1. Hey Guest, welcome back to DLP

    As you can see, we've changed our look. We've migrated from vBulletin to the Xenforo forum system. There may be issues or missing functionality, if you find anything or have feedback, please check out the new Xenforo Migration Feedback forum.

    Our dark ("Dark Lord Potter") theme is under heavy development. We also have a light ("Light Lord Potter") theme for those happier with a light background and darker text.

    Dismiss Notice

2nd amendment / gun discussion thread: Keep it in here

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LogrusMage, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. LogrusMage

    LogrusMage Supreme Mugwump

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Huntington Sta., NY
    Holy shit O_O!

    I agree with NW completely. He nailed it. :p

    One tiny thing: Obama is anti-gun and most likely will get an assault rifle ban passed through congress. Stop pretending he's not anti-gun. Look at his Illinois voting record. Shit, look at his US voting record.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2015
  2. Immolo

    Immolo High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    574
    NO ONE FUCKING NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE! THE ARMY IS TOO STRONG FOR A BUNCH OF HAY FARMERS WITH ASSAULT RIFLES TO DO SHIT!

    The only reason those retards in Iraq stand a chance is the US army isn't allowed to slaughter people willy nilly. If our country suddenly became a dictatorship there would be no such laws on our army.

    Only psychopaths, the police and the army need assault rifles. Here is a hint assault rifles mean automatic weapons. Automatic weapons present far more danger to the average person than non automatic weapons.
     
  3. Darius

    Darius 13/m/box

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,582
    Location:
    The Octagon - Say that to my face and not online m
    God Immolo you're a fucking retard.

    You really think America is going to invade America? Roll their tanks through downtown New York?
     
  4. Immolo

    Immolo High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    574
    No I don't. I was anticipating his counter argument of the people have to over throw the government if they fuck up or become corrupt(read some of the old gun arguments threads he has debated in). I believe the chance of that happening is so retardedly small it isn't worth considering.
     
  5. Darius

    Darius 13/m/box

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,582
    Location:
    The Octagon - Say that to my face and not online m
    Not being prepared because you think something won't happen is a terrible idea.
     
  6. LogrusMage

    LogrusMage Supreme Mugwump

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Huntington Sta., NY
    Not the fucking point. I won't argue any more, because you'll obviously never understand it.
     
  7. Nukular Winter

    Nukular Winter The Chosen One DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,216
    Location:
    Seattle
    Actually, he has a point.

    Some people would have you believe that the 2nd Amendment means that the government doesn't have the right to restrict guns at all...

    but they would be incorrect.

    Just like the government can place limits on free speech when they can demonstrate a compelling state interest (you're not allowed to incite a riot, slander is illegal, etc) they can also limit your access to guns if they can demonstrate a compelling state interest in doing so.

    Nobody really wants to restrict this:

    [Image gone]

    So much as this:

    [Image gone]

    or even people like this fucking toolbox:

    [Image gone]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2015
  8. LogrusMage

    LogrusMage Supreme Mugwump

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Huntington Sta., NY
    You still don't get it, and you probably never will.
    Let me say this:

    THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING OR SPORTS.
     
  9. Nukular Winter

    Nukular Winter The Chosen One DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,216
    Location:
    Seattle
    True, and also irrelevant.
     
  10. Immolo

    Immolo High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    574
    If your house is being attacked and you need an automatic weapon you are fucked anyways.
     
  11. Vegemeister

    Vegemeister Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    260
    Location:
    Texas
    I agree. I don't need a machine gun. I want a machine gun. The same can be said of anything large, fun, and hazardous. Fireworks, for instance, or Tesla coils. It is not that I feel widespread possession of automatic weapons would benefit the nation (It probably wouldn't even happen if they were legalized), but that I value individual freedom more than a very slightly reduced chance of being shot with a machine gun.
     
  12. Midknight

    Midknight Middy is SPAI! DLP Supporter Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,958
    Location:
    NC
    He's not anti-gun you fuckwit. He's anti AP rounds, assault weapons, fucking grenade launchers, etc. NOT GODDAMNED ANTI GUN. No one needs a fucking AK-47 or a goddamned military grade sniper rifle. Period.

    Dude that is the arguement gun nuts make. Xiph has said it, among others here that they have guns as a reason to protect themselves from government if it gets corrupt.

    Get the fuck out. Just go. You're goddamned trolling again after I made what.. seven warnings go now for you to stay the hell out of politics if you couldn't add a damned thing to a conversation? If you can't make an arguement for a point you make, then you're goddamned throwing stuff out there to piss people off, which sadly, has become your standard in here. Devil's advocacy is tiring and annoying.

    That does not say nutjob in Wyoming has the right to his SPAM, his missile shelter, and his 4 fully automatic assault weapons with armor piercing rounds. It says the government can regulate who has the right to bear arms. Right fucking in it. So all of you, shut the hell up if your damned right to own a sniper rifle or a semi auto assault weapon is taken away. Go stock up now if it bothers you that much, but you've got no right to the damned weapons unless Uncle Sam says so.
     
  13. Darius

    Darius 13/m/box

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,582
    Location:
    The Octagon - Say that to my face and not online m
    well I don't really see how that was trolling at all. But

    Well technically there is a precedent for it (Kent State) but it's not going to happen. Either way the argument makes no sense "We need it to defend against tanks" "It's not going to help against tanks"

    Not an American - but I've always felt that the driving force behind 2nd amendment was that if they DID have to rise up and rebel that it would be a hell of a lot more effective with guns.

    If you think there are 300 000 000 Americans and what? 1-2 million military personnel. If it ever came down to it the only resort would be to bomb themselves.
     
  14. Nukular Winter

    Nukular Winter The Chosen One DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,216
    Location:
    Seattle
    That number includes a lot of children and old people, and you're also you're also supposing that everybody would want to rise up against the government...

    Americans don't ever ALL agree about anything. EVER. (McCain only lost by about 6%... 20-something percent of people still think Bush is doing a good job... there were plenty of colonists who fought with the Brits in the Revolution...)

    At best, maybe half of the population would support an uprising no matter what happened. Best case.

    You're also ignoring the fact that even *with* access to military-grade rifles (and that's what people are bitching about), to overthrow our government you'd have to defeat (arguably) the finest professional military in the history of the world. Without armor... or air support... or naval support...
     
  15. Midknight

    Midknight Middy is SPAI! DLP Supporter Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,958
    Location:
    NC
    Not that I have to prove a damned thing to you there Dari, but he's been flat out told more times then I have fingers and toes that if he can't add meaningful conversation, then stay the hell out of politics threads. He's flat out asked to be banned just from politics. He no listen, he go bye bye. Been ignoring the threads of useless shit the last week, that was enough.
     
  16. Darius

    Darius 13/m/box

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,582
    Location:
    The Octagon - Say that to my face and not online m
    Any way you look at it there's going to be a huge numbers advantage. This is a hard situation to consider.

    There are a few factors you have to take in to account.

    Would the military fight American citizens? If half the population of the United States felt so strongly against something that they were willing to take arms and attempt to overthrow the military don't you think a lot of the military would feel the same way? And if they didn't would they fight millions of Americans?

    Naval support is more or less moot since all the fighting is going on in one piece of land. Air support would only be good for bombing since the 'rebel army' wouldn't have any aircraft of their own (modified private jets?). What would it take to get America to bomb American citizens.

    Defeat? I don't think there would be any defeat, there's no real way to defeat yourself...

    ---

    I don't understand the stream of thought that some people seem to have, if there was ever a rebellion it would turn into a full out war between the American population and the American government military. Haha, not quite.

    And there's also mobilization. America has thousands and thousands of soldiers / tanks etc overseas, and there military is scattered all over America. I think it would be much easier to group an armed mob of 50 000 people in Washington and storm the white house then it would be to mobilize an army. There's obviously security etc surrounding the white house but it's not built to handle anything like that.

    And what would happen in that scenario? There's a mob screaming in front of the white house, what's going to happen the presidents going to declare war on Washington and slaughter them all? No. But 50 000 armed protesters are going to send a much stronger message then 50 000 protesters with signs and banners.

    --

    It's a pretty interesting scenario when you think about because there's no real way to predict what would happen.

    Say they get the wealthy on their side. Hey Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey are worth more then small countries.

    Now the rebellion has hundreds and billions of dollars backing it - what happens with the banks? Where do the CEO's fall? With the government?



    I can't think of what could happen that would cause this, maybe a ban on breathing?
     
  17. Midknight

    Midknight Middy is SPAI! DLP Supporter Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,958
    Location:
    NC
    You don't account for the fact that with the intelligence gathering that is directed towards our own citizens as is, the mob would be found out, and "vanished" long before this happened. Bottom line, the nation is full of folks who will not die to get rid of corrupt government, no matter how much they hate it, or how much a constitutional right they think they have.

    You'll get a few groups here and there, and most you'll never even hear about as they vanished or get processed quietly.

    Air support would be locating ground targets, since none of them would have access to tanks, you merely wait until they sleep, then drop a cluster bomb on their hidey hole. Or you use infrared sat imaging to find them hidden deep in the woods, etc. It's an unwinnable war unless the military revolts en masse. And honestly a huge chunk of them are so ingrained with loyalty and service, unless they were asked to commit wholesale murder of unarmed Americans, they'd wipe out any backwoods fuckjob commiting treason without blinking.
     
  18. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    638
    High Score:
    1,802
    Just to clear up something some of the posters don't seem to get, the "Assault Weapons" covered by the ban are not automatic assault rifles (which already have their own legislation dating back to the prohibition era) but rather things like semi-automatic rifles with bayonet mounts. I'm sure the various people killed in the wild gang warfare bayonet charges of the 1980's prompted would be glad to know that kind of thing won't happen again. That's the real issue I have with the Assault Weapons Ban; it didn't really do anything practical and useful or get dangerous weapons off the street, it just made it look like the government was doing something.

    Gun laws are often illogical. Lots of states will permit concealed carrying of a pistol with a permit, but far fewer allow open carrying of a gun even if you have a concealed carry permit; seems to me like if you're allowed to have a hidden gun you would be allowed to carry it openly as well.

    As far as the "any weapons should be legal in case we need to overthrow the government" arguement goes, I would say that whatever the odds of success, the more firepower the rebels have the better their odds.

    For self defense, I can kind of see the arguement for wanting as much firepower as possible for maximum safety; you've got much better odds of surviving if you have a shotgun vs. the intruder's pistol rather than being forced to use equal firepower.
     
  19. Nukular Winter

    Nukular Winter The Chosen One DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,216
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ask the Branch Davidians... (or those dumb bastards at Ruby Ridge). One of my best friends is a Marine who's been to Iraq a few times, and the way he explained it to me was that if somebody shoots at him or his guys he's going to kill them deader than hell; it doesn't matter at all if it's an insurgent, badass commando, or a 10 year-old girl that's doing the shooting. So yeah, I think our military would do their job if people were actually trying to overthrow the government.

    As far as rich Americans funding the war, if the government accused Oprah of selling drugs they could freeze every dime faster than you'd probably believe.
     
  20. Darius

    Darius 13/m/box

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,582
    Location:
    The Octagon - Say that to my face and not online m
    Mhm, but if it was on a large scale it would completely change everything. It's hard to make everyone 'disappear'

    I'm not saying that this is a plausible situation - just countering the 'it won't do good against the American army' which isn't a plausible situation either.

    Nukular: But if it's something radical enough to get Americans to rebel would he agree? That's the major point that would sway the military, which is in fact made up of people.

    They couldn't freeze all assets - just assets in America.
     
Loading...