Ha! All them rednecks in the Deep South being told by a black man they have to give up their guns
It'll get the KKK membership up if nothin else
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,786
Quote: zooo @ 3rd January 2016, 11:04 AM GMTI just don't understand the widespread overreaction. Surely 75% (at the very least) of the people worrying about how Obama's trying to steal their weapons won't even be affected by stricter laws. No one's going to take any guns off normal, sensible people like Dabutt. They're just going to make it harder for criminals and psychopaths to get them. So what on earth's the problem?
Maybe a lot of people have guns because they are paranoid concerned for their safety, and so they are predisposed to be worried when even the very first steps are advanced to limit the availability of weapons.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 3rd January 2016, 9:26 AM GMTSo really it has got to be either everyone has a gun or no one.
Not at all. But if authorities remove a citizen's second amendment right to self-protection in certain locations, then they'd better be prepared to protect those citizens from others who flaunt laws in their pursuit of criminal activities.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 3rd January 2016, 9:26 AM GMTMaybe it should be made compulsory that every man woman and child has to carry a gun at all times........that'll fox those sneaky bad guys.
Gun ownership is mandatory in some locations.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/5c1b6a72-c5eb-11df-b53e-00144feab49a.html
Quote: zooo @ 3rd January 2016, 10:25 AM GMTHave you noticed how all the people who want guns are often really aggressive.
Actually, I've noticed exactly the opposite.
For what it's worth, the governor's tweet refers to an incident which kicked off the Texas Revolution. The Mexican government demanded that a Texas town turn over its cannon, the settlers refused and told them to try to "Come and Take It." The slogan was emblazoned on the flag that the governor tweeted and it's become a symbol of defiance against proposed gun laws that are widely seen as punitive and useless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gonzales
Quote: sootyj @ 3rd January 2016, 10:40 AM GMTBut the idea that the founding fathers were writing legislation around militias and gun ownership that applies today. When none of them could even imagine a Maxim patent machine gun, is daft.
The framers of the constitution knew exactly what they were doing: empowering the American people with the right to bear arms for the own protection, and that protection included the ability to defend against a hostile government.
Noah Webster (of dictionary fame) said, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
Quote: zooo @ 3rd January 2016, 11:04 AM GMTI just don't understand the widespread overreaction. Surely 75% (at the very least) of the people worrying about how Obama's trying to steal their weapons won't even be affected by stricter laws. No one's going to take any guns off normal, sensible people like Dabutt.
In recent weeks the president has referred to Australia as an example of how the United States could approach "common sense" gun control, although he has neglected to explain to Americans that Australia's gun laws did in fact take away millions of firearms from normal, sensible people, outlawing handguns and semi-automatic rifles and forcing Australians to turn them in for destruction (although 25% were not and are now in the hands of criminals). So can you understand Americans' worries about the president's intentions?
Quote: zooo @ 3rd January 2016, 11:04 AM GMTThey're just going to make it harder for criminals and psychopaths to get them. So what on earth's the problem?
Nothing, other than the fact that the new and proposed legislation will do nothing to prevent such things from happening.
Criminals and psychopaths are already denied the right to purchase or possess a firearm. We have a fairly effective nationwide crime database, so few criminals manage to evade the FBI background check, but to have an even slightly effective means of weeding out potential psychopaths we'd need to create a massive government database of every citizen's medical records. Even the most rabidly anti-gun member of society is likely to balk at the thought of the government having access to all of their medical records, even if they have no intention of purchasing a firearm. I don't think it's any of the government's business if someone is taking antidepressants or has sought treatment for mental health issues and I think most of the country would feel the same way.
With the lack of public support for additional so-called "common sense" gun legislation, some of our politicians continue to chip away at our second amendment rights anyway they can. California just enacted a law that allows the police to remove firearms (and the right to purchase them) from an individual if they receive a warning/complaint from a third party. On the surface, it might seem like common sense to take away Uncle Pete's guns if he's been acting unstable, but the law opens the door to incredible abuse, allowing people to have someone disarmed at will. Think about it: someone's constitutional rights can be revoked without proof or cause. Even some of the most liberal institutions in the nation have expressed their concerns about the new law. I assume it will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional.
Time and time again, new and proposed gun legislation would do little or nothing to reduce gun crime, while unfairly penalizing law-abiding gun owners. Seattle recently passed a law that adds a $25 tax to the sale of firearms and 5 cents to the purchase of every bullet, with the ostensible goal of using the money to fund gun violence prevention programs. Sounds reasonable enough, except for the fact that criminals don't buy their guns at gun shops and they'll probably fire less than a dozen rounds in their "career." A shooting enthusiast can easily expend 500 or more rounds in an hour of target shooting at the range, so the ammunition tax would cost him $25 per weekend. Hunters would also be affected, of course.
Here's an idea: if Seattle wants to pay for gun crime prevention programs, how about making gun criminals pay for them? Hit criminals with a $1000 fine when they're caught illegally carrying or using a firearm and earmark the money for their anti-crime programs. Penalize the criminals, not the law-abiding citizens. Now that's common sense legislation.
Another example of ludicrous proposed legislation has been submitted in New York. They would like to allow gun owners to purchase no more than twice the firearm's capacity in ammunition every 90 days, so the owner of a typical revolver could purchase a whopping 12 bullets every 3 months. Trips to the firing range to maintain shooting proficiency would last less than a minute if the shooter was only allowed to fire 12 rounds, and then he'd go home with an empty and useless revolver. It's an asinine proposal that would handicap law-abiding gun owners (handgun ammo is typically sold in boxes of 50) and prevent them from taking advantages of sale prices, but it's being marketed as an anti-terrorism measure.
Quote: lofthouse @ 3rd January 2016, 1:55 PM GMTHa! All them rednecks in the Deep South being told by a black man they have to give up their guns
Don't look now, but your ignorance is showing. Americans from all states, races, religions, parties and income brackets strongly support the second amendment. Some of our most staunchly pro-gun states hug the northern border with Canada.
Thing is the thing with a musket was it was a slow loading, short ranged (at the time) weapon which was only effective when used by; a highly skilled and experienced sniper/jaegerr carefully picking his targets, or a collection of well drilled, infantry working as a unit.
The weaponry is simply not the same as a modern carbine or pistol, with which historically under the right circumstances even untrained shooters have managed to hit multiple targets.
In the same way no one expects freedom of speech to apply to illegal pornography with live actors. Because it didn't exist back then due to technology.
Engage with the arguments presented not with those that are convenient.
As for Webster's arguments history has proved him wrong again and again. Some of the worst regimes in Africa and the Middle East have few restrictions on gun ownership other than monetary (and where the laws exist they are unenforced).
Quote: DaButt @ 3rd January 2016, 2:56 PM GMTCriminals and psychopaths are already denied the right to purchase or possess a firearm. We have a fairly effective nationwide crime database, so few criminals manage to evade the FBI background check, but to have an even slightly effective means of weeding out potential psychopaths we'd need to create a massive government database of every citizen's medical records. Even the most rabidly anti-gun member of society is likely to balk at the thought of the government having access to all of their medical records, even if they have no intention of purchasing a firearm. I don't think it's any of the government's business if someone is taking antidepressants or has sought treatment for mental health issues and I think most of the country would feel the same way.
This incidentally is the nub of the argument. The freedom to own guns affects negatively a whole slate of other ones. For example in the last massacres one was barred from attending college due to his risky behaviour, but not from owning a gun.
The mental health nosiness is one. The other is if the filth gunned me down in my ends in the UK, then that copper would be investigated thoroughly. Because there would be no excuse that I might have been armed with a shooter.
Where as in the US the standard response to the most outrageous shootings by
the coppers is "he had/looked/was reaching for a gun" in essence it's the excuse the US marshals and FBI used at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Quote: Nogget @ 3rd January 2016, 2:16 PM GMTMaybe a lot of people have guns because they are paranoid concerned for their safety, and so they are predisposed to be worried when even the very first steps are advanced to limit the availability of weapons.
You've hit the nail on the noggin there.
Quote: DaButt @ 3rd January 2016, 2:56 PM GMTCriminals and psychopaths are already denied the right to purchase or possess a firearm. We have a fairly effective nationwide crime database, so few criminals manage to evade the FBI background check.
It's very rare that a Psychopaths would be formally diagnosed outside of custody. How many do you know ? This tends to come out in court after the carnage. Most Psychopaths kill on impulse, because a weapon was freely available when their rage kicks in. Add all the other impulsive crimes (which far outweigh the planned ones) and you'll note the American "mass murderer" sprees represent a small percentage of the total fatalities. There is only one way to stop this; by banning guns. It is a very Narcisstic (selfish) want to keep guns, as it's not in the best interest of the vulnerable people in America. The kids killed by mistake, the Afro Americans (mistakenly) shot in the back.
The gun lobby has long lost the logical and empirical arguments, so they now push hard on the emotional argument. Linking it to patrism, just as McCarthyism did, linking it to fear. Just as IS does now. Over an 11 year period there were 403,000 domestic deaths in the US, but only 350 Americans died due to terroisum abroad: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/
Very well put, also psychopath or sociopath tend to be catch all terms that more accurately can be translated as psychiatrist for
"dunno mate"
That or the increasingly strong theory that some very succesful businesspeople, surgeons, actors etc etc are psychopathic.
The lack of empathy gives clarity of vision more than a desire to kill.
Quote: sootyj @ 3rd January 2016, 3:27 PM GMTThe weaponry is simply not the same as a modern carbine or pistol, with which historically under the right circumstances even untrained shooters have managed to hit multiple targets.
Again, the founders of this nation knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the constitution. They gave Americans the freedom to possess arms in order to protect themselves from threats both foreign and domestic. They type of weaponry involved is not the point and the Supreme Court has upheld the second amendment on numerous occasions.
Quote: sootyj @ 3rd January 2016, 3:27 PM GMTAs for Webster's arguments history has proved him wrong again and again. Some of the worst regimes in Africa and the Middle East have few restrictions on gun ownership other than monetary (and where the laws exist they are unenforced).
Which nations? What percentage of their citizens are armed? How and when did the regime overthrow the previous democratically elected government without popular support?
Quote: sootyj @ 3rd January 2016, 3:27 PM GMTWhere as in the US the standard response to the most outrageous shootings by
the coppers is "he had/looked/was reaching for a gun" in essence it's the excuse the US marshals and FBI used at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Civilians shot and killed a federal agent at Ruby Ridge. Civilians shot and killed four federal agents at Waco. It's clear that they had reason to fear for their safety and it's clear that America's cops also have reason to fear for their own safety -- one is shot and killed weekly, on average.
Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 3rd January 2016, 3:37 PM GMTYou've hit the nail on the noggin there.
Nope. And every day thousands of American actively protect themselves with firearms. It happened in my city just yesterday:
Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 3rd January 2016, 3:37 PM GMTAdd all the other impulsive crimes (which far outweigh the planned ones) and you'll note the American "mass murderer" sprees represent a small percentage of the total fatalities.
Of course, but our politicians only seem to take note of the relatively rare murder sprees, rather than concentrating on the real problem: gangs, drugs and street-level criminals.
Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 3rd January 2016, 3:37 PM GMTThere is only one way to stop this; by banning guns.
As I've asked many times before, what is your solution for removing more than 300 million firearms from the American people, ensuring that criminals are also disarmed? Bonus points if it's constitutional.
Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 3rd January 2016, 3:37 PM GMTThe gun lobby has long lost the logical and empirical arguments, so they now push hard on the emotional argument.
Politicians (including our president) are pushing so hard on the emotional argument that I'm surprised that their rectums haven't prolapsed. But the good news is that the American people aren't buying it and are becoming more adverse to useless new gun laws that penalize the law-abiding citizens. Gun sales are booming and it's the most positive sign of all that Americans aren't buying into the hysterical emotion.
Put simply deal with the argument you're presented with. But if the founding fathers mean any arms, would you support me using sarin to kill the gophers in my yard?
But as for Waco, 4 agents were killed as part of a massive paramilitary operation justified by fears of the arsenal the Branch Davidians amassed.
When the Bradley APCs were used to launch tear gas and accidentally burned the ranch down, killing dozens. It was justified succesfully because of the fear of armour piercing antitank rifles owned by the Davidians.
It's pretty much an inconcievable series of events in any other country.
Quote: sootyj @ 3rd January 2016, 4:24 PM GMTPut simply deal with the argument you're presented with. But if the founding fathers mean any arms, would you support me using sarin to kill the gophers in my yard?
I'd support your use of legally available poisons designed to kill gophers, just as I'd support your possession of legally available firearms.
Quote: sootyj @ 3rd January 2016, 4:24 PM GMTWhen the Bradley APCs were used to launch tear gas and accidentally burned the ranch down, killing dozens. It was justified succesfully because of the fear of armour piercing antitank rifles owned by the Davidians.
Antitank rifles? In Waco?
I think they had a .50 cal or two, but that's just a standard sniper rifle. It might be able to penetrate an inch or so of steel, but it's not effective against a tank.
Quote: DaButt @ 3rd January 2016, 4:40 PM GMTAntitank rifles? In Waco?
I think they had a .50 cal or two, but that's just a standard sniper rifle. It might be able to penetrate an inch or so of steel, but it's not effective against a tank.
My point exactly David Koresh was making money selling antique fire arms. He had a bunch of reactivateable grenades and 2 WW2 Boyes Antitank rifles in 0.55 Both effective enough to take down police cars or even the police APCs of the time.
So the government just activated the Possee Comitatus act and wheeled out Bradley APCs the rest is tragic history.
Koresh used neither the Boyes nor the grenades, the possibility he could have justified the use of APCs.
Just as at the 1985 MOVE siege, the Philadelphia police bombed the commune.
Quote: DaButt @ 3rd January 2016, 4:40 PM GMTI'd support your use of legally available poisons designed to kill gophers, just as I'd support your possession of legally available firearms.
The second amendment certainly implies the arms of a militia, which would be a contemporary army. So that's any arms an army, especially the US army could reasonably use. I hate those damn gophers, I also hate the mail man and I want to have sarin to defend against both.
I consider myself a well organised militia of one.
The best current comic talent America has to offer is against guns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i72X76VlLyc
And before you respond America , it must involve a video by someone of immense comedic talent.
Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 4th January 2016, 2:08 PM GMTAnd before you respond America , it must involve a video by someone of immense comedic talent.
Why? You didn't.
Amy Schumer's distant cousin, Senator Charles Schumer, has been a leading proponent of gun control for decades. Twenty years ago, I worked on the copy desk of a local daily newspaper. One day while scanning the wire photos for something to anchor the national news section, I came across a photo of Schumer shooting a soon-to-be-banned Tec-9 pistol at a firing range while sporting a huge grin. It contrasted nicely with the caption which contained a quote from Schumer about how such weapons aren't used at ranges for fun. "Well played," the gun-adverse executive editor later told me.
Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son Steven, 46, were convicted of arson on federal land in 2012, but a court ruled their original sentences were too short. The men say they set the fires to contain wildlife.
Those occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge centre in Burns say they plan to stay for years and may use violence if police try to evict them.
Brilliant, Arson - in Burns!
Quote: Chappers @ 4th January 2016, 11:05 PM GMTBrilliant, Arson - in Burns!
I'm pretty sure your quote was intended to say contain wildfires and not wildlife. The men claimed that they started the fire to prevent a future wildfire from burning the plants that their cattle feed on, although the government alleges that they were trying to cover up evidence of poaching.
Quote: DaButt @ 4th January 2016, 11:23 PM GMT
I'm pretty sure your quote was intended to say contain wildfires and not wildlife.
I just copied and pasted.It was them that screwed up.