They are taking our guns away !

uscitizen said:
Heck with all this Oxycotin crap we need LSD back :D
Click to expand...
What we need is an end to this inane "War on Drugs" and a beginning of a "War on Addiction" where we treat the actual problem rather than an object, and symptom, of the problem.
 
Yep give us our rights to due process back.

However the drug companies are making billions off of the war on drugs now .....

and Herion production in Afganistan is at record highs ( no pun intended).
 
Personally, I can't see any reason to allow the marginally functional survivalist wannabe down the street to own a Barrett M107. Granted, if somebody really loses it he can do a lot of damage with just a 9mm. Why give him the capability for more specatcular carnage though?

Your comments about Cheney should tell you why. How would a people overthrow a Castro or Pinochet without access to arms that allow them to fight against the miliatry arm of oppression.
 
Jarod said:
The issue here is where is the line drawn, as long as you agree there is a line where the ownership of some weapons should be banned.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Almost everyone agrees that there is a line somewhere. We just argue about where it should be drawn -- and what the degree of non-regulation on the permissible side should be.

As for my example of the .50 caliber sniper rifle: look at the damned thing, people. Any of you Mythbusters fans have seen one in the "does water stop bullets" episode. It's a military weapon, plain and simple. I, for one, don't want to see those circulating in the general population. The blasted AK-47s are bad enough.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Personally, I can't see any reason to allow the marginally functional survivalist wannabe down the street to own a Barrett M107. Granted, if somebody really loses it he can do a lot of damage with just a 9mm. Why give him the capability for more specatcular carnage though?

Your comments about Cheney should tell you why. How would a people overthrow a Castro or Pinochet without access to arms that allow them to fight against the miliatry arm of oppression.
Click to expand...
Guns don't win modern revolutions, IH8. Guns are largely a distraction, in fact.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
No, I don't think it is. An M107 is designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill people very efficiently. It is entirely a military weapon, like RPGs and Stinger missiles, and one to which I have no objection to regulating access.
Click to expand...
Still less efficient than a large IED. An improvised explosive can kill thousands in an instant if properly placed. This gun can't even get close to that.

And once again past evidence shows that the crazies go for the big bang over the gun in such a scenario.

Those who go nuts with a gun kill far fewer than the survivalist who goes nuts, because they just don't have the knowledge to get done what the survivalist can. You should be more thankful that almost nobody at all would even think to purchase one, unless they were that survivalist and far more fearful of the survivalist getting a lot of poop than of getting this gun.
 
Tell that to the Iraqi insurgents. They seem to be doing pretty well with small arms.

I don't buy the argument an inferior equipped force can't win. The Viet Cong did, the Mujahedeen did, the Maoists did.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Personally, I can't see any reason to allow the marginally functional survivalist wannabe down the street to own a Barrett M107. Granted, if somebody really loses it he can do a lot of damage with just a 9mm. Why give him the capability for more specatcular carnage though?

Your comments about Cheney should tell you why. How would a people overthrow a Castro or Pinochet without access to arms that allow them to fight against the miliatry arm of oppression.
Click to expand...


In modern history, I can barely think of any examples, where overthrowing a totalitarian government, required violent civil war in the streets.

Soviet Union, all the eastern european countries, Chile, Argentina, Spain, Ukraine, etc.
 
But consider a propane tanker in a downtown shot by a 50 cal, or an airplane, etc....easier to shoot em that hide a bomb on em.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Tell that to the Iraqi insurgents. They seem to be doing pretty well with small arms.

I don't buy the argument an inferior equipped force can't win. The Viet Cong did, the Mujahedeen did, the Maoists did.
Click to expand...

But we are spoiled wimpy assed USA. Cut off our gasoline and TV and we will belly up. Most of us anyway.
 
Do you know why that is Cypress. Because they didn't allow the citizenry to have guns. A disarmed populace is a pacified populace and encourages tyranny.
 
Damocles said:
Still less efficient than a large IED. An improvised explosive can kill thousands in an instant if properly placed. This gun can't even get close to that.

And once again past evidence shows that the crazies go for the big bang over the gun in such a scenario.

Those who go nuts with a gun kill far fewer than the survivalist who goes nuts, because they just don't have the knowledge to get done what the survivalist can. You should be more thankful that almost nobody at all would even think to purchase one, unless they were that survivalist and far more fearful of the survivalist getting a lot of poop than of getting this gun.
Click to expand...
The guy with the IED is more dangerous, sure, but that's because he is manufacturing his own weapons out of unregulated and unregulatable materials. I'm talking about regulating access to ready-made weapons of personal destruction.

People do indeed go nuts with rifles, Damo. Remember Charles Whitman? Remember the D.C. highway sniper? And those are just the proverbial tip of the metaphorical iceberg: the tiny fraction that make it into the media. Every year, people take potshots at highways, neighbors and, yes, schoolyards. There are tens of thousands of such incidents all across the nation annually.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Do you know why that is Cypress. Because they didn't allow the citizenry to have guns. A disarmed populace is a pacified populace and encourages tyranny.
Click to expand...


It seems to me, revolutions against authoritarian governments that required violent civil war and warfare, tended to replace those totalitarian government, with something equally bad.

The overthrow of authoritarian governements, by means the Martin Luther King would have approved of, seems to be better at building governments rooted in democracy and fairness.
 
A disarmed populace is a pacified populace and encourages tyranny.


Iraq under Saddam, was one of the most heavily armed nations of the planet. Every home had at least an AK47.
 
uscitizen said:
But consider a propane tanker in a downtown shot by a 50 cal, or an airplane, etc....easier to shoot em that hide a bomb on em.
Click to expand...
I can, however buying a propane tanker, or attempting to find out where one is going is going to attract far more attention than buying fertilizer.

My point: These people have had these guns, even while they made plans with poop. There was a reason they chose the poop. First it was their best chance at improvising a device to hit a specific target without being noticed, second a good-sized fertilizer bomb is far more efficient than any gun at all, anywhere.

Those who would buy these weapons have the knowledge to improvise those devices. They do so. Those who go nuts with guns don't have that type of knowledge and access to that kind of weapon.

So... The idea that we should use the "they may go crazy" reason to ban the weapon is what I object to. They may go crazy, so we need to ban poop, not this weapon.

There can be many reasons for banning it, but not the emotive "They might go crazy" reason. It isn't logical. When people who own that type of weapon go crazy they go for far more damage and for specific targets that provoked their particular insanity.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
The guy with the IED is more dangerous, sure, but that's because he is manufacturing his own weapons out of unregulated and unregulatable materials. I'm talking about regulating access to ready-made weapons of personal destruction.

People do indeed go nuts with rifles, Damo. Remember Charles Whitman? Remember the D.C. highway sniper? And those are just the proverbial tip of the metaphorical iceberg: the tiny fraction that make it into the media. Every year, people take potshots at highways, neighbors and, yes, schoolyards. There are tens of thousands of such incidents all across the nation annually.
Click to expand...
Both of those didn't have access to the type of weaponry that you speak of. a .227 is certainly not a .50 cal. If they were the type to buy that weapon, my bet is they would go "insane" more spectacularly.

The "they may go crazy" reason is based on emotion, not on past experience or logic.
 
Iraq under Saddam, was one of the most heavily armed nations of the planet. Every home had at least an AK47.

And now we see them using those weapons to fight against what they see as an illegitimate nation. They could not resist now if Saddam disarmed them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top