Newtown School Shootings

PC Mode

Page 6 of 17 First ... 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 16 ... Last

Lemur 19:42 17/12/12

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
the second amendment as a right allow[s] us preparation to overthrow or resist a tyrannical government.

Okay, given that premise, is there any form of regulation that would make sense to you? We routinely restrict our other Constitutionally-enshrined freedoms. The obvious example would be speech, no need to go into that.

Are there any restrictions or regulations on private ownership of firearms that would make sense from your perspective? Anything at all?

ICantSpellDawg 21:56 17/12/12

Originally Posted by Lemur:
Okay, given that premise, is there any form of regulation that would make sense to you? We routinely restrict our other Constitutionally-enshrined freedoms. The obvious example would be speech, no need to go into that.

Are there any restrictions or regulations on private ownership of firearms that would make sense from your perspective? Anything at all?

Sure. States should be allowed to ban full auto weapons. States can also more strictly enforce prohibitions on people with serious mental illness or a violent criminal record owning weapons. High capacity mags you can try to restrict. Some mandatory gun and storage safety courses are a possibility

Greyblades 21:59 17/12/12

I don't really understand what anyone expects to do with the second amendment protected weaponry if they do end up under a tyrannical government, they're not gonna win against the US army with civilian grade weaponry.

ICantSpellDawg 22:07 17/12/12

Originally Posted by Greyblades:
I don't really understand what anyone expects to do with the second amendment protected weaponry if they do end up under a tyrannical government, they're not gonna win against the US army with civilian grade weaponry.

Classic. Tell it to the Vietnamese, Irish, Afghans and American revolutionaries

Greyblades 22:18 17/12/12

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Classic. Tell it to the Vietnamese, Irish, Afghans and American revolutionaries

...The american revolutionaries were operating out of a time where a bunch of hillbillies with rifles could actually make a difference due to the lack of defense against a rifle bullet. The Irish, Vietnamese and afghans where fighting against people who did not like hearing about the constant casualties reports and really didn't want to keep sending people to die. You think a tyrannical government is going to pull out of defending it's home or allow the media to create tension by reporting every single death that occurs complete with flowery prose and heartrending university graduation photograph?

Not to mention for the first three they relied on homemade bombs, black market munitions and the ability to evade the enemy, be it in a jungle, cave or urban sprawl, rather than a few handguns and uncle Jim-bob's collection of licensed shotguns. It would be attrition and hiding amongst the masses, not an abundance of small arms that would be the deciding factor in winning a revolution. If an american militia group tried to go toe to toe with the US army in any form of open combat today it would be a five minute massacre.

Idaho 22:24 17/12/12

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Classic. Tell it to the Vietnamese, Irish, Afghans and American revolutionaries

Sorry - but that is utter nonsense on so many levels.

And by way of full disclosure - I couldn't give a **** how many guns you yanks have.

ICantSpellDawg 22:26 17/12/12

Ok, you are right. Guns really are ineffective at killing and disrupting things. I guess we should just give them all up then

Greyblades 22:31 17/12/12

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Ok, you are right. Guns really are ineffective at killing and disrupting things. I guess we should just give them all up then

When fighting an occupying force? Yes you should. Trade it in for some bathtub C4 or a DIY molotov kit, It's easier to explain away to mister military policeman than a small arsenal of handguns. Try to take on the US army in open combat as the civilian weaponry are designed to do and you will quickly become a pink mist.

Hooahguy 22:41 17/12/12

Originally Posted by Greyblades:
When fighting an occupying force? Yes you should. Trade it in for some bathtub C4 or a DIY molotov kit, It's easier to explain away to mister military policeman than a small arsenal of handguns. Try to take on the US army in open combat as the civilian weaponry are designed to do and you will quickly become a pink mist.

I dunno, Iraq and Afghanistan tells otherwise. Counter-insurgency is a

Greyblades 22:46 17/12/12

Um... Are you agreeing with me or disputing it? I honestly cant tell with that.

Hooahguy 22:48 17/12/12

Its a disagreement. The rebellion wouldnt just use their rifles and pistols. We would take lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and employ IEDs and hit and run tactics that have worked so well against modern military forces. COIN (counter-insurgency) is by far the hardest form of warfare to wage.

Greyblades 22:56 17/12/12

Huh, well going by the news I got the idea that the afghans were causing more damage with bombs than bullets and that they were doing it with guns from out of the country.

Goofball 23:27 17/12/12

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
This just made my decision to buy the S&W chambered in .223 a whole lot easier. I urge everyone who has ever wanted to own a gun to go out and buy one now if you ever plan to. Sometimes I feel like Barack Obama is the most effective gun salesman I've ever seen.

LOL. Why, what has he done to make you think you need more guns?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t2

The quite intesting bit (Bold added by me):

Originally Posted by :
Here's one more such paradox: Obama has done literally nothing to restrict the (large and growing) rights of gun owners. President Bill Clinton signed two important pieces of gun control legislation and issued many restrictive executive orders; Obama has not so much as introduced even one.Yet the election of Obama has triggered an angry reaction among gun owners fiercer than anything seen under Clinton. Between 1960 and the late 1990s, there occurred a gradual decline in the percentage of American homes that contain a gun, from about one-half to about one-third.

(This trend is at least partly explained by the decline of hunting as a sport. In 2011, about 6% of Americans aged 16 or over went hunting even once in the year. )
In 2009, however, that trend away from guns abruptly went into reverse. Gun buying spiked in the Obama administration, pushing the share of households with a gun all the way back up to 47%, near the 1960 peak, even as crime rates tumbled to the lowest levels ever recorded, making guns less necessary than ever to self-defense. Black Friday 2012 set a one-day record for gun sales.

As the article said, Obama has done literally nothing to inhibit gun ownership, but the gun industry has done a great job building him up as the biggest straw-man and convinced you that you need even more guns to protect yourself from the communist, post-apocolyptic hell-hole that the world will surely become under Obama. And you're falling for it hook line and sinker with posts like that.

At any rate, I also like the rest of the article's thrust, that only a grassroots, citizen led movement similar to MADD will ever be able to change your warped societal view that gun ownership should be protected at the expense of all else.

Tellos Athenaios 23:48 17/12/12

Originally Posted by Hooahguy:
Its a disagreement. The rebellion wouldnt just use their rifles and pistols. We would take lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and employ IEDs and hit and run tactics that have worked so well against modern military forces. COIN (counter-insurgency) is by far the hardest form of warfare to wage.

Yeah but that's kind of his point isn't it? His way is the only way Taliban & co manages to be effective against the US Army: by their use of improvised explosives, which work indiscriminately even against far superior equipment and training.

They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.

I think a counter point could be the Chechen rebel/terrorist "armour hunter-killer teams" against the Russian forces but then again their equipment and organisation is very striking and they used a variety of more heavy weaponry (which most people in America would not have) in combination with the trusty old molotov.

Tellos Athenaios 00:04 18/12/12

The comparison between alcohol and guns is bunk for the simple fact that the purpose of alcohol is not to kill someone or something with. If you want to compare, you would have to have an environment where you could own and load guns, but not, you know, actually carry them in public (public drinking).

Which sounds to me like it might actually be an improvement, but then again I am, you know disdainful, of the idea that you somehow should need a gun because of 2A against evil governments or because you apparently live in Somalia and criminals and police are gonna shake you down and burgle your home if you don't. Me, I think you should make sure that the baseline goal is a world wherein nobody should ever have to own, or use a gun or know someone who does and still be safe and secure from criminals and government and police brutality alike. That is what I'd expect people to strive for.

Leave the guns, then, to be a tool of recreational use at the shooting range or hunt, and for pest control by farmers. There is no need to prohibit ownership or use, but as Lemur put it so very well:

Originally Posted by Lemur:
That's because vehicle operation is treated as a privilege, while gun ownership, due to the phrasing of the Second Amendment, is a right. Unless/until we modify the Second Amendment, I don't see much meaningful change happening. And the political will just isn't there.

Gun ownership (and more importantly: use) should be more like car ownership: fine if you want it, but it is a privilege and not a God given right.

ICantSpellDawg 00:27 18/12/12

Originally Posted by Goofball:
LOL. Why, what has he done to make you think you need more guns?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t2

The quite intesting bit (Bold added by me):

As the article said, Obama has done literally nothing to inhibit gun ownership, but the gun industry has done a great job building him up as the biggest straw-man and convinced you that you need even more guns to protect yourself from the communist, post-apocolyptic hell-hole that the world will surely become under Obama. And you're falling for it hook line and sinker with posts like that.

At any rate, I also like the rest of the article's thrust, that only a grassroots, citizen led movement similar to MADD will ever be able to change your warped societal view that gun ownership should be protected at the expense of all else.

Well, based on prior legislation, they tend to exclude weapons purchased or manufactured before the bill is signed into law. I was going to buy another one anyway, but this just made the $700 look less precious.

I can do entry level now in.223 and then, if the civilian version of the HK AR build the H&K556 with a perm-pinned stock no flash supress is released, I can upgrade. Just as long as the ban doesn't include too many new restrictions. If they target all scary looking builds I'll just get a ruger mini-14 in .223. I live in NY, so we've got years of practice living under the old assault weapons ban on a state level. 10 round mag limit here and I'm one handgun in already.

Hooahguy 00:36 18/12/12

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Yeah but that's kind of his point isn't it? His way is the only way Taliban & co manages to be effective against the US Army: by their use of improvised explosives, which work indiscriminately even against far superior equipment and training.

They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.

I think a counter point could be the Chechen rebel/terrorist "armour hunter-killer teams" against the Russian forces but then again their equipment and organisation is very striking and they used a variety of more heavy weaponry (which most people in America would not have) in combination with the trusty old molotov.

Fair point, you got me, though looking at the statistics, IEDs only caused around 66% of all casualties, so there can still be a serious amount of casualties caused by small arms fire. Also within the gun community there is a high importance of accuracy, so Id bet US rebels here would be more accurate. Though I also wonder how quickly Russia or China would jump to help arm rebels in the US with bigger and better weapons?

As for relying on the state to protect us, that is something everyone wants, but the fact is, police response time is well over 5 minutes in most major cities, and 5 minutes is a very long time. Its sad that we must rely on arming ourselves if we want to feel safe but its the sad reality of the times we live in. If an armed attacker enters my home, I refuse to cower in my closet as I pray for the cops to arrive.

Though overall I have to overall agree with you. We do need stricter laws when it comes to guns. Banning them outright wont do jack, even if you just ban assault rifles. There are too many and how are you going to enforce it? What we do need, in addition to better mental health care, is more care devoted to tracking weapons and background checks.

Greyblades 01:02 18/12/12

Originally Posted by Hooahguy:
As for relying on the state to protect us, that is something everyone wants, but the fact is, police response time is well over 5 minutes in most major cities, and 5 minutes is a very long time. Its sad that we must rely on arming ourselves if we want to feel safe but its the sad reality of the times we live in. If an armed attacker enters my home, I refuse to cower in my closet as I pray for the cops to arrive.

I get the point and its valid, though I'd think a soldier wouldn't need a gun to subdue an attacker in close quarters, even armed.

ICantSpellDawg 01:06 18/12/12

You have an impressive admiration for soldiers and the military structure that supports them. I think that you've gotten this through fanciful pursuits. Soldiers are tough, but they are mortal men. Western Military's are easily caved, especially when they don't have the support of the civilian population that they are serving. Soldiers are also more emotionally fragile now then they have been in times past for some reason. You think of it as a big unstoppable special forces machine. There is a reason that they are called "special". It'd because they are not the norm.

Hooahguy 01:17 18/12/12

Originally Posted by Greyblades:
I get the point and its valid, though I'd think a soldier wouldn't need a gun to subdue an attacker in close quarters, even armed.

Lets ignore the soldier thing for a second consider that most people arent in the military nor have military close quarters training. When I get married, and Mrs. Hooahguy is alone in the house and I was away somewhere and an intruder entered the house, Im sure she would want something substantial to defend herself with.

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Soldiers are also more emotionally fragile now then they have been in times past for some reason.

PTSD has been around since the dawn of time, it was just called shell shock, combat stress, and now PTSD. Soldiers in WWI had it, in WW2, in Korea, Vietnam, and so forth. Do you think soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars didnt get it? Of course they did. Everyone who was on the front lines got it in some form or another. The difference now is that such a small percentage of people in this country serve or have served, so integrating back into society is so much harder because so few people can understand what they went through, and through this lack of understanding by the civilian sector we get this "tough guys dont show emotions" routine that the military is just starting to break. In WW2 it was like 11% who went into the military? Now its something like below 1% last I heard. But dont take it from me. Ask GC or MRD.

ICantSpellDawg 01:20 18/12/12

Originally Posted by Hooahguy:
Lets ignore the soldier thing for a second consider that most people arent in the military nor have military close quarters training. When I get married, and Mrs. Hooahguy is alone in the house and I was away somewhere and an intruder entered the house, Im sure she would want something substantial to defend herself with.

PTSD has been around since the dawn of time, it was just called shell shock, combat stress, and now PTSD. Soldiers in WWI had it, in WW2, in Korea, Vietnam, and so forth. Do you think soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars didnt get it? Of course they did. Everyone who was on the front lines got it in some form or another. The difference now is that such a small percentage of people in this country serve or have served, so integrating back into society is so much harder because so few people can understand. In WW2 it was like 11% who went into the military? Now its something like below 1% last I heard. But dont take it from me. Ask GC or MRD.

Nonsense, rates are much higher and so are suicide rates. Explosive ordinances are much more damaging to the human brain than they have ever been. War has always been much worse than it is now, but traumatic brain injuries without death have never been as likely.

Husar 01:25 18/12/12

That depends a lot.
First of all the US Army in Afghanistan and Iraq is kinda fighting a two-front war against both the rebels and the rest of the world which is watching everything they do. That creates a Level of restraint and ROI they probably wouldn't have if their tyrant master told them to massacre the insurgency at home. It's a bit like saying the german citizens in WW2 could've defended themselves with rifles and pistols against B-17s and Lancasters dropping fire bombs.

And then you have the whole terrain Thing, which became really obvious in Libya, where the rebels couldn't leave the cities because they would get utterly destroyed by tanks out in the open. And in the cities they were then shelled and assaulted as well without much room to maneuver. Now the USA are less of a desert than Libya in most parts but I'm not sure how much mobility the rebels would be able to keep.

A lot of the more successful rebellions seem to have an influx of either heavy weaponry/support from outside the country and/or military switching sides, possibly bringing heavy equipment.

And since it was mentioned that sports Shooting is one of the least valid reasons to have a gun, it's actually one of the few reasons to have a gun here in Germany. Our gun ownership level isn't really low either by the way, it is however very regulated and full of rules, requirements and regular checks.
http://p4.focus.de/img/gen/R/c/HBRcd...en_r_700xA.JPG
This table lists the number of guns per 100 citizens and the overall number of guns in the country for some countries (they list gunpolicy.org as the source but it seems to be down).

ICantSpellDawg 01:34 18/12/12

And yet the British weren't so wholesale brutal during the American Revolution. I'd imagine that in the America that we fear there would still be some level of homefront empathy and reason, even if it were under wraps to an extent. We didn't overthrow the crown because they were sending us to work camps and burning us in ovens.

Hooahguy 01:40 18/12/12

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Nonsense, rates are much higher and so are suicide rates. Explosive ordinances are much more damaging to the human brain than they have ever been. Ware has always been much worse than it is now, but traumatic brain injuries without death have never been as likely.

You act as if artillery and ordnance is a brand new thing. Humans have been bombing the hell out of each other since gunpowder was invented.

Traumatic brain injuries doesnt equal PTSD, by the way.

ICantSpellDawg 01:54 18/12/12

I was under the impression that a causal link has been suggested all year.

Papewaio 02:04 18/12/12

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Classic. Tell it to the Vietnamese, Irish, Afghans and American revolutionaries

All supported as by external states.

Vietnam by China but no Chinese were to be listed as combatants only observers.
Irish by America.
Afghanistan, when they were fighting the Russians they were supported by America, when they were fighting US it was Iran and most probably elements of Pakistan.
American war of independence was supported by France, Spain and the Dutch. The Contentinal Army was quickly formed and as unromantic as its appeal is, most victories on either side relied on a core of regular troops. The keeping of territories relied on the hearts and minds of the locals. So again a war was won based on how much nation state support was received and how well trained the troops were.

All were supported to some degree and the ones that succeeded had the most support.

The American Civil War the South wrongly assumed they would get European support. They did not and in the end they failed.

Greyblades 02:12 18/12/12

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
You have an impressive admiration for soldiers and the military structure that supports them. I think that you've gotten this through fanciful pursuits. Soldiers are tough, but they are mortal men. Western Military's are easily caved, especially when they don't have the support of the civilian population that they are serving. Soldiers are also more emotionally fragile now then they have been in times past for some reason. You think of it as a big unstoppable special forces machine. There is a reason that they are called "special". It'd because they are not the norm.

Um, actually I'm not under the impression the average soldier are super human or anything, just that considering that even basic trained soldiers are going to be a more capable in hand to hand than the average thief/muderer.

May I suggest a tazer and/or mace? That way the intruder stays alive and you get an opportunity to give him several kicks in the nuts before the cops arrive.

ICantSpellDawg 02:15 18/12/12

Originally Posted by Papewaio:
All supported as by external states.

Vietnam by China but no Chinese were to be listed as combatants only observers.
Irish by America.
Afghanistan, when they were fighting the Russians they were supported by America, when they were fighting US it was Iran and most probably elements of Pakistan.
American war of independence was supported by France, Spain and the Dutch. The Contentinal Army was quickly formed and as unromantic as its appeal is, most victories on either side relied on a core of regular troops. The keeping of territories relied on the hearts and minds of the locals. So again a war was won based on how much nation state support was received and how well trained the troops were.

All were supported to some degree and the ones that succeeded had the most support.

The American Civil War the South wrongly assumed they would get European support. They did not and in the end they failed.

Yes, there is nuance in history and no concrete rules.

Slyspy 02:23 18/12/12

"Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association finally broke its silence to pay tribute to 26 new pairs of cold dead hands."

As the Daily Mash put it. I have no axe to grind, but that seemed quite pertinent to me.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Hooahguy 03:12 18/12/12

Originally Posted by Greyblades:
May I suggest a tazer and/or mace? That way the intruder stays alive and you get an opportunity to give him several kicks in the nuts before the cops arrive.

1) Taser: Not guaranteed to put the attacker down. Ive seen way too many videos of people needing multiple tases plus some manhandling to subdue. Plus they recover after a little while so I hope you got to cable ties handy to tie him up.

2) Mace: Will not stop a determined attacker. Its good if you need to delay the attacker so you can run, but to stop him dead in his tracks? Not good enough. In police training cops are trained to withstand mace. Also, we were at a demonstration in ROTC of MP's (military police) getting a monthly mace test. They get sprayed and have to react to certain situations to ensure they can still function without full use of their eyes. From the looks of it, some of the MP's seem to have built up something of a resistance.
Hilarious to watch though.

EDIT: Also, intimidation is half the battle. Whats more terrifying? The barrel of a shotgun or pistol, or a taser?

Page 6 of 17 First ... 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 16 ... Last

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO