• In wake of the bad shit that went down in T-Town, lawmakers ready gun control bills
    678 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TH89;27364678]But the government has F-16s now.[/QUOTE] And the Soviets had armored gunships.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27364626]Your logic is flawed. Would you say banning rocket launchers and fully automatic machine guns is a way to "cripple civilian armaments"? At the time of the Revolutionary War, horses and muskets were the pinnacle of military infantry weapons, and lots of people had them. Now, rocket launchers and machine guns are the pinnacle of infantry weapons, but they're illegal and people aren't complaining.[/QUOTE] Actually they aren't illegal. The manufacture of them is, but all the ones created prior to 1986 can still be purchased and used. You want a tank? You can have a tank. The automatic weapons ban was actually illegally passed. It was actually supposed to have been removed from the bill which wound up being passed. Nice try though!
[QUOTE=TH89;27364678]But the government has F-16s now.[/QUOTE] reason why i'd say it's idyllic at best
It's blatantly obvious that gun control reduces gun crime, you only have to look at the gun crime stats in other countries to see this. However, it wouldn't prevent [i]this kind[/i] of crime. Someone planning a political assassination is easily going to get whatever prohibited firearms/ammo/accessories on the black market if he really needs to. Do I think that gun control works? Yes. Do I think that the United States' method of nearly no regulation whatsoever is asinine? Yes. Is this case a good platform upon which to launch tighter gun regulation? Not really.
[QUOTE=TH89;27364678]But the government has F-16s now.[/QUOTE] hey if videogames have showed you anything its that with enough bullets anything could be taken down.
[QUOTE=GunFox;27364690]Actually they aren't illegal. The manufacture of them is, but all the ones created prior to 1986 can still be purchased and used. You want a tank? You can have a tank. The automatic weapons ban was actually illegally passed. It was actually supposed to have been removed from the bill which wound up being passed. Nice try though![/QUOTE] Just change my post to rocket launchers and post-1986 assault weapons.
i'm not sure what tighter gun regulation is going to do, the people in charge of it suck at it
[QUOTE=GunFox;27364690]Actually they aren't illegal. The manufacture of them is, but all the ones created prior to 1986 can still be purchased and used. You want a tank? You can have a tank. The automatic weapons ban was actually illegally passed. It was actually supposed to have been removed from the bill which wound up being passed. [/QUOTE] When will I be able to buy nukes? I need it for self defense.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;27364414]Or you can give everyone that turns 18 a pistol. Would that work better than stricter gun control? Would people rob people knowing that everyone is packing heat? [/QUOTE] The issue isn't that they'll rob them anymore, it's that they'll shoot them (knowing they are packing heat) THEN they'll rob them. If everybody has guns, there'll be fewer crimes, but the crimes that do happen with always involve fatalities as criminals are trigger-happy and jumpy knowing so many people probably have guns.
[QUOTE=TH89;27364678]But the government has F-16s now.[/QUOTE] So? A large scale civilian rebellion would effectively cripple the government. The people can survive longer without the government than the government can without the people. We also sport state level militias which are equipped well enough to give the federal military a hard time. Combine them with the civilians and you have the NVA/VC combo that made Vietnam a living nightmare.
[QUOTE=GunFox;27364717]you have the NVA/VC combo that made Vietnam a living nightmare.[/QUOTE] well that's not really what happened in vietnam the united states was unprepared for the guerrilla tactics, weather, and the soviet weaponry (the us was using WW2 weapons for a while in the beginning) today, the us army basically trains to fight guerrilla tactics against soviet weaponry considering that's the nature of our conflicts today
[QUOTE=GunFox;27364717]So? A large scale civilian rebellion would effectively cripple the government. The people can survive longer without the government than the government can without the people. [/QUOTE] Not really, no. And in case you haven't noticed, the political spectrum in the US is pretty much 50-50, so I don't think there'd ever be a situation where it's "The Government vs The People" It's be "Government and The People vs The Other People" In fact, you're using the word "civil war" incorrectly, what you are constantly describing sounds more like a coup. Either way, you're fucked. The second an M1A2 with reactive tusk armor rolls around the corner you and your shitty pea shooter are dead.
criminals don't obey any laws why would they obey gun laws
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27364702]Just change my post to rocket launchers and post-1986 assault weapons.[/QUOTE] That gap is filled by the guard. There are also some interesting things you can do as a corporation which lets you circumvent the laws and import weapons. I think the intention was to allow private security firms access to the armaments necessary to conduct business, but it can also be done as a militia. There are lawyers who make their living basically setting up pointless corporations so that you can circumvent a lot of the restrictions on gun laws. Unlike the tax stamps and such I believe doing it with the corp solution can circumvent certain laws which make inheritance of the weapons possible/less legally annoying.
[QUOTE=GunFox;27364717]So? A large scale civilian rebellion would effectively cripple the government. The people can survive longer without the government than the government can without the people. We also sport state level militias which are equipped well enough to give the federal military a hard time. Combine them with the civilians and you have the NVA/VC combo that made Vietnam a living nightmare.[/QUOTE] The people and the government aren't separate entities. The government is [b]of[/b] the people, remember? No people = no government.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27364765]Not really, no. And in case you haven't noticed, the political spectrum in the US is pretty much 50-50, so I don't think there'd ever be a situation where it's "The Government vs The People" It's be "Government and The People vs The Other People" Inf act, you're using the word "civil war" incorrectly, what you are constantly describing sounds more like a coup. Either way, you're fucked.[/QUOTE] The best we could hope for at the time would be to just not be part of the US anymore and by then we would be able to make are own guns so it wouldnt matter.
[QUOTE=GunFox;27364789]That gap is filled by the guard. [/QUOTE] Then couldn't the gap between 10- and 30-round magazines be filled by the guard too?
let guns be legal to logical point.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27364765]Not really, no. And in case you haven't noticed, the political spectrum in the US is pretty much 50-50, so I don't think there'd ever be a situation where it's "The Government vs The People" It's be "Government and The People vs The Other People" Inf act, you're using the word "civil war" incorrectly, what you are constantly describing sounds more like a coup. Either way, you're fucked.[/QUOTE] Yes because the United States will never change politically. I'm not suggesting that it is likely to occur now or in the future. I don't believe I said "civil war". I don't believe I said it was anything other than a rebellion.
[QUOTE=GunFox;27364840]Yes because the United States will never change politically. I'm not suggesting that it is likely to occur now or in the future. I don't believe I said "civil war". I don't believe I said it was anything other than a rebellion.[/QUOTE] when we need guns then it will be a war
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27364816]Then couldn't the gap between 10- and 30-round magazines be filled by the guard too?[/QUOTE] Nope. Right now they are basically on par with the M-16's and M4's we issue the troops. Rarely does the standard soldier use full or burst. Which basically means the civilian AR-15 models are roughly as useful in combat. Cut the mag size and you drastically reduce their effectiveness. Seeing as the point is that the civilian population is armed roughly at the same level as the soldiers as it stands, decreasing mag size would seriously hamper that. Not to mention the market learned its lesson after the last restriction and produced AR mags out the ASS. So they are everywhere right now in huge numbers.
[QUOTE=GunFox;27364840]Yes because the United States will never change politically. I'm not suggesting that it is likely to occur now or in the future. I don't believe I said "civil war". I don't believe I said it was anything other than a rebellion.[/QUOTE] Either way, this isn't like it was 200 years ago. The foundations of the US are sturdy and I highly doubt there will be a civil war or competent rebellion, ever. The people of the US aren't hardy pioneers anymore they are overfed and technologically pampered city dwellers or comfortable country dwellers. it's naive to assume that guns would do anything against "the government." or against a Rebellion; whichever fictional side you are on.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27364804]The people and the government aren't separate entities. The government is [b]of[/b] the people, remember? No people = no government.[/QUOTE] That would be the point.
[QUOTE=GunFox;27364717]So? A large scale civilian rebellion would effectively cripple the government. The people can survive longer without the government than the government can without the people.[/QUOTE] I mean strict constitutionalism doesn't really seem to make sense in a world where the people are so dramatically outgunned. Was something like this predicted in the drafting of the second amendment? Plus, the idea of this country turning into a hellish nightmare like Vietnam doesn't appeal to me very much.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27364626]Your logic is flawed. Would you say banning rocket launchers and fully automatic machine guns is a way to "cripple civilian armaments"? At the time of the Revolutionary War, horses and muskets were the pinnacle of military infantry weapons, and lots of people had them. Now, rocket launchers and machine guns are the pinnacle of infantry weapons, but they're illegal and people aren't complaining.[/QUOTE] So what? We bend over and give up any chance we would have in a rebellion against the government? I'm no conspiracy nut, but have you seen the way things have been going recently? Every day more and more peoples rights are infringed upon. Politicians need to be afraid of the people, otherwise, we work for them and they have complete control. If that means making bazookas and tanks legal, then by all means, do it. I'm not about to sit by as we become more and more controlled by the government.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27364696]It's blatantly obvious that gun control reduces gun crime, you only have to look at the gun crime stats in other countries to see this. However, it wouldn't prevent [i]this kind[/i] of crime. Someone planning a political assassination is easily going to get whatever prohibited firearms/ammo/accessories on the black market if he really needs to. Do I think that gun control works? Yes. Do I think that the United States' method of nearly no regulation whatsoever is asinine? Yes. Is this case a good platform upon which to launch tighter gun regulation? Not really.[/QUOTE] There is hardly any evidence that gun control works in other countries.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27364910]Either way, this isn't like it was 200 years ago. The foundations of the US are sturdy and I highly doubt there will be a civil war or competent rebellion, ever. The people of the US aren't hardy pioneers anymore they are overfed and technologically pampered city dwellers or comfortable country dwellers. it's naive to assume that guns would do anything against "the government." or against a Rebellion; whichever fictional side you are on.[/QUOTE] I swear we are doomed to repeat history forever. Everyone assumes "hey! we are in the post modern age! we aren't like those barbarians years ago!" when in truth you are EXACTLY the same people fighting over the same goddamn shit we've been fighting over since the dawn of humanity. The same people that have founded countless great empires and then watched as they fell to ruin. But no, that could NEVER happen to us.
[QUOTE=TH89;27364950]I mean strict constitutionalism doesn't really seem to make sense in a world where the people are so dramatically outgunned. Was something like this predicted in the drafting of the second amendment? Plus, the idea of this country turning into a hellish nightmare like Vietnam doesn't appeal to me very much.[/QUOTE] So if an oppressive government were to take complete control then you'd rather be content with your current state than actually try to do something about it?
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27364804]The people and the government aren't separate entities. The government is [b]of[/b] the people, remember? No people = no government.[/QUOTE] I think we need to call france on this one.
[QUOTE=Explosions;27364975]So if an oppressive government were to take complete control then you'd rather be content with your current state than actually try to do something about it?[/QUOTE] If an oppressive government were to take complete control then people would get guns whether it was legal or not. But more to the point, countries like Vietnam and Cambodia have been going from oppressive government to brutal warfare to oppressive government for the past century. It's not a place where an AK-47 is going to do anyone a whole lot of good. So no, I wouldn't be advocating violent revolution.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.