....Seriously? Did you just post something xenophobic about me?
Good job on countering my points. I think I got alllll the answers I need from you.
*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
....Seriously? Did you just post something xenophobic about me?
Good job on countering my points. I think I got alllll the answers I need from you.
GasBandit
Staff member
I already said this thread was going nowhere new and I was done, so when you showed up after the fact wanting to start shit with me by way of condescending fucknuttery, you get the ration of shit you deserve, you flatulent eunuch.
This is bullshit - you were oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of no longer adding anything useful to the discussion.
When you had to explain your point of view, the tone in your posts towards others reflected a significant amount of exaggerated defensiveness and then you copped out.... until I posted my response.
I'm sorry I have a demanding job/life and don't get the pleasure of spending my days on Halforums looking for updates. So when I did, it triggered you and you went straight with Anti-Quebec sentiment.
I may have been frank but I didn't expect that type of response, from a site ADMIN no less.
You express a certain level of familiarity with me I find very uncomfortable and this has happened on more than one occasion. At times I tried to make small amends over the years. You're the major reason I don't post on this sub-forum because I knew deep down undeniably this will quickly bring down this route. This attitude is shameful and more importantly disappointing. I'm unsure if others feel the same but I'll let them express their opinions on their own terms.
I don't expect an apology nor do I ask for one, what I will ask is to grow the fuck up and learn that people may have different views from you and you can address them far better than what I read in this thread.
I wanted to follow-up on this comment because I see all these discussions with gun enthusiasts shaking their fist at the ever remote potential that they lose the very capacity of being able to have a normal conversations with other humans. They claim over and over and over about their RIGHT to bear arms and the 2nd amendment... but medical treatment in the US right now is "a privilege".
This isn't about gun control, this is about common sense.
Politicians hiding behind the interests of their cherished campaign donors are cowards and what it takes right now are people who are courageous and able to change this. This seems to be the norm for America now which is a sad thing to realize. People need to keep pushing this agenda, well past the next few weeks, they need to continue until reform has been made.
The funny thing is, most americans agree with quite a few gun control measures, but whenever someone says "gun control", all the NRA would let you hear is "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE ALL OUR GUNS"!
Maybe he just wants to be a cowboy, and what better way to be able to be one then by bringing back the Wild West... i mean it can't be any worse then it was at the time, even if guns are now way more accurate.
GasBandit
Staff member
I just had a thought that was too good to wait for morning.
Gun-grabbers like you, Jay, are sociopolitical anti-vaxxers.
Because private gun ownership IS a vaccine - every Glock, every Bushmaster, every Mossberg is an antibody against tyranny and oppression. You, you argue that there's no reason for these anymore, it's been hundreds of years sincepolio oppression was an issue, and so there's no need to continue guarding against them. In fact, thanks to soccermom social media circlejerks, you suspect that the vaccine is worse than the disease, that they cause suffering to the innocent.
It's amazing the parallels that run between the two arguments, really - and it's just as infurating, because even if other countries don't vaccinate, they benefit from the herd immunity the United States provides. An armed populace is the final, ultimate safeguard to keep the United States Federal Government honest - or whatever takes its place when it collapses, and believe you me, it will collapse in our lifetime.
But even if it doesn't, can you imagine a world more horrible than one where the Trump regime is the only armed body in the U.S.? How lucky we are to only have to suffer horrifying tweets instead of the horrifying deeds that inevitably come with the corrupting power of being at the head of the world's most powerful government - and the world's most powerful military by about 8 orders of magnitude.
So sit smug in your quaint little home in your socialist paradise country - where your cherished "free" health care is solvent because the U.S. picks up your national defense bill, and since you all live within 100 miles of the U.S. border anyway it's easy to ferry your emergencies across to actual doctors when the Canadian system fails them as it so often does. Be thankful for it.
And moreso, be thankful that 245 million adults are here to vigilantly watch the golem we've created, and that we're armed.
Frankly, it should be painfully obvious that any rational adult who doesn't own, maintain, and practice with a firearm regularly is in dereliction of their civic duty. They're weakening the vaccine, and in so doing, putting everyone ever that much more at risk. Usually for the same misguided "progressive" principals that always do the most damage to those they purport to help - the little guys.[DOUBLEPOST=1507106174,1507105738][/DOUBLEPOST]
Gun-grabbers like you, Jay, are sociopolitical anti-vaxxers.
Because private gun ownership IS a vaccine - every Glock, every Bushmaster, every Mossberg is an antibody against tyranny and oppression. You, you argue that there's no reason for these anymore, it's been hundreds of years since
It's amazing the parallels that run between the two arguments, really - and it's just as infurating, because even if other countries don't vaccinate, they benefit from the herd immunity the United States provides. An armed populace is the final, ultimate safeguard to keep the United States Federal Government honest - or whatever takes its place when it collapses, and believe you me, it will collapse in our lifetime.
But even if it doesn't, can you imagine a world more horrible than one where the Trump regime is the only armed body in the U.S.? How lucky we are to only have to suffer horrifying tweets instead of the horrifying deeds that inevitably come with the corrupting power of being at the head of the world's most powerful government - and the world's most powerful military by about 8 orders of magnitude.
So sit smug in your quaint little home in your socialist paradise country - where your cherished "free" health care is solvent because the U.S. picks up your national defense bill, and since you all live within 100 miles of the U.S. border anyway it's easy to ferry your emergencies across to actual doctors when the Canadian system fails them as it so often does. Be thankful for it.
And moreso, be thankful that 245 million adults are here to vigilantly watch the golem we've created, and that we're armed.
Frankly, it should be painfully obvious that any rational adult who doesn't own, maintain, and practice with a firearm regularly is in dereliction of their civic duty. They're weakening the vaccine, and in so doing, putting everyone ever that much more at risk. Usually for the same misguided "progressive" principals that always do the most damage to those they purport to help - the little guys.[DOUBLEPOST=1507106174,1507105738][/DOUBLEPOST]
You don't even understand what a "right" is. It's abhorrent to have the "right" to someone else's toil and treasure simply by virtue of not having it yourself. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean the government buys us guns, and the government doesn't pay for our health care. You know what's even more critical to life than health care? Food. Shelter. Do you think the government should cover everyone's grocery bills and mortgages from top to bottom, too? I mean, isn't it so terrible that food is not a "right?"
Ah yes, the good ol' armed rebellion shtick... remind me again, when was the last successful rebellion against the US government? The Whiskey one? Blair Mountain? The raid on Harper's Ferry? The Civil War?
What's that? It worked once before the US had a government? Well then, i sure hope your Glock has a frenchman on speed dial...
And it's not like there was any resistance to the government listing in on all your phones? Or shitting all over habeas corpus with the "Patriot" Act (or, right, it was ok because it wasn't about citizens - until it was-, even though the Constitution applies to everyone under US jurisdiction, and always mentions when it only applies to citizens)?
.....
And for fucks sakes, most people aren't even talking about taking away your guns, just putting some safeguards in place so that not everyone that just gets released from a mental hospital or something can just go straight to owning an arsenal. But somehow you can't see anything but an attack on your rights. (And hell, if they actually do try to make laws that really take away your guns, then you got all those guns to use as a vaccine, right...)
I think i just found the solution to your gun problem... make guns and ammo super expensive.
Man, and it was so easy...
And the thing is, that's an argument for not banning guns, not for not regulating access to them based on objective criteria. I mean remember the "well regulated militia" part in the 2nd amendment?
Don't forget the Appeal to Emotion fallacy.
As i pointed out above, don't they have guns to shoot the slope if it gets too slippery?
Wait, hang on, we've got one of the most powerful militaries in the world, so much so that it allows us to "babysit" the freedoms of other nations, but average people owning gun are keeping the country safe from Red Dawn? Somehow that doesn't add up. I really don't think the numbers would add up in the scenario if the US government turned it military power against it's own people. Heck, even out police forces are usually better armed than the general populace.A bunch of gun owners aren't going to be able to stop a tank. Like I said before, I think there are some exceptions to having a gun of some kind in a home, but keeping our government in check would be a bloody, losing battle.
To be fair, a guerrilla war could work... you'd just have to invest in more poppy fields, and have Mexico pretend they're not helping you, even though that's where Joe Laden was hiding this whole time.
Several people have made this point, so I guess this bears repeating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
To be sure, if the constitution fails and the federal government decides to use the military against US citizens on US soil, and the military decides to follow those orders, then all bets are off.
Until then, though, rebels would only need to deal with state forces, national guard, the ATF, FBI, CIA, etc.
Still not a slam dunk, but I don't think we should dismiss one of the foundations for the second amendment which is that an armed populace is harder for the government to repress.
Not impossible, but harder - and that may still be a sufficient reason to maintain it.
For some, obviously, that's not a good reason, and there may be no good reasons for some. But for a large number of people it's a reason for them to exercise and maintain that right.
How many are we already under?
Indeed. Give the president too much power and national policy swings violently with every change of the guard.[DOUBLEPOST=1507126885,1507126785][/DOUBLEPOST]
We are still a republic. A state generally has to declare a state of emergency to override its rules and allow foreign (ie, federal or other state) forces inside its borders.
The federal government may declare a state of emergency, but they are still not allowed to perform actions inside states without state permission.
Yes. People made fun of Bush the Younger, portrayed him as childish. But with Trump it's like he's actually trying to live up to the caricature.
--Patrick
And then you have a civil war, and history is written by the victorious. Sorry if I sound skeptical here, there’s just thousands of years of precedent.
I agree with your assessment. If guns are an impediment, they are a minor impediment - but in many such conflicts a minor impediment can change the course of the conflict.
So the question is, are they worth it?
I don't know that this is an equation that can be objectively solved, people have different values regarding threats.
In the not so distant past,a six-year-old girl was such an existential threat that federal marshals had to be called in.
GasBandit
Staff member
As grim as it sounds, how much grimmer would such a situation be without an armed populace? If the choice is between a grim struggle with little hope and a docile place in line being marched into a camp with no hope at all, which would you prefer? As for "we can't stop tanks," the Finns of the Winter War would disagree with you, as would the goatherds with AKs and improvised explosives that broke our political will and had us leave Iraq with our tail between our legs.
And, if I can turn to address the peanut gallery for a moment, let's move the argument to one where everything I said didn't matter. That you get your way and the 2nd amendment is abolished. It still won't work. There are 112 firearms per capita in the United States. Every time the discussion of tightening up firearm regulations even comes up, there's immediately a spike in purchases - especially and most specifically of whatever's being discussed for banning. Can you imagine the absolute stampedes to the gun stores if a blanket ban were on the table? I guarantee you that right now somebody's out there buying bump stocks because they know that, as we speak, some democrat senator is cracking the whip over his staff to draft legislation banning them, hurrying to introduce it while the pain of Las Vegas is still fresh so that any opposition can be shouted down. So if the 2nd amendment is abolished, what happens to all these guns? Buybacks? These will only disarm the very people who should most be armed - the responsible and law abiding. Meanwhile, the criminal and the malicious will stockpile. The decent-but-unwilling-to-disarm will become criminal by definition. The lawful will be disarmed, and the lawless will be empowered.
Heck, even if bump stocks were already outlawed, it wouldn't have impeded the Las Vegas shooter - he's a perfect storm - a rich old guy with no criminal record and no prior history of anything noteworthy at all. He probably would have even afforded the time and expense to get the paperwork taken care of to get a full-blown genuine full auto permit stamp and purchase a real, no-workaround fully automatic weapon - also extremely expensive. Or, he could have gotten a trigger crank. Or just clandestinely had the metalworking done on a semi-auto receiver to turn it full-auto. There will always be a workaround short of a blanket ban. And even a blanket ban won't get the effects desired.
And I'll just close by reminding you again that, despite what the media and facebook tell you, we are living in the safest and least violent period in human history.
They must have seen Men In Black. Little Tiffany was obviously a threat.
No, I agree that in our current state, the government wouldn't be able to instantly roll over the people, but it would end in a loss with heavy casualities on both sides. But since we also don't have mandatory military service, we'll have a lot of guns, but people untrained in combat. Just being able to pull a trigger could do something, but not enough. And you could say "But we'd train people", except the scenario is the government could turn on us at any time. When the amendment was written, the average American was much closer to the maximum firepower our military held. Now it's not even close and we can't run our laws based on a fantasy.
We've run rampant over the 2nd Amendment, like it was handed down from god, and not made by men who said we could adjust as needed. I acknowledge there are a practical need for some guns, but we need to make far tighter rules about who can have guns and how many and what kind. I can't help but feel if we weren't so casual about the presense of guns, especially ones that have large magazines, there are a number of tragedies that might have been intervened or stopped sooner. Not that this can prevent all deaths, someone determined enough can find a way, but a start would be bringing down the number of damage a person can do at one time.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'd just like to reiterate that I think incorporating gun safety training - with range time - into the 12th grade curriculum would be a good idea. It'd reduce the number of firearm-related accidents as well as instill basic proper handling and familiarity in the citizenry. And even if a graduate never picked up another gun in their life after that, it'd still help demystify them - mitigate the "ooh scary" factor so many people seem to have. Obviously it wouldn't make every citizen a soldier, but it'd be an improvement on what you rightly call the armed but untrained.
Which would go a long way towards helping them react properly to a threatening situation, rather than freezing in fear, or reacting in a way that makes things worse.
Ah yes, the famous american winters, that would impede troop movement and allow for a few snipers to pin down whole battalions.
See, the thing is, an actual internal conflict against the majority of your own population would pretty much guarantee there's no "political will" to deplete, or to stop the type of atrocities one needs to counter guerrilla warfare and enemy combatants hiding within the local population.
It's almost like sensible laws, regulations and social programs work or something.