Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Daelak]

Reminds of people that watch the news and believe everything they see on the news as true fact. Take guns away and the public becomes much easier to control which has happened more than a few times in history across the world. 2nd amendment, i own guns and will not give them up ever. I own a assault rifle similar to the guns I used in the military and enjoy using them in my free time. Like the assault rifle(murder weapon according to the news) that was found in the trunk of lanza and never fired unlike the 4 handguns found in the school.

Ask questions, don't believe everything you hear or see on the news, they all have their own agenda's. Great Video.

Yes, and an AR-15 will stop the government agents from busting down your door and kidnapping and raping your wife. Wake up, if the government wanted to kill you, they would, and can. No. matter. what. gun. or. 2nd. amendment. rights. you. have.

[Deleted]

We are talking about gun regulations. Pro-gun people think that if they buy that 10,000th bullet, or their 12th AR-15, they will be able to stop Obama and his tyrannical Seal Team Six minions from water-boarding their daughters, guess what, it won't.

Dude, just stop.

[Deadvolcanoes]

That's pretty much exactly what this is: Political. People always go emotional after big events like these, and the politicians exploit this during the small time-window that exists between the tragedy and when people calm down.

It was the same after 9/11. People were willing to sign off their rights because they were upset and emotional.

Exploiting implies there's some type of alternative motive behind the action.

What do you suppose that would be?

[Deleted]

Exploiting implies there's some type of alternative motive behind the action.

What do you suppose that would be?

Get votes in the next election and more power for themselves. They don't care if it actually helps their constituents or not. This is how politics works, unfortunately.

[Daelak]

Then why do our federal officials swear an oath to the constitution and not to their constituents?

The exact text of the Senatorial Oath is as follows:


Their duty is to the law. They do not have to like those laws, but that does not mean they can ignore the ones they do like and only uphold the laws that are convenient to them. There are mechanisms in place to change those laws, but as far as I know the bill of rights still stands with all of its provisions in place.

Because the constitution is based around the constituents. The government is comprised of citizens, and citizens wrote and enforce those laws.

[Daelak]

Get votes in the next election. They don't care if it actually helps their constituents or not. This is how politics works, unfortunately.

So first it was that Obama wanted to confiscate all guns to make all the freedom-loving people powerless, and to destroy the USA from within, now its about votes, even though he's on his 2nd term?

Seriously, do you think an AR-15 can stop the world's most sophisticated army.

[isadorr]

The real shame is that politicians of both parties aren't addressing any real problem. They still do not know what the real problem is. They are simply pushing the square peg the the unfortunate events of sandy hook into the round hole of their long standing gun control agenda. Feinstein had her comprehensive bill ready to go within days of the shooting. It has probably been sitting in waiting for years, she was just waiting for the right opportunity to unleash it. Our representatives are looking to use Sandy Hook as political capitol to exploit, not as an event to mourn or treat in a dignified manner.

With the president using children in numerous photo op's to try and push gun law's. There are so many holes in the supposed facts of what happened in Sandy Hook that people should first ask questions before believing everything as fact. Numerous videos, professors and now newscasters asking questions of what really took place. The assault rifle found in the trunk of the car and was never fired, the four handguns found in the school, a man on helicopter video being chased down through the woods that is nowhere to be found, the man in the front of the police car that they wont mention now even when asked.

I am not saying it is all a hoax but ask questions and as many are saying on here, people use whatever tools they need to push their agenda. What is the best tool to push gun control and bans? I would have to say children gunned down in school as #1 but read up on this for yourself and I think you will be suprised at the many holes in the supposed facts on what really happened.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 10:13 PM ----------

So first it was that Obama wanted to confiscate all guns to make all the freedom-loving people powerless, and to destroy the USA from within, now its about votes, even though he's on his 2nd term?

Seriously, do you think an AR-15 can stop the world's most sophisticated army.

DO you think it would be easier to control civilians that aren't armed or civilians that are armed?

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 10:15 PM ----------

Tell me how many shootings there have been in the last year alone in the US. And what the total body/injured count is. This is hardly a kneejerk reaction.

In 2012 4% of gun killings were with a assault weapon. 4%, so the other 96% is ok because it isn't a assault weapon.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Get votes in the next election and more power for themselves.

So politicians are responding to their constituents in order to gain more votes come election time. I see literally nothing wrong with that.

They don't care if it actually helps their constituents or not. This is how politics works, unfortunately.

That's speculation on your part.

And its not really their job to help their constituents as they see fit. It's their job to respond to their constituents wants and needs. The people need to take responsibility for doing their own homework.

[Deleted]

So first it was that Obama wanted to confiscate all guns to make all the freedom-loving people powerless, and to destroy the USA from within, now its about votes, even though he's on his 2nd term?

Seriously, do you think an AR-15 can stop the world's most sophisticated army.

What the fuck are you mumbling about? No one is going to confiscate any weapons. We're talking about things like a new "Assault Weapon Ban" and so on.

And to answer your stupid question: Yes, an armed population means that the cost/difficulty of attacking this population is higher in all aspects, which means that there's a lower likelyhood of that happening.

[Daelak]

DO you think it would be easier to control civilians that aren't armed or civilians that are armed?

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 10:15 PM ----------



In 2012 4% of gun killings were with a assault weapon. 4%, so the other 96% is ok because it isn't a assault weapon.

Yea it would be easier to control your civilians that aren't armed, in 1780.

If the federal government wanted to arrest you and torture you, it can and will, and there is no gun, pistol, shotgun, that will stop them. Get that through your head. A militia in the 21st century in our country would be CRUSHED in seconds.

[isadorr]

No. I am saying that the president doesn't JUST have to worry about reelection. If he doesn't do well, that can be seen as a sign of weakness/incompetence, which can ruin the chances for his party to get in again.

Now, do I agree that something could be done (more training mostly)? Yeah. But I suppose if you want to be snarky like that with someone who at least shares some of your viewpoints, I can live with it.

Perhaps there is a lot more at stake than a reelection. Or a much larger plan.

[Daelak]

What the fuck are you mumbling about? No one is going to confiscate any weapons. We're talking about things like a new "Assault Weapon Ban" and so on.

And to answer your stupid question: Yes, an armed population means that the cost/difficulty of attacking this population is higher in all aspects, which means that there's a lower likelyhood of that happening.

How would an AR-15 stop an M1-Abram tank? Or better yet, a SEAL with a tactical combat knife?

[Deleted]

So politicians are responding to their constituents in order to gain more votes come election time. I see literally nothing wrong with that.

Aye, and we know that in half a year this whole thing would've died down. The emotional outcries are just completely irrational.

That's speculation on your part.

Banning scary looking weapons but leaving less-scary looking effective weapons untouched will help constituents? Yeah right. The AWB didn't lower crime rates decades ago, it won't do it now.

[Daelak]

Perhaps there is a lot more at stake than a reelection. Or a much larger plan.

Here we go again, please tell us of the larger, more insidious plan. Is it going to happen before Obama "spends" another trillion, or is it after he "finishes" socializing "America"?

[Deleted]

How would an AR-15 stop an M1-Abram tank? Or better yet, a SEAL with a tactical combat knife?

What the flying fuck does this have to do with what we're arguing. Stop with the fucking strawmen.

The fact is that social unrest of an armed population is harder to put down. And it's not like there's going to be this final showdown on an open battlefield with civilians and their AR-15 on one side and the US armed forces on the other.

[isadorr]

Yea it would be easier to control your civilians that aren't armed, in 1780.

If the federal government wanted to arrest you and torture you, it can and will, and there is no gun, pistol, shotgun, that will stop them. Get that through your head. A militia in the 21st century in our country would be CRUSHED in seconds.

We are talking about millions of people with weapons, not one. Do you read any history on similar things in the past? Do you not think that millions if people with weapons would make the gov't think twice about certain decisions? I was in the military for 20 years and in suburban fighting, the civilians are very hard to kill especially any large number of them working in unison. I have been involved in wars where this amazing 21st century military you talk of was held to a stand still because the civilians were armed. It isn't as easy as you think and you can't take out a city block in america which is what the US is good at in wars in other countries.

Ever watch something like Red Dawn or Somolia? Rangers, special forces killed by people with little to no military training taking out black hawks with simple rpg's. And that is nothing compared to a lot of ex-soldier's and people who are highly trained across america, hundred of thousands of people.

My only point is that people armed especially with very good weapons are much harder to control than people without them. That is it. I don't care to try and change anyone's mind or view's.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 10:29 PM ----------

How would an AR-15 stop an M1-Abram tank? Or better yet, a SEAL with a tactical combat knife?

Soldier's aren't going to kill americans. This may suprise some but this conversation has come up numerous times while I was in the military and I never had anyone say yes i would go into a american home and kill them if I was told to. Soldier's are just people doing a job but they still have some common sense and ethics, we aren't perfect in anyway but I have yet to run into anyone including some seal's we trained with in San Diego that would assinate americans.

[Grizzly Willy]

How would an AR-15 stop an M1-Abram tank? Or better yet, a SEAL with a tactical combat knife?

I'm growing a bit tired of this argument. Look at it this way: who are you going to have an easier time slapping handcuffs on, an unarmed civilian or a guy point a rifle at you? When you start killing civilians you make it harder to contain the problem.

[Deleted]

My only point is that people armed especially with very good weapons are much harder to control than people without them. That is it. I don't care to try and change anyone's mind or view's.

The armed insurgents in Iraq were able to cause quite a lot of terror and social disorder even though they were facing M1 Abrams. I'm pretty sure a potential dictator would think twice about introducing such an atmosphere to the US.

[isadorr]

Here we go again, please tell us of the larger, more insidious plan. Is it going to happen before Obama "spends" another trillion, or is it after he "finishes" socializing "America"?

No, not that i know of. Every politician has their own agenda that they push. I never mentioned any insidious plan and I never meant it that way, I was just being lazy in my reply. That is all I meant, he is a politican so just because he doesnt have to worry about a election doesn't mean that he doesnt have other agenda's to push.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Aye, and we know that in half a year this whole thing would've died down. The emotional outcries are just completely irrational.

I understand that emotional reactions are not ideal, but when are we allowed to put forward gun legislation without it being labeled political? Should we wait a few months? What happens if there's another mass shooting at that time? Do we have to restart the waiting period?

Banning scary looking weapons but leaving less-scary looking effective weapons untouched will help constituents? Yeah right. The AWB didn't lower crime rates decades ago, it won't do it now.

It's up to the constituents to determine what will best help their personal situation, and then up to the politician to act on it, so long as it abides by the constitution. Whether or not the ban lowered crime rates is ultimately irrelevant.