Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Not Safe For Work]

They do indeed. Which is why we have so many controls around using cars.

The difference - of course - is that cars are incredibly dangerous by not designed for that specific characteristic - whereas guns are designed expressly for it.

design matters not, effectiveness is all that matters, cars are just as effective at killing, in some cases more so.

Seems like an odd argument. But sure. Let's ban cars, you win.

[Yes Im Biop]

Didn't seem to help them in Afghanistan. And The army doesn't have M1 Tanks. The Marines do.

I'm sorry, why did you think I was talking about the US military?

Sweet. Then any other tank in the world will be easier to kill with an RPG-7

[North Calaveras]

design matters not, effectiveness is all that matters, cars are just as effective at killing, in some cases more so.

Seems like an odd argument. But sure. Let's ban cars, you win.

>_> i would never ban cars or guns, im very pro gun hence why i was saying these things...i would lose if i banned cars lol

[Hathradic States]

"Military rifles" USe .308 and 5.56mm Ammo. You can buy them in blocks at Wall mart.

In Switzerland?

Must be. Because I had to go to a bloody gun store to get my ammo.

[Not Safe For Work]

Yes, of course.

Maybe that guy in Denver thought everyone in the theater was going to hurt him, so he hit them back first?

seriously...

Sure. If we're going to pretend that people are carrying guns for actual defense against actual threats. I didn't start the 'self-defense' argument.

[Dark Side Messiahs]

Yes, bombs were in his appartment but according to reports he didn't have any with him at the theater

Just pointing out - he had bombs. But his weapon of choice, apparently - was guns.

You are correct, I should have said "luckly he didn't have any bombs with him when he went to the theater"

[North Calaveras]

seriously...

Sure. If we're going to pretend that people are carrying guns for actual defense against actual threats. I didn't start the 'self-defense' argument.

yeah but cmon man to think this guy was fully armed and masked...i somehow doubt this could be conceieved or even brought up as self-defense...

[Not Safe For Work]

Seems like an odd argument. But sure. Let's ban cars, you win.

>_> i would never ban cars or guns, im very pro gun hence why i was saying these things...i would lose if i banned cars lol

Like you said, your design is irrelevant - all that matters is your effectiveness.

You've made a great argument for banning guns AND cars.

[Drekka]

Right , but if people were more comfortable
with CCWs , the "gods" would be stopped pretty
Fast. Any "god" within 21 yards of my house is
Getting a face full of .40 s&w . I have the right
to defend myself and my stuff. I'll deal with
The cops after they come to my house in 20 minutes

Vigilante justice. What could possibly go wrong.

Frankly, I'm not interested in internet tough guy bravado. Maybe that's just me.

How am I the tough guy? I'm
Just stating that people will
Be afraid to commit crime if
People around them had
ConcealedCarryWeapons.

Like you are tough >.>

[Cill Charthaigh]

>_> i would never ban cars or guns, im very pro gun hence why i was saying these things...i would lose if i banned cars lol

Like you said, your design is irrelevant - all that matters is your effectiveness.

You've made a great argument for banning guns AND cars.

But should we?

[Hathradic States]

They do indeed. Which is why we have so many controls around using cars.

The difference - of course - is that cars are incredibly dangerous by not designed for that specific characteristic - whereas guns are designed expressly for it.

design matters not, effectiveness is all that matters, cars are just as effective at killing, in some cases more so.

Truth. You can kill more in one shot with a car than you can with a bullet.

[North Calaveras]

>_> i would never ban cars or guns, im very pro gun hence why i was saying these things...i would lose if i banned cars lol

Like you said, your design is irrelevant - all that matters is your effectiveness.

You've made a great argument for banning guns AND cars.

ive made an arguement, dosn't mean its right to do so

i can make an arguement for communism, its still retarded

[Hathradic States]

>_> i would never ban cars or guns, im very pro gun hence why i was saying these things...i would lose if i banned cars lol

Like you said, your design is irrelevant - all that matters is your effectiveness.

You've made a great argument for banning guns AND cars.

Why your at it, why don't you ban bows, staves, swords, knives, bats, hockey sticks, and anything else that can potentially harm other people? Hell, ban my shoes why you are at it, lord knows they smell enough.

[Not Safe For Work]

Just pointing out - he had bombs. But his weapon of choice, apparently - was guns.

You are correct, I should have said "luckly he didn't have any bombs with him when he went to the theater"

Bombs are pretty rare in crimes of violence. Most of the really effective ways that might work to kill people are.

A lot of us remember Aum Shinrikyo releasing Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway. That has the potential to be thousands of times more lethal than a lone gunman - and yet, it's incredibly rare.

The psychology of multiple murder seems to be about witnessing it close enough to 'enjoy' it, but not so close that you actually get your hands dirty. And guns are the perfect vehicle for that desire.

[Not Safe For Work]

Like you said, your design is irrelevant - all that matters is your effectiveness.

You've made a great argument for banning guns AND cars.

Why your at it, why don't you ban bows, staves, swords, knives, bats, hockey sticks, and anything else that can potentially harm other people? Hell, ban my shoes why you are at it, lord knows they smell enough.

If your shoes were likely to kill or injure five dozen people before anyone could intervene to stop you, that would be a good argument.

[North Calaveras]

Like you said, your design is irrelevant - all that matters is your effectiveness.

You've made a great argument for banning guns AND cars.

Why your at it, why don't you ban bows, staves, swords, knives, bats, hockey sticks, and anything else that can potentially harm other people? Hell, ban my shoes why you are at it, lord knows they smell enough.

exactly, we shouldn't be banning things, its the people responsible who are to be scrutinized, not the inanimate object

[Qazox]

The 2nd amendment will never be repealed, even dispite today's tragedy.

[North Calaveras]

The 2nd amendment will never be repealed, even dispite today's tragedy.

which is good, cause to do so would be act of ignorant knee-jerk politicians

[Dark Side Messiahs]

You are correct, I should have said "luckly he didn't have any bombs with him when he went to the theater"

Bombs are pretty rare in crimes of violence. Most of the really effective ways that might work to kill people are.

A lot of us remember Aum Shinrikyo releasing Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway. That has the potential to be thousands of times more lethal than a lone gunman - and yet, it's incredibly rare.

The psychology of multiple murder seems to be about witnessing it close enough to 'enjoy' it, but not so close that you actually get your hands dirty. And guns are the perfect vehicle for that desire.

I think suicide bombers would argue that.

[Not Safe For Work]

Like you said, your design is irrelevant - all that matters is your effectiveness.

You've made a great argument for banning guns AND cars.

ive made an arguement, dosn't mean its right to do so

i can make an arguement for communism, its still retarded

Like you said, it's the effectiveness that matters. You're making great arguments for bans. That may not be your intention, but intent is irrelevant. Apparently.

[Wikkiwallana]

Why should that matter one whit?


Source?


They have plenty of right to tell us what to do, that's what the ability to pass laws is.


Why do people keep ignoring that passing an amendment requires incredible amounts of popular support?


Why?


If other people can't understand it, maybe you should do a better job of justifying it?

I really hate it when people quote me and break it up so they can ask a crap-ton of questions....

Boo.
hoo.

Why should it matter "one whit"? I dont know, because maybe if the way they built it hadn't been totally fucked with America would still be the best country in the world.

If they way they built it hadn't been totally fucked with, white male landowners would still be the only voters, black people would still be enslaved, the poor and elderly would still be dying in droves every winter, and the country would be completely broke. Times change, deal with it.

The states were supposed to run themselves

Nope.

and come together in times of need to defend this nation, that changed when someone got the great idea and said the Federal law should trump all.

You mean like the Constitution says it should?

Take a look at what we have to put up with over here now, we have idiots like Bush, Obama, Palin, Bachmann and others like them more worried about their next term then the people they were elected to govern.

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong~

We have illegal immigrants taking jobs and privileges away from legal citizens and all the bleeding hearts telling us we should care more about everyone else instead of Americans.

Source? The Constitution and the Decleration of Independence, read them sometime.

I have. They don't say anything about the reason for keeping guns being fear of the feds.

Yes they have the ability to make law and we have the ability to force a change to the law if we dont like it; unfortunately, like I said previously, most Americans these days don't exercise their rights and take the for grented so changing some laws are harder than it should be.

So you admit that they are, in fact, the boss of you?

Why do people keep ignoring that passing an amendment requires incredible amounts of popular support? Who said I was ignoring anything?

If you think stuff was bad when Prohibition happened in the 1920's then just wait and see what happens if they ever repeal the 2nd Amendment.

That says.

Why? Because.

Why what? I didn't ask why again, I made a suggestion.

[Not Safe For Work]

Bombs are pretty rare in crimes of violence. Most of the really effective ways that might work to kill people are.

A lot of us remember Aum Shinrikyo releasing Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway. That has the potential to be thousands of times more lethal than a lone gunman - and yet, it's incredibly rare.

The psychology of multiple murder seems to be about witnessing it close enough to 'enjoy' it, but not so close that you actually get your hands dirty. And guns are the perfect vehicle for that desire.

I think suicide bombers would argue that.

Suicide bombers aren't following the psychology of the multiple murderer - they are following the psychology of the terrorist and the martyr.

[Wikkiwallana]

Wars have indeed be fought before guns were invented. Swords were very good at killing people, too. And so were spears. And bows. But guns are better. Guns made it easy.

cars make it easy to(still going to use this arguement)

Cars also serve non-hostile functions. Far more often than they are used as weapons.

[Chernoslavia]

What also matters is what we can do. And you certainly have no fucking idea what we can do.

I'm sorry, you have armored transport vehicles, aircraft, satellites, unmanned drones, a coordinated command structure, infrared wall penetrating scopes, long range missiles, tac-ops units, intelligence services, real-time updated mission control centers, and a navy?

If it ever came to that we would have stolen tanks and aircraft, we certainly do have a structured command center, I have 20 generation 3 IR scopes from EOtech that can do far better than that, we can buy long range missiles from the black market, one of our top marksmen is an ex-green beret, dont know about intelligence services but i'll take my chances, and we dont have a navy but since we're in land we dont have to worry about that for now. Now, what do you got for dessert?

[Transhuman Proteus]

I'm sorry, you have armored transport vehicles, aircraft, satellites, unmanned drones, a coordinated command structure, infrared wall penetrating scopes, long range missiles, tac-ops units, intelligence services, real-time updated mission control centers, and a navy?

Never realized that america was invading its self.

APV's can be easily taen down by explosives you can make in yoru garage.
Aircraft aren't much of a problem when they can't see you
Sat's can only be used when they are aligned. Which cost's money and time
UAV's are pretty good.
Wall penetrating scopes? No. The Predator can though, but not something you can mount on a calibrated rifle.
LRM's need to be coordinated, or beam ridden.
Tac Ops for civies? Not in this reality
Intell services don't work well for Gorilla warfare
Real time is not as effective as you think
Navy don't do shit hen your 2000 miles from an ocean.

Since untrained civilians with guns and armed with a "Do it yourself Guerrilla Warfare" manual are so deadly I'm surprised the US isn't getting soundly defeated in every conflict it gets into.

I don't think anyone is saying the 'disgusting creature' shouldn't be blamed.

But guns make killing a lot of people easy. Murder will happen anyway... but it doesn't have to be easy.

But it sure is easy for a 300 pound man to kidnap and rape an unarmed woman, havent you ever thought about how guns are used in self defense scenarios?

What are some statistics for self-defense by the way? How many attempted rapes/robberies/etc are stopped by the potential victim having a gun? I gather rape can be a particular problem in Alaska, where I take it guns are pretty well embraced.

Coming from Australia? Most people don't have guns here and to my knowledge our rape statistics (and getting killed/injured by attackers statistics) aren't worse than America's. Might be better in fact. But then Australia and the US are very different places I guess.