VT Shootings, Gun Control !

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
81

Ok damn, you want to start nit-picking the fact they have the same properties and molecular structure in a different state of matter fine, let’s look at it this way.

An ice cube cools a glass of water (well not even you need multiple ones), a glacier changes the water temperatures of an ocean. There’ just no comparison between domestic guns, especially the guns they allow us to buy, and a nuclear weapon. Comparing constitutional rights on a global scale using nations as individuals doesn’t quite work.

“Insanity in individuals is something rare; in groups, nations, epochs, it is rule.”

  • Nietzsche
    (I think that’s the proper quote, could be wrong)

We can do background checks and attempt to license the right citizens, much gun crime is committed with illegally ourchased weapons anyway. Now is this fool-proof, absolutely not, but is anything really?

We can’t do background checks on a country to see if we allow them to have nukes, we pretty much just consider if they are a threat to us or not, and if they are, we tell them to fuck off and we try to hinder them from developing nuclear capability.

Somebody gets a gun that shouldn’t, some people die, maybe a lot, but a whole country or multiple nations will not go under as a result of it. Nuke goes in the wrong hands, well, somebody(a nation) is screwed, and for a very, very, long time.

82

[quote]MisterAmazing wrote:
We can’t do background checks on a country to see if we allow them to have nukes[/quote]

See! That’s a much better argument than ice cubes and glaciers.

Glad to see someone spit out things as they are. Big guys gets the big guns, then go on deciding who gets the rights to bear weapons or not. No rationalization. no two-ways-about-it. Only a simple yet accurate assesment of reality.

I have a profound admiration for the people who wrote the US constitution. It’s an amazing document that is well above the other codes written thru Human history. I hope you manage to keep its integrity.

83

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
lucasa wrote:

So, ban neckties, bathtubs, and pillows? I mean seriously, most of the hicks that own neckties don’t use them in a responsible manner anyway, they don’t make anyone any safer, and I’m pretty sure Japan’s Constitution doesn’t provide a right to bear a cravat.

Don’t even get me started on bathtubs…

I support the right to bear arms so I’d like to see gun advocates drop this line of argument. I think it weakens your position.

The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill people. Plain and simple it is a weapon designed to kill. Not every gun owner owns guns for the purpose of killing people but the gun itself is designed for a specific use.

People are killed everyday with “non-weapon” items but the fact remains that neckties, bathtubs, and pillows aren’t designed to do what guns do.

Absolutely, positively wrong! Guns are used for sport and hunting as well. Marksmenship is a major sport. Some people hunt for food. The bow and arrow has the EXACT same purposes as the gun. Should they be banned as well? What about the axe and knife?

There are hundreds of million of guns in the US. If they each fulfilled their primary purpose everyone in the US would be dead.

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that’s not their primary purpose? If not, then what is?[/quote]

To shoot a bullet. It is up to the user to decide where it goes.

Most go through paper. Some go through animals. A tiny fraction go through human beings.

84

[quote]pookie wrote:
MisterAmazing wrote:
Presently, there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of our nation’s gun owners kicking the military’s ass; never going to happen.

Unless the Army nukes it’s own country, I’d put my money on the people anytime.

There’s no way an army comprising about 500,000 soldiers is going to put down a revolution by a sizeable portion of your 300,000,000 population.

A sizeable portion of your army is currently trying to pacify Iraq and getting nowhere; you think it would do better with a population over 10 times as large and better armed?

I don’t see it.
[/quote]

The Army is the people. The overwhelming majority of our armed forces would not shoot at other Americans. There may be a few idiots that would as well as the FBI/BATF type jack booted thugs but the American people do not have to fear our military.

85

[quote]worzel wrote:
…Comparing a well organised politically motivated terrorist organistion shipping illegal weaponry into Ireland or the UK to a low life scum bag physco buying a gun at their local store in the US in pure nonsense, c’mon!

…[/quote]

Those terrorists are low life scum bags. Don’t kid yourself. If the US had an IRA type organization this kid would have joined.

86

[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
I’ll have to side with MisterAmazing on this one.

Cool. You’re generally on the losing side of every debate, so I’ll take this as back up for my position.

As for the US army handling billions of armed people, it all depends if mass extermination via WMDs is on the table.

With conventional warfare only, I’m still skeptical.

If Thunderbolt is reading this, I wonder what his view is on this topic: Could the US citizenry rise against and topple it’s leaders if the Army remained loyal to them?
[/quote]

I’m not thuderbolt either, but the U.S. citizenry could absolutely fend off the U.S. military in conventional warfare.

Sure, the military could nuke us, but what purpose would that serve?

Look at all the people in the Middle-East who have done a satisfactory job of repulsing the U.S. military with riftles, sticks, and home-made bombs. Americans would be far better armed than the Middle-Easterners.

87

[quote]pookie wrote:

If Thunderbolt is reading this, I wonder what his view is on this topic: Could the US citizenry rise against and topple it’s leaders if the Army remained loyal to them?
[/quote]

I just saw this, and I’ll take a shot at it.

First, assuming the really wild fantasy world of basically all the citizens versus the entire government:

  1. The government does not produce the weapons. It buys them. The government has piles of weapons of course, but the private sector - the engineers, the defense companies, the materials companies, etc. - are in private hands. So, in one sense, we are in a different position than having a few muskets to storm the Bastille. The technology and mass production is in the citizens’ hands.

  2. But the government has the advantage of having weapons now along with the logistics and infrastructure to use them. Could the citizens - owners of the economy - survive the onslaught enough to then turn the citizen might against the government? My guess is…probably? In part because…

  3. I suspect that much of the military has a very strong civic duty to the government, but once the government “turned” on its people (in our very fantastical example), I do believe their would be a breakdown in discipline and loyalty, at least enough to cause serious logistical problems that the military relies on. Then, of course, Team Citizen gets legions of trained soldiers joining up.

  4. The population is very, very, very large. And pretty smart.

  5. I guess I would say the citizenry could beat back the government, in large part because every conventional war, there comes a time where it becomes a contest of economic productivity (if you can survive long enough). In that scenario, advantage citizens. And of course, on the non-material side, the contest of wills would go to the citizens. I would never put good money against angry, free Westerners who have made up their mind to beat back tyranny.

Pure conjecture, of course, and there are always other variables, like international help. But that is my take.

88

[quote]MisterAmazing wrote:
pookie wrote:
MisterAmazing wrote:
Presently, there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of our nation’s gun owners kicking the military’s ass; never going to happen.

Unless the Army nukes it’s own country, I’d put my money on the people anytime.

There’s no way an army comprising about 500,000 soldiers is going to put down a revolution by a sizeable portion of your 300,000,000 population.
[/quote]

My money goes on the people any day. Contrary to popular belief today’s military isn’t full of idiots who blindly follow orders. In the event of a revolution there would be a mass exodus of troops back home.

You know what they would take with them? Helicopters, anti-tank launchers, and everything they could grab would be back at home with their families.

You know what else? A good portion of the gear that the military has is shit. My personal AR-15 is far better than the M16 I was issued. I also am fortunate enough to own a few rifles in .308 which will cause a lot more damage than a 5.56mm M16 round.

Also, do you have any idea how many combat veterans we have right now armed and in college now? How about the Gulf War and Vietnam vets working in the office across the street? We know tactics and we’ve been in a firefight or two. We have also taken our oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic quite seriously.

The most fun you can have during military training exercises is as the opposing force. You are unorganized and your movement is free and you crush your enemy almost every time. In Iraq we are dealing with guys with spray and pray crappy AK-47’s.

A revolution in America will be much deadlier. Instead of AK’s you will be dealing primarily with hunting rifles picking your men off from 500+ yards. A lot of military men can’t shoot worth a damn.

Can the U.S. government win an open confrontation? Perhaps, but not likely. The only way they can defeat the people is by destroying them all. What the hell is the point of winning then? They would not and could not fight that way.

Semper Fi,

mike

89

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Pure conjecture, of course, and there are always other variables, like international help. But that is my take.[/quote]

Good point. If we are fighting our own government we will also likely be shooting at a lot of blue helmets mixed amongst them.

mike

90

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
worzel wrote:
…Comparing a well organised politically motivated terrorist organistion shipping illegal weaponry into Ireland or the UK to a low life scum bag physco buying a gun at their local store in the US in pure nonsense, c’mon!

…

Those terrorists are low life scum bags. Don’t kid yourself. If the US had an IRA type organization this kid would have joined.[/quote]

I never meant to imply that the IRA weren’t scum bags. They are! I compared the fact that a highly organised well funded terrorist organisation obtaining illegal weaponry cannot be compared with the ‘what if guns were banned scenario, people would still get their hands on them if they wanted to just like the IRA’. Way out there as far as comparisons go.

Maybe a membership in an American version of the IRA could have been on the cards but maybe just maybe his honorary membership in the NRA took up too much of his time to allow him to spread his ideological horizons even further, way past the barrel of his shiny new guns.

91

Wow. Great responses.

I’m still siding with the people in case of a revolution. I also think that the scenarios with the army maintaining coherency and total loyalty to the leaders is not realistic. I think most of the people serving in the army believe they serve the people, not the elected officials themselves.

Of course, on paper, with no emotions or loyalties involved, the US Army can crush it’s citizenry and destroy the entire planet if it so wishes. There’s enough stockpiles of weapons everyone’s afraid to use.

In a real event, I think a lot of the soldiers would have trouble shooting their own countrymen.

Let’s hope their are enough democratic and peaceful means for change and progress that we never have to find out who wins a Citizen vs. Army match-up.

You wouldn’t want Canada to step in and straighten you out, now would you? :slight_smile:

92

The US military would not attack US civilians in any sort of organized fashion. You may be able to dupe a few local commanders into launching an assault but the majority would not. Not the ones I know and served with.

I would guess the military would stay in the barracks or garrison. They would secure property but would not fire on a civilian population unless attacked.

93

[quote]Michael570 wrote:

They function as a form of clothing as opposed to a strangulation device.[/quote]

Incorrect, they don’t function as a form of clothing. If they did, you could forego shirt and slacks and just go with a tie. They are an accessory. Additionally, they serve as an accessory in addition to a strangulation device.

Guns on the other hand, are important enough to have been written into our constitution. The Founding Fathers weren’t idiots, if they felt we could defend ourselves against criminals/invaders/tyranny with neckties, piano strings, and kitchen knives, they wouldn’t have used the word “arms” and given us the right to bear them.

We are not the land of the safe, home of the policed.

94

This has got to be most most pointless exchange to have ever taken place in the history of the Interweb. Seriously. We should be banned from using computers.

[quote]
Guns on the other hand, are important enough to have been written into our constitution. The Founding Fathers weren’t idiots, if they felt we could defend ourselves against criminals/invaders/tyranny with neckties, piano strings, and kitchen knives, they wouldn’t have used the word “arms” and given us the right to bear them.

We are not the land of the safe, home of the policed.[/quote]

Preaching to the choir here and illustrating my point. Guns aren’t neckties or pillows so don’t compare them. It weakens our side of the debate.

95

[quote]Michael570 wrote:

This has got to be most most pointless exchange to have ever taken place in the history of the Interweb. Seriously. We should be banned from using computers.[/quote]

Yup pointless, just because you declare it to be. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that anyone could be killed with an otherwise largely useless everyday object but we don’t instantly think to ban them. Nah, that couldn’t be relevant.

Guns, when used properly and responsibly, are no more deadly than a necktie or a kitchen knife. Guns spend 99.999999% of their lives not firing and otherwise harmless. Knives are always cutting, ties spend a good portion of their time strangling to varying degrees, people slip and fall in bathtubs all the time, cars kill people by the minute, but guns are the most dangerous inanimate object on the face of the earth and the average human is incapable of owning or handling one without killing someone.

To treat guns as different because of their designed purpose perpetuates a flawed myth about them and shows a flawed perception of human thought, humans have always, and will always be using inanimate objects for something other than their intended purpose. Cain killed Abel with a ploughing stick.

96

[quote]lucasa wrote:
…and the average human is incapable of owning or handling [a gun] without killing someone. [/quote]

Come again?

I’m not entirely sure this supports your argument. Did you really mean to write that or was it just a slip?

97

[quote]karva wrote:
brushga wrote:
buffballswell wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

You boys relly must practice reading comprehension. Both of you are just regurgitating what you have learned. You don’t have an own opinion yet.[/quote]
As opposed to writing? Did you mean “you don’t have your own opinion”?

98

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
karva wrote:

You boys relly must practice reading comprehension. Both of you are just regurgitating what you have learned. You don’t have an own opinion yet.

As opposed to writing? Did you mean “you don’t have your own opinion”?
[/quote]

That was not my only mistake, I wrote “relly” when it should have been “really”.

99

“Μολων λαβε ! !”

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Perhaps that’s because of it’s a completely defenseless citizenry who are completely at the whim of whatever European nation is the most powerful at that time. Give every Frenchman a gun in the 1930’s and maybe Hitler doesn’t have such an easy time.

[/quote]

Hitler was a big old fan of gun control. One of the things that made Hitler’s Final Solution task easier was the 1928 Weapon Control Law. This law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb “gang activity,” violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered.

Inheriting a complete list of every German resident who owned a firearm was great for the Nazis: anyone whose name “sounded Jewish” was simply turned down when those “law abiding citizens” went in to renew their permits.

Hitler’s 1938 version of the Weapons Control law restricted firearm ownership to “reliable citizens.” In other words, Nazi Party members and non-Jews. The day after Nazi thugs went around trashing Jewish businesses, synagogues and homes, and beating the shit out of every Jew they could find, new legislation was passed: seems that some uppity Jews had had the audacity to defend themselves with clubs and knives, so these were duly banned as well.

The rest, as they say, is history.

As an aside, I notice that a lot of otherwise reasonably intelligent folks keep going on about the Second Amendment, without really understanding it. The amendment was never intended to give American citizens the right to own and carry weapons, nor would the right of Americans to keep and bear arms suddenly vanish, were the amendment to be repealed.

The writer of the amendment, understanding that to be armed is and always has been the prerogative of a free man, wrote that amendment to prevent the federal legislature from attempting to do what Hitler accomplished in 1938.

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” –George Washington

I’d say we need the Second Amendment now more than ever.

100

Oh, and by the way…

Beowulf: slippery slope? The Holocaust.

You’re welcome.