaries to field an army in the colonies. This is the basis for fear of a standing army. As such, everybody wanted to use a militia instead. Now, it is true that everybody (except minister, quakers and judges) had to be in the militia. THEY WERE ALSO FINED IF THEY FAILED TO SHOW UP TO DRILL. This was no everyman for himself militia, these were mandatory formations. In my opinion, the NRA has perverted the 2nd Amendment.
MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)An armed populace has a better ability to resist oppression (foreign or domestic) than an unarmed populace.
I'm not an NRA member, but I believe that those who created the framework for this country saw the real benefit of an armed citizenry and wrote it into law.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)FUnny, ever comepare our murder rate to England? Hell, our own cops can hit a target without collateral damage. In lieu of a standing military, they set up a militia. NRA perverted that concept.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)This from a guy who whined on and on about "blogs" while having a Supreme Court ruling, a Yale professor, a CalTech professor and former clerk to Sandra Day O'Conner, Alan Dershowitz and a Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment cited as sources.
I guess it would be a waste of time to look for anything approaching principle to explain why some blogs are ok; apparently it has something to do with whether they support the agenda.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)the same old shit.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)All the news that fits.
It's only news if it fits.
Not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)wolfman24
(17 posts)Hello
I love the quote on the bottom of your post where is it from?
Wolfman 24
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...that would be the 'signature line'. It's a quote I came across from Allan David Bloom. If you mean the last of the three in the body of the post, that's a movie quote from Three Days of the Condor.
You have a good day.
Thanks
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Mike what's his name? That was some weird Gungeon trolling.
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)Posts and far left talk like this are an attack on our freedoms. It also hurts the Democratic party.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)MercutioATC
(28,470 posts)Loons
People who get all emotional and irrational about a position that THEIR OWN PARTY doesn't support. People who take a position based on dimestore tabloid emotion and not fact. Loons (no intended offense to the bird).
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)and also happen to have guns.
That way, attrition ensures the right party wins.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Be interesting to see if they do as they say.
wolfman24
(17 posts)Hello
I am not sure I agree with your premise, but after talking with a good number of people here in the "bible belt" I do believe that more and more people are afraid to open up their mouths or even beep their car horn for fear that the person they are talking to or are next to them is "packing" and might take offense. Regardless of what the NRA or its members say, not everyone who has a CW should have them. Too many people allow their emotions to get away with them or are easily angered. As recent history has shown, some of these people feel that instead of dealing with their issues or discussing it its easier just to blow the "problem" away. I am not saying this is the majority but since no one knows who these people are it makes it a very scary proposition.
I personally don't know anybody who isn't scared. In the current climate I am not sure there is a solution. Repealing the use of CW's is public places as most people seem to want is a good idea but not the answer because there are just too many guns out there. But I think it might give people a better sense of securing even if it is not real.
Wolfman 24