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

[Jolt]

Jolt, do you need the internet?

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.

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

They do add to the protection of people, both implied and literal, but you don't hear that from most of the media the US exports. Maybe in your country, firearms wouldn't help. We live in different places.

Gun control works fairly well in countries that have not allowed firearms for a very long time. Constitution aside, it won't work here. 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.

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but this is from ABCs 20/20 from 2007. I don't like the packaging of the story, but considering its coming from what many consider to be a liberal network maybe somebody listened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YT...eature=related

This violent opposition to firearms regulation is just as furious on the other side, where people lie their heads off or use personal tragedies as a catalyst for regulation. Even the leadership if DC -- in the wake of a city who clearly expressed they wanted their guns back -- refused to acknowledge facts, smothered people with hyperbole, accused them of fraud, muzzled peoples opinions and laid out the typical "I know whats best for you" that career politicians are so good at. It took the highest court in the nation to give back what the city had been asking for for years.

The "assault weapons ban" is just feel-good legislation that will do nothing but punish people who have been obeying the law all along, and every step taken is a step gained towards a complete agenda. I don't particularly want to sit through a 20 year period of the literal urban warfare that would ensue between criminals and victims for the long term grand noble cause of a gun free society.

[Lemur]

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.

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Husar]

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!".

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but this is from ABCs 20/20 from 2007. I don't like the packaging of the story, but considering its coming from what many consider to be a liberal network maybe somebody listened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YT...eature=related

That's because John Stossel is awesome.

CR

[Major Robert Dump]

I read he caught a lot of flack from some of his colleagues for that story. Typical knee-jerkers.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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?

[Jolt]

"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.

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).

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Jolt]

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?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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?

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

From the government?

[Jolt]

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.

[Husar]

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.