Obama Will Take Your Guns

[Grenartia]

And what of tyrannical governments? How will the people defend themselves from an oppressive government if need be?

You mean, like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

One example of a peaceful revolution against how many violent, often bloody ones?

And what of tyrannical governments? How will the people defend themselves from an oppressive government if need be?

How does people having rifles stop a tyrannical government any more effectively than protest?

What having an armed citizenry does is prevent tyrannical governments from committing repeated massacres, and it makes the government at least a little more inclined to give in to the demands of the people.

And what of tyrannical governments? How will the people defend themselves from an oppressive government if need be?

Have an all-volunteer military.
Prevention is better than cure.

How the fuck does that solve anything? Are volunteer soldiers any less capable of being the strong arm of an oppressive government than drafted ones?

Also, America DOES have an all-volunteer military.

This is still going?

OP is full of it. Obama will never get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to vote in favor of repealing the Second Amendment and he knows it. And I seriously doubt that the government can confiscate legally-owned weapons without violating the owners' right to due process.

And I fail to see why everyone wants assault rifle-style weapons banned. If a crazy person wants to go on a shooting spree he's gonna do it regardless of the type of weapons he can get his hands on.

Should it even ever be possible to repeal the Bill of Rights (and the 14th Amendment, among others)?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

How does people having rifles stop a tyrannical government any more effectively than protest?

What having an armed citizenry does is prevent tyrannical governments from committing repeated massacres,

It doesn't. It just makes said task marginally more difficult.

and it makes the government at least a little more inclined to give in to the demands of the people.

Tyrannies tend not to be very good at that. Remind me again how rifles would stop tanks, drones, the navy, high-altitude fighter jets etc.

[Dragoria]

It shouldn't NEARLY being getting as much attention that's for damn sure.

Not everyone wants to see every NSG thread title being "Americans are too fat" or "Obama Will Make You Exercise."

Has that thread been made yet? I wanna' see that thread. With an OP that mirrors this one, tweaked to be relevant to fatness instead of guns.
This is my Gitfsmas wish.

[Spreewerke]

Not quite as easy to spot the outlaws as you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90pOpXFlYeo

I point you to the fact that I do not support a total gun ban in the US. Rifles and shotguns, yes.

Just handguns being banned, then?

Currently full auto weapons are illegal unless you have a federal fire arms license.

This word here, that's a problem, if a federal license is available to civvies.

Prepare to change your pants, then: you can purchase a fully automatic weapon without a federal license of any kind, assuming you have (as I've stated many times in this thread before) the $20,000.00 to buy the AK to begin with that had to have been registered before May of 1986 in accordance with the National Firearms Act of 1934. If you do have $20k for that bullet hose, you get to move on to step two of submitting a Form 4 (if I remember the form number correctly) to the BATFE, providing two passport identification photos, finger prints, palm prints, and proof of approval from the county sheriff. Then you get to pay $200.00 to have your form sent in. You wait for about eight to ten months while your form is processed. Then, you get your form back telling you whether or not you have been approved of the sale. If so, you go ahead with the purchase of the firearm.

[North Calaveras]

It shouldn't NEARLY being getting as much attention that's for damn sure.

Not everyone wants to see every NSG thread title being "Americans are too fat" or "Obama Will Make You Exercise."

As an athlete I think obesity is a huge problem

but to be honest this whole gun thing is blown way way way way out of proportion in terms of statistics and in terms of media coverage.

[Grenartia]

What having an armed citizenry does is prevent tyrannical governments from committing repeated massacres,

It doesn't. It just makes said task marginally more difficult.

and it makes the government at least a little more inclined to give in to the demands of the people.

Tyrannies tend not to be very good at that. Remind me again how rifles would stop tanks, drones, the navy, high-altitude fighter jets etc.

So are you admitting that an armed citizenry is less desirable to an oppressive regime than an unarmed one?

With enough people and guns, one could conceivably storm an armory, and from there, storm other bases...

[Wikkiwallana]

It doesn't. It just makes said task marginally more difficult.



Tyrannies tend not to be very good at that. Remind me again how rifles would stop tanks, drones, the navy, high-altitude fighter jets etc.

So are you admitting that an armed citizenry is less desirable to an oppressive regime than an unarmed one?

With enough people and guns, one could conceivably storm an armory, and from there, storm other bases...

And from there, get bombed into smithereens by planes and or cruise missiles.

[North Calaveras]

So are you admitting that an armed citizenry is less desirable to an oppressive regime than an unarmed one?

With enough people and guns, one could conceivably storm an armory, and from there, storm other bases...

And from there, get bombed into smithereens by planes and or cruise missiles.

Better to die with a weapon in your hand then in the streets like a dog.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

It doesn't. It just makes said task marginally more difficult.



Tyrannies tend not to be very good at that. Remind me again how rifles would stop tanks, drones, the navy, high-altitude fighter jets etc.

So are you admitting that an armed citizenry is less desirable to an oppressive regime than an unarmed one?

Inasmuch as it represents little more than an irritating but ultimately doomed non-threat, if the US were to go totalitarian, then yes.

With enough people and guns, one could conceivably storm an armory, and from there, storm other bases...

That's cute. A group of lightly-armed resistance fighters against a totalitarian American regime that would presumably focus even more on defence spending than the current government.

Yeah, no. Guns aren't going to stop a force with a massive advantage in force and equipment compared to you.

[Priory Academy USSR]

So are you admitting that an armed citizenry is less desirable to an oppressive regime than an unarmed one?

With enough people and guns, one could conceivably storm an armory, and from there, storm other bases...

And from there, get bombed into smithereens by planes and or cruise missiles.

And the government justify it easily with the population by saying they were 'armed terrorists'. It's far harder to pull that off when the protestors are unarmed.

[Galiantus]

I double-checked my source and it was outdated, so I edit the post you quoted.

At the same time, however, gun crime in the United States has been relatively unaffected by the last "AWB." It was already beginning its decline before 1994, and experienced a slight rise in 2002 and a couple years beyond. What happened? I bet the AWB expired, didn't it?

Nope.

AWB expired in 2004, two years later.

Again, there's guns present.

If you haven't noticed, this is based on semantics.

One problem with the argument that guns have to be present for crime to be present is that guns actually level the playing field. Take a huge, strong, martial artist, with a veriety of weapons OTHER than guns, and see how well your average citizen stands up to him without a gun. Guns take absolutely no strength to use: point, pull tigger, done. A skinny 12-year old with a broken arm would actually have a chance to defend herself against a 30-year old martial artist if she carried a gun.

In the modern world, guns are not going to go away. Guns are power. Napolian said something to the effect of "The man with a gun controls the hundred without". Back then, that was a bit of an exageration. Today, however, it is completely true: if I carry a 9mm pistol, 100 people without guns are not going to stop me from easily, and pretty much freely, exherting control over them. Of course they can try to rush me, but at what cost to them? As long as I can put a bullet in a significant percent of them, I have full control. Now of course, lots of criminals are not exactly very smart, but a smart criminal who knows to keep his victims at a distance or in power-limiting positions can easily control a dozen people with the aid of a 9mm.

But the same is not true when other people also carry guns. It takes a pretty hefty gun to control just one person with a 9mm, and unless a criminal is smart enough to wear body armour, the average person has a decent chance at self defense. An AK-47 is no match for a 9mm when the guy with the AK-47 has no idea who has the 9mm, or that one of his victims has one. Controling multiple people when there is a high chance just one of those people has a gun is extremely diffucult, especially in the early stages of a violent crime.

You don't need everyone to carry a gun, and you don't need to make guns expensive. What is important is that we recognize we live in the real world, and that the presence of many guns actually levels the power one person can have over others to an essentially one-to one ratio. Go on youtube.com. There are plenty of videos of store owners, bank tellers and average citizens who used guns to change the outcome of a situation they would have had no control over were it not for guns. Of course it requires good judgement and skill to know when to use the power guns give, but I would rather that victims have an opertunity at equal power to whoever is taking away their rights than that the lucky criminal who obtained a gun illegally has the opertunity to become a menace to society. Neither of us want that. Since there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of those with bad intentions, it would be better for everyone if those with innocent intentions had equal power to those with bad.

[Priory Academy USSR]

And from there, get bombed into smithereens by planes and or cruise missiles.

Better to die with a weapon in your hand then in the streets like a dog.

I'd say going out, unarmed, and protesting, knowing that in all likelihood you will be arrested or killed is more courageous than hiding in the hills for a few months/years picking off government troops.

[Wikkiwallana]

And from there, get bombed into smithereens by planes and or cruise missiles.

Better to die with a weapon in your hand then in the streets like a dog.

Im glad that I won't have to do either.

[North Calaveras]

Better to die with a weapon in your hand then in the streets like a dog.

I'd say going out, unarmed, and protesting, knowing that in all likelihood you will be arrested or killed is more courageous than hiding in the hills for a few months/years picking off government troops.

Then you can go do that, don't take our ability to fight away ha

[Spreewerke]

Again, there's guns present.

If you haven't noticed, this is based on semantics.

Guns take absolutely no strength to use: point, pull tigger, done.

You've never fired a P.38 in double-action nor cycled the bolt on a Mosin before, have you?

[The Two Jerseys]

And I fail to see why everyone wants assault rifle-style weapons banned. If a crazy person wants to go on a shooting spree he's gonna do it regardless of the type of weapons he can get his hands on.

So reduce his options.

And what good would that do? If he can't get an AR-15 or AK he'll get an M1 Garand instead, it'll only take him a couple extra seconds to reload. Or he'll use a shotgun and take out multiple people with one shot. Or maybe he'll just carry extra rounds for his handguns.

I'm not saying that assault rifles are necessary or even practical to use for any legitimate purpose aside from target shooting, but in the end they're no more dangerous than any other type of weapon, so the government shouldn't punish law-abiding citizens for the acts of a crazy person.

[Tagmatium]

And from there, get bombed into smithereens by planes and or cruise missiles.

Better to die with a weapon in your hand then in the streets like a dog.

You're still dead, though.

[North Calaveras]

Better to die with a weapon in your hand then in the streets like a dog.

You're still dead, though.

Okay

[The New Lowlands]

Again, there's guns present.

If you haven't noticed, this is based on semantics.

One problem with the argument that guns have to be present for crime to be present is that guns actually level the playing field. Take a huge, strong, martial artist, with a veriety of weapons OTHER than guns, and see how well your average citizen stands up to him without a gun. Guns take absolutely no strength to use: point, pull tigger, done. A skinny 12-year old with a broken arm would actually have a chance to defend herself against a 30-year old martial artist if she carried a gun.

In the modern world, guns are not going to go away. Guns are power. Napolian said something to the effect of "The man with a gun controls the hundred without". Back then, that was a bit of an exageration. Today, however, it is completely true: if I carry a 9mm pistol, 100 people without guns are not going to stop me from easily, and pretty much freely, exherting control over them. Of course they can try to rush me, but at what cost to them? As long as I can put a bullet in a significant percent of them, I have full control. Now of course, lots of criminals are not exactly very smart, but a smart criminal who knows to keep his victims at a distance or in power-limiting positions can easily control a dozen people with the aid of a 9mm.

But the same is not true when other people also carry guns. It takes a pretty hefty gun to control just one person with a 9mm, and unless a criminal is smart enough to wear body armour, the average person has a decent chance at self defense. An AK-47 is no match for a 9mm when the guy with the AK-47 has no idea who has the 9mm, or that one of his victims has one. Controling multiple people when there is a high chance just one of those people has a gun is extremely diffucult, especially in the early stages of a violent crime.

You don't need everyone to carry a gun, and you don't need to make guns expensive. What is important is that we recognize we live in the real world, and that the presence of many guns actually levels the power one person can have over others to an essentially one-to one ratio. Go on youtube.com. There are plenty of videos of store owners, bank tellers and average citizens who used guns to change the outcome of a situation they would have had no control over were it not for guns. Of course it requires good judgement and skill to know when to use the power guns give, but I would rather that victims have an opertunity at equal power to whoever is taking away their rights than that the lucky criminal who obtained a gun illegally has the opertunity to become a menace to society. Neither of us want that. Since there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of those with bad intentions, it would be better for everyone if those with innocent intentions had equal power to those with bad.

That's fascinating.

Tell me again about how those gun crime levels compare to countries where it's illegal?

Or about how well-trained martial artists are constantly turning to crime?

[The UK in Exile]

One problem with the argument that guns have to be present for crime to be present is that guns actually level the playing field. Take a huge, strong, martial artist, with a veriety of weapons OTHER than guns, and see how well your average citizen stands up to him without a gun. Guns take absolutely no strength to use: point, pull tigger, done. A skinny 12-year old with a broken arm would actually have a chance to defend herself against a 30-year old martial artist if she carried a gun.

In the modern world, guns are not going to go away. Guns are power. Napolian said something to the effect of "The man with a gun controls the hundred without". Back then, that was a bit of an exageration. Today, however, it is completely true: if I carry a 9mm pistol, 100 people without guns are not going to stop me from easily, and pretty much freely, exherting control over them. Of course they can try to rush me, but at what cost to them? As long as I can put a bullet in a significant percent of them, I have full control. Now of course, lots of criminals are not exactly very smart, but a smart criminal who knows to keep his victims at a distance or in power-limiting positions can easily control a dozen people with the aid of a 9mm.

But the same is not true when other people also carry guns. It takes a pretty hefty gun to control just one person with a 9mm, and unless a criminal is smart enough to wear body armour, the average person has a decent chance at self defense. An AK-47 is no match for a 9mm when the guy with the AK-47 has no idea who has the 9mm, or that one of his victims has one. Controling multiple people when there is a high chance just one of those people has a gun is extremely diffucult, especially in the early stages of a violent crime.

You don't need everyone to carry a gun, and you don't need to make guns expensive. What is important is that we recognize we live in the real world, and that the presence of many guns actually levels the power one person can have over others to an essentially one-to one ratio. Go on youtube.com. There are plenty of videos of store owners, bank tellers and average citizens who used guns to change the outcome of a situation they would have had no control over were it not for guns. Of course it requires good judgement and skill to know when to use the power guns give, but I would rather that victims have an opertunity at equal power to whoever is taking away their rights than that the lucky criminal who obtained a gun illegally has the opertunity to become a menace to society. Neither of us want that. Since there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of those with bad intentions, it would be better for everyone if those with innocent intentions had equal power to those with bad.

That's fascinating.

Tell me again about how those gun crime levels compare to countries where it's illegal?

Or about how well-trained martial artists are constantly turning to crime?

and if its the same Napolian who invented the Ice cream

[North Calaveras]

One problem with the argument that guns have to be present for crime to be present is that guns actually level the playing field. Take a huge, strong, martial artist, with a veriety of weapons OTHER than guns, and see how well your average citizen stands up to him without a gun. Guns take absolutely no strength to use: point, pull tigger, done. A skinny 12-year old with a broken arm would actually have a chance to defend herself against a 30-year old martial artist if she carried a gun.

In the modern world, guns are not going to go away. Guns are power. Napolian said something to the effect of "The man with a gun controls the hundred without". Back then, that was a bit of an exageration. Today, however, it is completely true: if I carry a 9mm pistol, 100 people without guns are not going to stop me from easily, and pretty much freely, exherting control over them. Of course they can try to rush me, but at what cost to them? As long as I can put a bullet in a significant percent of them, I have full control. Now of course, lots of criminals are not exactly very smart, but a smart criminal who knows to keep his victims at a distance or in power-limiting positions can easily control a dozen people with the aid of a 9mm.

But the same is not true when other people also carry guns. It takes a pretty hefty gun to control just one person with a 9mm, and unless a criminal is smart enough to wear body armour, the average person has a decent chance at self defense. An AK-47 is no match for a 9mm when the guy with the AK-47 has no idea who has the 9mm, or that one of his victims has one. Controling multiple people when there is a high chance just one of those people has a gun is extremely diffucult, especially in the early stages of a violent crime.

You don't need everyone to carry a gun, and you don't need to make guns expensive. What is important is that we recognize we live in the real world, and that the presence of many guns actually levels the power one person can have over others to an essentially one-to one ratio. Go on youtube.com. There are plenty of videos of store owners, bank tellers and average citizens who used guns to change the outcome of a situation they would have had no control over were it not for guns. Of course it requires good judgement and skill to know when to use the power guns give, but I would rather that victims have an opertunity at equal power to whoever is taking away their rights than that the lucky criminal who obtained a gun illegally has the opertunity to become a menace to society. Neither of us want that. Since there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of those with bad intentions, it would be better for everyone if those with innocent intentions had equal power to those with bad.

That's fascinating.

Tell me again about how those gun crime levels compare to countries where it's illegal?

We have this thing called Mexico the south of the border.

[The New Lowlands]

I'd say going out, unarmed, and protesting, knowing that in all likelihood you will be arrested or killed is more courageous than hiding in the hills for a few months/years picking off government troops.

Then you can go do that, don't take our ability to fight away ha

Tell me again how the government is going to change because of you hiding in the hills?
I'd say that you're a shit-load less threatening to the hypothetical regime than the protestors.

[The New Lowlands]

That's fascinating.

Tell me again about how those gun crime levels compare to countries where it's illegal?

We have this thing called Mexico the south of the border.

Remind me, where do their guns come from?

Oh, that's right.

[North Calaveras]

Then you can go do that, don't take our ability to fight away ha

Tell me again how the government is going to change because of you hiding in the hills?
I'd say that you're a shit-load less threatening to the hypothetical regime than the protestors.

Syrians disagree

[North Calaveras]

We have this thing called Mexico the south of the border.

Remind me, where do their guns come from?

Oh, that's right.

Oh yeah because they totally would be fucked in the gun department if America made guns illegal, it's not like they are a multi-billionar dollar organization with contacts world wide oh wait...