Barack Obama vows to pursue gun measures in wake of latest massacre - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36953980]if pulling ad hominem attacks out of his ass literally every post isnt trolling, then I dont know what is[/QUOTE] ur black mr kettle

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36953977]It's pretty possible to have a system where the government and the people work together in a common interest. [/quote] Maybe Im just a pessimist or something, but it seems like most governments are always slowly striving for more power. People are always going to inevitably fear the people that control the military and police forces in a country (for good reason) [quote] Especially since the government and the people are the same thing, and whenever one is not capable, the system is doomed to failure.[/QUOTE] So, pretty much every system then? :v: edit: [QUOTE=Ownederd;36954010]ur black mr kettle[/QUOTE] wow what an excellent contribution to the thread im sure glad you were here to call me out on my hypocritical ways!

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36954017] So, pretty much every system then? :v:[/QUOTE] Well a lot of governments have been ousted because they weren't what the people wanted. Some governments manage to avoid this by adapting to changing times and conditions and in the process they keep the people pleased.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36954051]Well a lot of governments have been ousted because they weren't what the people wanted. Some governments manage to avoid this by adapting to changing times and conditions and in the process they keep the people pleased.[/QUOTE] Really though, no government has ever succeeded in keeping the people pleased forever. Even governments that last hundreds of years eventually cock up somehow. Ill bet money that someday (not in the near future, probably not even in our lifetimes) western civilization will undergo a massive upheaval of some sort due to one factor or another. No system can really please everyone forever

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36954132] No system can really please everyone forever[/QUOTE] Yes, that's why systems of government usually adapt.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36953825]because the US military has infinitely more resources, more technology, and more organization at their disposal? drones are a p big deal considering they will literally destroy your rebellion (and your antique tanks) without you having much say in the matter. so ya you're either insane[/QUOTE] Iran kinda proved that false...

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36954181]Yes, that's why systems of government usually adapt.[/QUOTE] I'd say that more haven't than have, pretty much every country has had a violent revolution/civil war at some point in relatively recent history.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36954017]wow what an excellent contribution to the thread im sure glad you were here to call me out on my hypocritical ways![/QUOTE] there's also 0 need for you to be sarcastic about the fact that you're generally, i don't know, making unneeded comments that are only unsavory pot shots? l o l

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36954211]I'd say that more haven't than have, pretty much every country has had a violent revolution/civil war at some point in relatively recent history.[/QUOTE] I agree, but it doesn't discount that there's quite a fair number which manage to be peaceful. The past 2 centuries for the British, Swedes, Swiss for example haven't seen a violent revolution or civil war like those that have happened elsewhere. (The French managing about 3 or 4 in the 19th century alone)

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36953837]so yeah theres drones and.. everything else the US military has. everything you can scrounge and struggle to obtain, the military has x1000 in terms of quantity, quality and technological advancement. not to mention proper training for operating the shit and organization[/QUOTE] The US military, if forced against its population, may have a few million soldiers willing to fight. Many would turn and bring as much as they can with them after being told to kill their friends and family. A few million members of the US army versus, well, how many guns are in the US? 270 million? Now, of course, not every citizen will be rushing to borrow their neighbour's Beretta to fight Uncle Sam, but assuming that these are in the hands of 48% of the US population, and that at least half of them are prepared to use their guns, that leaves approximately 74.5 million US citizens. That against a few million in the army, I'm sure you know the term "quantity over quality," yes? No matter how much high-tech shit the government/army has, if there's a big enough opposition, the sheer numbers will win in the end. Look at Russia and Germany in WWII, Germany was fighting 2 battles, in the east and west, and they lost 8 million people, likely many of them to Russians. Nobody argues the Germans were amazingly equipped and trained, one of the best armies of the day, so then how did the Russians beat them, having an army comprised of guns made from pot metal and an army of farmers? Quantity. Stalin threw people at Germany until they fell, the Russians lost over 40 million people in WWII to the Germans, and they would have lost another 40 million if it meant winning. Sheer numbers will overrun training and technology, as long as there's enough of them. Not to mention every other country would jump at the opportunity to attack the US' military if it were to turn on its civilians, so you'd have the international opposition of Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and that's just getting started.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36954341]I agree, but it doesn't discount that there's quite a fair number which manage to be peaceful. The past 2 centuries for the British, Swedes, Swiss for example haven't seen a violent revolution or civil war like those that have happened elsewhere. (The French managing about 3 or 4 in the 19th century alone)[/QUOTE] No revolutions in England itself, you mean. The Brits didn't do real well with their american colonists or the Irish, if I recall :v: Even so, I still stand by my bet that western civilization will undergo a massive upheaval of some sort (Even Scandinavia has some dividing issues with immigration). Well, maybe not Switzerland, simply because they are wealthy as hell and are pretty much as contented as a country can be.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36953947]"i need my assault weapons so that one day i can overthrow the government in a violent revolution.." - a perfectly sane and rational person living in 2012 america[/QUOTE] The only thing you've done so far is rant about how guns are bad and will only hurt people. Please, actually put up a decent rational argument as to why we shouldn't be allowed such a broad freedom of firearms, besides saying, "I think that so-so could deal with sacrificing some guns for safety" or some general BS along those lines. Hell, plenty of people like to play with explosives knives and swords as well, guess we should ban those considering they can all kill eh?

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;36954708]The only thing you've done so far is rant about how guns are bad and will only hurt people. Please, actually put up a decent rational argument as to why we shouldn't be allowed such a broad freedom of firearms, besides saying, "I think that so-so could deal with sacrificing some guns for safety" or some general BS along those lines. Hell, plenty of people like to play with explosives knives and swords as well, guess we should ban those considering they can all kill eh?[/QUOTE] He also brought up how we'd all just kill each other with tanks, however citizens can legally own them and they fully operate. But, the only event I can think of when anybody went on a tank rampage, was committed by a US soldier with a Military tank. Go figure

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36954763]He also brought up how we'd all just kill each other with tanks, however citizens can legally own them and they fully operate. But, the only event I can think of when anybody went on a tank rampage, was committed by a US soldier with a Military tank. Go figure[/QUOTE] Yeah, his whole argument revolves around people shouldn't be trusted because [B]he thinks so.[/B] Yet we've had guns for the entire existence of our country and do perfectly fine. Yes, there will be isolated incidents in which plenty of people will die. To remove weapons from the public will do nothing but harm, as you only take the weapons away from the good people. Where as the bad who do not care about the law can go about and get them anyway. Gun laws won't stop anyone like this guy or Breivik, as they intend to break the law in the first place.

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;36954927] Yet we've had guns for the entire existence of our country and do perfectly fine. [/QUOTE] Well except for the vastly increased gun homicide and suicide rates.

[QUOTE=Trooper0315;36939847]Honestly, banning assault weapons will make no difference. Any semi-auto magazine fed gun will and can do the same job that any assault weapon can do.[/QUOTE] What is an assault weapon? You probably don't know, because no one does either. It's a made up term, and is basically only defined in California and some other east coast state as something that looks like an assault rifle but otherwise is your bog standard semi automatic intermediate caliber rifle, or a battle rifle. Real assault rifles are basically impossible to get. Unless you have 50,000 to blow or you're willing to become a class 3 weapons dealer, it simply will not happen. A person who bothers practicing with their AR-15 can easily do a combat reload in 2 seconds. All it takes is dropping the mag by pressing the release button, sliding a magazine in, and either pushing or slapping the bolt release. AK type rifles can easily be reloaded in 2-3 seconds by using a new mag to send the old one flying out, then rock it in and reach under the rifle with the supporting arm to rack the bolt. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7hi20TI_jA[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI7RWZNgF_A[/url] [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] Oh, and the old style battle rifles are just as fast: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iAop6GIt7Q[/url] The video doesn't show the bolt release, but in the M14/M1A you can either press a latch on the side like the AR-15/M4 series, or you can rack the bolt. The first is much faster though. Bolt actions are still completely capable of being fired incredibly quickly, and strippers can be reloaded quite quickly with a bit a practice: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFYZHLuxXZ8&feature=fvwrel[/url] Pistols are intensely fast for reload and are also semi auto: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJXNPo5krvw[/url] [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] Basically, the goal of trying to "stop homicides" by limiting maximum magazine sizes and eliminating cosmetic features is dumb. It is functionally impossible to try and stop people from killing other people by banning "assault weapons". Even things that aren't considered assault weapons can be fired as fast as one. Usually, battle rifles and bolt action rifles are even more powerful than "assault weapons", and shotguns are an order of magnitude more deadly than all of those. A bullet from a battle rifle will probably cause some shock trauma and internal bleeding. A shotgun's 00 buckshot will turn your internal organs to mush.

I think my guns are broken. I've never had the overwhelming desire to go kill the crap out of my neighbors. (Okay, except for that one time. But I drank the desire away). [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Joiksl.jpg[/IMG]

tl;dr The more important thing here is not trying to limit what we already have in most states, but to ensure that more level-headed citizens have training and conceal carry pistols to deter people from trying to do mass shootings. It's also pretty important to try our best and make sure that people who have psychological issues or evidence of violent tendencies to be completely banned from getting firearms at all.

[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;36955357]tl;dr The more important thing here is not trying to limit what we already have in most states, but to ensure that more level-headed citizens have training and conceal carry pistols to deter people from trying to do mass shootings.[/quote] Now [B]THAT[/B] I can agree with!

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36953947]"i need my assault weapons so that one day i can overthrow the government in a violent revolution.." - a perfectly sane and rational person living in 2012 america[/QUOTE] "Put absolute trust in the government because it could never become corrupt or totalitarian." - Kopimi living in 2012 fantasy land.

I stand by the assessment that violent gun crimes will be committed regardless of the legality of weapons and that responsibility for action must be put on the people who commit crimes, not all people with the ABILITY to commit them. We don't make liquor illegal just because drunk drivers kill people, we don't make swords illegal because you can stab someone with them, and we don't restrict the size of vehicles even though larger cars cause more damage in a collision. It's about responsibility of use and effectiveness of education and preventative means. This is just typical reactionary bullshit, it should be quietly scorned by both parties and then relegated to the sensationalist news graveyard along with every other similar event. I myself do not own a gun, but I may someday wish to and I support the right of any citizen of age and stability to own any firearm he wishes. In my mind the capacity for murder of a .38 Revolver is as equal as the capacity of an automatic rifle. It is in the purchasing and registration for weapons that stringent screening must be made the standard. Responsibility before infringement of rights is always the prerogative.

[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;36955357]tl;dr The more important thing here is not trying to limit what we already have in most states, but to ensure that more level-headed citizens have training and conceal carry pistols to deter people from trying to do mass shootings. It's also pretty important to try our best and make sure that people who have psychological issues or evidence of violent tendencies to be completely banned from getting firearms at all.[/QUOTE] it's hilarious that people think that if they had a gun they would have stopped the aurora shooting

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36939976]Why does any civilian have to demonstrate need to own a tool[/QUOTE] What exactly is something like an assault rifle used as a tool for Real tools were created to actually build things. Most are useless for killing people, others are deadly but impractical, and people wielding them with intent to do damage to others are more easily stopped. It is however not at all their purpose. But the only reason 'assault' weapons exist is to kill more people, more efficiently. No civilian needs to own one. No civilian should ever own one. Usually when they do, it's because they're planning to murder a bunch of people with it, with great ease.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;36955528] I myself do not own a gun, but I may someday wish to and I support the right of any citizen of age and stability to own any firearm he wishes. In my mind the capacity for murder of a .38 Revolver is as equal as the capacity of an automatic rifle.[/QUOTE] bullshit it is. automatic rifles are designed for killing large numbers of people in a very short time. the american citizen does not, under any circumstance, need a weapon with the capacity and purpose of mass-slaughter as not even home defence requires mass slaughter. otherwise, please tell me why american citizens shouldn't also be able to purchase mortars, crew-manned machine guns, grenade launchers, ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons - if "it's all about the owner, not the weapon", how can you justify drawing the line at just assault rifles? e: as above, essentially

[QUOTE=Rusty100;36955576]What exactly is something like an assault rifle used as a tool for Real tools were created to actually build things. Most are useless for killing people, others are deadly but impractical, and people wielding them with intent to do damage to others are more easily stopped. It is however not at all their purpose.[/QUOTE] I can kill you quite easily with a hammer or a knife or a car. There are 200,000,000 guns in private circulation in the US, as of 2010. Last week, a person used 3 of those to do something terrible. That leaves an awful lot of firearms out there doing no harm to anybody. I use my guns for target shooting, marksmanship training. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36955581]bullshit it is. automatic rifles are designed for killing large numbers of people in a very short time. the american citizen does not, under any circumstance, need a weapon with the capacity and purpose of mass-slaughter as not even home defence requires mass slaughter. otherwise, please tell me why american citizens shouldn't also be able to purchase mortars, crew-manned machine guns, grenade launchers, ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons - if "it's all about the owner, not the weapon", how can you justify drawing the line at just assault rifles? e: as above, essentially[/QUOTE] Only twice has an automatic weapon been used by an American citizen to commit a crime since they were banned in 1986. And one of those was by a cop.

[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36955581]bullshit it is. automatic rifles are designed for killing large numbers of people in a very short time. the american citizen does not, under any circumstance, need a weapon with the capacity and purpose of mass-slaughter as not even home defence requires mass slaughter. otherwise, please tell me why american citizens shouldn't also be able to purchase mortars, crew-manned machine guns, grenade launchers, ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons - if "it's all about the owner, not the weapon", how can you justify drawing the line at just assault rifles? e: as above, essentially[/QUOTE] You know they can get most of those things, right?

[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;36955357]tl;dr The more important thing here is not trying to limit what we already have in most states, but to ensure that more level-headed citizens have training and conceal carry pistols to deter people from trying to do mass shootings. It's also pretty important to try our best and make sure that people who have psychological issues or evidence of violent tendencies to be completely banned from getting firearms at all.[/QUOTE] At least in this particular case it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing to have multiple armed civilians in the theater. Nobody knew what was going on and then multiple people would be discharging weapons at each other in the darkness.

[QUOTE=Lazor;36955535]it's hilarious that people think that if they had a gun they would have stopped the aurora shooting[/QUOTE]Are you saying if there was someone with a gun there they wouldn't have been able to for some reason stop him? I mean it's dumb to analyze after the fact about this one shooting, but that's not what he said, obviously if someone were carrying a concealed weapon there and the conditions were right, that person could have arguably saved lives, what part about that sounds far-fetched? 'Obviously the bullet would have ricocheted and went through 100 baby skulls, why would people think another gun could have stopped him'

[QUOTE=Rusty100;36955576]What exactly is something like an assault rifle used as a tool for Real tools were created to actually build things. Most are useless for killing people, others are deadly but impractical, and people wielding them with intent to do damage to others are more easily stopped. It is however not at all their purpose. But the only reason 'assault' weapons exist is to kill more people, more efficiently. No civilian needs to own one. No civilian should ever own one. Usually when they do, it's because they're planning to murder a bunch of people with it, with great ease.[/QUOTE] Yes, I'm sure all those American's with AR-15's plan on going out and slaughtering their neighborhood.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36955603]Only twice has an automatic weapon been used by an American citizen to commit a crime since they were banned in 1986. And one of those was by a cop.[/QUOTE] Source? I find that incredibly hard to believe.