Obama wants to bust your balls, and heads for renewing the assault weapons ban - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37119145]So that is for the border with Mexico? Alright fine then, let us say for the sake of argument you lived anywhere else in the United States that wasn't near Mexico. (Like say, Maine, that's pretty far from Mexico) Would you still require a gun in that case?[/QUOTE] This arguement is not about Maine though is it? Are you seriously implying that just because Maine is in an apparently safe area a town on the border of Mexico should follow the same guidelines? Have you ever been to a place where people are executed daily and dismembered and thought to yourself, "Since I want to be more civilized I'll just disarm myself and hope for the best." Do you seriously think this would work? By all means, tell me a single thing this will help. "If you are unable to call them, that's essentially implying you don't have access to a telephone. (And mobile phones are much more common than guns). Let us say that you keep your gun and mobile phone on your side table. If you are unable to use your phone due to the criminal preventing you from doing so, how are you going to use your gun?" A phone is useless if the nearest law enforcement agency is several days away...

This is going to sound really dumb and like I'm some sort of anarchist but wasn't the second amendment designed to prevent the government limiting rights to own weapons like this, and for the people to be able to self-regulate the government by ownership of said weapons? The idea being, once you have the weapons, some idiotic government cannot take them from you because you'll fight to keep those rights. But I guess the only solution to the government taking away rights now is to bitch and moan.

[QUOTE=galenmarek;37119242]This arguement is not about Maine though is it? Are you seriously implying that just because Maine is in an apparently safe area a town on the border of Mexico should follow the same guidelines? Have you ever been to a place where people are executed daily and dismembered and thought to yourself, "Since I want to be more civilized I'll just disarm myself and hope for the best." Do you seriously think this would work? By all means, tell me a single thing this will help?[/QUOTE] No, I'm asking the exact opposite. I'm asking why somebody in a relatively safe area would require the same access to a gun somebody in a relatively dangerous area would. [QUOTE=galenmarek;37119242]A phone is useless if the nearest law enforcement agency is several days away...[/QUOTE] Several days away? So it's better to have shot some criminal/s and find somewhere to stick their decomposing corpse/s for a week? That's an example of a police force that needs [b]improving[/b]. [QUOTE=Jon27;37119254]This is going to sound really dumb and like I'm some sort of anarchist but wasn't the second amendment designed to prevent the government limiting rights to own weapons like this, and for the people to be able to self-regulate the government by ownership of said weapons? The idea being, once you have the weapons, some idiotic government cannot take them from you because you'll fight to keep those rights. But I guess the only solution to the government taking away rights now is to bitch and moan.[/QUOTE] The problem with using weapons to restrict government powers is that it results in one of either two cases (Eventually if you assume things are getting worse) 1. A civil war. 2. A violent revolution. And the problem there is that something like a revolution only results in the creation of another dictatorship if you use armed force to get rid of the old regime.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37119263]No, I'm asking the exact opposite. I'm asking why somebody in a relatively safe area would require the same access to a gun somebody in a relatively dangerous area would.[/QUOTE] Perhaps on the off chance that something would indeed happen. Why should someone following all rules and regulations be limited to what he can own? If I want to own a boat in a desert and many other people own boats in deserts, why should anyone tell me not to own a boat in a desert? The boat does not harm anyone. Obviously the boat would be rather useless but it does not affect anyone around me. If someone killed someone with the boat while they were transporting on the back off a truck, should all boats be banned from deserts? What if perhaps, the government decided to ban boats at lakes aswell just because someone in a far away desert happened to squish someone with his because he wasn't using it properly? Does this situation sound fair? "Several days away? So it's better to have shot some criminal/s and find somewhere to stick their decomposing corpse/s for a week?That's an example of a police force that needs improving" This isn't some space science fiction movie. How do you expect law enforcement agencies to travel hundreds of miles quickly? Teleport them? Even aircraft would take too long. But it is good to hear your country has mastered the art of being able somehow move several hundred miles within the blink of an eye to some house in the middle of no where on the whim of a phone call that could very well just be fake. Or would you just have the criminals just shoot the house owner and have to deal with a homicide instead? "The problem with using weapons to restrict government powers is that it results in one of either two cases" America has done fine in the past several hundred years.

I don't care if I get rated dumb, but this is a step in the right direction.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37119263]The problem with using weapons to restrict government powers is that it results in one of either two cases (Eventually if you assume things are getting worse) 1. A civil war. 2. A violent revolution. And the problem there is that something like a revolution only results in the creation of another dictatorship if you use armed force to get rid of the old regime.[/QUOTE] Indeed, I know this and either of those options are totally not viable in a first-world country, especially one such as the USA. Problem is, more and more I get the feeling that the broken bipartisan systems in the UK and US are not going to stop any time soon and the longer we carry on like this, the longer our governments are like a bunch of whiny first-years, the more we are making ourselves look stupid and dragging the rest of the world down with our inability to do anything right. When is it going to stop? And more importantly, how?

Murderers and mass shooters will get guns and use them whether it's legal to use them or not.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37119213]If you are unable to call them, that's essentially implying you don't have access to a telephone. (And mobile phones are much more common than guns). Let us say that you keep your gun and mobile phone on your side table. If you are unable to use your phone due to the criminal preventing you from doing so, how are you going to use your gun?[/QUOTE] The idea behind home defense is that you hear the person break in and arm yourself. If the phone and gun are in the same place, you call the police and stay in your room covering the door with the gun.

This is good news. Yall don't need assault rifles, and shouldn't be able to easily obtain one. If you really want guns to protect yourself, or for sport, or whatever (which I disagree with too), you don't need an assault rifle. They are literally just for killing heaps of people really easily.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37119215]A home invasion is one thing, that it makes sense, but if you're walking down the street at night and suddenly you have a gun in your face and a voice asking for your wallet, what will you do? If you do something funny he's gonna shoot you because he has the edge here.[/QUOTE] So because pulling a gun in one situation is more dangerous than complying we shouldn't be able to have a weapon ever?

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;37119383]Murderers and mass shooters will get guns and use them whether it's legal to use them or not.[/QUOTE] That doesn't mean civillians need to have AR-15's lying around the house

[QUOTE=Rusty100;37119390]This is good news. Yall don't need assault rifles, and shouldn't be able to easily obtain one. If you really want guns to protect yourself, or for sport, or whatever (which I disagree with too), you don't need an assault rifle. They are literally just for killing heaps of people really easily.[/QUOTE] Have you not read the thread? The definition of "assault weapon" is laughably vague and focuses more on things that look threatening than things that are actually dangerous, which are generally tightly regulated as it is.

To the people always talking about armed robbers, incredibly deranged thieves and criminals hell bent on taking your lives, do you even KNOW what you're talking about? I live almost in the country, next to a severely under watched medium security prison, and sometimes thieves try go get into the apartment block. They are not serial killers. THIEVES DON'T CARRY GUNS. Thieves are incredibly prudent: they will never enter a house if they suspect someone is inside. They are easily scared. I have friends that live practically in the forest, and all they need to do to scare down thieves is leave a light on. Also, if you actually live in a place where the risk of getting mugged or robbed in plain sight in the streets is so high that you feel the need to bring a pistol with you the whole time, you should really consider to move the fuck out. Or, probably this is just an excuse to justify your attachment to a thing that was designed with the express purpose of killing another human being. I don't get it why you fail to see how morbid gun owners can get about their weapons

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37119401]That doesn't mean civillians need to have AR-15's lying around the house[/QUOTE] You haven't provided a reason why we shouldn't have the choice of doing so...

[QUOTE=dogmachines;37119398]So because pulling a gun in one situation is more dangerous than complying we shouldn't be able to have a weapon ever?[/QUOTE] not only because of that, but making guns availible will increase gun crime (just because a gun is legal doesn't mean it cannot be used for crime)

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;37119383]Murderers and mass shooters will get guns and use them whether it's legal to use them or not.[/QUOTE] Of course there will always be instances where people will be do whatever they can to kill someone, but there are many instances where attacks are spur-of-the-moment or dissuaded by lack of easy access to the right weapon.

[QUOTE=David29;37119420]Of course there will always be instances where people will be do whatever they can to kill someone, but there are many instances where attacks are spur-of-the-moment or dissuaded by lack of easy access to the right weapon.[/QUOTE] Not really... They just find another weapon usually.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;37119409]You haven't provided a reason why we shouldn't have the choice of doing so...[/QUOTE] Because it is in its entirety unnecessary to make weapons made for combat against humans readily availible for any civillians to buy.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;37119425]Not really... They just find another weapon usually.[/QUOTE] 'Usually'? What are you basing that on?

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37119412]not only because of that, but making guns availible will increase gun crime (just because a gun is legal doesn't mean it cannot be used for crime)[/QUOTE] Guns increasing gun crime is like saying having lungs increases the chance of having lung cancer.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37119412]not only because of that, but making guns availible will increase gun crime (just because a gun is legal doesn't mean it cannot be used for crime)[/QUOTE] "Gun crime" is not all crime. If you think more guns=more crime look at the Swiss. Military age males have automatic weapons in their homes, and gun crime is laughably low. Now look at DC. Back in 2006 it had some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and the violent crime rate was around 3 times that of the rest of the nation. The murder rate was around 5 times as high if memory serves.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;37118916]No. We have the right to bear arms in case something takes a turn for the worse. In case someone invades our country and we need to defend ourselves.[/QUOTE] Yooouuur cooouuntryyy is the highessst defensse spenddeerrr in the woooorllldddd

[QUOTE=David29;37119431]'Usually'? What are you basing that on?[/QUOTE] [quote]dissuaded by lack of easy access to the right weapon.[/quote] What are you basing this on? If someone has the intent of doing something they'll probably still do it.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37119401]That doesn't mean civillians need to have AR-15's lying around the house[/QUOTE] I think it's pretty fair to say that gun freaks and rednecks (the only people other than mass murderers that actually do that) are going to get a hold of these weapons and have them laying around the house regardless as a way of saying "Fug yew uhbawmuh n' ur tryin' ta take mah guns uhwey!"

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;37119442]Yooouuur cooouuntryyy is the highessst defensse spenddeerrr in the woooorllldddd[/QUOTE] That could change rather quickly. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] also nice hl2 reference

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37119263]No, I'm asking the exact opposite. I'm asking why somebody in a relatively safe area would require the same access to a gun somebody in a relatively dangerous area would. Several days away? So it's better to have shot some criminal/s and find somewhere to stick their decomposing corpse/s for a week? That's an example of a police force that needs [B]improving[/B]. The problem with using weapons to restrict government powers is that it results in one of either two cases (Eventually if you assume things are getting worse) 1. A civil war. 2. A violent revolution. And the problem there is that something like a revolution only results in the creation of another dictatorship if you use armed force to get rid of the old regime.[/QUOTE] We're talking about a FEDERAL law. AKA a law that applies to EVERY citizen of the USA. It doesn't matter if pleasantville has a crime rating of 0, some other town might not be so pleasant and those citizens might like to live through their occasional bump-ins with those who don't care what the law is. *edit* having guns doesn't mean were going to go over throw the govt. the only time we've ever had a civil war was over slavery... and thats a pretty big deal. I can't name another cause worthy of such insanity.

[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;37119408']To the people always talking about armed robbers, incredibly deranged thieves and criminals hell bent on taking your lives, do you even KNOW what you're talking about? I live almost in the country, next to a severely under watched medium security prison, and sometimes thieves try go get into the apartment block. They are not serial killers. THIEVES DON'T CARRY GUNS. Thieves are incredibly prudent: they will never enter a house if they suspect someone is inside. They are easily scared. I have friends that live practically in the forest, and all they need to do to scare down thieves is leave a light on. Also, if you actually live in a place where the risk of getting mugged or robbed in plain sight in the streets is so high that you feel the need to bring a pistol with you the whole time, you should really consider to move the fuck out. Or, probably this is just an excuse to justify your attachment to a thing that was designed with the express purpose of killing another human being. I don't get it why you fail to see how morbid gun owners can get about their weapons[/QUOTE] Criminals are not just some sort of hivemind with a singular way of doing things. I believe it is you who doesn't know what he is talking about. I lived half my life in the middle of the "ghetto." Over here you don't just leave a light on and suddenly there are no criminals around you. People here break into houses all the time when people are home infact a friend was robbed just last week and another one was next to a fatal shooting in the middle of a public bus so no, thieves are not just going to wait for you to leave your house. As I recall almost all guns were created with the sole person of the killing of another.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;37119426]Because it is in its entirety unnecessary to make weapons made for combat against humans readily availible for any civillians to buy.[/QUOTE] But why shouldn't I or someone else be allowed to own one?

[QUOTE=Zet;37118826]Why would any one want to collect things that can be used to kill people? As an Australian I honestly can't fathom an answer to my own question.[/QUOTE] That's stupid. I'm sure even Australians collect knives and stuff like that. Either one has kill potential along with a lot of other things that aren't even considered weapons.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;37119503]But why shouldn't I or someone else be allowed to own one?[/QUOTE] Because it makes it availible to anyone who wants to misuse one.