2

Quote :

"Should the average civilian be allowed to have a fully automatic assault rifle or silenced pistol....."

I'd say "absolutely yes"

11/1/2007 7:55:16 PM

^^^^I see the comparison you're trying to make.

But guns and premarital sex really aren't comparable.

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 7:57 PM. Reason : Late post.]

11/1/2007 7:57:00 PM

Brid, I was using it as the issue the parties use. They want to stop/eliminate both, but it aint happening. So they just waste time spouting the same bullshit. Neither are going away, now lets find ways to make both safer.

Actually, there are alot of similarities. Some do both for sport/fun, and both could kill you. Both could ruin your life. However, I havent seen anyone rob a bank with a penis. Although it might have happened in france.

11/1/2007 8:15:47 PM

except that only one is a Constitutionally protected right, fool

11/1/2007 8:16:28 PM

Quote :

"except that guns are expressly discussed by the Constitution... Premarital sex... not so much. Guns aren't just "here to stay." Guns should always be here."

Guns have their place.

I've always thought it would be awesome for humor reasons if the biggest pro-gun advocate in Congress, whoever that is, should have his residence in D.C. surrounded by "the hood" one night with their guns at their side. The highest crime city in the U.S. historically. Not saying those people are being aggressive, just standing there...talking...shooting the breeze...comparing their hardware. Sure would put a new meaning if a 1000 gunowners surround a congressman's house at night with their guns, he might change his mind on some laws he's championing.

11/1/2007 8:30:30 PM

yes. clearly, the way to prove your point is to allow someone else's rights to be completely taken away. makes sense to me...

but, just to play your game, if the guy being surrounded truly had his rights and he could defend his property via machine guns and such, then there would be no problem.

11/1/2007 8:34:18 PM

Quote :

"but, just to play your game, if the guy being surrounded truly had his rights and he could defend his property via machine guns and such, then there would be no problem."

1 versus a 1000 with a machine gun? You know the Stormtrooper effect only works in Hollywood movies right? It can't apply in real life. Real life is not a Jackie Chan movie.

I'm not saying for them to actually shoot him down or even attempt it, just stand there. Old white guy whose idea of roughing it is no air conditioning, and he has a thousand black guys with guns outside his house. He'd s*** his pants. Just make him feel threatened by having a large number of gunowners that are strangers "and look suspicious" in his vicinity. Cops going to arrest them? What, you're gonna arrest a guy for brandishing his handgun outside the house of a Senator with no intention of violence? That's very anti-gun ownership. I hope the NRA represent him and declare that every able-bodied citizen has a right to walk down the streets of D.C. and stand outside a politician's mansion with a twenty-two alongside twenty of his closest friends that have their own guns.

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 8:49 PM. Reason : /]

11/1/2007 8:40:40 PM

what's the fucking point? it's a stupid scenario and it proves NOTHING. I mean, unless you somehow think that the whole 2nd amendment thing was a joke.

11/1/2007 8:48:40 PM

Socratic question for you: Do you believe the Second Amendment is absolute and are you a strict constructionist on the Constitution?

11/1/2007 9:14:47 PM

^^It's really easy for someone who lives in a safe neighborhood to be all crazy pro-gun. Their neighborhood isn't terrorized by gun violence.

So, yeah, let them try to sleep at night while armed thugs hang around their street. Let their child be the one to take a stray bullet in the head. Let's see how they feel getting mugged for a bag of Christmas presents.

And I trust you support an ex-con's right to buy and legally own a gun. Surely, even a felon deserves the right to defend himself and his property...especially if other dudes get to own machine guns to defend themselves.

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 9:17 PM. Reason : ...]

11/1/2007 9:16:33 PM

I think if I lived in a rough area I would be more likely to have a gun, not the other way around.

11/1/2007 9:31:48 PM

^Yeah, the best part about owning a firearm in a rough area is when people break in and steal it. The paperwork makes you feel so safe.

And what are you gonna do with the gun anyway? Use it? AHA, I hear gangs love it when people shoot at them...

11/1/2007 9:38:43 PM

^^ yep

11/1/2007 10:09:49 PM

^^^yep

Quote :

"Yeah, the best part about owning a firearm in a rough area is when people break in and steal it. get legally shot by it"

^^seriously, if you don't like guns, then don't buy one, don't go to the shooting range, and don't go hunting with one

but STFU with your "OMG I'M SOOO COOL CAUSE I HATE GUNS AND GOOD PEOPLE HATE GUNS"

Quote :

"And what are you gonna do with the gun anyway? Use it? AHA"

are you that stupid?
every day in america, guns are used by normal people to defend themselves, prevent crime and save lives

Quote :

"It's really easy for someone who lives in a safe neighborhood to be all crazy pro-gun. Their neighborhood isn't terrorized by gun violence."

are you actually suggesting that having "gun violence" in one's neighborhood

would make them tend to be less pro-gun?

wat?

11/1/2007 10:13:14 PM

The people ruining bad neighborhoods typically are involved in the drug trade.

If they can get their hands on illegal drugs, they can acquire illegal firearms.

11/1/2007 10:22:20 PM

When the framers of the Constitution wrote that thing, I don't think they could even fathom the idea of machine guns and such. The best soldiers back in those days could fire maybe 4 times a minute. A really dangerous guy with a knife could be more lethal than that. I'm certainly not anti-gun because I think shotguns, rifles, and some handguns are necessary and even pretty cool. But there is absolutely no purpose for civilians to own machine guns and silenced weapons. Violent use is inherent in simply owning those. Outlawing these guns would probably put a significant dent in gun-related deaths. Columbine wouldn't have happened (or at least not as badly). There's just no good use for them. Besides, if someone breaks into my house and we're gonna be in close quarters, I'd rather blow them away with my shotgun. Dude might take a couple hits from an uzi, but he will not be getting up from a shotgun blast.

11/1/2007 10:53:34 PM

would you like to delete that post before I or someone else makes you look like an ignorant fool, or do you want to stick around for the beating?

11/1/2007 10:54:55 PM

Nothing you could possibly say will make me change my mind that super-deadly weapons have absolutely no positive purpose for existing.

11/1/2007 10:56:22 PM

More guns is not the way to decrease gun crimes. You guys are fucking stupid.

Quote :

"392: ^^seriously, if you don't like guns, then don't buy one, don't go to the shooting range, and don't go hunting with one but STFU with your "OMG I'M SOOO COOL CAUSE I HATE GUNS AND GOOD PEOPLE HATE GUNS""

Don't tell me to STFU.

And I never said I hate guns or that good people hate guns. Or that I was cool, for that matter.

I just pointed out that it's really easy for someone who doesn't have to worry about gun violence to be pro-gun.

Quote :

"392: are you actually suggesting that having "gun violence" in one's neighborhood would make them tend to be less pro-gun? wat?"

Yes, that's what I'm saying. People just wanna raise their families and pay their bills. They're not itching to put their white hats on and get in shoot-outs to defend their neighborhoods.

Quote :

"Boone: The people ruining bad neighborhoods typically are involved in the drug trade. If they can get their hands on illegal drugs, they can acquire illegal firearms."

This would indicate a need to adjust our stance on drugs and raise penalties even higher for illegal firearms.

It's not fair to people to throw our hands up and say, "Sorry, guys, these criminals are just too crafty for us. But feel free to buy some guns of your own to try to defend yourselves. We can't do it, but maybe you civilians will have better luck."

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 11:10 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2007 10:58:41 PM

Its really simple to explain why people support Dems/Repubs

If you understand the way the world works then you are fiscally conservative.

If you are uneducated and/or lazy you are fiscally liberal.

The problem is that the educated people are too smart to vote Democrat and the Republican party knows this. So instead of doing the right thing and focusing on fiscal responsiblity they go hard after the swing vote which is the redneck idiot Christian voters by promising to attack gays and people that scare rednecks. That is how out of touch pieces of shit like GWBush get elected.

The good news is most minorities are too lazy to vote so fortunately America has been able to keep a lot of fiscally irresponsible people out of office. If you were able to vote by text messaging on a $100/month Verizon cell phone plan that you can only afford because you skip child support payments then we'd be knee deep in elected Democrats.

Thank god you still have to leave your porch to vote. That's the one thing that has kept our country from imploding.



[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 11:24 PM. Reason : a]

11/1/2007 11:19:47 PM

^^^That's irrelevent, because they do, and it is completely futile to even attempt to change that.

Quote :

"When the framers of the Constitution wrote that thing, I don't think they could even fathom the idea of machine guns and such. The best soldiers back in those days could fire maybe 4 times a minute. A really dangerous guy with a knife could be more lethal than that."

Having a gun back then would make you a shit ton more dangerous than a guy with just a knife...especially if you had a bayonet on that rifle...and it's not like you couldn't have your own knife in addition to the gun. Regardless, the framers of the Constitution knew they couldn't foresee details like you're talking about, so they wrote the 2nd Amendment in general terms just like the rest of the Constitution, tackling general principles rather than specificities.

Quote :

"But there is absolutely no purpose for civilians to own machine guns and silenced weapons. Violent use is inherent in simply owning those."

Oh really? Class III weapons like you're talking about are heavily regulated, with the applicants well screened. You don't have to have a hook-up or anything--if you keep your nose clean, you can get the license...but it does weed out obvious problem-owners. Regardless, the numbers are overwhelmingly on my side. The crime rate involving legal Class III weapons is essentially nil...and what do you want to do about any illegal stuff floating around out there? Make it illegal?

In addition, machine guns are generally fucking insanely expensive, with prices routinely running well into the 5-figures. That's simple supply and demand--not gun control--but it pretty effectively weeds out a lot of riff-raff.

Quote :

"Outlawing these guns would probably put a significant dent in gun-related deaths."

Let me know if I need to expand more here, or if you now realize why you're flat out wrong.

Quote :

"Columbine wouldn't have happened (or at least not as badly)."

I'd love to hear your explanation for this, considering that they DIDN'T USE ANY FUCKING MACHINE GUNS OR SILENCERS. In fact, they did a good deal of their killing with shotguns.

Quote :

"Besides, if someone breaks into my house and we're gonna be in close quarters, I'd rather blow them away with my shotgun. Dude might take a couple hits from an uzi, but he will not be getting up from a shotgun blast."

12ga shotgun is a fantastic close quarters weapon, for a variety of reasons.

Uzi (full auto type is what I'm assuming you mean) would be too, although you'd have more overpenetration issues, and it wouldn't be quite as easy for a novice to effectively handle (in my opinion).

However, the odds of a common burglar being armed with a full auto Uzi or the like are somewhere in between zero and getting struck by lightning (and probably closer to zero).

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 11:22 PM. Reason : ^^^]

11/1/2007 11:20:07 PM

Can the gun debate go in another thread, this can be our thread for bashing the two parties.

(Yes, I understand I was a part of it earlier.)

Does anyone ever just feel a sense of hopelessness when following politics? Like it will never get better and our country is just doomed to continually get worse because these people all have their own separate agendas they pursue to the detriment of all others? The more I follow politics, the more I realize the end game's gonna suck.

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 11:28 PM. Reason : /]

11/1/2007 11:21:59 PM

Quote :

"Let me know if I need to expand more here, or if you now realize why you're flat out wrong."

you really think there would be more guns out there if guns were outlawed?!

if not then I'm sure gun related deaths would decrease


In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004)

so someone tell me why someone should be legally able to obtain one of these things if it is so overwhelmingly more likely to be used for a negative purpose?

Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).

as for the people committing these homicides and suicides I bet the majority would not illegally buy these guns so it's not like there is this niche of people that routinely commit all the murders and get guns regardless of the law

what many gun control supporters can't seem to comprehend is that a gun is a power that feeds in to every negative impulse and emotion and in a second can transform a man that is a good law abiding citizen his whole life in to a killer easier than any other weapon

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 11:40 PM. Reason : k]

11/1/2007 11:27:19 PM

Quote :

"rallydurham: Its really simple to explain why people support Dems/Repubs If you understand the way the world works then you are fiscally conservative. If you are uneducated and/or lazy you are fiscally liberal. The problem is that the educated people are too smart to vote Democrat and the Republican party knows this. So instead of doing the right thing and focusing on fiscal responsiblity they go hard after the swing vote which is the redneck idiot Christian voters by promising to attack gays and people that scare rednecks. That is how out of touch pieces of shit like GWBush get elected. The good news is most minorities are too lazy to vote so fortunately America has been able to keep a lot of fiscally irresponsible people out of office. If you were able to vote by text messaging on a $100/month Verizon cell phone plan that you can only afford because you skip child support payments then we'd be knee deep in elected Democrats. Thank god you still have to leave your porch to vote. That's the one thing that has kept our country from imploding."

What school did you graduate from? What was your degree in? Did you go to graduate school?

I'm interested in knowing more about your education and how you think that plays into your world view.

Cause my dad has a masters. My mom has two masters and a PhD. And they both tend to vote Democrat. I'm just kinda confused how two smart people who have numerous degrees in largely objective fields (math, engineering, sciences, etc...) end up not fitting into your view of Republicans/Democrats at all.

11/1/2007 11:38:51 PM

^^I think his point wasn't that ownership would increase if guns were outlawed (or if it was, then his point is simply wrong), it was that they would likely only be owned by people intending to use them for a negative purpose... kind of like how prohibition in the early 1900s worked, only different... Granted, accidents and suicides would likely decrease, but I can't see much change happening in the homicide category.

Anyway, someone should be able to legally obtain "one of these things" because it is their right as a US citizen as defined by the Constitution. That defeats almost any other argument someone can make for or against gun control, provided the argument is about America.

Oh, and I'm with the guy below me in regards to gun control. Owning a semi-automatic weapon serves no civilian purpose at all, unless your property is being attacked by a large group of people... which is completely unlikely.

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 11:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2007 11:42:38 PM

^ I feel so depressed to live in a country where every other part of the Constitution is up for interpretation except for the one that keeps deadly weapons in the hands of everyone.

^x4 I feel ya on that.

^x5 Look, I'm not trying to take away all your guns. But there is no way you can argue that owning an uber-deadly weapon serves any legitimate purpose. What are the possible uses of a gun?

1. Go hunting. Fine. Good. Shotguns and rifles. I'm cool with that shit.

2. Defend Home. Fine. Shotguns. Pistols. Whatever, it's your house.

3. Kill People. This is usually done using automatic/semi-automatic weapons purchased second-hand from people who are legally allowed to have these weapons. You cannot question that outlawing these weapons wouldn't lower gun violence. It would.

Columbine was started with shotguns and then they moved on to semi-automatic rifle and a Tec-9. There was also a video where they were shooting an assload of automatic weapons out in the woods. Virginia Tech was 2 semi-auto pistols that were sold to a mentally unstable person. Not only are these weapons too deadly to serve any legitimate purpose, but it's incredibly easy to obtain them.

I'm not saying all guns are bad. Far from it. But there needs to be a distinction between useful and useless weapons and a line needs to be drawn based on how deadly they can be. Face it. The only reason someone would buy a gun is with the intention of using it to violently harm someone else.

Sorry this has gone a little off-topic, but at least we're still discussing policies that are important to us.



[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 11:55 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2007 11:49:32 PM

Quote :

"Flyin Ryan: Does anyone ever just feel a sense of hopelessness when following politics? Like it will never get better and our country is just doomed to continually get worse because these people all have their own separate agendas they pursue to the detriment of all others? The more I follow politics, the more I realize the end game's gonna suck."

Sometimes, but for the most part I actually don't.

Our system is kinda brilliant in that it can be tinkered with a bit but not too much at a time, and it tends to swing around but always seems to eventually stabilize at a point that everybody is equally pissed of at.

11/1/2007 11:56:52 PM

^^^^^both he and I were referring to machine guns. re-read, query if it still isn't completely obvious why I'm right.

but to comment on your stats:

Quote :

"In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004)"

-suicide is the lion's share. irrelevent for our discussion.
-Legal intervention--"good" deaths. Again, we'll throw those out.
-Undetermined--let's disregard those, assuming for simplicity that they're roughly split between suicides and times when foul play couldn't be proven.


Also, these stats don't address two big issues:

1. How many times were guns used in a legal intervention where nobody got killed?
2. Of the homicides (and for that matter, the accidents and undetermined), how many of those were involving guns that were legal? If it was done by an illegal gun, how do you think we should've prevented it? Making the gun illegal? Helluva lot of good that would've done.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:03 AM. Reason : asfdasdfzds]

11/2/2007 12:00:48 AM

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution:

Quote :

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Does everyone realize that if you read this verbatim, we are allowed to take guns into the White House or Capitol? Cause if you took a White House or Capitol tour (as a chaperone nowadays), you would not be allowed to bring in your gun. That very clearly infringes on the right of people to bear arms per the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. So therefore American citizens must be allowed to bring in guns on their own accord into the Halls of Congress and the Presidential Mansion.

Clearly though we can't allow that. Which means there's an unstated limit to the 2nd Amendment on "the right of people to keep and bear arms". Unless that exception is stated elsewhere in the Constitution, which I doubt. Someone else can try and find it, I'm going to bed.

So I think what gun control people need to realize is people are allowed to own guns. What gun rights people need to realize is that does not mean we live in a world without limits on those guns.

If you're a law abiding citizen, gun ownership and the regulations in this country should not give you any problems and you should welcome them cause that means a percentage of guns in lawful owners in this country is higher and means more people sympathetic to your view.

And that's the Word.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:11 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 12:09:30 AM

[irony]More than 3 times the people killed in WTC attacks get murdered by violent death crimes every year.[/irony]

1. I don't see how that's relevant to anything.

2. I'd say the majority of a time a gun is illegal it's because it trades hands from a legal owner to an illegal owner over the black market. The black market for guns in America is created by the ease with which one can get a gun from the legit market. If you make all these super-deadly guns illegal you minimize the black market. Plus, if you find any gun that fits into one of those classes then it's automatically illegal.

By your reasoning, I should be allowed to own rocket launchers if I really wanted to and had enough money to buy one. It's just a really big gun with an exploding tip.

11/2/2007 12:11:50 AM

Quote :

"Homicide 11,348"

How many of these homicides would have occurred regardless of whether the murderer had a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat? I'd guess a significant portion.

And let's be blunt here-- how many of those people involved in firearm homicides were willfully involved in the type of gangsta shit that will get you killed? Again, probably a significant number.


The remaining deaths are tragic, but when compared to other things like cancer, obesity, or auto safety, they're not that significant; certainly not cause to further regulate any of our rights.



[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 12:21:49 AM

Quote :

"By your reasoning, I should be allowed to own rocket launchers if I really wanted to and had enough money to buy one. It's just a really big gun with an exploding tip."

well, since a large number of the Framers' intentions for the Second Amendment was to allow the citizens to protect themselves from a potentially tyrannical government...

I'd say "yes" ... you're correct: Citizens should be able to own and maintain rocket launchers. And RPGs, howitzers, tanks... old surplus F-4 Phantoms... whatever you can get, really.

Thats the whole point of citizen militias.

Strict Constitutionalist.

"Original Intent".

You know the drill.






[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:33 AM. Reason : ]

11/2/2007 12:29:30 AM

^That's what I always thought the ammendment was about. But people laugh at me when I mention that.

Quote :

"Boone: How many of these homicides would have occurred regardless of whether the murderer had a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat? I'd guess a significant portion. And let's be blunt here-- how many of those people involved in firearm homicides were willfully involved in the type of gangsta shit that will get you killed? Again, probably a significant number. "

Guess. Probably.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:37 AM. Reason : Better.]

11/2/2007 12:32:55 AM

Quote :

"old surplus F-4 Phantoms"

What are you, some kinda commie? It's your constitutional duty to keep your private air force competitive against our tyrannical government.

11/2/2007 12:34:31 AM

you can probably buy a Phantom. You can damn sure buy a Fishbed, Fresco, or Fagot, and probably a Farmer. (though I don't remember seeing any for sale offhand). It's not even difficult. For that matter, it's (relatively) not that expensive...the operating costs would be...ummm...significant, though.

In fact, I think there might even be a couple of privately owned Hornets. I know there's at least one privately owned Harrier...and I can personally take you to a privately owned Hind.

and there are privately owned tanks, too.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:43 AM. Reason : asdfasdfa]

11/2/2007 12:43:01 AM

well, if you can afford an F-22 I'm sure Boeing would love to sell you some.


You might have to sign some, uh... non-disclosure agreements, or something. :-/



[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:48 AM. Reason : ]

11/2/2007 12:46:21 AM

Quote :

"How many of these homicides would have occurred regardless of whether the murderer had a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat? I'd guess a significant portion. And let's be blunt here-- how many of those people involved in firearm homicides were willfully involved in the type of gangsta shit that will get you killed? Again, probably a significant number."

You might be right, but I'm probably just guessing there. What I can be sure of, however, is that guns make killing very impersonal and very easy. Actually having to stab someone takes balls compared to pulling some trigger from 50 yards away.

11/2/2007 12:46:34 AM

Fuck!

Amendment, not ammendment.

Too late to edit.

11/2/2007 12:56:10 AM

Quote :

"What I can be sure of, however, is that guns make killing very impersonal and very easy. Actually having to stab someone takes balls compared to pulling some trigger from 50 yards away."

THIS.

I accidentally stabbed a friend of mine in the arm a couple years back (I unwillingly gained momentum, he was in the path of it). I assure you, stabbing another person is not something that you ever want to do... when you can feel the knife actually sink into another person's flesh... Not a good feeling. [/memory]

11/2/2007 12:56:28 AM

^^^^ I seriously, seriously doubt it, for any price.

http://barnstormers.com/cat.php

Sea Harrier for sale.


at any rate, the point that I was making is that you could buy a MiG for a pretty attainable price.

like this MiG-21:

http://www.warbirdrelics.com/mig_21.htm

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 12:58 AM. Reason : ^^^^]

11/2/2007 12:57:42 AM

Quote :

"well, if you can afford an F-22 I'm sure Boeing would love to sell you some."

Tell that to Japan

Quote :

"You might be right, but I'm probably just guessing there. What I can be sure of, however, is that guns make killing very impersonal and very easy. Actually having to stab someone takes balls compared to pulling some trigger from 50 yards away."

How many firearm homicides do you think are done from 50 yards away? Or 50 feet for that matter.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 1:00 AM. Reason : .]

11/2/2007 12:59:05 AM

^ Point remains... you don't have to actually have physical contact to kill someone.

11/2/2007 1:06:00 AM

Boeing would love to sell F-22s to Japan and anyone else remotely allied to the US.

but still ... yeah, i know, i know.... it was a joke anyhow. hence the bit about "non-disclosure agreements". if it were only that easy.

11/2/2007 1:14:56 AM

Quote :

"Nothing you could possibly say will make me change my mind that super-deadly weapons have absolutely no positive purpose for existing."

IMStoned420

Please define "super-deadly weapons."

11/2/2007 6:54:31 AM

The thread asks the question: Why do you support Dems/Repubs?
Good question. Why do we continue to support these two sides of the same coin?

Author Robert Hawes:

Quote :

"God forgive us. The men who froze at Valley Forge, who crawled up the beaches of Normandy into the murderous teeth of Nazi machine gun fire, who faced undreamed of horrors in steamy jungles thousands of miles from the comforts of home, did not fight so that we could let our country slip into the hands of those who would re-make us in the image of our enemies. Whether you agree with every cause that Americans have spilled their blood for or not, we can acknowledge that most of them believed that they were fighting for freedom, to protect the whisper-fragile American dream. They didn't sacrifice to give us Moscow on the Potomac. We owe them, ourselves, and the future generations who must live with the world we give them, more, much more, than to let this happen with so little struggle. There was once a dream that was America. And friends, this is not it. This is not it. "

11/2/2007 9:57:52 AM

Well if you want to make the private militia argument, there were militias in colonial times that were completely outfitted with the latest in artillery technology. Hell, some of the nicer militias in 1861 were better outfitted than active duty Federal or Confederate units (Washington Artillery of New Orleans for example or the 1st Troop, Philadelphia City Cavalry).

11/2/2007 10:10:05 AM

Quote :

"I'd say "yes" ... you're correct: Citizens should be able to own and maintain rocket launchers. And RPGs, howitzers, tanks... old surplus F-4 Phantoms... whatever you can get, really."

Quick note on the F-4. There is currently a place in the desert (I think rural Arizona) that acts as storage incase the aircraft are needed again. The reason they're there is no humidity to rust the planes. So all the functional F-4's are there. I know when I worked at Cherry Point, the Egyptian military had just stopped using the F-4, so the F-4 rework at the facility was stopped.

If you'd like to buy aircraft, it'd be best to go through a foreign government that bought them from us. We've been selling a ton of CH-53 helicopters recently to Taiwan, Tunisia, India, etc. Believe it or not, we were even trying to sell them to Venezuela. (Which struck me as incredibly stupid.)

11/2/2007 10:28:17 AM

Quote :

"protect the whisper-fragile American dream. They didn't sacrifice to give us Moscow on the Potomac ... There was once a dream that was America. And friends, this is not it. This is not it."

oh, you're gonna make me cry













[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 11:26 AM. Reason : ]

11/2/2007 11:26:25 AM

Quote :

"So, yeah, let them try to sleep at night while armed thugs hang around their street. Let their child be the one to take a stray bullet in the head. Let's see how they feel getting mugged for a bag of Christmas presents."

The irony is that if those "thugs" expected that more people had guns, they'd probably be less "thugish." But, they know that people generally don't have guns, because the gov't has made it so difficult to get them. So, the criminals, who don't give a fuck about silly laws, go out and get whatever the fuck they want while the law-abiding citizens follow the law and get assraped for it. Not to mention the fact that the gov't has practically made it illegal for people to DEFEND THEMSELVES with a gun, so go figure.

Quote :

"And I trust you support an ex-con's right to buy and legally own a gun. Surely, even a felon deserves the right to defend himself and his property...especially if other dudes get to own machine guns to defend themselves."

Only if you agree to take away that ex-con's right to vote...

Quote :

"Do you believe the Second Amendment is absolute and are you a strict constructionist on the Constitution?"

No pun intended, but I absolutely believe the 2nd Amendment is absolute.

Quote :

"When the framers of the Constitution wrote that thing, I don't think they could even fathom the idea of machine guns and such."

Actually, they wrote the 2nd Amendment specifically to cover such things as machine guns. Had they wanted to limit it to the single-shot weapons of their day, they would have done exactly that. Note that they didn't say "guns." They said "arms," meaning any and all weapons. And the reason they did this is that they knew that the only way to keep the gov't in check was to have a highly armed populace. That means guns. That means artillery. That means basically ANY weapon the gov't could ever have. Remember, these people had just finished fighting off an oppressive gov't themselves, so they weren't about to cripple their descendants against being able to do the same.

Quote :

"But there is absolutely no purpose for civilians to own machine guns and silenced weapons."

Wrong, read what I just said.

Quote :

"Violent use is inherent in simply owning those."

WRONG. Violence is inherent when the gov't doesn't PUNISH those who commit crimes. Besides, I know plenty of people who own those kinds of weapons, and they are anything but violent people.

Quote :

"Outlawing these guns would probably put a significant dent in gun-related deaths."

False. Outlawing these guns would just ensure that only criminals have them. Making something illegal doesn't make something disappear. It hardly even puts a dent in it. If you need any proof of this, look at illegal immigrants; look at prohibition; look at drugs; look at practically anything that has been "outlawed," it continues to exist, and the law just moves it underground at best.

Quote :

"Columbine wouldn't have happened (or at least not as badly)."

Actually, Columbine wouldn't have happened if the police had responded to the videotape given to them 6 weeks prior to the incident, showing the two fools planning their attack and its timing. Columbine wouldn't have happened if the police had responded when yet another person reported that the two guys were building pipe bombs.

Quote :

"But feel free to buy some guns of your own to try to defend yourselves. We can't do it, but maybe you civilians will have better luck."

Actually, who better to defend a person that that person himself? I mean, that guy is always hanging around himself, so it seems quite logical to say to him "hey, you can defend yourself with a gun, k?" The police can't be everywhere. They have already proven that time and time again. AND, 9 times out of 10, they don't give a fuck about every single person they are supposed to protect, so why are they going to go out of their way to do so? No, the best way to protect a person is to let him defend himself. I'm certainly not advocating that we do away with police, as they certainly have their place in society. However, I'm saying that we should not rely on them for protection.

Quote :

"Nothing you could possibly say will make me change my mind that super-deadly weapons have absolutely no positive purpose for existing."

hey, way to show your typical liberal "open-mindedness."

Quote :

"you really think there would be more guns out there if guns were outlawed?!"

Absolutely not. BUT, the ratio of responsible gun owners to criminal gun owners would greatly decrease (and I'm not talking simply because 'guns are illegal'). The fact is that LAWS won't discourage CRIMINALS from getting guns, because, by definition, criminals don't give a shit about laws! So, if you restrict guns, the only people who will follow that law will the people that you actually want to have guns in the first place!

Quote :

"so someone tell me why someone should be legally able to obtain one of these things if it is so overwhelmingly more likely to be used for a negative purpose?"

just because you post a statistic about the number of gun-related deaths DOESN'T mean that that statistic is overwhelming. You conveniently leave out the number of murders committed without guns. You conveniently leave out the number of incidents that would have lead to murder that were diffused by the presence of a gun. You conveniently leave out the actual number of gun owners. If there are tens of millions of gun owners and we only have 30k murders per year with guns, then I'd say it is hardly an overwhelming negative use. In fact, I'd say that that goes against your claim that guns are overwhelmingly used in a negative way...

Quote :

"as for the people committing these homicides and suicides I bet the majority would not illegally buy these guns..."

care to back that up w/ some stats, or can I pull stats out of my ass, too?

Quote :

"... so it's not like there is this niche of people that routinely commit all the murders and get guns regardless of the law"

did you really just say that? Do you REALLY think that all of the gang-bangers out there are buying guns legally? REALLY? Sure, not all murders are committed using "illegal guns," but a vast majority of crime involving guns utilizes illegally purchased guns.

Quote :

"what many gun control supporters can't seem to comprehend is that a gun is a power that feeds in to every negative impulse and emotion and in a second can transform a man that is a good law abiding citizen his whole life in to a killer easier than any other weapon"

HA. Do you have ANY scientific evidence to back that up? Because I know hundreds, THOUSANDS of people who own guns and have yet to murder anyone or commit a violent act with their weapon.

Quote :

"I feel so depressed to live in a country where every other part of the Constitution is up for interpretation except for the one that keeps deadly weapons in the hands of everyone."

Actually, practically NONE of the Constitution should be "up for interpretation." That's the fucking problem we have right now with our gov't: NO ONE follows the fucking Constitution in the fucking gov't.

Quote :

"But there is no way you can argue that owning an uber-deadly weapon serves any legitimate purpose. What are the possible uses of a gun?"

Throwing off the yoke of an oppressive government. You know, one of the things that the framers intended when they wrote the fucking document...

11/2/2007 6:35:48 PM

Quote :

"Virginia Tech was 2 semi-auto pistols that were sold to a mentally unstable person."

HA! I knew you were going to go there. Look, if the fucking school had FOLLOWED THE FUCKING LAWS and REPORTED THE PSYCHO, then he NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PURCHASE A GUN!!! But instead, due to fucking liberal panty-twisting, they worried more about his "privacy," ignoring FEDERAL FUCKING LAW, and didn't report the fact that he was a violent, uncontrollable individual! So, the fucker goes out, applies to get a weapon, the dealer checks his info and he comes back clean. And somehow that is the fault of gun laws? THE FUCKING LAWS WEREN'T FOLLOWED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! And besides, if the school had simple KICKED HIS FUCKING ASS OUT for being violent, you know, like they should do in order to protect their students, then he wouldn't have been at the school to begin with in order to commit the fucking crime! There was a SHIT LOAD of stuff that went wrong there, and absolutely NONE OF IT had anything to do with guns.
Did you know that in the first fucking classroom that Cho went to, there were NINE people with concealed weapons permits? Just imagine if only four of those people, law abiding citizens, had been able to have their weapon with them. Tell me, how far would Cho have gotten? He would have been dead 5 seconds after he kicked the door in. But instead, the gov't said "citizens don't have the right to defend themselves at school and we won't do anything to protect them at all," so four of those nine people with CCW's were killed. Yeah, sounds like restricting guns REALLY helped, doesn't it?

Quote :

"What gun rights people need to realize is that does not mean we live in a world without limits on those guns. "

FALSE. What the gov't needs to do is PUNISH people who misuse guns. PERIOD. Allow people to have guns to defend themselves with no restrictions. If someone misuses that right, then the gov't punishes them. It's that simple.

Quote :

"The black market for guns in America is created by the ease with which one can get a gun from the legit market."

Are you an idiot? The black market exists because such guns are ILLEGAL. That's the only reason it exists. If the guns were legal, there would be no reason for the black market. Jeez.

Quote :

"If you make all these super-deadly guns illegal you minimize the black market."

Just like happened with prohibition, right? No, if you make such guns illegal, the demand for a black market explodes, because there is no legal way to get one! DUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Quote :

"By your reasoning, I should be allowed to own rocket launchers if I really wanted to and had enough money to buy one. It's just a really big gun with an exploding tip."

Absolutely. If you can afford it, you should be able to get it. But, of course, you would also know that everyone around you probably has a rocket launcher too. So, you might get one shot off before 15 more come flying right at you.

Quote :

"What I can be sure of, however, is that guns make killing very impersonal and very easy. Actually having to stab someone takes balls compared to pulling some trigger from 50 yards away."

That's funny, since far more murders are committed without guns than with. Hmmm...

11/2/2007 6:36:12 PM