Gun Question

Whether the government is going to come take us or our guns away 1 by 1 is irrelevant to an extent in my view point. If it does happen, it'd be nice to have some heavier firepower than a bolt action rifle with a 5 round inner magazine offers. However, mostly I'd just want one because it'd be fun as hell to go shoot on the weekends. If they make 30 round mags for it, sure load it up with some rounds and go fuck up some cans in your woods/backyard or at a firing range. My car goes way fast if I want it to, way faster than I need to just get to work or whatever. My guitar amp can get WAY louder than I need for playing guitar in my room. Does that mean I'm not entitled to have these luxuries if I want them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt300ZXT

Whether the government is going to come take us or our guns away 1 by 1 is irrelevant to an extent in my view point. If it does happen, it'd be nice to have some heavier firepower than a bolt action rifle with a 5 round inner magazine offers. However, mostly I'd just want one because it'd be fun as hell to go shoot on the weekends. If they make 30 round mags for it, sure load it up with some rounds and go fuck up some cans in your woods/backyard or at a firing range. My car goes way fast if I want it to, way faster than I need to just get to work or whatever. My guitar amp can get WAY louder than I need for playing guitar in my room. Does that mean I'm not entitled to have these luxuries if I want them?

---

This

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simontibbett

I've recently started hearing more and more people say they "need" their assault rifles to protect themselves against the government.

Do many people feel this way? I laughed pretty hard at first and then saw someone was being serious.

How would your assault rifle protect you and why would the government take over? This isn't Nazi Germany, it's the United States in 2013. There's not even a valid reason for the government to "take over."

I could care less what's banned, just curious as to the reasoning behind this government protection.

---

Most of this is just whining from people that dont like Obama, no matter what that reason is.

Second is all of the rhetoric coming from both sides. Too many people listening to Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. It doesnt help when there is an obvious coverup from this administration in both the Fast and Furious and Benghazi. Both of those still have glaring questions that the admin has simply ignored or hidden behind executive privilege.

Third, the 2nd Amendment is held very close by a LARGE majority of Americans. Like our cars, its an expression of our individuality. You can 2 Identical stock guns come off the line. The eventual owner then makes it his own with anywhere from moderate to extensive upgrades and tweaks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simontibbett

Oh and unless you have a VERY large stockpile of weapons and some training, how would a citizen hold off the US military?

---

The English said the same thing about the rebels in 1776. Instead of the French to backstop and help supply us against King George, we have China stopping funding. Cant buy bullets or pay troops with no money. Desertions within the military would also be monumental. You can look at any civil war in history to see this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simontibbett

HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in the US in 2013 and Germany during Hitler's time. I can't believe people even compare the two.

---

A lot more similarities than you think, short the maniacal dictator of course. Think of the stressors within the German population before the war. Lack of a national purpose. Massive debt and a floundering economy. Harsh, partisan political climate. All of these are present in the US right now. What we dont have is the unifying agenda like Hiter's Germany did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simontibbett

If we're going to change something lets edit freedom of speech and deport people who speak stupidly about things.

---

I know this was said in jest, but who gets to decide what is stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simontibbett

This.

---

adding more red tape doesnt solve anything. An AR can kill just as bad as a Glock. Killers will take the path of least resistance, make it harder to get AW, theyll use handguns, outlaw handguns, theyll use knives, outlaw knives, they will use cars.

Cant stop a killer.

We should make it easier for law enforcement to track purchased guns, and we should have the same standards of laws on the purchase of firearms whether used or not. Banning or outlawing or heavily restricting wont do anything. It never has.

Banning Corvettes wont stop speeding.

DUI laws dont stop drunk driving.

The very nature of laws are to give society a line to know what to cross and what not to cross, and to take care of people who cross that line. No laws are designed to STOP a criminal from doing a crime, thats why they are criminals. Making Bank Robbery illegal, doesnt stop bank robbers. It just allows us to lock them up AFTER we catch them. Likewise banning guns wont stop gun related crimes. Guns are here, they arent going anywhere. MILLIONS are sold every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Fox Nation. The kings of issue deflection.

---

That damn fox news.... expecting justification for Obama's unconstitutional executive orders....


We should all just law down and let father government take care us. I'm sure tomorrow when Obama sugar coats his 19 executive orders he'll probably reassure us that we dont need guns, we're as safe as babies in the womb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

The English said the same thing about the rebels in 1776. Instead of the French to backstop and help supply us against King George, we have China stopping funding. Cant buy bullets or pay troops with no money. Desertions within the military would also be monumental. You can look at any civil war in history to see this.

---

...And then modern technology brought the milita automatic weapons, tanks, planes, and eventually warheads and strike fighter jets and tactical bombers and UAVs. China owns so little of our debt, it wouldn't make a dent in any kind of civil war funding. Desertion wouldn't happen on as large a scale as you think. We've seen as recently as 2011 that police forces have no problem silencing American dissidents.

Quote:

---

A lot more similarities than you think, short the maniacal dictator of course. Think of the stressors within the German population before the war. Lack of a national purpose. Massive debt and a floundering economy. Harsh, partisan political climate. All of these are present in the US right now. What we dont have is the unifying agenda like Hiter's Germany did.

---

...and a lot fewer than you think. The German empire had literally just collapsed not even 20 years prior. It wasnt like the last president they had systematically made a couple people ridiculously rich and their proletariat payed in the back end. They were annihilated in WW1 and were under a massive reconstructionary period. Germany was still reeling from the Treaty of Versailles. This sparked German nationalism, which was heavy with rhetoric not unlike the far-right wing rhetoric we hear today, add to that Hitlers natural charisma. It also took a shit ton of constitutional circumvention to make him a dictator, vis-a-vis the Enabling Act, or Das Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reichwhich, more or less gave the appointed chancellor unprecedented control over all the branches of government.

So what you're missing is an empirical collapse, reconstructionary period, an übernationalist dictator, and the abolishment of the checks and balance system we know as the legislative, judicial, and executive branch of government. In short, a HUGE HUGE difference between modern day democratic constitutional republic of the US, and Nazi Germany.

Hope that clears things up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

DUI laws dont stop drunk driving.

---

But, back when they were enacted with drunk driver awareness programs, they cut drunk driving accidents in half. Give me a minute and I'll give you the numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

That damn fox news.... expecting justification for Obama's unconstitutional executive orders...

---

Executive orders are very constitutional and have been used since the beginning of time.

Tell me, how do you feel about this executive order?....

http://www.neh.gov/files/news/images...oclamation.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

But, back when they were enacted with drunk driver awareness programs, they cut drunk driving accidents in half. Give me a minute and I'll give you the numbers.

---

Cant make the analogy. This would be like the government taking our cars so we cant drink and drive. Right now i can currently own an AR15.... i am aware that it's against the law to shoot up a school with it and am more than willing to abide by that law, the same as 99.9% of the population is. Safety is not this government's agenda.... safety is the guise theyre hiding behind. Tomorrow Obama is gonna have a bunch of children on stage and he's gonna make some BS speech about how it could be your child that got killed ect ect ect ect... and he's going to sell you the idea that gun control makes you safer, even though there's no statistical basis for that argument. Irony.... on the same week Obama secures lifelong government security for his family, he plans to dictate how you protect your own family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Executive orders are very constitutional and have been used since the beginning of time.

Tell me, how do you feel about this executive order?....

http://www.neh.gov/files/news/images...oclamation.jpg

---

You misread...... executive orders are not unconstitutional.... Obama's executive orders will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Cant make the analogy.

---

So a measure to enact tougher penalties on DUIs and car crimes, or "Alcohol control" or "car control" if you want to call it that, is not analogous to enacting tougher penalties on gun crime, or "gun control"?

Quote:

---

This would be like the government taking our cars so we cant drink and drive.

---

I suppose if you believe the government and all the powers that be, including lobbyists, is interested in some type of all encompassing, unilateral civillian weapons ban, which we're not seeing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

You misread...... executive orders are not unconstitutional.... Obama's executive orders will be.

---

Ahhh. Ok. The yet-non-existent E.O's. are unconstitutional because you don't agree with them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

So a measure to enact tougher penalties on DUIs and car crimes, or "Alcohol control" or "car control" if you want to call it that, is not analogous to enacting tougher penalties on gun crime, or "gun control"?

[quote This would be like the government taking our cars so we cant drink and drive.

---

I suppose if you believe the government and all the powers that be, including lobbyists, is interested in some type of all encompassing, unilateral civillian weapons ban, which we're not seeing at all.[/QUOTE]

Just because theyre not taking your freedom in one large swoop does not mean theyre not taking your freedom.


I am 1000% in favor of any and every penalty imaginable for people who use guns to commit crime. I think any use of a gun should carry the same sentencing as murder. If you rob a bank occupied with 45 people, dont fire a shot, dont harm anyone..... that should be 45 counts of attempted murder. I support EVERY action to punish criminals......

i support ZERO action to punish law abiding citizens. Especially when you cannot prove that you will accomplish anything by doing so and have no examples to reference. Every city with gun control has a higher rate of crime. Every country with gun control has a higher rate of crime. They keep cherry picking points and ignoring reality......

If you banned corvettes tomorrow because of street racing..... yet every former corvette owner goes out and buys a mustang to continue street racing... you cant say "the streets are clear of corvette street racing" and pretend that's a point to be made. I keep hearing about England's gun violence vs the US..... yeah.... they traded gun violence for rape and robbery.... accomplished nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=RB4lDYSv_KY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RB4lDYSv_KY

---

Thank you for that little tidbit from the NRA, the largest gun lobby group in world history. I take their assessment on the situation very seriously













/s


Now stop, your gonna bury my abbreviated yet thorough dissection on post WW1 Germany and Hitlers rise to power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Thank you for that little tidbit from the NRA, the largest gun lobby group in world history. I take their assessment on the situation very seriously













/s

---

You ignore facts based on the source the same way you believe lies based on the source. You keep discrediting sources while at the same time supporting the liar in the white house. It's 2013..... we have the internet.... we have youtube.... you can actually listen to Obama say one thing, click the next video and listen to him say the opposite. If anyone should be discredited, it's Obama. The NRA is fighting for your freedom..... Obama is fighting to remove it. The NRA ad makes a very simple point....... Obama has armed security around his entire family 24/7 and made it a point to secure that armed security for the rest of his life. If Obama supports gun control..... he should put down his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

But, back when they were enacted with drunk driver awareness programs, they cut drunk driving accidents in half. Give me a minute and I'll give you the numbers.

---

What stopped DUIs was the penalties and fines. Well it didnt stop it but it deferred it. 40-50 years ago, if you got caught driving drunk, you got a $100 fine and got to go on your merry way. It wasnt a big deal because we werent as mobile as we are now, cars werent as fast, alcohol wasnt as available, list goes on and on and on.

When we started enacted stiffer penalties like $2000-5000 fines and fees, loss of license, employers wont hire you for having a DUI, insurance premiums raising,, etc that forced people to change. That can happen with guns. But what we didnt do was BAN CARS because people drive drunk, or BAN Corvettes because people drive really fast.

See the difference?

The distinction you need to make is there are differences in REGULATING and BANNING.

Im in favor of SMART regulation, im 100% opposed to banning anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

You ignore facts based on the source the same way you believe lies based on the source.

---

I haven't ignored any facts! Present me some unbiased and cold hard facts not in a one sided manner and we might get somewhere. You will not convince me the NRA is anywhere close to being in the business of giving credible and unbiased facts about guns OR economics, I was not born yesterday.

People are looking way too much into this whole thing.

1. The right to bear arms will not be taken from us. It will likely just become harder to obtain a permit as mentioned previously. Those of us who already have permits may have a little more luck than the general population.

2. Seriously....who the fuck needs an AR anyways? When you boil it down, it's an expensive dinner topic. Yeah they are fun to shoot but are not practical. I will stick with my Glocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon

People are looking way too much into this whole thing.

1. The right to bear arms will not be taken from us. It will likely just become harder to obtain a permit as mentioned previously. Those of us who already have permits may have a little more luck than the general population.

2. Seriously....who the fuck needs an AR anyways? When you boil it down, it's an expensive dinner topic. Yeah they are fun to shoot but are not practical. I will stick with my Glocks.

---

that's why they dont call it "the bill of needs"

Typical, a debate swings into a gun control and Obama sucks thread.

This country has issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simontibbett

Typical, a debate swings into a gun control and Obama sucks thread.

This country has issues.

---

It is a gun control issue.... you're not asking why i need an assault rifle because you're curious, the question is more directly "why are you resisting an assault rifle ban?"

It's not up to you to decide what i need. Me owning or not owning an assault rifle does not make you any more or less safe than you are now. You're free to defend yourself however you see fit. Until my means of self defense directly harms or effects your life, politely... and with all due respect.... shut the fuck up.

Obama is a gun control advocate. He has been from day 1 aside from during his campaigns where he tells you what you want to hear. It's no coincidence that gun sales skyrocketed when Obama became president or that they skyrocket at even the hint of Obama possibly imposing restrictions. This is not a transparent president. He works behind closed doors, says one thing and does another. Obama does suck..... and people have every right to question him. Obama creates the tension in america. To make it worse you have the constant backdrop of condescending Obama supporters like Blank saying "that will never happen". Ok.... if it never happens..... then i have a $1500 paper weight sitting in my closet.... jokes on me. I would rather be over prepared than not prepared enough.... but its hard to explain that to a legion of people dependent on government who have lost all sense of self reliance.

You're free to live your life however you wish...... our country was founded by people willing to cross an unknown ocean seeking freedom. You've made it perfectly clear that you would have stayed put and shined someone shoes or picked their garden for them to avoid that risk... good for you. Take the money you dont spend on guns, stock up on tie dye shirts and wool hats if thats what makes you happy.

No, it really was a simple question of why you need an assault rifle. More specifically, asking if it was because of the "government taking over" because that's what I've been hearing lately. I would assume many wouldn't use an assault rifle in say a home invasion, so my question was directed as to government control.

It has nothing to do with the ban, I could care less if they're banned or not. As I've said it's not the gun it's who owns the gun.

Nice try in one again trying to speak for people though, you think you know peoples mindset far too often and that causes you to make false assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

...and a lot fewer than you think. The German empire had literally just collapsed not even 20 years prior. It wasnt like the last president they had systematically made a couple people ridiculously rich and their proletariat payed in the back end. They were annihilated in WW1 and were under a massive reconstructionary period. Germany was still reeling from the Treaty of Versailles. This sparked German nationalism, which was heavy with rhetoric not unlike the far-right wing rhetoric we hear today, add to that Hitlers natural charisma. It also took a shit ton of constitutional circumvention to make him a dictator, vis-a-vis the Enabling Act, or Das Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reichwhich, more or less gave the appointed chancellor unprecedented control over all the branches of government.

So what you're missing is an empirical collapse, reconstructionary period, an übernationalist dictator, and the abolishment of the checks and balance system we know as the legislative, judicial, and executive branch of government. In short, a HUGE HUGE difference between modern day democratic constitutional republic of the US, and Nazi Germany.

Hope that clears things up.

---

You forgot to mention that Hitler didn't ban guns, they were already heavily restricted during the Weimer republic and if anything, Hitler eased the gun restrictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

You forgot to mention that Hitler didn't ban guns, they were already heavily restricted during the Weimer republic and if anything, Hitler eased the gun restrictions.

---

Yes. And this. The 1920s Law on Firearms & Ammunition by the Weimar Republic was replaced in the 30s by the more lax Weapons Law, BUT they added a regulation later preventing Jews from carrying. I'm not gonna say that's what caused the Holocaust, but you can take it FWIW.

Fun Fact: Germany's last war reparations payment was only a couple years ago.

How about because I fucking want one, and that's reason a god damn nuff. Why do you need a car that will travel faster than 65 mph? Why do you need a cell phone to surf the web with or text with? Why do you have the right to tell me how I can and can not spend my money? I'll burn my money if I want to fuck you very much!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eraser4g63

How about because I fucking want one, and that's reason a god damn nuff. Why do you need a car that will travel faster than 65 mph? Why do you need a cell phone to surf the web with or text with? Why do you have the right to tell me how I can and can not spend my money? I'll burn my money if I want to fuck you very much!

---

...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

...?

---

The OP asked why I or anyone would want a sporting carbine, That's my answer..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

...And then modern technology brought the milita automatic weapons, tanks, planes, and eventually warheads and strike fighter jets and tactical bombers and UAVs. China owns so little of our debt, it wouldn't make a dent in any kind of civil war funding. Desertion wouldn't happen on as large a scale as you think. We've seen as recently as 2011 that police forces have no problem silencing American dissidents.

...and a lot fewer than you think. The German empire had literally just collapsed not even 20 years prior. It wasnt like the last president they had systematically made a couple people ridiculously rich and their proletariat payed in the back end. They were annihilated in WW1 and were under a massive reconstructionary period. Germany was still reeling from the Treaty of Versailles. This sparked German nationalism, which was heavy with rhetoric not unlike the far-right wing rhetoric we hear today, add to that Hitlers natural charisma. It also took a shit ton of constitutional circumvention to make him a dictator, vis-a-vis the Enabling Act, or Das Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reichwhich, more or less gave the appointed chancellor unprecedented control over all the branches of government.

So what you're missing is an empirical collapse, reconstructionary period, an übernationalist dictator, and the abolishment of the checks and balance system we know as the legislative, judicial, and executive branch of government. In short, a HUGE HUGE difference between modern day democratic constitutional republic of the US, and Nazi Germany.

Hope that clears things up.

---

how can you say this and take yourself seriously? Obama is the closest thing to a dictator we will probably ever have on american soil. His "charisma" is literally the only thing that got him elected. Everything that comes out of Obama's mouth is rhetoric...... The basis of your party might as well be calling everyone who opposes them racist.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cNCyqgTBpX...bsey_Twins.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

how can you say this and take yourself seriously? Obama is the closest thing to a dictator we will probably ever have on american soil. His "charisma" is literally the only thing that got him elected. Everything that comes out of Obama's mouth is rhetoric...... The basis of your party might as well be calling everyone who opposes them racist.

---

Are you being serious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Are you being serious?

---

What part of it do you not understand?

hopefully more people follow suit and stand up to this arrogant jackass we have squatting in the white house

Oregon sheriff to VP: I won't enforce any new gun laws | Politics | Eugene News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KVAL CBS 13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

What part of it do you not understand?

---

All of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

All of it

---

put down the Obama cool-aid, sleep it off... and we'll continue tomorrow.

no im pissed i amdrunkk and will not go to sleep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eraser4g63

How about because I fucking want one, and that's reason a god damn nuff. Why do you need a car that will travel faster than 65 mph? Why do you need a cell phone to surf the web with or text with? Why do you have the right to tell me how I can and can not spend my money? I'll burn my money if I want to fuck you very much!

---

Oh look, a typical American douchebag that can't read. Did I ask why you needed one? No. I asked how many felt that they needed one to protect themselves against the government and why.

I have my guns because it is a hobby of mine and I enjoy shooting them on occasion. As far as protecting myself from the government... well I don't think that will happen personally.

“And by the way… On health care issues going on in D.C. right now? Be wary when some kind of tie-in occurs; Because it will come up: A tie-in with guns in an attempt to take away our Second Amendment rights under the guise of some new health care plan – You know that this is coming – That the two issues will somehow crop up and they’ll be tied together. So we have to be very wary on this.” ~ Governor Sarah Palin, August 1, 2009 Anchorage, Alaska


Liberal 2009, fantasy land - " come on............ more of this rhetoric? Obama doesnt want your guns, quit being racist fear mongers, this will never happen "