Even when pro gun people argue. they arent calm. they usually start pulling a leon1122 and talking about how Obama is coming after their guns and the blackhawk helicopters will be circling soon. There is nothing calm about this guy...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e8/a3/af/e8a3af07411c484bb498eaeedc2943b4.jpg

I'm sorry did that flaming bigot Yanik say something about how its all black people's fault? I wouldn't know, I have him blocked. I guarantee you that whatever he cited is completely false. That's guaranteed.

I assure you that I am quite calm in any intellectual debate regardless of subject, though the obtuseness of some at times increases my frustration. And no, Obama is not coming for MY guns because neither I nor anyone in my family owns a gun. I support gun rights on purely intellectual grounds.

Ogion, Pew research is a reputable research organization. Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately own guns, and those groups, especially their lower socioeconomic strata, have a high rate of violence. That's not racism, it's fact.

@leon1122 I agree with you that guns only need to be in the hands of police and law enforcement during mass shootings, and there HAVE actually been accounts of people shooting someone who m they though was armed but didn't actually :'D

but the sole reason I believe in the 2nd amendment isn't for survival and sustenance, it isn't so you can get some kind of sick thrill out of shooting animals, for me it's to stop government tyranny. I DO NOT MEAN OBAMA

i simply think that the idea that our government will always be perfect and kind and never turn bad is not true, i think it's very possible for our government to turn against our citizenry, 50-100 years, maybe 200 years in the future. The founding fathers allowed private ownership of cannons before the 18th century was up, as well as guns that might astound you:

1779 the Girandoni air rifle had a 22-30 round capacity that could unload it's entire clip in 25-30 seconds. Look it up. Yeah. And the founding father's ALLOWED it.

Outside letters from our founding fathers wrote expressly told their reasoning for the second amendment was to prevent government tyranny. And it wasn't so off the hook either: we've had a civil war but fortunately survived with an intact constitution: a rarity in most cases, and we did have FDR move into 3 terms during war time... breaking a traditional law that technically wasn't legal: I think FDR was dope but that's not the point, and in modern day we have seen a resurgence of socialist ideologies.


Now @leon1122 if you disagree with me, I can respect your point of view. I think that assault rifles are nowhere near the military capabilities of the present, which if anything would put the citizenry at a disadvantage, but i agree with many gun restrictions: full background checks on ALL family members, an exam on proper gun control, proof of a locked container to store gun in, yearly re-registrations, and MORE.

but thank you for having this discussion, unlike Ogion who just muted me, which I find entirely unproductive. and thanks for standing up for me when he just called me a 'flaming bigot' - a term which is a little offensive since i'm bi, but I wasn't here to defend myself so thanks again

"IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT DON'T BUY IT!!!"

Uh, civil virtue died a long time ago. This is where the government needs to play a much, much more active role and interest groups like the NRA need to play a much, much less active role. If you can't handle it, there needs to be a process in place to find that out. As a matter of fact, other tools with potentially bad consequences regulated by the government, such as a car or possibly an airplane, require this mystical thing called a license. What's better yet, though, is that you can't just walk into a place and grab one of these licenses. You have to - *gasp* - take a test!

Gun owners should have to take a test, which should include an active portion where you fire a weapon. If you can't do so safely, then you can't handle it. There should be classes to go along with that. It's not an uncommon thing.

"The real reason nobody stops mass shooters is because its fucking impossible."

That's bullshit. These mass shootings are hugely uncommon outside of the United States, though actually, I feel like it's been an unusually long time since our last one. What's it been, like a month? That's pretty good America, keep it up.

"it's to stop government tyranny"

Dude, you couldn't stop government tyranny. The government unleashed friggin tanks on the people of Ferguson not too long ago. And this isn't recent - the government put down Shays' Rebellion in 1786(?) in a pretty similar fashion, i.e. by threatening to massacre them if they didn't shut up and put their guns away.

The founding fathers lived in a world where fearing government tyranny wasn't irrational and a "well-armed militia" could actually pose a moderate threat to everyday life. Nowadays, that just doesn't exist.

Also, for the record, being bi or any other minority in any demographic doesn't automatically mean you aren't bigoted. Not saying you are, but you don't just get disqualified from claims of bias and bigotry because of sexuality.

YEAH BUT I SAW RED DAWN SO I'M INFORMED.

Haha, but yeah regulations on who gets guns needs to be more prominent, but an armed ban of protestors isn't a problem for the government, but just like we saw with the 9/11 terrorists, a few people with guns can cause a problem. It's luck the white house didn't get his, and the Pentagon took a pounding

be clear, I am in no way endorsing them, just reiterating that, but what I am saying is that if the US government turns tyrannical, and the citizenry is under mass oppression, then guns would go a long way to stopping that.

The best example I can think of is North Korea. Most of the citizenry is under poor economic and social conditions whereas many others are in forced labor camps or extremely isolated, regulated areas. If their populace that does sin fact hate the government: and there are tens of thousands that do, have even 1 assault rifle per adult male: That would be considerable.

Remember Tianemen square? Chinese government killing hundreds of protestors wth tanks: but that's a prime example of Government war-time technology being greater than the populace's armaments.


So taking away all guns is not the solution. free guns on the streets is not the solution. Personally? I'm a bit more gun control, but I'm also a white Oklahoman with a penis so there's some universal stereotype telling me to own a gun ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't want an armed detente either, I just want a fundamental sense of security for the population against potentially autocratic future governments. At the same time, I want a sense of security for the current violent conditions within our own borders.

Furthermore, the most prominent countries that have banned guns: sweden, UK, Australia, haven't had mass shootings, but they've had extremely high spikes in violent crime rates in robbings, as well as the rape rate has gone up considerably. You're looking at a house to break into and you see a sign on the front lawn that says "proud owner of a gun and NRA member"

you're choosing the house across the street

It's not luck that the White House didn't get hit, it's literal heroism. I can't believe they make a movie about just about anything but they won't give the people on that flight the immortality of Hollywood.

The citizens of the United States are so fiercely guarded by constitutionalists around the country - and this is a good thing - that there is basically zero chance of a legitimately tyrannical government being installed here. Might there be some people who the country disagrees with? Yeah. But from FDR to Joseph McCarthy to Donald Trump, there is nobody on either side of the political spectrum who can get away with actual tyranny unless the citizenry actively invites it in.

yeah we have a great system, but if we have an economic collapse not in something like a surplus of houses which hurt us but didn't even near cripple us, but an energy shortage, then THAT could cause austerity measures an a whole plethora of problems.

Another situation: search the Gracchi Brothers. Ancient Rome, but it's a fairly simple route to downfall

and yeah I'm SO happy with an all women cast of ghostbusters remake over the literal flight 93 heroes

and yes i understand the cascading effects selling debt that caused the economic collapse, but the fact it stemmed from a commodity that WOULD have use in the following... we're at 8 years now, has definitely lessened it's effect. Look at oil. After the recession, it hasn't gotten close to it's old stocks

James, I think you misunderstand. I agree with your position completely and for the same reasons you stated. I feel like many gun rights activist have taken the liberal bait of guns being about self defense. While guns may or may not help with that, my primary reason for supporting gun control, like you, is to protect the existence of America as a free state, free not from outside forces but rather from an increasingly totalitarian government. This is an opinion that I have stated many times, but liberals insist that guns can't fight an oppressive government, so we should just give up and listen to the Big Brother.

@bo_sox Ferguson was government oppression. It was a mob of opportunistic criminals looting and burning private property for perceived wrongs done by the government. That is not how resistance works. Did you see the guerrillas in Nicaragua and Vietnam burning their own villages? That's right, you didn't.

Re: Bigotry-- The left is misappropriating the word bigot, and more and more people are forgetting its true definition. Bigotry is intolerance toward those with different OPINIONS. Liberals use it as a substitute for racism, sexism, etc. but the word bigotry is completely unrelated. It actually describes narrow-minded people, perhaps like those who accuse anyone they disagree with of being bigots. Oh, the irony.

*Ferguson was not

Also, Shay's rebellion happened before the Constitution was even around.

Ogion I was arguing against, but now he's muted me - which is mature - and I guess I could argue brainbomb but I have a feeling not much will be accomplished there

Shays' Rebellion in some ways caused the Constitution. Other rebellions happened after and all except the Civil War ended the same - being squashed.

Ferguson can be whatever you want it to be, but the fact that the police unleashed tanks should suggest that government tyranny, if it took place, wouldn't be stopped by a guy that shoots rats off his porch. In Dallas, they used a robot to take out a guy with a bomb. In the Middle East, unmanned drones can obliterate anything and everything. If our government wanted to use those tools, they have them. We don't.

@ JamesYanik: "Furthermore, the most prominent countries that have banned guns: sweden, UK, Australia, haven't had mass shootings, but they've had extremely high spikes in violent crime rates in robbings, as well as the rape rate has gone up considerably."

The UK already had quite strict gun laws prior to the Dunblane massacre in 1996, but after that event, it became very hard to legally posess a handgun.

Is it your position that until 1996 the rate of rape was lower in the UK because British women were able to defend themselves against rapists using their guns? Really is that your view? What evidence do you have?

I'm pretty sure the Civil War was squashed as well. Anyways, can you name some of these other rebellions (actual rebellions that were directed against government tyranny)?

I found some articles about tanks in Ferguson, but I can't find any actual images. Throughout history, there have been numerous incidents of poorly equipped but nevertheless armed guerrillas defeating state of the art militaries, for example Vietnam, Afghanistan, and basically every coup in history including even the American revolution.

@jamietuk

No what I am saying is that lowering of gun violence has spawn rise to other forms of violent crime. I now realize I did word it in a way that could have been more clear.

The guns laws have done nothing to solve the core influences of crime. The correlation is not direct, but murder had a large spike recently, as well as rape, just not involving guns

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12112024/Violent-crime-jumps-27-in-new-figures.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/21/rate-england-wales-2015-rises-11

Now, they're currently trying to ban more purchases of KNIFES. And after people that breaking bottles on people's heads kills them, so the pop is next to go.

@jamiet99uk, look at the aggregate crime statistics, and you'll see that taking away guns did not accelerate the decline of your crime rate. fixing socioeconomic problems and a flourishing NHS did that.

You looks at Brexit, where Britain finally separated themselves from a controlling foreign body, I'm thinking more of your citizenry is understanding why Americans don't like the idea of centralized authoritarianesque control.

not that the media would have you believe that: but the referendum is proof enough

Jamiet, http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-U.K.-Violent-Crime-and-Firearm-Ownership-Rates-Before-and-After-1997.png

At the very least, the trends show that banning firearms didn't reduce crime as liberals had predicted. And the case for guns as self-defense isn't necessarily about actually using it against a criminal. It's about deterrence, since the would-be criminal knows that every household has a decent possibility of owning a gun and being able to resist the attack. When hand guns were banned, criminals no longer had to fear this.

"@bo_sox Ferguson was government oppression. It was a mob of opportunistic criminals looting and burning private property for perceived wrongs done by the government."

I assume you mean Ferguson was *not* government oppression, in which case you should read the DOJ report on Ferguson's entrenched history of corrupt and racist policing. If you want, you can completely ignore everything that isn't written in a Ferguson Police Department police report, and it will still be clear that the wrongs are not merely 'perceived', but real.

However, it would be correct to say that rioting and looting in Ferguson is not really resistance to oppression; it is rather one more symptom of said oppression (though it also has other causes). Resistance comes in other forms--like peaceful protests, which Ferguson had aplenty. I'd rather not see the incorrect narrative that Ferguson is just Michael Brown and some looters, thanks all the same.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2015/03/15/many-conservatives-blowing-it-ferguson-doj-report/

@Yanik
"1779 the Girandoni air rifle had a 22-30 round capacity that could unload it's entire clip in 25-30 seconds. Look it up. Yeah. And the founding father's ALLOWED it."

Irony is that at the battle of little bighorn, the Sioux were using better rifles than the US Cavalry. Not only were guns so readily available, but superior guns were available even to alleged "enemies of the state", through trade.

Obviously this is not the best example, because history tends to side with the Souix, and most normal people think Custer was a fucking douchebag. But something can be said for a nation that becomes so Armed that civil war is once again a threat. So on the one hand you are arguing that having an armed citizenry discourages a government oppression, it actually fuels and facilitates a full on rebellion too.

@Leon

Wounded Knee

I find it interesting that you are comparing BLM, and Ferguson to the civil war, and to guerilla uprisings. I markedly disagree with all of those characterizations. In no way are the people of the African American community claiming they no longer recognize the government. These are people who are fed up, this is not a heavily armed militia ready to take over say... a national wildlife refuge and claim it as their own. These are hardworking upset people who are looting and burglarizing. Granted its not a sensible way to solve their greivances but its certainly not an attempt to bring down the federal government... no youd have to look at Texas threatening secession and radical white supremacists for that kind of behavior.

@brainbomb

I'm not saying an armed citizenry "discourages" government oppression, I'm saying that if government oppression DOES arise, then an armed citizenry would be necessary to repel it.

Jefferson and Madison didn't just create a country, they rebelled against one too. That's what they wanted us to keep in mind

Sure, leon. The Whiskey Rebellion, the Fries Rebellion, Nat Turner's revolt, the Dorr Rebellion, all of the Cincinnati Riots, John Brown, and on and on. Can't you Google this? Pretty sure most people on this site took APUSH.

You need to shore up on using Google. This is the first result I found:

www.cbsnews.com/news/ferguson-missouri-response-shows-police-use-of-military-equipment/

John Brown (born April 3, 1990) is an American football wide receiver for the Arizona Cardinals of the National Football League (NFL).
He was drafted by the Cardinals in the third round of the 2014 NFL Draft. He played college football at Pittsburg State.

bo is right,