Mayor Predicts “Waco-Style Standoff” In Response to Obama Gun Confiscation - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Fort83;39258463]I understand that owning a gun is someones right, but to be honest not having a gun isn't the end of the world. There is more to life then owning a gun. There are a ton of things I'd rather buy over a gun.[/QUOTE] The ban is for all those near-military grade rifles. Any nut that is paranoid enough to start blasting when they come to take away his AK-47 is someone who shouldn't have a weapon like that in the first place. Doubt they'll do a mass confiscation though. It probably starts with plenty of hand-in opportunities while providing compensation, then over the course of the years they'll slap fines on people who haven't brought in their weapons. I don't think they'll try to confiscate until they've tried everything else. [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39258565]It's a right in the US to be able to own a firearm. Just because you'd rather buy a new graphics card instead of a new handgun, doesn't mean everyone else would too.[/QUOTE] The whole problem is that it's a right. A right that was given during a time it was actually relevant.

[QUOTE=Fort83;39258600]I know it's a right, but there are still more important things in life than owning a gun. And a new graphics card is pretty low on my list of stuff I'd like to buy.[/QUOTE] Of course there are more important things in life than someones hobby, but hobbies aren't about need. Not needing to own a firearm isn't justification to ban or confiscate it.

[QUOTE=Clavus;39258596]The ban is for all those near-military grade rifles. Any nut that is paranoid enough to start blasting when they come to take away his AK-47 is someone who shouldn't have a weapon like that in the first place. Doubt they'll do a mass confiscation though. It probably starts with plenty of hand-in opportunities while providing compensation, then over the course of the years they'll slap fines on people who haven't brought in their weapons. I don't think they'll try to confiscate until they've tried everything else.[/QUOTE] The thing is that we don't have a registry, so how will we know who has and doesn't have weapons? The only way to know is forced entries into home and them looking around and tossing your shit around to find something. It's kinda why we have the 4th amendment too. So that they couldn't do anything like that. I live in a country where the government chooses the respect a constitution, and I hold them accountable for that. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39258632]Of course there are more important things in life than someones hobby, but hobbies aren't about need. Not needing to own a firearm isn't justification to ban or confiscate it.[/QUOTE] For example, I'm uncomfortable around morbidly obese people. Doesn't mean I set out to impose food rations because of it.

[QUOTE=Clavus;39258596] The whole problem is that it's a right. A right that was given during a time it was actually relevant.[/QUOTE] The point of the second amendment is to give civilians the ability to help fight off foreign invasion or a tyrannical government. I doubt that either of those things will happen in my lifetime but it's better to have something and not need it than need it and not have it. Owning firearms and "assault weapons" doesn't make me or anyone like me anymore of a threat to the public.

And fucking hell. It's not a "Problem" to own a gun. It's only becomes a problem when you use it offensively against other people.

I think they need to confiscate frying pans, i mean they are assault weapons since they can be used to assault someone!

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39258632]Of course there are more important things in life than someones hobby, but hobbies aren't about need. Not needing to own a firearm isn't justification to ban or confiscate it.[/QUOTE] The hobby argument is a really poor one IMO. The idea that you should be allowed to own something just because it's fun to have and use, while firearms are used in all sorts of crime and cause the deaths of enormous numbers of people, comes across as callous at best. I think the need for self-defense and the intended principle of the second amendment are much stronger cases for guns than the fact that they're fun to have.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39258939]The hobby argument is a really poor one IMO. The idea that you should be allowed to own something just because it's fun to have and use, while firearms are used in all sorts of crime and cause the deaths of enormous numbers of people, comes across as callous at best. I think the need for self-defense and the intended principle of the second amendment are much stronger cases for guns than the fact that they're fun to have.[/QUOTE] And if you're able to obtain a firearm legally, you don't really need a reason other than that. Having one doesn't make you a criminal unless you choose to use one like that.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39258673]The point of the second amendment is to give civilians the ability to help fight off foreign invasion or a tyrannical government. I doubt that either of those things will happen in my lifetime but it's better to have something and not need it than need it and not have it. Owning firearms and "assault weapons" doesn't make me or anyone like me anymore of a threat to the public.[/QUOTE] The thing is, if you don't need it / it's no longer relevant, and it's becoming a thorn in the eye for a lot of people, why not do away with it. And the problem isn't necessarily people like you. The problem is weapons are dangerous and pretty damn good at killing things if something goes wrong. We have a lot of laws in society to restrict people from creating potential hazards. From speeding to owning a fully grown alligator in the suburbs. The restrictions on guns is mainly an attack on gun culture for most people. [QUOTE=catbarf;39258939]I think the need for self-defense and the intended principle of the second amendment are much stronger cases for guns than the fact that they're fun to have.[/QUOTE] Yet there's still plenty of weapons to choose from for self-defence. Unless you were planning to take on a drug cartel I think you could list any of the newly-restricted weapons as overkill. I don't expect US politicians will take it much further than this in the next decade. Gun legislation mainly seems to be a tug-o-war on the level of the most advanced weaponry and magazine sizes. All of it will probably be overturned by the next Republican president after which this shit-cycle continues.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39258939]The hobby argument is a really poor one IMO. The idea that you should be allowed to own something just because it's fun to have and use, while firearms are used in all sorts of crime and cause the deaths of enormous numbers of people, comes across as callous at best. I think the need for self-defense and the intended principle of the second amendment are much stronger cases for guns than the fact that they're fun to have.[/QUOTE] If there were 20,000 firearms in the US and there were 10,000 firearms related deaths a year I would agree with you. But there are over [b]300 million[/b] firearms in the US with around 10,000 deaths a year. Banning them and confiscating them will do absolutely no good. All you would be doing is taking the firearms out of already safe users who have harmed nobody and have no intention of doing so. I've said this several hundred times before since these debates flared up and I'll say it again. A better pursuit would be to work on poverty levels in urban environments, social issues, and our failing mental healthcare.

I am a responsible, mature gun owner and if anyone tries to take my guns I will immediately become a crazed gunman because that's an important part of being a responsible, mature gun owner.

You don't do away because some people are offended by it. That's the glory of America. You can do what you want (If it's within safe parameters) and be perfectly fine getting away with it. And think about it. How are you going to train yourself to use it for self defense? Target practice? Well that's a shooting sport. I wouldn't want a person to have a gun without training, and that's kind of a good issue that needs to be put up. And you do know that there are already laws put in place for guns right? Like you can't fucking carry one around in most places without being deemed suitable. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39259079]I am a responsible, mature gun owner and if anyone tries to take my guns I will immediately become a crazed gunman because that's an important part of being a responsible, mature gun owner.[/QUOTE] Most people wouldn't. Although it would happen in a few cases, because think about it. Why the hell do they need to go into your home and take away your property if you've done nothing wrong?

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39259084] And you do know that there are already laws put in place for guns right? Like you can't fucking carry one around in most places without being deemed suitable. [/QUOTE] well obviously they're not working well enough

[QUOTE=Clavus;39259026]The thing is, if you don't need it / it's no longer relevant, and it's becoming a thorn in the eye for a lot of people, why not do away with it. And the problem isn't necessarily people like you. The problem is weapons are dangerous and pretty damn good at killing things if something goes wrong. We have a lot of laws in society to restrict people from creating potential hazards. From speeding to owning a fully grown alligator in the suburbs. The restrictions on guns is mainly an attack on gun culture for most people. [/QUOTE] I never said the 2nd amm. wasn't need or that it was no longer relevant. The difference between owning an alligator and owning a rifle is that the rifle doesn't have a mind of it's own and isn't inherently aggressive. As I stated in my earlier post, there are over 300 million legal firearms in the US and only a small fraction of them are used in crimes. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39259079]I am a responsible, mature gun owner and if anyone tries to take my guns I will immediately become a crazed gunman because that's an important part of being a responsible, mature gun owner.[/QUOTE] Nobody is suggesting we start shooting cops that try and confiscate firearms. If they are, they aren't mature and sane firearms owners.

[QUOTE=Clavus;39258596]The ban is for all those near-military grade rifles. Any nut that is paranoid enough to start blasting when they come to take away his AK-47 is someone who shouldn't have a weapon like that in the first place. Doubt they'll do a mass confiscation though. It probably starts with plenty of hand-in opportunities while providing compensation, then over the course of the years they'll slap fines on people who haven't brought in their weapons. I don't think they'll try to confiscate until they've tried everything else. The whole problem is that it's a right. A right that was given during a time it was actually relevant.[/QUOTE] Says the guy who designed the sexiest virtual weapon designer ever :P Really, if it was relevant then, why is it not relevant now? because if someone deems the 2nd amendment irrelevant, then they'd have to do the same to the rest of the Constitution. Besides, this is more of a matter of how pointless a cosmetic features ban really is. There's simply no reason why an AR 15 with a thumbhole stock and no hand guard should be legal and an AR 15 with a pistol grip, forward grip and folding stock shouldn't. Also, I'd just like to add that I'm currently using your fabulous SWEP Construction Kit to make an "Assault Knife" to mock how ridiculous the AWB is

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39259106]well obviously they're not working well enough[/QUOTE] How so? If you're talking about the occasional massacre, you can't really prevent that from starting most of the time. It's easy to just go into a school with a backpack filled with pistols.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39259141]How so? If you're talking about the occasional massacre, you can't really prevent that from starting most of the time. It's easy to just go into a school with a backpack filled with pistols.[/QUOTE] Yeah you fucking can prevent it somehow considering how most countries don't have them weekly but one of them does. Who cares how sad and oppressed a bunch of gun nuts feel, it's at least [B]SOMETHING[/B], which is better than [B]NOTHING[/B]. Maybe some people are ok with regular mass shootings becoming the status quo but I'm not.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39259186]Yeah you fucking can prevent it somehow considering how most countries don't have them weekly but one of them does. Who cares how sad and oppressed a bunch of gun nuts feel, it's at least [B]SOMETHING[/B], which is better than [B]NOTHING[/B]. Maybe some people are ok with regular mass shootings becoming the status quo but I'm not.[/QUOTE] I personally would blame the fact that most European nations don't have a broken mental healthcare system where the mentally unstable don't get proper treatment. Banning guns is just treating the symptoms of a much larger problem.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39259186]Yeah you fucking can prevent it somehow considering how most countries don't have them weekly but one of them does. Who cares how sad and oppressed a bunch of gun nuts feel, it's at least [B]SOMETHING[/B], which is better than [B]NOTHING[/B]. Maybe some people are ok with regular mass shootings becoming the status quo but I'm not.[/QUOTE] It's hardly regular. It happens maybe once every couple of months, but the thing is. Get this. You don't hear about it in most European countries because guess what. They don't fucking report on it like it's the hottest thing. And to restrict people because of a 1 in a million incident is a stupid idea. You don't close down a rollercoaster if a guy holds his arms out and they hit something. You shouldn't restrict guns if some crazy wants to become famous and shoots up a place. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] and seriously. Don't put words in my mouth. Who said that we're okay with shootings becoming a normal thing? It's terrible, but I don't think that I, or anyone else should be lured into a false sense of security by taking away pieces of property from people with no history of criminal activity.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39259186]Yeah you fucking can prevent it somehow considering how most countries don't have them weekly but one of them does. Who cares how sad and oppressed a bunch of gun nuts feel, it's at least [B]SOMETHING[/B], which is better than [B]NOTHING[/B]. Maybe some people are ok with regular mass shootings becoming the status quo but I'm not.[/QUOTE] How twisted is that? Doing SOMETHING retarded, uneducated, unfounded, and detrimental is worse than doing NOTHING

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39259224]and seriously. Don't put words in my mouth. Who said that we're okay with shootings becoming a normal thing? It's terrible, but I don't think that I, or anyone else should be lured into a false sense of security by taking away pieces of property from people with no history of criminal activity.[/QUOTE] except the entire issue with these mass shootings is people with no prior history of serious criminal activity suddenly going on killing sprees. Good public mental healthcare can only go so far without mental health checks being mandatory for everybody, which is obviously not acceptable. If hampering, however occasional it is, the ability of these people to kill large numbers of people in short periods of time comes at the expense of the expensive hobby and/or armed revolution fantasies of a few collectors then so be it.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39259352]except the entire issue with these mass shootings is people with no prior history of serious criminal activity suddenly going on killing sprees. Good public mental healthcare can only go so far without mental health checks being mandatory for everybody, which is obviously not acceptable. If hampering, however occasional it is, the ability of these people to kill large numbers of people in short periods of time comes at the expense of the expensive hobby and/or armed revolution fantasies of a few collectors then so be it.[/QUOTE] And you do know that most of the time for these shootings, (Newtown, Columbine, as examples) are often denied weapons for various reasons. They buy them from private sellers or pay their friends to get them. That's not anybodies fault but their friends. Don't even use the 'large numbers of people in short time' appeal to emotion. You can do that with most any modern machinery. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] And a quick session during a physical is too much to ask, but we can get rid of 270 million firearms as if it is nothing, all because maybe 100 of those were used to kill people.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39259352]except the entire issue with these mass shootings is people with no prior history of serious criminal activity suddenly going on killing sprees. Good public mental healthcare can only go so far without mental health checks being mandatory for everybody, which is obviously not acceptable. If hampering, however occasional it is, the ability of these people to kill large numbers of people in short periods of time comes at the expense of the expensive hobby and/or armed revolution fantasies of a few collectors then so be it.[/QUOTE] Regardless of their criminal history, they're still mentally unstable and seeking attention, and thats what caused these shootings. If they actually had their mental instabilities treated theres a good chance they wouldn't have gone through with the attacks. Gun control legislation would have done fuck all to stop the most recent mall shooting and the Sandy school shooting. The firearms used there were stolen anyways.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39259405]And you do know that most of the time for these shootings, (Newtown, Columbine, as examples) are often denied weapons for various reasons. They buy them from private sellers or pay their friends to get them. That's not anybodies fault but their friends. [/QUOTE] How is this not still related to their widespread availability? That just means the private sellers or the friends or relatives got theirs legally and then gave them to a dangerous individual. All guns except ones manufactured in basements were legally owned guns at some point. [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39259405]Don't even use the 'large numbers of people in short time' appeal to emotion. You can do that with most any modern machinery.[/QUOTE] yes but one of them serves no other purpose than to kill human beings.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39259466]yes but one of them serves no other purpose than to kill human beings.[/QUOTE] lol

And? Just because something has an intended purpose, doesn't mean it will be used or ever used in that way. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] You can use guns for more than just killing. Like for example, Glorious border guard taking a rest. [img]http://puu.sh/1P2Q1[/img]

Nope, killing is never justifiable. Self-defense? What kind of savage would ever point a gun at another? It is better to die oneself than to use one of those barbaric machines.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;39260998]Nope, killing is never justifiable. Self-defense? What kind of savage would ever point a gun at another? It is better to die oneself than to use one of those barbaric machines.[/QUOTE] Eh, I half disagree half agree. If I ever caught someone raping my wife or sister, I would blow them away. I wouldn't want to kill them so they could face justice, but if I happen to kill them I wouldn't exactly be shedding a tear for their death.

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;39260998]Nope, killing is never justifiable. Self-defense? What kind of savage would ever point a gun at another? It is better to die oneself than to use one of those barbaric machines.[/QUOTE] Ok, you go do that. But I, for one, want to survive in this savage world. What kind of place do you think we live in, Candyland?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39259186]Yeah you fucking can prevent it somehow considering how most countries don't have them weekly but one of them does. Who cares how sad and oppressed a bunch of gun nuts feel, it's at least [B]SOMETHING[/B], which is better than [B]NOTHING[/B]. Maybe some people are ok with regular mass shootings becoming the status quo but I'm not.[/QUOTE] "guys have you heard how terrified I am of inanimate objects I am lately" "guys"