Orlando shooting, thoughts?

Holy shit. This is why we can't have nice things 

I think there should be some common ground between the gun nuts and the gun abolitionists. Those of us who have grown up with guns, if we're being honest, know that something needs to be done. People who want the guns to go away should realize we're not going to let that happen. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. Background checks, closing gun show loopholes? How about the NSA, with all its surveillance powers, stop looking at naked selfies and start tracking people who have a history of violence? How about people who've been investigated by the FBI TWICE, how about they have to jump through some extra hoops before buying an AR-15? Or at least flag them so that once they start loading up on guns and ammo they can be watched somehow?

The NRA used to be a hunting and gun safety organization. Now they've become a political force. Their propaganda is the reason we can't have a reasonable discussion about any of this shit. Fear is a powerful tool.

Typical liberal.

I still do not quite understand what liberal actually means in America. Doesen't seem to mean the same as everywhere else in the world.

In Malaysia not even the least educated analphabet would fall for an asshole like trump.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 16, 2016, 06:47:32 AM

Typical liberal.

I still do not quite understand what liberal actually means in America. Doesen't seem to mean the same as everywhere else in the world.

In Malaysia not even the least educated analphabet would fall for an asshole like trump.

Most people who use it as an insult do not know what it means either.

Do you really want a club full of drunk people with guns? From what I've read there were more than 300 people in there. I have worked at a big club like that, and they hire off duty police (armed and in uniform) to keep things under control. I seriously doubt security at that club want a bunch of drunk dumb asses "defending" themselves. Not to mention the ones rolling on e or any other drugs. Fuck.

And before you assume anything - I am not anti gun! In fact, I still have the gun I got for Christmas when I was 10yrs old. My entire family are a bunch of gun nuts.

In some states its illegal to have them armed as well.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 15, 2016, 07:24:55 PM

Quote from: boydster on June 15, 2016, 06:42:27 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 15, 2016, 06:34:11 PM

Quote from: boydster on June 15, 2016, 05:14:55 PM

It's funny how for some, the answer to increased gun violence is more guns. I don't understand the connection. Maybe these douche bags that think they need to have an assault weapon to tote around and show off (because "2nd Amendment! Yarrrr! 'Merica!!!!!!!") should just come to terms with the fact that they are, in fact, douche bags for even thinking that there is a good reason for the average joe to own such a weapon.

There are many good a lawful reasons to own such a weapon. The first being "shall not be infringed". Then there's defense against tyranny both foriegn and domestic. Home defense or defense in general. Hunting. And for shooting sports.

An assault rifle is unnecessary for any of those reasons. The 2nd amendment was written with muskets in mind, not AR-15-type rifles. You hunt deer with an AR-15? Seriously? Maybe your hunting skills need improvement so you can graduate to something a little more sportsmanlike. 

Here we go with the old muskets argument. Sorry for sounding a little snarky but I've dealing with this for a bit. The founding fathers had the state of the art weaponry of that time. In fact their Kentucky rifles were more advanced than the British. They had cannons and privately owned ships. Plus they were aware and fans of prototype multi shot firearms.

As for hunting with an AR, you can switch calibers to a more apted one since the .223/5.56 isn't powerful enough to be humane to big animals a lot of the time. Also an AR is great for home defense especially when dealing with home invasions which is usually happens with more than one guy.

Quote

Quote

Lets look at what happen before it was illegal to carry a gun into a bar.

And here you are talking about different cultures..........

You can't deny that we are worst than our parents and grandparents days in many ways.

So more guns are the answer to the gun problem. Especially assault rifles. Because we are worse than previous generations. Got it.

Also, the .223/5.56 ammo isn't humane enough for animals but you'll defend its use on people who are trying to enjoy a night out in a night club?? During graduation? Explain to me how a 19 year old girl going out on the town after graduating her senior year should have to think to herself "I really need me an assault rifle before I go out to dance with my friends tonight." Then explain that to her parents. You haven't convinced me the average people needs an AR-15 type of gun. You want to hunt? Get a .22 and learn how to use it. You want to hunt people? Go f yourself (not you, Luke, the dickhead that shot up the Orlando club). It's unnecessary for a civilian to have an assault rifle. Period.

Nowhere did I claim that everybody should own and carry an AR, though it is the right for you to do that if you want. There are more apted guns for carrying like pistols. Plus you haven't really demonstrated why an AR isn't apted for anything other than mass shootings. The fact of the matter is pistols are used more so in mass shootings than the dreaded AR. In fact handguns make up the vast majority of crimes with guns in general. Rifles in general has only made up 3% of crimes with guns and the AR makes up even less. And why would I hunt with something that is less than adequate? Who said anything about hunting to begin with? The second amendment wasn't about hunting.

Of course people that are part of the American culture are different today than they were 50 years ago. We have 24-hour news coverage to glorify all the terrible things people do with weapons they shouldn't have, and channels dedicated to justifying why those terrible people should continue to have access to those very weapons. And easier-than-ever access to those weapons!

Millions of these rifles are being sold yet there only been a few crimes commited by them.

How can you, in good conscience, claim that people attending nightclubs should be armed because some asshole shot a bunch of people with a gun that no civilian should have to begin with? And then try and justify people having that sort of gun for things like hunting and safety?? Get a hunting rifle to hunt. Get a hand gun for safety. Learn how to use those guns properly and safely.

To answer you're first question is because when seconds count, the police are just minutes away and the police are not obligated to protect citizens as an individual. In Mexico they have very strict guns laws yet the cartels have RPGs. The point of self defense isn't to meet the threat with adequate force. The point of self defense is to meet the threat with equal and overwhelming force. To answer your second question why do you think we don't need this type of firearm? The VT shooter did it with pistols and ten round magazines and managed to kill 32 unarmed innocent victims.

The founding fathers weren't dealing with weapons that could deal the type of carnage that we see today. Enough of this "shall not be infringed" bs. Your rights aren't infringed if you can still get a fire arm. Those teenagers' right to life was infringed, though, because some dick had a gun that shot really fast. Some of them played dead in order to avoid getting shot even more. One of them bled out while her cousins laid next to her, because they couldn't move for fear of getting shot again. Yeah, let's give more people guns. Because we need more stories like this.

A ship loaded with cannons can do the same damage if not more so. Even one cannon loaded with shot and explosive rounds can do more damage. Yet the founding fathers had these and allowed civilians to own these.

Further on the 2nd amendment, having a firearm of any sort isn't going to protect you from tyranny. You think an AR-15 will protect you from the Pentagon? Get real. It's a red herring argument. A distraction from what is really happening. Let me know when you start enriching Uranium and have a real deterrent from a real government imposing on your rights. Then, tell me how you feel about your crazy neighbor or acquaintance doing the same because of whatever conspiracy theory they have in their head. After all, they have a right, right?

Three flaws:

1. You forgot that geurilla warfare works. It worked in Vietnam and the Middle East. You also forgot that we fought against the most powerful country in the world to gain our freedom and we won.

2. You're assuming that our military is willing to shoot on their own family to take away our rights. The greater majority would refuse and even fight against the orders. Plus a military is only affective as its flow of supplies. The vast part of the military is dependant on civilian workers. It would take an outside force to do the job.

3. A detterant to tyranny doesn't have to be violent. The mere fact that there are at least 80 million gun owners and at least 300 million privately owned guns is enough for the government to think twice.


Here are some videos for you.

The means to do these kinds of acts of destruction and murder are far more in number than simply guns. Look at the Boston Marathon.

To answer you're first question is because when seconds count, the police are just minutes away and the police are not obligated to protect citizens as an individual. In Mexico they have very strict guns laws yet the cartels have RPGs. The point of self defense isn't to meet the threat with adequate force. The point of self defense is to meet the threat with equal and overwhelming force.

The point of self-defence is to meet a threat with a plan that will extract you from the the situation with as little damage as possible.  That could be shooting, but its more usually, running.  I don't mean to say that shooting is never the better option, but these conversations tend to portray gun fire as the best answer to self-defence.

To answer your second question why do you think we don't need this type of firearm? The VT shooter did it with pistols and ten round magazines and managed to kill 32 unarmed innocent victims.

I think that limiting the availability of these weapons to threats takes away a better option for mass shootings.  If pistols are also effective, I am all for limiting their availability to potential threats.

A ship loaded with cannons can do the same damage if not more so. Even one cannon loaded with shot and explosive rounds can do more damage. Yet the founding fathers had these and allowed civilians to own these.

A cannon is a shitty weapon because they are extremely difficult to transport and extremely conspicuous.  Regardless, the constitution is not sacrosanct, and I see no reason why the 2nd amendment should be an exception.  As a bible literalist, you may not agree, but the needs of societies change, and if people are unwilling to examine these needs honestly, then the tyranny of tradition takes over.

Three flaws:

1. You forgot that geurilla warfare works. It worked in Vietnam and the Middle East. You also forgot that we fought against the most powerful country in the world to gain our freedom and we won.

The most powerful country in the world at that time was still using infantry as the primary tactical tool.  The gap in power now if much greater because of air superiority, cruise missiles and heavy armor.  Yes guerilla tactics work, but even those are not as effective now as they were in the Vietnam war.  The casualty rate in the most recent Iraq war is 10% of what it was in the Vietnam War.

2. You're assuming that our military is willing to shoot on their own family to take away our rights. The greater majority would refuse and even fight against the orders. Plus a military is only affective as its flow of supplies. The vast part of the military is dependant on civilian workers. It would take an outside force to do the job.

If you don't think the military will fire on their countrymen, then why all the hulla-balloo about defense against tyranny in the first place?  You should be fine with passive resistance, no?

3. A detterant to tyranny doesn't have to be violent. The mere fact that there are at least 80 million gun owners and at least 300 million privately owned guns is enough for the government to think twice.

So not violent, but threatening violence.

The means to do these kinds of acts of destruction and murder are far more in number than simply guns. Look at the Boston Marathon.

Yes, the USA is the most violent western democracy going, yet "peace through superior firepower" always seems to be the only solution presented by pro-gun people.  I really don't get it.

Point being banning guns is treating a symptom of the problem. It will just move those so motivated to more dangerous means of hurting others like shrapnel bombs. Thanks to the Yippie group of the 60s (not modern Yippies they are something else entirely) we see this is the case. Steal This Book has explicit instructions on creating all sorts of very dangerous molotov cocktails. The Anarchists Cookbook I imagine has just as many as well, ignoring human ingenuity and a pressure cooker.

Point being banning guns is treating a symptom of the problem. It will just move those so motivated to more dangerous means of hurting others like shrapnel bombs. Thanks to the Yippie group of the 60s (not modern Yippies they are something else entirely) we see this is the case. Steal This Book has explicit instructions on creating all sorts of very dangerous molotov cocktails. The Anarchists Cookbook I imagine has just as many as well, ignoring human ingenuity and a pressure cooker.

Well said, especially from someone whom comes from a country of strict control.

Thus why I said this as backing his point

I have an armory in my house AND shop, very close to a gun store. Shotguns of all sorts, pistols, rifles (hunting and sniper style), AND assault rifles.

Yet non of these weapons have assaulted me at night while I slept , they all seem quite calm. Nor have I used them to attack others, I have never even had to draw a weapon since having my chl.

My very first house , which was a waste land of shit, I had numerous occasions when I had to draw a firearm, between prowlers and home invasions. It was an interesting year and a half for sure. Out of all the times, there were 3 I could have shot and killed the person, been held of no liability because of our castle law here.

Yet did I?? No, I chose to use communication instead of violence despite the free pass. Would I have shot them, yes, though out of 100 options, it was option 100 to me. ITS THE PEOPLE NOT THE GUNS!!! GEEZ!

Point being banning guns is treating a symptom of the problem. It will just move those so motivated to more dangerous means of hurting others like shrapnel bombs.

 Thanks to the Yippie group of the 60s (not modern Yippies they are something else entirely) we see this is the case. Steal This Book has explicit instructions on creating all sorts of very dangerous molotov cocktails. The Anarchists Cookbook I imagine has just as many as well, ignoring human ingenuity and a pressure cooker.

I can't agree with this.  There are plenty of countries with strict gun laws and no incidences of pipe bomb or molotov cocktail attacks.  This is mere slippery slope assertion, and has no basis in reality.

The basis in reality would be the counter-culture Yippie movement I cited who when they were unable to acquire weapons that were suited to mass shootings instead turned to explosive and incendiaries.

Other countries aren't the US. There are other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings like this. You are just pushing a false equivalence fallacy.

The basis in reality would be the counter-culture Yippie movement I cited who when they were unable to acquire weapons that were suited to mass shootings instead turned to explosive and incendiaries.

Other countries aren't the US. There are other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings like this. You are just pushing a false equivalence fallacy.

No I am suggesting that perhaps the USA should look to the example of other countries.

Quote from: FalseProphet on June 16, 2016, 08:27:16 AM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 16, 2016, 06:47:32 AM

Typical liberal.

I still do not quite understand what liberal actually means in America. Doesen't seem to mean the same as everywhere else in the world.

In Malaysia not even the least educated analphabet would fall for an asshole like trump.

Most people who use it as an insult do not know what it means either.

Liberal ...

To overthrow the constitution by destroying the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that its framers ingrained into it. ('...it's like when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner...' Liberals are the wolves who punish those in our society who work hard and are successful.)

Or...
So open minded their brains have literally fell out.

Or...
Hypocrites who preach tolerance of all, then openly mock and ridicule people who disagree with them.

Moral elitist( even though their moral compass is so fucked up I am surprised they can navigate through a parking lot)

Hypocrites

I could keep going but will stop for now.

To overthrow the constitution by destroying the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that its framers ingrained into it. ('...it's like when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner...' Liberals are the wolves who punish those in our society who work hard and are successful.)

The constitution can obviously be improved upon, unless you are a fan of slavery?

The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings?  Like Switzerland?

The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings?  Like Switzerland?

Sure.  Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me in something?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 16, 2016, 01:23:40 PM

To overthrow the constitution by destroying the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that its framers ingrained into it. ('...it's like when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner...' Liberals are the wolves who punish those in our society who work hard and are successful.)

The constitution can obviously be improved upon, unless you are a fan of slavery?

Absolutely not....I have a feeling you knew that. Just trying simple tactics to disqualify what I said.

Do you like socialism??? being MADE to be equal with someone. Even though you have worked your ass off and all the other did was sit on their ass, lay on their back, spread their legs or whatever? I spend 125k on education bust my ass building a business on 3 hours sleep most nights. Spend ass loads of money on insurance and support for my family before what happened happened. Pay 200k plus a year in taxes, and these people get to live off my hard work..why? If you can give me a good reason I will recant everything I have said .

^^actually when you think about it, this is slavery in a way to those who actually work.

I haven't even got to their fucked up moral compass, destroying the constitution ect ect. This is just addressing one issue

Quote from: Rama Set on June 16, 2016, 01:24:58 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 16, 2016, 01:23:40 PM

To overthrow the constitution by destroying the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that its framers ingrained into it. ('...it's like when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner...' Liberals are the wolves who punish those in our society who work hard and are successful.)

The constitution can obviously be improved upon, unless you are a fan of slavery?

Absolutely not....I have a feeling you knew that. Just trying simple tactics to disqualify what I said.

I just don't get how you can equate chaning the 2nd amendment to "Destroying the constitution".  It is so overly dramatic and borderline histrionic and I don't get where this comes from.

Do you like socialism??? being MADE to be equal with someone.

It do like some aspects about socialism.  I believe in the social contract, which is what you are mistaking for "being MADE to be equal with someone".  It is about taking care of your fellow man and acknowledging that a lawful government can be an efficient way to do so.

Even though you have worked your ass off and all the other did was sit on their ass, lay on their back, spread their legs or whatever? I spend 125k on education bust my ass building a business on 3 hours sleep most nights. Spend ass loads of money on insurance and support for my family before what happened happened. Pay 200k plus a year in taxes, and these people get to live off my hard work..why? If you can give me a good reason I will recant everything I have said .

I just think it is more important to help other people than to bitch about money, it is about compassion rather than a sense of entitlement. 

I haven't even got to their fucked up moral compass, destroying the constitution ect ect. This is just addressing one issue

Who is the "they" you are addressing?  Roughly 150,000,000 million people who could be construed as liberals in the USA?  How can you paint them all with the same brush?  It makes no sense.

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2016, 01:26:13 PM

The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings?  Like Switzerland?

Sure.  Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me in something?

I'm really not, though I thought you wouldn't agree. Switzerland requires all males to have guns. Switzerland really loves their guns.

To my other point, some more examples based in reality: 9-11 used box cutters and planes, nazis used cynanide gas, timothy mcveigh used fertilizer.

The issue is not the weapons they are using (though in general I find myself supporting stricter gun control laws).  Using guns to hurt people is a symptom of a larger problem and until we recognize that we won't be dealing with it. In the case of Orlando, it certainly at face-value seems to be bigotry.

The cat is out of the bag in America in regards to guns. There's no way you are going to get it back in. It seems to me we should attempt to address the problem in a way that is able to be actualized and also deals with the actual disease, not a consequence of it.

I spend 125k on education bust my ass building a business on 3 hours sleep most nights. Spend ass loads of money on insurance and support for my family before what happened happened. Pay 200k plus a year in taxes...

All of this only 'happened' in your imagination...

& this thread is a shitty false dialectic snore-fest...

And you are about as Texan as Michel Houellebecq...

Of whom you are doubtless a great admirer...

You dick.

Quote from: Rama Set on June 16, 2016, 01:29:26 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2016, 01:26:13 PM

The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings?  Like Switzerland?

Sure.  Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me in something?

I'm really not, though I thought you wouldn't agree. Switzerland requires all males to have guns. Switzerland really loves their guns.

To my other point, some more examples based in reality: 9-11 used box cutters and planes, nazis used cynanide gas, timothy mcveigh used fertilizer.

The issue is not the weapons they are using (though in general I find myself supporting stricter gun control laws).  Using guns to hurt people is a symptom of a larger problem and until we recognize that we won't be dealing with it. In the case of Orlando, it certainly at face-value seems to be bigotry.

The cat is out of the bag in America in regards to guns. There's no way you are going to get it back in. It seems to me we should attempt to address the problem in a way that is able to be actualized and dealing with the actual disease, not a consequence of it.

Yeah; false dialectic bullshit.

Good work, 'John'.

Quote from: Rama Set on June 16, 2016, 01:29:26 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2016, 01:26:13 PM

The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings?  Like Switzerland?

Sure.  Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me in something?

I'm really not, though I thought you wouldn't agree. Switzerland requires all males to have guns. Switzerland really loves their guns.

Switzerland also requires all males to serve in the military, and with that comes a certain level of decorum and respect for weapons.  Intuitively I would say this is a big difference between the average American and Swiss gun-owner.  Although I am not 100% sure, I don't think it is legal or socially appropriate to carry weapons in public in Switzerland.

To my other point, some more examples based in reality: 9-11 used box cutters and planes, nazis used cynanide gas, timothy mcveigh used fertilizer.

The issue is not the weapons they are using (though in general I find myself supporting stricter gun control laws).  Using guns to hurt people is a symptom of a larger problem and until we recognize that we won't be dealing with it. In the case of Orlando, it certainly at face-value seems to be bigotry.

The cat is out of the bag in America in regards to guns. There's no way you are going to get it back in. It seems to me we should attempt to address the problem in a way that is able to be actualized and also deals with the actual disease, not a consequence of it.

Yes, 100% yes.  I support gun restrictions in the USA insofar as they can be a stop gap to a real solution to violent crime.  If such a solution can be found, that can also respect the 2nd amendment, then it should be implemented, but ultimately socio-economic factors are probably more concerning than the availability of guns.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 16, 2016, 01:35:36 PM

I spend 125k on education bust my ass building a business on 3 hours sleep most nights. Spend ass loads of money on insurance and support for my family before what happened happened. Pay 200k plus a year in taxes...

All of this only 'happened' in your imagination...

& this thread is a shitty false dialectic snore-fest...

And you are about as Texan as Michel Houellebecq...

Of whom you are doubtless a great admirer...

You dick.

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2016, 01:50:33 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on June 16, 2016, 01:29:26 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2016, 01:26:13 PM

The example of aforementioned other countries with less strict gun laws and no incidences of mass shootings?  Like Switzerland?

Sure.  Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me in something?

I'm really not, though I thought you wouldn't agree. Switzerland requires all males to have guns. Switzerland really loves their guns.

To my other point, some more examples based in reality: 9-11 used box cutters and planes, nazis used cynanide gas, timothy mcveigh used fertilizer.

The issue is not the weapons they are using (though in general I find myself supporting stricter gun control laws).  Using guns to hurt people is a symptom of a larger problem and until we recognize that we won't be dealing with it. In the case of Orlando, it certainly at face-value seems to be bigotry.

The cat is out of the bag in America in regards to guns. There's no way you are going to get it back in. It seems to me we should attempt to address the problem in a way that is able to be actualized and dealing with the actual disease, not a consequence of it.

Yeah; false dialectic bullshit.

Good work, 'John'.

So leave instead of being masochistic.

Better watch out or I'll send the illuminati after you Papa!

Rama set...I absolutely agree with you towards compassion for others. But as you said compassion is much different than the sense of entitlement. A good friend of mine, she got delt a bad hand in life. She got a heart problem at 27, kidney failure at 29, now breast cancer at 33. She relies on the government and barely makes ends meet. This I agree with, I help her myself as well. She is a great person, worked hard before it happened, and just got dealt a shit hand.

So don't make assumptions at what I mean. Do you live in the states?

Also 55 percent of Americans rely on the government, do the math on that. How many really need it, and how many have the sense of entitlement.

The reason I ask if you live in the states is they are destroying the constitution just "unofficially".  Just a random example, just to begin construction of the vacuum chamber I had to pay 1800 dollars worth of inspection fees from 3 different organizations.. Tell me how that is fair??

I lay 200k + in taxes a year , yet a sister of my friend is fully functioning person, completely able to work. Yet she has babies for a living, she got 10k back in taxes last year yet has never had a job, and all of her bills are paid for by the government. She is on her third child at 21, tell me how that is fair. The guys she screws with are all in the same situation, being paid 2k a month to do nothing.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 16, 2016, 01:35:36 PM

I spend 125k on education bust my ass building a business on 3 hours sleep most nights. Spend ass loads of money on insurance and support for my family before what happened happened. Pay 200k plus a year in taxes...

All of this only 'happened' in your imagination...

& this thread is a shitty false dialectic snore-fest...

And you are about as Texan as Michel Houellebecq...

Of whom you are doubtless a great admirer...

You dick.

I am about tired of you bashing on hard working people whom has done something with their life just because you are a fucking loser. I have tried to be nice to you ect. I have posted on here as proof when you make accusations, a million dollars worth of fucking play cars that I don't give a shit about..one so dusty I wrote my name on it, one that had toilet paper on it and just as damn dusty. 50k piano that is just in the shop, have its sister at my house, and one of my water jet printers which was about 400k. That is just to start off with. I came from absolutely nothing. Who do you think is a liar me or you fucking dumb ass.

And yeah I don't have a Texas accent unless I drank too much. I had to knock it down, you don't have high end customers sounding like a fucking hick.

Prove something or shut the fuck up fucking lying garbage. I am tired of you bashing everyone here when YOU are the lying piece of shit and loser, not those you accuse.

Now piss off

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 16, 2016, 11:44:00 AM

To answer you're first question is because when seconds count, the police are just minutes away and the police are not obligated to protect citizens as an individual. In Mexico they have very strict guns laws yet the cartels have RPGs. The point of self defense isn't to meet the threat with adequate force. The point of self defense is to meet the threat with equal and overwhelming force.

The point of self-defence is to meet a threat with a plan that will extract you from the the situation with as little damage as possible.  That could be shooting, but its more usually, running.  I don't mean to say that shooting is never the better option, but these conversations tend to portray gun fire as the best answer to self-defence.

Of course if you can run away you should, but what I said was assuming you ran out of options.

Quote

To answer your second question why do you think we don't need this type of firearm? The VT shooter did it with pistols and ten round magazines and managed to kill 32 unarmed innocent victims.

I think that limiting the availability of these weapons to threats takes away a better option for mass shootings.  If pistols are also effective, I am all for limiting their availability to potential threats.

Weren't you on the other forum was mocking me for saying that every confiscation started with registration? What is you end goal for gun control?

Quote

A ship loaded with cannons can do the same damage if not more so. Even one cannon loaded with shot and explosive rounds can do more damage. Yet the founding fathers had these and allowed civilians to own these.

A cannon is a lousy weapon because they are extremely difficult to transport and extremely conspicuous.  Regardless, the constitution is not sacrosanct, and I see no reason why the 2nd amendment should be an exception.  As a bible literalist, you may not agree, but the needs of societies change, and if people are unwilling to examine these needs honestly, then the tyranny of tradition takes over.

But nothing needs to change. If anything we need more lax gun laws in more states and cities.

Quote

Three flaws:

1. You forgot that geurilla warfare works. It worked in Vietnam and the Middle East. You also forgot that we fought against the most powerful country in the world to gain our freedom and we won.

The most powerful country in the world at that time was still using infantry as the primary tactical tool.  The gap in power now if much greater because of air superiority, cruise missiles and heavy armor.  Yes guerilla tactics work, but even those are not as effective now as they were in the Vietnam war.  The casualty rate in the most recent Iraq war is 10% of what it was in the Vietnam War.

Even being 10% they are still reeking havoc on our troops and we still haven't beaten them.

Quote

2. You're assuming that our military is willing to shoot on their own family to take away our rights. The greater majority would refuse and even fight against the orders. Plus a military is only affective as its flow of supplies. The vast part of the military is dependant on civilian workers. It would take an outside force to do the job.

If you don't think the military will fire on their countrymen, then why all the hulla-balloo about defense against tyranny in the first place?  You should be fine with passive resistance, no?

Tyranny doesn't just comes from our own government. It can also come from foriegn sources. I find it funny that you'll say that we don't need ARs but then turn around and say essentially you can't fight city hall. If the latter is really the case then I think that proves my point of why not only we need ARs but bigger weapons as well.

Quote

3. A detterant to tyranny doesn't have to be violent. The mere fact that there are at least 80 million gun owners and at least 300 million privately owned guns is enough for the government to think twice.

So not violent, but threatening violence.

It's the same with if you come in my house to harm me or my family. You'll have a fight on you hands if you do.

Quote from: John Davis on June 16, 2016, 12:08:31 PM

The means to do these kinds of acts of destruction and murder are far more in number than simply guns. Look at the Boston Marathon.

Yes, the USA is the most violent western democracy going, yet "peace through superior firepower" always seems to be the only solution presented by pro-gun people.  I really don't get it.

It's not the only one but it does work. It worked for WW2 didn't it?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 16, 2016, 08:30:29 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on June 16, 2016, 08:27:16 AM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 16, 2016, 06:47:32 AM

Typical liberal.

I still do not quite understand what liberal actually means in America. Doesen't seem to mean the same as everywhere else in the world.

In Malaysia not even the least educated analphabet would fall for an asshole like trump.

Most people who use it as an insult do not know what it means either.

Liberal ...

To overthrow the constitution by destroying the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that its framers ingrained into it. ('...it's like when three wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner...' Liberals are the wolves who punish those in our society who work hard and are successful.)

Or...
So open minded their brains have literally fell out.

Or...
Hypocrites who preach tolerance of all, then openly mock and ridicule people who disagree with them.

Moral elitist( even though their moral compass is so fucked up I am surprised they can navigate through a parking lot)

Hypocrites

I could keep going but will stop for now.

Aww, this makes me sad. You really don't know what it means. Hint - it doesn't mean Democrat.

Also, why would FalseProphet give a shit about the US constitution?

Rama set...I absolutely agree with you towards compassion for others. But as you said compassion is much different than the sense of entitlement. A good friend of mine, she got delt a bad hand in life. She got a heart problem at 27, kidney failure at 29, now breast cancer at 33. She relies on the government and barely makes ends meet. This I agree with, I help her myself as well. She is a great person, worked hard before it happened, and just got dealt a shit hand.

So don't make assumptions at what I mean. Do you live in the states?

Also 55 percent of Americans rely on the government, do the math on that. How many really need it, and how many have the sense of entitlement.

What does that mean, "rely on the government".  I really don't trust statements like that unless they are sourced and well defined.

The reason I ask if you live in the states is they are destroying the constitution just "unofficially".  Just a random example, just to begin construction of the vacuum chamber I had to pay 1800 dollars worth of inspection fees from 3 different organizations.. Tell me how that is fair??

How is it not fair?  How does it infringe on your constitutional rights?

I lay 200k + in taxes a year , yet a sister of my friend is fully functioning person, completely able to work. Yet she has babies for a living, she got 10k back in taxes last year yet has never had a job, and all of her bills are paid for by the government. She is on her third child at 21, tell me how that is fair. The guys she screws with are all in the same situation, being paid 2k a month to do nothing.

I know there are mooches out there, but throwing out a whole system of social welfare is not the answer, because it would be punishing the people, like your friend, who really desperately need this assistance.  I am sure you will agree that that is not fair either.  A real solution is somewhere in between.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on June 15, 2016, 06:34:11 PM

Quote from: boydster on June 15, 2016, 05:14:55 PM

It's funny how for some, the answer to increased gun violence is more guns. I don't understand the connection. Maybe these douche bags that think they need to have an assault weapon to tote around and show off (because "2nd Amendment! Yarrrr! 'Merica!!!!!!!") should just come to terms with the fact that they are, in fact, douche bags for even thinking that there is a good reason for the average joe to own such a weapon.

There are many good a lawful reasons to own such a weapon. The first being "shall not be infringed". Then there's defense against tyranny both foriegn and domestic. Home defense or defense in general. Hunting. And for shooting sports.

An assault rifle is unnecessary for any of those reasons. The 2nd amendment was written with muskets in mind, not AR-15-type rifles. You hunt deer with an AR-15? Seriously? Maybe your hunting skills need improvement so you can graduate to something a little more sportsmanlike. 

Quote

Lets look at what happen before it was illegal to carry a gun into a bar.

And here you are talking about different cultures..........

Should freedom of the press only apply to printing presses? Should illegal search and seizure not apply to cell phones?

AR-15 are not assault rifles. Many people do hunt with them. I can hunt with one of mine but I don't hunt.

Rama set......She relies on the government That is pretty self explanatory. She gets 1300 from the government, another 400 from military death benefits, and another 500 for child assistance. That's it, entirely from the government. The rest comes from random work she can do with her health issues, and if I help her or her family helps when she is short. As for a citation I can have her post the same thing lol.

As for the heavy taxation needed to support for example the permits I speak of, and about 20 other things per year I have to pay not to mention  income tax itself. That is so every single person can have a foot in the door for absolutely no reason. This hinders wages I can pay as well as prevents expansion or spending I might do. So perhaps Constitutional might not be 100 percent the best description but it's the closest way I could describe it. Everyone government agency wants something for nothing because they give out something for nothing. It's broad but true.

Americans rights are being stripped but that is hard to explain when you don't live here. The other countries I have been to on business is a breath of fresh air to me.


I absolutely agree.....there is a middle ground. Outreach programs should not go away, but the way the liberal minds are there is no qualifications. Just give it away, put it on the backs of the remaining who bust ass. Then wonder why we are 19 trillion in debt or whatever it is I stopped counting . There is much other useless spending as well because of people's whims, no connection with reality because the ones calling the shots already have their nut. To hell with the rest of us. Do you think they would care if I was taxed out of business or put out because of some other stupid ass rule? Not one shit will be given.


Space cowgirl.....not one shit will be given either from false prophet about the American Constitution . Which is why I answered so harshly. He just wanted to hate, that is all.

Weren't you on the other forum was mocking me for saying that every confiscation started with registration? What is you end goal for gun control?

I was mocking your terrible logic.  As for my end goal of gun registration, I think I said it pretty succinctly:

limiting their availability to potential threats.

Even being 10% they are still reeking havoc on our troops and we still haven't beaten them.

Al-Qaeda is pretty much done.  The only thing that hasn't been done is stabilizing Iraq.

Tyranny doesn't just comes from our own government. It can also come from foriegn sources.

So join the army if you are keen to kill foreigners.

I find it funny that you'll say that we don't need ARs but then turn around and say essentially you can't fight city hall.

I am not sure where I said that.

If the latter is really the case then I think that proves my point of why not only we need ARs but bigger weapons as well.

Oh good.  Please count me out of your world.

It's the same with if you come in my house to harm me or my family. You'll have a fight on you hands if you do.

Sweet.

It's not the only one but it does work. It worked for WW2 didn't it?

Why no try a solution that doesn't involve the death though?  As violent as the USA may be, it is not even remotely close to a war zone.  Make a peaceful choice.

Rama set......She relies on the government That is pretty self explanatory. She gets 1300 from the government, another 400 from military death benefits, and another 500 for child assistance. That's it, entirely from the government. The rest comes from random work she can do with her health issues, and if I help her or her family helps when she is short. As for a citation I can have her post the same thing lol.

I meant your reference to 55% of Americans relying on government assistance.

As for the heavy taxation needed to support for example the permits I speak of, and about 20 other things per year I have to pay not to mention  income tax itself. That is so every single person can have a foot in the door for absolutely no reason. This hinders wages I can pay as well as prevents expansion or spending I might do.

Never said it was a perfect system, all I can ask is that you don't deny that social welfare can and is, in a lot of cases a positive element in society.

So perhaps Constitutional might not be 100 percent the best description but it's the closest way I could describe it.

It is actually a terrible way to describe it.  You are having issues with governance, not with constitutionality.

Everyone government agency wants something for nothing because they give out something for nothing. It's broad but true.

It's broad and maybe occasionally true.  Tell you what, why don't you look up success stories that have been achieved and see if maybe you aren't being a little too broad.

Americans rights are being stripped but that is hard to explain when you don't live here. The other countries I have been to on business is a breath of fresh air to me.

If you have an actual case of your constitutional rights being stripped, then please prosecute them, but I think you really just have a problem with governance.  So become a democrat and feel the Bern

I absolutely agree.....there is a middle ground. Outreach programs should not go away, but the way the liberal minds are there is no qualifications.

Not all liberals are like this.  Let go of your bias and you can find allies everywhere.

Just give it away, put it on the backs of the remaining who bust ass. Then wonder why we are 19 trillion in debt or whatever it is I stopped counting .

It might have something to do with the war in Iraq too.  A billion dollars a day to fight an enemy of the US governments own making.  Maybe don't put all the blame on social programs.

There is much other useless spending as well because of people's whims, no connection with reality because the ones calling the shots already have their nut. To hell with the rest of us. Do you think they would care if I was taxed out of business or put out because of some other stupid ass rule? Not one shit will be given.

Again, governance, not constitutional.


Space cowgirl.....not one shit will be given either from false prophet about the American Constitution . Which is why I answered so harshly. He just wanted to hate, that is all.
[/quote]