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

This sounds like a good idea, removing fully automatic weapons from the people would be a good addition too.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36959387]So what are the actual reasons why the public just need to own firearms in the US? The second amendment is outdated "Self defense" is stupid as people here have agreed and is just an excuse more than anything [/QUOTE] Everything about your post was just retarded. Self defense is an "excuse"? Well sorry for wanting to defend myself against people who find it a good idea to try to break into my home to steal shit. Oh, and please excuse all the people that work at places that have a high chance of being robbed at gun point, them owning a weapon for self defense is just an excuse. [QUOTE]"People will still illegally use firearms" and "It infringes on our personal freedoms" are both understandable, but still not good enough reasons imo[/QUOTE] Are you serious? So, it's ok for people to illegally own fire arms, but it's not ok for us to legally go and purchase them, so in a way, you're saying its NOT OK for us to defend ourselves against people who obtain firearms illegally? Also, [QUOTE]At the least, carrying a gun outside of your property should always be illegal[/QUOTE] Once again, had ANYONE in that movie theater been carrying a weapon, they could have killed James saving lives. But hey, it sounds like a great idea to not be able to legally own a firearm and carry one outside your home so the next time some whack job goes on a shooting spree, you can't legally defend yourself.

[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;36957622]bombs are easy to make you see first step you need about 20 pounds of amonium nitrate and then[/QUOTE] Bombs ARE easy to make. And a van filled with fertilizer and ball bearings is much more deadly than an assault rifle with a beta-C magazine. You can make a bomb out of home materials, you can make napalm from home materials.

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;36961025]This sounds like a good idea, removing fully automatic weapons from the people would be a good addition too.[/QUOTE] Automatics are heavily regulated, and cost a metric fuckton. You will almost never see an actually legal automatic... It'll usually be homemade or it'll be a modded weapon.

So people can actually understand what a real machine gun costs, here are some examples from a LEGAL buy/sell/trade forum for these types of weapons... [URL="http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=150291"]Early model M-16 for $12,000 Thompson SMG for $38,000[/URL] [URL="http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=150288"]M-60 LMG for $69,990[/URL] [URL="http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=150162"]HK G3 rifle $9,000[/URL] [url=http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/nfa4sale.cgi?read=150070]Chinese made AK47 $17,950[/url] Gotta say, prices are lower than I remember. Must be the economy. But they must be shipped to a specially registered dealer, and the buyer must wait 6 to 9 months for the ATF to complete his background check before he can pick it up.

The only reason it costs so much is because your sweetheart Ronald McDonald signed the machine gun ban.

Fuck the Hughes Amendment. That is all I have to say.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;36961801]Fuck the Hughes Amendment. That is all I have to say.[/QUOTE] Yep. And not even because of the content. Because it was passed illegally.

I think it's fun to set off biological weapons in my backyard. Can I buy one now?

If you know what you need and can avoid looking suspicious buying all required materials, yes.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36959749]Oh, and the tonnes of unnecessary deaths that they cause[/QUOTE] Right, because we just sit there and sing kumbaya while someone steals all our shit/hurts members of our family/damages our property. Sorry, if you come to my house with the intent to do any of those things you have another thing coming.

[QUOTE=HyperGenesis;36962118]Right, because we just sit there and sing kumbaya while someone steals all our shit/hurts members of our family/damages our property. Sorry, if you come to my house with the intent to do any of those things you have another thing coming.[/QUOTE] A life is worth more than a television set.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36962726]A life is worth more than a television set.[/QUOTE] Plus insurance pays for it anyways, so why put yourself in a dangerous position.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36962726]A life is worth more than a television set.[/QUOTE] The problem is, does that robber value your life more than that TV set?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36962726]A life is worth more than a television set.[/QUOTE] My families safety takes priority over the life of a B&E thief. What happens when a member of my family stands between him and what the thief wants? You can argue morals and semantics all you want, when it gets to the reality of the situation, someone is going to die and it won't be the people that live in my house.

I wouldn't shoot the thief even if I had a weapon. It's not worth taking a human life over losing a TV set. Robbers are not murderous maniacs who want everyone dead. Just think about this: there are 3 motivations for murder. Profit, passion and compulsion. The robber does not profit off your death in any way, the robber most likely does not live in the same neighborhood as you, and if he hated you so much he wanted you dead, he'd have offed you much much earlier.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36962787]Plus insurance pays for it anyways, so why put yourself in a dangerous position.[/QUOTE] That is, if you actually have good insurance.

[QUOTE=HyperGenesis;36962118]Right, because we just sit there and sing kumbaya while someone steals all our shit/hurts members of our family/damages our property. Sorry, if you come to my house with the intent to do any of those things you have another thing coming.[/QUOTE] Implying that burglars do what they do with the intent of killing people. Just as sobotnik said, possessions aren't worth as much as people's lives be they criminals or not. Using lethal force only makes sense when the people you're defending against are out to murder you, which is not often the case. Allowing citizens to use firearms against criminals allows them as individuals to decide on the spur of the moment whether the criminals they should die or not, rather than handing those responsibilties to the justice system. I don't even agree with capital punishment so why should I agree with this? Guns kill, not incapacitate, and more than anything else they just cause things to escalate beyond what is necessary. Imo tasers would do the job just as well and prevent many unnecessary deaths. Common sense, man. Allowing people to use [I]guaranteed[/I] lethal force against criminals is not a good thing

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36962726]A life is worth more than a television set.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. But if someone breaks into my house, how do I know he's there just to steal my television set? How do I know he isn't on PCP? How do I know he's not a rapist? How do I know that I am safe in my own home when someone has just violated that safety? If you're assuming, 'Oh, he's just a robber' when someone breaks into your house, you're playing a dangerous game. You don't know what that person's intent is, but you do have a pretty good idea that they are willing to enter your home regardless of the laws that prohibit it. So why wouldn't you want to be prepared to protect yourself?

[QUOTE=Daemonshadow;36963667]Absolutely. But if someone breaks into my house, how do I know he's there just to steal my television set? How do I know he isn't on PCP? How do I know he's not a rapist? How do I know that I am safe in my own home when someone has just violated that safety? If you're assuming, 'Oh, he's just a robber' when someone breaks into your house, you're playing a dangerous game. You don't know what that person's intent is, but you do have a pretty good idea that they are willing to enter your home regardless of the laws that prohibit it. So why wouldn't you want to be prepared to protect yourself?[/QUOTE] and what happens if you assume he's here to kill you and it turns out he was unarmed and nonthreatening? you're playing a dangerous game too. what ifs don't justify lethal force. if you don't know their intent, then your life isn't in immediate danger. only then is lethal force justified.

[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;36963350]I wouldn't shoot the thief even if I had a weapon. It's not worth taking a human life over losing a TV set. Robbers are not murderous maniacs who want everyone dead. Just think about this: there are 3 motivations for murder. Profit, passion and compulsion. The robber does not profit off your death in any way, the robber most likely does not live in the same neighborhood as you, and if he hated you so much he wanted you dead, he'd have offed you much much earlier.[/QUOTE] Better got tell all the victims of serial killers that their TV wasn't worth a life when someone broke into their home with the sole intent to MURDER THEM. [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36963856]and what happens if you assume he's here to kill you and it turns out he was unarmed and nonthreatening? you're playing a dangerous game too. what ifs don't justify lethal force. if you don't know their intent, then your life isn't in immediate danger. only then is lethal force justified.[/QUOTE] Oh yes, because everyone that BREAKS INTO A HOME has the best of intentions right? Same as everyone that goes and robs a gas stations, their doing it with the safety of other people in mind first.

[QUOTE=Resfan;36963859]Better got tell all the victims of serial killers that their TV wasn't worth a life when someone broke into their home with the sole intent to MURDER THEM. Oh yes, because everyone that BREAKS INTO A HOME has the best of intentions right? Same as everyone that goes and robs a gas stations, their doing it with the safety of other people in mind first.[/QUOTE] the only intent that can be discerned from someone who breaks into a home is that they mean to break into a home. that does not imply murder. no one's saying you can't defend yourself with lethal force if someone's going to murder you. but your life has to be immediately in danger. a guy who breaks into your house isn't actively threatening your life therefore you are not justified in shooting him.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36963911]the only intent that can be discerned from someone who breaks into a home is that they mean to break into a home. that does not imply murder. no one's saying you can't defend yourself with lethal force if someone's going to murder you. but your life has to be immediately in danger. a guy who breaks into your house isn't actively threatening your life therefore you are not justified in shooting him.[/QUOTE] So, you're defending people that break into peoples homes? Very weird. You're also saying that someone is going to be able to assess a person who has just broken into their home and identify that he doesn't have a weapon? Thanks, but, I would rather value my life over that of some low life who just broken into my house and may or may not be armed.

[QUOTE=Resfan;36963958]So, you're defending people that break into peoples homes? Very weird. You're also saying that someone is going to be able to assess a person who has just broken into their home and identify that he doesn't have a weapon? Thanks, but, I would rather value my life over that of some low life who just broken into my house and may or may not be armed.[/QUOTE] where in my post did i say i was defending burglars? just because i said you can't fucking shoot anyone you want to like some wannabe cowboy? if you shoot the first thing that walks through the door and it turns out he was unarmed, then you're gonna enjoy a manslaughter charge.

[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] Noew replace US with Great Britain and pretend we're in 1775.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36964079]Noew replace US with Great Britain and pretend we're in 1775.[/QUOTE] The technological gap between the colonists and the British were less than modern day citizens and the US military. The British had to cross a huge ocean The British were being squeezed by France, a comparable world power at the time. Not to mention the fact that armed rebellion resulting in a stable democracy is a statistical exception.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964012]where in my post did i say i was defending burglars? just because i said you can't fucking shoot anyone you want to like some wannabe cowboy? if you shoot the first thing that walks through the door and it turns out he was unarmed, then you're gonna enjoy a manslaughter charge.[/QUOTE] Oh, but I wouldn't actually shoot unless I needed too. Pointing a shotgun at a person is enough to make them stop or run off. I've been in said situation before and you don't have time to identify if the person has a weapon or not before they try to move to grab one or run off. You thinking you're going to be able to verify if the person had a weapon or not before shit hits the fan is a pipe dream.

[QUOTE=Resfan;36964143]Oh, but I wouldn't actually shoot. Pointing a shotgun at a person is enough to make them stop or run off. I've been in said situation before and you don't have time to identify if the person has a weapon or not before they try to move to grab one or run off.[/QUOTE] and if they do try to aim a weapon or otherwise attack you, then by all means blow them away, but not a moment sooner than that. if you can't verify that someone is a threat, then they are not an immediate threat to your life. this is simple thinking.

A more approximate scenario for a sudden government takeover using the military (hugely unlikely but we will go with your hypothetical for now) would be similar to the occupation of Afghanistan with two major caveats: The US government actually knows the land it's fighting in, and doesn't have to send men, materiel, and resources across the world. The idea that a few million people with handguns and semi-automatic rifles are going to take down the tyrannical United States government wielding the most sophisticated fighting force the world has ever seen on it's own territory is insane.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964169]and if they do try to aim a weapon or otherwise attack you, then by all means blow them away, but not a moment sooner than that. if you can't verify that someone is a threat, then they are not an immediate threat to your life. this is simple thinking.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't feel sorry if some idiot got killed after breaking into a home, I really wouldn't. Also, when you're in fear for your life, you don't have time for "simple thinking", you do the first thing that comes to your mind regarding the safety of your person. Fight or flight. Also, I would never assume that a burglar would be unarmed. That'd be just stupid to think that.