Obama; New Type of Hope, Same Type of Stupid (Gun Control)

Let's keep this in perspective. I haven't heard any Congressional leaders calling for a return to the Assault Weapons Ban. I haven't heard the President call for it. So far it's just the AG shooting off his mouth in an interview.

AGs have been known to say stupid things.

Alberto Gonzales said a lot of dumb things. John Ashcroft said a lot of dumb things. Janet Reno said a lot of dumb things. Edwin Meese couldn't get through a day without saying something abysmally stupid.

Until I see real action, I'm not going to start hoarding 17-round Glock magazines. Neither should you.

As I said before Big L, I don't think it will happen because it costs democrats dearly the last time around. People either don't want it, and a lot of the ones who do don't understand it.

I would expect some sort insignificant gun control moves by the Democrats in the near future, to make it look like they are doing something, and not unlike the flag burning amendments that pop up from time to time from a Republican looking to woo his constituents.

What really gets my interest where groups are trying to allow guns back on college campuses and in government buildings, theres quite a drama being played out here in okieland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

From your point of view, we can extrapolate that it is in your right to possess nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry without your government having any say in it whatsoever. Why are they banning nuclear weapons anyway? Pfft, it only limits your own freedom to defend yourselves.

---

Where did it go, where did it go, come on, where is it...





Oh, yes. Found it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img90.imageshack.us/img90/51...ead2dhorse.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

I am making a simple question, to see if I can understand the rationale of violent opposition to banning firearms which frankly, don't add up to the protection of anyone.

As to your question, yes I need the internet as a concentrated source of information which I primarily use to the advancement of my personal life. Furthermore I need to internet as a tool to coordinate my country so my personal needs (And the needs of the society) are better fulfilled.

---

"Advancing your personal life" isn't worth the viruses, identity theft, hackers breaking into government systems, and the proliferation of child pornography.

You don't need access to the internet; a select, trained few from the government can handle the needs of society with internet access for them alone.

Unless you really like the proliferation of child pornography? You don't want that, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

There are too many guns, there is too much crime, and we have a fairly open immigration and legal system which does well at protecting peoples rights but nonetheless slows justice down to a snails pace sometimes and makes it very easy for people to move around the country to avoid prosecution and target new victims.

---

Now that is something like the answer I was looking for.

Maybe the problem isn't really gun control and someone should open a thread about how to improve your legal system to become faster etc.
at least that would be constructive criticism and not just "No we need gunz to shoot immigrantz and because we like to do that and why not!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

"Advancing your personal life" isn't worth the viruses, identity theft, hackers breaking into government systems, and the proliferation of child pornography.

---

Yes, I do need the internet despite those problems simply because those problems are to be dealt with by the government (Except for the viruses). If the Internet was banned, there wouldn't be a replacement. If Assault Rifles were banned...bleh, you still had ordinary firearms, pistols and shotguns to defend yourself. That is why my question went unanswered, because people don't need Assault Rifles in any scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

You don't need access to the internet; a select, trained few from the government can handle the needs of society with internet access for them alone.

---

The "few" can't handle the scope and size of what the Internet has become, otherwise the virtual flux of information would drop from 9999999999999999999999 to 100. Internet has become an integral part of every developed society in the world. Halting it would lead to a gigantic recession due to interdependency bonds being cut off all the sudden. Assault Rifles aren't an integral part of any society that I know of (Unless you talk about Somalia).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Unless you really like the proliferation of child pornography? You don't want that, do you?

---

One side - Child pornography = Other side - World Economy
One side - Assault Rifles = Other side - Pistols & Shotguns

Yeap, seems like they are too similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Where did it go, where did it go, come on, where is it...





Oh, yes. Found it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img90.imageshack.us/img90/51...ead2dhorse.gif

---

Hehe. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Yes, I do need the internet despite those problems simply because those problems are to be dealt with by the government (Except for the viruses). If the Internet was banned, there wouldn't be a replacement. If Assault Rifles were banned...bleh, you still had ordinary firearms, pistols and shotguns to defend yourself. That is why my question went unanswered, because people don't need Assault Rifles in any scenario.

---

If you think about it though, who is the Second Amendment directed towards? You will need assault weapons to defend yourself from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

If you think about it though, who is the Second Amendment directed towards? You will need assault weapons to defend yourself from them.

---

A hit is a hit and there are rifles that hit with more power than many assault rifles. If you can't aim then you will lose anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

If you think about it though, who is the Second Amendment directed towards? You will need assault weapons to defend yourself from them.

---

Can't you defend yourself from "them", with a shotgun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

A hit is a hit and there are rifles that hit with more power than many assault rifles. If you can't aim then you will lose anyway.

---

Yes, but then why do militaries have assault rifles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Can't you defend yourself from "them", with a shotgun?

---

From the government?

First, it's impossible to win against the government so owning guns is useless now the governments such a pushover that we only need shotguns and rifles.

Truly ROFLCOPPTER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

From the government?

---

Yes. If we go down the "Oppressive Government needs to be repelled with all might necessary" path, why stop in Assault Rifles? It would be better to have artillery already stocked up, tank rounds gathered up, military planes and choppers with full armament, Anti-Air weaponry, etc. That way if the government begins oppressing the people, the people already has a standard army ready to even crush airforce and armored regiments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Yes. If we go down the "Oppressive Government needs to be repelled with all might necessary" path, why stop in Assault Rifles? It would be better to have artillery already stocked up, tank rounds gathered up, military planes and choppers with full armament, Anti-Air weaponry, etc. That way if the government begins oppressing the people, the people already has a standard army ready to even crush airforce and armored regiments.

---

Well yes.

I do draw the line at nuclear weapons. I'm not a complete nut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Yes, but then why do militaries have assault rifles?

---

They probably can't aim so they try to send as many bullets to the other side as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Yes. If we go down the "Oppressive Government needs to be repelled with all might necessary" path, why stop in Assault Rifles? It would be better to have artillery already stocked up, tank rounds gathered up, military planes and choppers with full armament, Anti-Air weaponry, etc. That way if the government begins oppressing the people, the people already has a standard army ready to even crush airforce and armored regiments.

---

The problem is that most people can't afford that - by the way, there has been quite a successful resistance in Iraq using mostly small arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Mom: Girl killed herself over online hoax

edit: South Korean man dies after Starcraft marathon

Do you need video games Ronin?

---

That girl killed herself because a malisious rumour was launched about her.........peer pressure and meaness can do that, and it exists with or without the use of an internet connection, unless that mother actually got on her computer and hit a command that said "kill girl X" I can not see how you can say that girl was killed by the internet.....so the parallel with guns does not stand.


as for the guy that died from playing videogames......any person that engages in a draining activity for 50 straight hours is an idiot...

and yes....I would be all for outlawing stupidity....because that´s the bigger killer of them all.....unfortunately I think that if we outlaw stupidity we are gonna run out of jail space very quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It is not about needing anything. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I am a free man and should not have to prove I need anything or convince the government they should allow me to have it.

It is my right.
CR

---

It could be argued that it is also the right of those who are against gun ownership to feel free to walk out of their houses and walk down the street without having to worry if each person they walk past is packing.

I mean....what kind of society does it produce when I have to worry what I say some guy if I get in an argument at work....because he might get pissed enough to pull out a gun?
I wonder how a supervisor in the US post office feels every time he needs to give a negative job evaluation to one of the employees in his charge.....does he get his affairs in order before doing so?

And if some moron cuts me off in traffic do I dare have a moment of unconsidered emotion and give him the finger?....what if he has a gun in his glove compartment?

Is a society where you have to walk on eggshells around your fellow citizens a free one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Yes. If we go down the "Oppressive Government needs to be repelled with all might necessary" path, why stop in Assault Rifles? It would be better to have artillery already stocked up, tank rounds gathered up, military planes and choppers with full armament, Anti-Air weaponry, etc. That way if the government begins oppressing the people, the people already has a standard army ready to even crush airforce and armored regiments.

---

You can have most of those things if you register them (and pay a hefty fee). The ammunition would have to be registered individually and separately, so a legal arsenal is very expensive.

How many people have been killed by privately owned anti-tank weaponry, for example? Gangsters are not interested in them because 1) it's silly expensive and 2) every cop and g-man in America will want to bag the the guy who uses it in a mod hit.

Seriously, most of the gun murders in America are from pistols, which is the opposite of your argument.

Ronin - why don't you ask someone in a place with high gun ownership? I suspect that you don't have much experience with such a place. I know I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

And if some moron cuts me off in traffic do I dare have a moment of unconsidered emotion and give him the finger?....what if he has a gun in his glove compartment?

---

Actually, a car is considerably more dangerous than a gun. Think about it.

I don't see why guns change the equation so very much. Do you worry about a co-worker punching you? He could take that pen in his hand and stab you in the neck. Is that a serious concern? Just because guns make lethal violence easier doesn't mean they make it more likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Actually, a car is considerably more dangerous than a gun. Think about it.

I don't see why guns change the equation so very much. Do you worry about a co-worker punching you? He could take that pen in his hand and stab you in the neck. Is that a serious concern? Just because guns make lethal violence easier doesn't mean they make it more likely.

---

No...I don´t worry about someone punching me....

....maybe I´m wrong but I don´t see numerous reports about people being stabbed by pens....but I´ll keep and eye out for that.

guns make lethal violence a LOT easier...and therefore more probable to be attempted (and more important to be successful) in a moment of ill-considered anger....I believe there is ample examples to prove this. to say nothing of the lone nut who actually plans it out before coming in to the office and blowing everyone's brains out.

On the contrary, an angry person would be more likely to think twice if he had a more lethal weapon available. Simply throwing a punch is easy - the victim is not likely to be seriously injured. Drawing a handgun, on the other hand, is not only likely to cause the perpetrator to think twice - it is also very rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

On the contrary, an angry person would be more likely to think twice if he had a more lethal weapon available. Simply throwing a punch is easy - the victim is not likely to be seriously injured. Drawing a handgun, on the other hand, is not only likely to cause the perpetrator to think twice - it is also very rare.

---

So if for example you are in a bar and some drunken fool tries to start a fight with you..you would rather him have a gun than not?

I would rather he had no gun and tried to take a swing at me.....I´m not so sure a person in such a condition would "think twice" before pulling a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

You can have most of those things if you register them (and pay a hefty fee). The ammunition would have to be registered individually and separately, so a legal arsenal is very expensive.

---

Acording to CR's concept of freedom, I am led to believe that it is even ridiculous that you have to register firearms. How dare the government keep track of how much firearms he has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

How many people have been killed by privately owned anti-tank weaponry, for example? Gangsters are not interested in them because 1) it's silly expensive and 2) every cop and g-man in America will want to bag the the guy who uses it in a mod hit.

---

True. But something tells me that if Anti-tank weaponry would be as readily available in market as there are Uzi's and glocks, something tells me the number of people being killed by those weapons would skyrocket. I certainly wouldn't be surprised in Gang Wars appearing the said Anti-tank weaponry as a means to do splash damage to the opposite gang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Seriously, most of the gun murders in America are from pistols, which is the opposite of your argument.

---

Opposite to my argument? That's funny. My stance is that even pistols shouldn't be available as they are in the USA, although I can understand the basic logic behind having a firearm. My argument in this thread is that there are more than enough types of firearms in the USA able of protecting yourself (Pistols included), so its hard to understand the violent opposition unless you use some kind of out of the blue argument (To other peoples) like (WE NEEDZ ASSAULT RIFLEZ TO KILLZ TEH TYRANTZ!), to which I find odd. Thus they are defending that every citizen, regardless of mental health, ideals and or beliefs (Imagine Neo-Nazi's getting hold of sweet hot brand new Assault Rifles!) is viable to carry firearms which far surpass any limit of common sense I can establish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

So if for example you are in a bar and some drunken fool tries to start a fight with you..you would rather him have a gun than not?

I would rather he had no gun and tried to take a swing at me.....I´m not so sure a person in such a condition would "think twice" before pulling a gun.

---

You're looking at hypotheticals - where are the statistics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Imagine Neo-Nazi's getting hold of sweet hot brand new Assault Rifles!

---

They can - but guess what! They'd be too scared to use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You're looking at hypotheticals - where are the statistics?

---

The hypothesis is clear enough....I don´t feel I need statistics to back up simple common sense....

and secondly...and more importantly, I´m certainly not gonna spend my sunday night looking up statistics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I mean....what kind of society does it produce when I have to worry what I say some guy if I get in an argument at work....because he might get pissed enough to pull out a gun?

---

A polite one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The problem is that most people can't afford that - by the way, there has been quite a successful resistance in Iraq using mostly small arms.

---

That is against a Democratic Government (USA) which is highly pressured by Public Opinion and obeys (Or tries to) the high standards of avoiding colleteral damage. Do you think a dictatorship would think twice before using much more aggressive methods to quell the Iraqi resistence? Do you think a dictatorship the said Americans would try to fight would think twice before using every and all methods to build the :daisy: out of them?

I'll give you two examples. One you got the Sicilian Mafia. In both Democratic Governments of Italy (Pre and Post-Mussolini until nowadays) the governments obviously valued more the interest of the general well-being of the society than ruthlessly quelling the Mafia. When Mussolini got to power, the tactics the Mafia used to protect themselves were quickly turned against them as Mussolini had little sympathy for those who were leeching off the state. He coerced (Jailed, tortured even) Mafioso famillies to bring them out of hiding. As a result what the democratic government couldn't achieve a dictatorship did so with extreme success.
Another example: Gandhi's peaceful resistence movement. The success behind his movement layed in the fact that the UK were a parlamentary monarchy which obivously also took into account their own public opinion, thus why the British Indian authorities didn't do anything rash against him. Gandhi himself said Hitler was a successful man (Or something to that effect), imagining it was Hitler's Germany controlling India, do you think Hitler would think twice about executing Gandhi for trying to free one of Hitler's possessions and censuring the press, as well as crushing any rebellion which would spawn following Gandhi's death? I'll give you a real example based on his peaceful resistence. After he died and there was a call for the French and Portuguese enclaves to join with main India, there was a peaceful resistence movement which together with International pressure made France yield Pondicherry to India. On the other hand, Gandhi's followers came to Dictatorship Portuguese India, using their peaceful resistence movement. Since the dictatorship couldn't care less for its own public opinion they massacred the peaceful resistence followers which entered Goa.

Giving examples for oppressive governments based on Democratic actions is wrong since both follow different patterns and lead to different results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

The hypothesis is clear enough....I don´t feel I need statistics to back up simple common sense....

---

But the hypothesis cannot be proven. As the lawyers say, no further questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Do you think a dictatorship would think twice before using much more aggressive methods to quell the Iraqi resistence?

---

I can also give you two examples - the Polish resistance and the French resistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

But the hypothesis cannot be proven. As the lawyers say, no further questions.



I can also give you two examples - the Polish resistance and the French resistance.

---

About the French resistence, it was done during the World War II. Were Germany never in the war, I can't see how would the resistence topple anything. As a matter of fact, they passed more time running from the Gestapo than doing anything else.

Polish resistence (Against what, the communists or the Germans?) If against the Germans, in peace-time they'd be crushed in a matter of hours (They were crushed even so), since the rest of the army would be readily available instead of being off fighting foreign armies. Against the communists it was a peaceful movement. Had it used weapons it would have been swiftly crushed.