Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

A friend of mine (from WV nonetheless...) made the argument last night that we should have guns in order to be able to protect ourselves from a potential governmental plot to take over the United States of America.

Here's one for him: "The government" already runs the United States of America. He missed that plot to take over entirely, some hundred years ago. Guns were involved as well I believe, but it still happened.
 
Here's one for him: "The government" already runs the United States of America. He missed that plot to take over entirely, some hundred years ago. Guns were involved as well I believe, but it still happened.
The WV'ian here would be talking about a dictatorship/tyranny takeover. You know, kind of like that guy from your country a few decades ago.
 
The WV'ian here would be talking about a dictatorship/tyranny takeover. You know, kind of like that guy from your country a few decades ago.

You're talking about the Austrian with the peculiar facial decoration, right?


---


So... another school shooting in CA, one in hospital, no deaths? In media terms, that must be a failure.
 
You're talking about the Austrian with the peculiar facial decoration, right?
That would be him.


So... another school shooting in CA, one in hospital, no deaths? In media terms, that must be a failure.
Yep and just a shotgun used, one student shooting another. One other was grazed I believe, but refused medical treatment.

Appears that states with the most gun control have shootings. Wouldn't want to be in NY, IL, etc.
 
That would be him.



Yep and just a shotgun used, one student shooting another. One other was grazed I believe, but refused medical treatment.

Appears that states with the most gun control have shootings. Wouldn't want to be in NY, IL, etc.
I can attest to that
 
Especially after the governor lost his mind yesterday. He still thinks the second ammendment is about hunting.

Oh? Gotta look that one up I missed it somehow. Don't get me wrong NYC is great as far as being diversity of entertainment/food/work but I look at policies and I'm wondering if they have a spot on the next Mars mission for me....
 
A friend of mine (from WV nonetheless...) made the argument last night that we should have guns in order to be able to protect ourselves from the government in a potential conflict, or a potential governmental plot to take over the United States of America. How paranoid do you have to be, in order to think about this on a daily basis?
In 2011 there were uprisings against the government in almost 20 countries around the globe. Four of them were successful and the government was overthrown. No one ever expects a major conflict until it comes knocking down their door. What about a natural disaster or a riot? When you compare looting in NYC/NJ after Sandy to looting in Houston after Ike (where Gov Perry announced that looters will be shot on sight), another situation when you need a gun becomes clear.


What's more, in an age of cyber-attacks, bio-weapons, and all other kinds of WOMD - how exactly would rifles help protect your family?
You have a better chance with a rifle than you do with a plastic coat hanger or a pencil... Besides, I sure wouldn't mind owning an F16 :D
 
A friend of a friend posted this:

Let's get this out of the way first. The Second Amendment is really not up for debate. I know people just love to be all <whining>"wahhhhhhhh the second amendment was talking about a militia. wahhhh they only were talking about muskets. wahhhhhh my butt hurts because the nanny state forgot to wipe my ass"</whining> but really... the Supreme Court pretty much settled that in 2008 with D.C. v. Heller, and then refined it in 2010 with McDonald v. Chicago. The second amendment protects the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms. The drafters intended for this little thing to be a part of the Constitution because they had seen first hand how important it was for the people to have such a right and be able to stand up to the government. Here's the thing... have you ever noticed that none of the Bill of Rights are about protecting people from themselves, or even other people? They're about protecting the people from the government. These guys weren't stupid... Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison and Mason and Henry, they knew exactly what they were writing and what it meant and would mean for the future of the fledgling nation. Just read the letters between them and you'll see it's very clear what the Second Amendment means.

Not that any of that matters anymore anyways, since the US Supreme Court, the guys who do this shit for a living, made all of this very clear. Go read the opinions, they are fantastic. The people's right to keep and bear arms, to defend their person against others and their government, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it. But you'd be wrong.

I know what you're thinking, so I'll shut you up before you say it. "Yeah but other amendments and rights have limits, you can't say fire in a crowded theater, say slanderous things blah blah blah. The second amendment should obviously be limited as much if not more than the other rights which are more important." The Second Amendment is already probably one of the most regulated and limited rights in the Constitution. There are a whole slew of limits which the majority of logical sane human beings and gun owners see as perfectly in step with the 2A. For instance, I can't keep and bear a tactical nuclear warhead. I can't own guns if I'm a felon. I can't own guns if I have been committed to a mental health institution or am otherwise deemed mentally ill. I have to submit to a federal background check every time I buy a firearm commercially, etc. The point is... we don't need more "reasonable" firearm regulations... we already have them.

This right also applies to sporting rifles that happen to have cosmetic accessories to make them appear like military style weapons (these would be known as "assault rifles" in your deranged world). Here's a fun fact: Connecticut already has an "Assault Weapons Ban," as does Massachusetts. In fact, it's pretty much identical to the Federal AWB of 1994. And you know what? the weapons that this fuckstick in Newtown stole from his mother (making them illegal weapons, by the way) were compliant with the law. These weapons are not any more lethal than any other firearms available for civilians to own, and are in fact much less lethal than a lot of high power hunting rifles, large caliber hand guns, and most shotguns. It sucks to hear it, but there is not a single piece of legislation that could be passed that if it were passed before these horrific tragedies in Newtown or Aurora or elsewhere, would have changed a god damn thing. In fact, the only thing that MIGHT have stopped these things from happening, that MAYBE could have saved some lives, is if someone happened to be concealed carrying while dropping off their kid or at the movie theater or a teacher/principal/janitor just happened to have a gun in their car. And I am by no means someone who thinks the answer is more guns, but them's just the facts. Killers will find a way to kill, no matter how they do it. We've been killing each other for thousands of years, and will keep doing it for thousands to come.

And that's the problem with this kind of emotion-driven, symbolic legislation. It does nothing. In fact, it's a huge waste of resources, of money and time and energy. The legislature is not there to make you feel good. I'm sorry if that's what you want.

Guns are a tool with a legitimate purpose, just like a hammer, a chainsaw, your car, your dildo collection. If you don't like guns or don't want guns or think they are scary, fine. You don't have to own one, that's your right. But don't tell me I can't exercise my right to own keep and bear one either.
_____________________________________

Drats... i completely forgot the point about how the as-already-mentioned-to-be-useless federal assault weapons ban of 1994 did absolutely nothing to stop columbine from happening. And Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6, injuring hundreds more, with a box truck and some fertilizer. And you know what? bombs have never been legal to own. And you can still buy fertilizer and rent box trucks.

The homicide rate and violent crime rate are actually in a 30 year low right now, and continue to decrease. The violent crime and homicide rate were WAY higher in the 1970's... heck in the last 20 years there's been a 50% reduction in these crime rates.

What happens when you start this whole "even one life saved" crap is that you start to value some lives more than others. Rifles account for an incredibly small percentage of homicides using guns, and "assault rifles" even more so... under 1%. Handguns obviously account for the overwhelming majority of gun violence. The overwhelming majority of them illegally owned. Kids die in the inner cities of Chicago and LA and NY and so on every single day. But no one seems to care. I actually had a silly liberal tell me when confronted with this that the kids in Newtown did have a better chance at having a bright future because of where they were from. ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?

If you want to do something about the violent crime and homicide and gun crime rates, increase patrols in troubled neighborhoods, bring in more community service options, build up the schools. Don't pass a law that will have no real effect on what you're trying to solve... a problem that really isn't existent in the first place.

The problem is that it's pandora's box. You can try to take away the guns however you want, but they'll still be there and just as easy if not more easy to obtain. Take a look at England... I have several British friends, all of whom have told me that you can pretty much walk into any back alley in London or Bristol or Manchester and buy a gun for 50 quid. It's essentially illegal to own a firearm in England, yet their violent crime rate is MUCH higher than the US. Or look at Chicago, a city where you could not own or carry a firearm (until it was deemed unconstitutional by the 7th circuit about a month ago). Chicago should be all rainbows and unicorns, right? Why then does it have one of the highest homicide rates in the country?

If anyone thinks that gun control will actually solve the problem, they only need to look at the war on drugs. It is quite illegal to possess or use any drugs in this country, yet I could probably get my hands on pretty much whatever I wanted in about an hour if I really wanted to. The average drug addict can probably do it in way less time than that. What makes you think the same won't apply to firearms?
 
You can't have that - that's communist and anti-American! ;)

I thought we were starting a revolution anyways?

- - - Updated - - -

A friend of a friend posted this:

If I'm ever in Boston I am buying your friend a beer!

I especially like the part about drugs, I could get my hands on drugs and illegal guns in about 20 minutes (pays to live near the projects sometimes).
 
I'm not allowed to have pop-up headlights on a new car but I can enter a private sale and buy a semi-automatic rifle with no paperwork or background check or registration in 'Merica. The 2nd amendment lobby is so far up it's own ass it's ridiculous. Prudent regulation and proper consequences to support it. What is wrong with that?
 
LeVeL, your friend is wrong in one thing - the 2nd amendment IS open for debate and interpretation - that's what those two supreme court cases that he cited are technically doing. The supreme court operates on precedents. As much as people like to claim that the constitution is set in stone, it is the supreme court's duty to re-read and re-interpret each of its provision on a case-to-case basis. The constitution is the foundation, but is not the ultimate, final decision making document.
 
If the constitution was set in stone there wouldn't have been any changes to it, ever. There wouldn't even be a second amendment, right?
 
I'm not allowed to have pop-up headlights on a new car but I can enter a private sale and buy a semi-automatic rifle with no paperwork or background check or registration in 'Merica. The 2nd amendment lobby is so far up it's own ass it's ridiculous. Prudent regulation and proper consequences to support it. What is wrong with that?
Really? If that is the case then how come I have to pay $500 to apply for a permit to simply have a gun in my home and have to provide record of every single summons aside from parking tickets (yep the form says that only the parking tickets are exempt so every speeding ticket I ever got would have to be considered).

Even in states where you can, wanna look up stats on how many people are actually killed using rifles? (hint: less than with barehands).

- - - Updated - - -

If the constitution was set in stone there wouldn't have been any changes to it, ever. There wouldn't even be a second amendment, right?

The constitution was meant to be amended but any amendments that have not been repealed are the supreme law of the land, so under the current constitution the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. If it is ever repealed, which is legally possible, then new laws can be drafted but for now we are guaranteed to have guns.

Jussayin'....
 
Last edited:
I'm not allowed to have pop-up headlights on a new car but I can enter a private sale and buy a semi-automatic rifle with no paperwork or background check or registration in 'Merica. The 2nd amendment lobby is so far up it's own ass it's ridiculous. Prudent regulation and proper consequences to support it. What is wrong with that?
Edited my response after rereading.

Private sale does still techincally require the seller to confirm the buyer is not a felon (or otherwise not allowed to own a firearm). At least that is for long guns in NC (and most other states I know of).

But even if a law is set to stop private sales do you think it stops criminals from buying guns illegally? You know criminals, they kind of don't follow laws.
 
Last edited:
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

I'm not allowed to have pop-up headlights on a new car but I can enter a private sale and buy a semi-automatic rifle with no paperwork or background check or registration in 'Merica. The 2nd amendment lobby is so far up it's own ass it's ridiculous. Prudent regulation and proper consequences to support it. What is wrong with that?

All of the recent school shootings have occurred in places where you can't legally do that. CT and CA *require* that all sales go through a dealer, even private sales between individuals. That means that all persons wishing to own a gun must go through a background check and in some cases in CA (depends on what you're buying) there's even a 10 day waiting period. They have full registration of arms in those states. The 4473 paperwork is filed with the dealer and effectively with the Feds when the background check is performed.

So, one, you're wrong in the case of the recent school shooters and two, how did that work out again? Someone here has their head up an exhaust orifice but it's not the firearms owners.

To further point out your ignorance, you should know that pop-up headlights are NOT illegal in the US. They are still allowed under FMVSS. It was the European pedestrian safety standards along with makers trying to save money by making globally sellable cars that killed them off - that and the US allowing aerodynamic composite headlights, which are cheaper and easier to implement.
 
Last edited:
All of the recent school shootings have occurred in places where you can't legally do that. CT and CA *require* that all sales go through a dealer, even private sales between individuals. That means that all persons wishing to own a gun must go through a background check and in some cases in CA (depends on what you're buying) there's even a 10 day waiting period. They have full registration of arms in those states. The 4473 paperwork is filed with the dealer and effectively with the Feds when the background check is performed.

So, one, you're wrong in the case of the recent school shooters and two, how did that work out again? Someone here has their head up an exhaust orifice but it's not the firearms owners.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in all the recent shootings the guns were obtained legally. So they must have gone through the procedure. How then? It must have been fairly easy. I remember the hassle I had to go through two years ago to just renew my driving license - the DMV refused to renew it because my enrollment date was not until August, and my school documents were from another state. Granted, I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but my point is - it was such a complicated procedure (as a non-resident, but I also saw a lot of residents being turned back because they were missing something) with so many pitfalls and possibilities to be rejected.

So, how about enforcing the background check/application process more strictly and making tougher requirements. I push back on the second amendment because of its implications - ALL citizens have the right to bear arms. That implies that even mentally ill citizens have the right to bear arms. I've said it earlier in the thread - owning a weapon should be a responsibility and you should have to prove that you are capable and responsible to operate one. It can't just be a God-given right (the way that people treat it now).
 
Top