Civil War Soon? Utah Sheriffs threaten War against the Federal Government If they Try to Seize Gun V - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Van-man;39313359]GG, now you're just further promoting taking guns away if you're ready to jump the gun instead of proper political action.[/QUOTE] I usually disagree with Van-man on just about everything, but he's exactly right. If we go about this the wrong way, firearm owners will easily be labeled terrorist, and then they'll have a real reason to grab the guns.

[QUOTE=Hatley;39313507]Fact is the constitution was written hundreds of years ago. Times change.[/QUOTE] Generally when someone mentions the term "fact is" before their statement, they tend to be spouting idiocy, unless it's a sarcastic response to said original "fact is" statement. Of course I just made a generalization, but it's common enough to hold water.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39322991]Of a [I][B]free[/B][/I] state. Taking away freedoms isn't what free states do.[/QUOTE] just gonna pop in and say that sometimes a free state must take away or minimize some amount of freedoms to preserve its philosophy and the safety and comfort of its citizens

[QUOTE=Cone;39325680]just gonna pop in and say that sometimes a free state must take away or minimize some amount of freedoms to preserve its philosophy and the safety and comfort of its citizens[/QUOTE] that's not really a "free state" then, more like a "state of expedience/convenience".

You know I sometimes wonder if the people who make these threats of overthrowing the government actually consider the social and economic ramifications of rebellion/civil war. Seems some of these people think they can just grab a gun and kick down the door of the White House, and everything will be sunshine and rainbows. I think if the shit truly hit the fan, a lot of people might not be so willing to stare down a professionally-trained military. How willing are these people to shoulder the cost of their fellow countrymen? It's an interesting train of thought.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39325934]that's not really a "free state" then, more like a "state of expedience/convenience".[/QUOTE] You're not free to rape and murder, so I guess your state isn't free. Owning guns is in no way equatable to freedom. If I want to own a gun, I have to demonstrate that I really, really need it (For hunting or related employment), pass an assload of checks, build a fort knox-esque gun cabinet and then apply, and even then only for rifles/shotguns. And I am most definitely free. More free, I'd argue, than most citizens of the States. I never have to worry about some douchebag with an Assault Rifle ending my life prematurely. (Other than rare freak occurences, but that'll never happen out where I live) So I'm free to live my life without that fear. Far better that freedom than the freedom to own weapons who's only purpose is to cause death to other people in great numbers with great ease.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39325934]that's not really a "free state" then, more like a "state of expedience/convenience".[/QUOTE] Well some form of action is definitely necessary. Would you object to strict gun control as much as you would a full-on ban? Because I think that's the best way to go about this.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39325991]You're not free to rape and murder, so I guess your state isn't free. Owning guns is in no way equatable to freedom. If I want to own a gun, I have to demonstrate that I really, really need it (For hunting or related employment), pass an assload of checks, build a fort knox-esque gun cabinet and then apply, and even then only for rifles/shotguns. And I am most definitely free. More free, I'd argue, than most citizens of the States.[/QUOTE] well i wasn't speaking specifically about that with my post, but whatever. and freedom isn't something that you can measure in such a linear matter. one state might have better freedom of speech, while the another might have better religious freedoms. and btw i don't consider the us a "free state", not by a long shot. [quote]I never have to worry about some douchebag with an Assault Rifle ending my life prematurely. (Other than rare freak occurences, but that'll never happen out where I live) So I'm free to live my life without that fear.[/quote] i never have to worry about that either and tons of people own assault weapons around me. if you are truly scared that someone is going to shoot you for no reason you should board yourself up in a tiny box, or better yet, check into a mental asylum. [quote]Far better that freedom than the freedom to own weapons who's only purpose is to cause death to other people in great numbers with great ease.[/quote] "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin. It's a bit ridiculous to say by limiting your ability to own an object you are actually enhancing your freedom. [editline]23rd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Cone;39326015]Well some form of action is definitely necessary. Would you object to strict gun control as much as you would a full-on ban? Because I think that's the best way to go about this.[/QUOTE] some form of action is definitely necessary? why would you say that? i mean i don't disagree with you(necessarily), but i don't see how you identify that some form of action is necessary and that action is strict gun control.

See, I disagree with you on "Right to own assault weapon" as an essential liberty. I don't even comprehend how it can be considered as such. Essential liberties are things like my right to vote, right to life, right to freedom of religion, etc etc. Things that are essential to a free, peaceful and productive life. Firearms do not constitute an "Essential Liberty" and it, I think, reveals a really disturbed part of the American Psyche that you guys do consider it to be one.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39326087]See, I disagree with you on "Right to own assault weapon" as an essential liberty. I don't even comprehend how it can be considered as such. Essential liberties are things like my right to vote, right to life, right to freedom of religion, etc etc. Things that are essential to a free, peaceful and productive life. Firearms do not constitute an "Essential Liberty" and it, I think, reveals a really disturbed part of the American Psyche that you guys do consider it to be one.[/QUOTE] i don't consider firearms necessarily an essential liberty. i consider owning safe objects for my own personal use without government intrusion an essential liberty.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39326097]i don't consider firearms necessarily an essential liberty. i consider owning safe objects for my own personal use without government intrusion an essential liberty.[/QUOTE] I think it's been fairly well demonstrated that Assault weapons and guns in general are inherently not safe objects. They can be handled safely, but they are not safe at all - which is rather the whole point. Strict control of such objects only makes sense. (Also, the people who feel that they need to own them to "FIGHT TYRANNY! YEEHAW!" [not directed at you yawmwen] are completely deluded if they think their weapons would help them if your government really rounded on it's people. Because they'd be so useful against the equipment of the modern military, such as drones, tanks, gunship helicopters etc. And that, I think, reveals another reason they need to be controlled in the States. There is a dangerous tendency towards delusion and fantasy amongst the most outspoken proponents of free access to all guns.)

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39325991] I never have to worry about some douchebag with an Assault Rifle ending my life prematurely. (Other than rare freak occurences, but that'll never happen out where I live) So I'm free to live my life without that fear[/QUOTE] Literally no rational American worries about getting shot by an assault rifle. Do all English people worry about how much other people worry?

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39326136]Literally no rational American worries about getting shot by an assault rifle. Do all English people worry about how much other people worry?[/QUOTE] With your gun homicide statistics, even if you don't consciously worry about it, you're still playing in that roulette. I'm not, unless I go to certain parts of London. And considering I live in Scotland, away from any cities, about the only way I'm getting shot is if I accidentally get shot by Landowners in the country.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39326143]With your gun homicide statistics, even if you don't consciously worry about it, you're still playing in that roulette. I'm not, unless I go to certain parts of London. And considering I live in Scotland, away from any cities, about the only way I'm getting shot is if I accidentally get shot by Landowners in the country.[/QUOTE] Is it so dreary in GB that you worry daily about what unlikely ways you'll die?

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39326143]With your gun homicide statistics, even if you don't consciously worry about it, you're still playing in that roulette. I'm not, unless I go to certain parts of London. And considering I live in Scotland, away from any cities, about the only way I'm getting shot is if I accidentally get shot by Landowners in the country.[/QUOTE] What? Do you think the entire United States is magically dangerous? We are probably safer in rural areas than you are.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39326115]I think it's been fairly well demonstrated that Assault weapons and guns in general are inherently not safe objects. They can be handled safely, but they are not safe at all - which is rather the whole point. Strict control of such objects only makes sense. (Also, the people who feel that they need to own them to "FIGHT TYRANNY! YEEHAW!" [not directed at you yawmwen] are completely deluded if they think their weapons would help them if your government really rounded on it's people. Because they'd be so useful against the equipment of the modern military, such as drones, tanks, gunship helicopters etc. And that, I think, reveals another reason they need to be controlled in the States. There is a dangerous tendency towards delusion and fantasy amongst the most outspoken proponents of free access to all guns.)[/QUOTE] By your logic anything that can be handled safely, but are not safe at all can be applicable to mostly everything or anything used in modern day. And rather it is not to specifically be able to fight the government, but give an actual fighting chance if the government ever devolves into facism. Yes, people will not stand a chance with a gun against a modern military force, but that chance is marginally greater than those whom have none.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39326153]Is it so dreary in GB that you worry daily about what unlikely ways you'll die?[/QUOTE] No, but we're discussing assault weapons and why they should be controlled, so of course this is going to come up. And, actually, I'm an Ecologist, which means I do work on Estate grounds where sport shooting takes place, so I do have to be aware of it, make sure landowners know in advance that I will be working, etc to make sure I don't get shot (Though some might like to shoot me, they have, so far, refrained) [editline]23rd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Keyblockor;39326167]By your logic anything that can be handled safely, but are not safe at all can be applicable to mostly everything or anything used in modern day. And rather it is not to specifically be able to fight the government, but give an actual fighting chance if the government ever devolves into facism. Yes, people will not stand a chance with a gun against a modern military force, but that chance is marginally greater than those whom have none.[/QUOTE] Except Guns are a very specific example where they are a dangerous object which has little utility in day to day living. Asides from hunting and sport shooting, they have no legitimate utility (One that does not infringe on the right of others to live). And our control works perfectly well for those purposes.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39326115]I think it's been fairly well demonstrated that Assault weapons and guns in general are inherently not safe objects. They can be handled safely, but they are not safe at all - which is rather the whole point.Strict control of such objects only makes sense.(Also, the people who feel that they need to own them to "FIGHT TYRANNY! YEEHAW!" [not directed at you yawmwen] are completely deluded if they think their weapons would help them if your government really rounded on it's people. Because they'd be so useful against the equipment of the modern military, such as drones, tanks, gunship helicopters etc. And that, I think, reveals another reason they need to be controlled in the States. There is a dangerous tendency towards delusion and fantasy amongst the most outspoken proponents of free access to all guns.)[/QUOTE] yea but you can make the argument that a lot of items are unsafe when handled improperly.guns are not dangerous in the hands of a responsible person, you are more likely to die in a car accident then shot. my problem is that the burden of proof should be on government to show that limiting these items will make us significantly safer, but no group has really met this burden of proof.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39326143]With your gun homicide statistics, even if you don't consciously worry about it, you're still playing in that roulette. I'm not, unless I go to certain parts of London. And considering I live in Scotland, away from any cities, about the only way I'm getting shot is if I accidentally get shot by Landowners in the country.[/QUOTE] The roulette is 0.0087%, by the way. And as for your point with Scotland, same can be said about where I live[Bismarck, North Dakota]. The population is roughly 60,000, and we've only had roughly six homicides through out the entire state. By the way, did I forget to mention that 50.7% of North Dakota's population owns a firearm of some sort? It's funny really... It seems the reality of firearm homicide[or overall violence] occurs in areas where theirs poor healthcare, unemployment issues, or simply mixing culture together[250K Population Centers yay].

"Today an American has a .000039% chance of being killed by an assault weapon, while I only have a .000000039% chance, Glad I'm not American!"

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39326168]No, but we're discussing assault weapons and why they should be controlled, so of course this is going to come up.And, actually, I'm an Ecologist, which means I do work on Estate grounds where sport shooting takes place, so I do have to be aware of it, make sure landowners know in advance that I will be working, etc to make sure I don't get shot (Though some might like to shoot me, they have, so far, refrained)[editline]23rd January 2013[/editline]Except Guns are a very specific example where they are a dangerous object which has little utility in day to day living. Asides from hunting and sport shooting, they have no legitimate utility (One that does not infringe on the right of others to live). And our control works perfectly well for those purposes.[/QUOTE] is home defense or recreation not a legitimate utility to you?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39326178]yea but you can make the argument that a lot of items are unsafe when handled improperly.guns are not dangerous in the hands of a responsible person, you are more likely to die in a car accident then shot. my problem is that the burden of proof should be on government to show that limiting these items will make us significantly safer, but no group has really met this burden of proof.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate[/url] Compare the US to nations with strict gun regulation, such as the UK. And don't go "THESE RATES ARE NOT COMPARABLE!" they are per 100 000, which makes them comparable measures. There is also the Australian proof, which you can look up yourself because I'm working, but compare their homicide rates due to guns before and after they instated gun control, and then come talk. Yes homicide rates were falling before the control was instigated, but there have been studies which suggest that the reason it kept declining after gun control was due, in part, to gun control. [editline]23rd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;39326192]is home defense or recreation not a legitimate utility to you?[/QUOTE] Recreation = Sport Shooting or Hunting. Range shooting could be regulated in such a way that the dream machines can be shot at them, but not brought home. Home defense? I can defend my home other ways, if I need to. Ways that are less likely to be fatal for the invader. That's also why we have law enforcement.

wait why is facepunch not letting me make paragraphs. fuck you facepunch. nevermind unfuck you facepunch [editline]23rd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Craigewan;39326194][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate[/URL] Compare the US to nations with strict gun regulation, such as the UK. And don't go "THESE RATES ARE NOT COMPARABLE!" they are per 100 000, which makes them comparable measures. There is also the Australian proof, which you can look up yourself because I'm working, but compare their homicide rates due to guns before and after they instated gun control, and then come talk.[/QUOTE] violent crime also increased, making you guys less safe in many ways. banning weapons doesn't address the actual causes of crime. it only seeks to lower the amount of gun deaths, which is incredibly small anyways(depending on area, some places it's actually really high) [quote]Recreation = Sport Shooting or Hunting. Range shooting could be regulated in such a way that the dream machines can be shot at them, but not brought home.[/quote] but why do we need to regulate it? who exactly am i harming by going out to some private land and shooting some milk jugs with an ar-15? [quote]Home defense? I can defend my home other ways, if I need to. Ways that are less likely to be fatal for the invader. That's also why we have law enforcement.[/quote] law enforcement is horribly ineffective in many places in the usa.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39326194] Home defense? I can defend my home other ways, if I need to. Ways that are less likely to be fatal for the invader[/quote] [Img]http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTUzMzg4MTg2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNDM4OTk4._V1._SY317_CR6,0,214,317_.jpg[/img] [quote]That's also why we have law enforcement.[/QUOTE] lol 10 minute response time please don't hurt me Mr criminal

I don't compare my country to another country, because the circumstances are pretty different. We need to end violence. Lets start from the ground level... Legalize prostitution and every drug. Add some taxes and such, but otherwise undercut the living hell out of street gangs. Right there we've just taken the funding from these gangs, cartels, and syndicates, and forwarded it directly to the government via taxes. Use the taxes to fund an NHS, but allow those who wish to retain private healthcare to do so. If funds are left over recirculate them into creating jobs for fixing/repairing the infrastructure, thus killing any form of unemployment issues for those who are now pardoned from jail for crimes relating to drugs and prostitution[so long as they don't have other crimes attached]. Ban Firearm Buyback Programs if their primary purpose is to destroy materials. Instead... Purchase the firearms from owners and give them TLC. Put them on auction sites and use the funds from them to fund education, poverty stricken areas, and the local communities from where the firearms appeared from. This is at least how I would start fixing things. I've experienced first hand how violent the blackmarket for drugs[oxycodone] can be, and it's just going to progressively get worse if we don't put an end to anti-drug regulations.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39326245][Img] http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTUzMzg4MTg2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNDM4OTk4._V1._SY317_CR6,0,214,317_.jpg[/img] lol 10 minute response time please don't hurt me Mr criminal[/QUOTE] I didn't realise you were incapable of locking yourself in other rooms. How horrible to live in a country with no locks.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39326194][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate[/url] Compare the US to nations with strict gun regulation, such as the UK. And don't go "THESE RATES ARE NOT COMPARABLE!" they are per 100 000, which makes them comparable measures. [/QUOTE] In related news we also have significantly greater numbers of bear maulings in the United States. It must have something to do with the presence of bears. Firearm related deaths is a useless statistic for the layman. Using it in a firearm discussion generally either means you are too ignorant to recognize the simple fallacy of the statistic or are attempting to sway the numbers in your favor in the hopes that you can shock your opponent. Both are silly. Overall crime rates with a focus on overall violent crime rates coupled with a close look at the population density and the number of major population centers will give you a rough idea of the actual situation. Firearms are widely available. Nobody is surprised that they get used in crime, the question is ultimately whether or not more crime actually occurs as a result. The answer is probably not. [editline]23rd January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Craigewan;39326295]I didn't realise you were incapable of locking yourself in other rooms. How horrible to live in a country with no locks.[/QUOTE] You must live somewhere with expensive interior doors. Exterior doors resist damage to a degree, but an adult should be capable of kicking in an interior door with basically no resistance. They are for privacy, not security.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39326301]In related news we also have significantly greater numbers of bear maulings in the United States. It must have something to do with the presence of bears. Firearm related deaths is a useless statistic for the layman. Using it in a firearm discussion generally either means you are too ignorant to recognize the simple fallacy of the statistic or are attempting to sway the numbers in your favor in the hopes that you can shock your opponent. Both are silly. Overall crime rates with a focus on overall violent crime rates coupled with a close look at the population density and the number of major population centers will give you a rough idea of the actual situation. Firearms are widely available. Nobody is surprised that they get used in crime, the question is ultimately whether or not more crime actually occurs as a result. The answer is probably not. [editline]23rd January 2013[/editline] You must live somewhere with expensive interior doors. Exterior doors resist damage to a degree, but an adult should be capable of kicking in an interior door with basically no resistance. They are for privacy, not security.[/QUOTE] i can open (most)interior locks with a butter knife.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;39326295]I didn't realise you were incapable of locking yourself in other rooms. How horrible to live in a country with no locks.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between a man whom is raiding your home to get your stuff, and raiding your home to kill you. You're not counting that a human being is adaptable, lock yourself behind a frail wooden door and watch as he will find any object in your household to pulverize, smash, splinter or break the door. And a man whom is breaking a wooden door will get to you faster than the police to your house.

[QUOTE=Keyblockor;39326372]There's a difference between a man whom is raiding your home to get your stuff, and raiding your home to kill you. You're not counting that a human being is adaptable, lock yourself behind a frail wooden door and watch as he will find any object in your household to pulverize, smash, splinter or break the door. And a man whom is breaking a wooden door will get to you faster than the police to your house.[/QUOTE] What do they make doors out of in America? Almost every door I've ever encountered in a domestic situation would take more than the police response time to break through. Unless you happen to have an axe in your house or your home invader has one, which are not terribly likely. And then, there are other ways to defend yourself. My home defence is a baseball bat, if I ever need to use it will be more than enough. Guns are unnecessary for home defence, and just lead to fatalities where none should be.