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

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;39267853]Yes, because automobiles were designed with their primary purpose being to make things dead, and don't have a whole lot of practical application outside of making things dead.[/QUOTE] thanks for seemingly proving my point??? if something that was designed NOT to kill outkills something designed to kill, why do you want to leave the thing designed not to kill alone? anti-gun nuts keep claiming shit like "any death is too much!!!11" when told assault weapons are responsible for less than 5% of gun fatalities, wouldn't it be more logical to fix the thing that causes MORE deaths first? why go after small potatoes when second hand smoke and automobiles kill more than deadly baby killing assault weapons? that's the problem, anti-gun nuts aren't logical. they have a phobia of a inanimate object. you fear what you don't know, and it shows when they post shit like "ban fully automatic assault rifles" and "why do u need gun, i don't!"

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39270736]thanks for seemingly proving my point??? if something that was designed NOT to kill outkills something designed to kill, why do you want to leave the thing designed not to kill alone? anti-gun nuts keep claiming shit like "any death is too much!!!11" when told assault weapons are responsible for less than 5% of gun fatalities, wouldn't it be more logical to fix the thing that causes MORE deaths first? why go after small potatoes when second hand smoke and automobiles kill more than deadly baby killing assault weapons? that's the problem, anti-gun nuts aren't logical. they have a phobia of a inanimate object. you fear what you don't know, and it shows when they post shit like "ban fully automatic assault rifles" and "why do u need gun, i don't!"[/QUOTE] See, this is what I was talking about when I said there was sensationalism on both sides. This guy right here is the definition of it. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39270602]It kind of is. They could have chosen to air things about the syrian rebels, or all sorts of things, but instead. They devoted weeks exclusively to the shootings, with tiny breaks for weather and their local stations to chime in.[/QUOTE] We're no longer a nation controlled by the media. With advancements in social networking people can obtain their news anywhere they please.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270905]See, this is what I was talking about when I said there was sensationalism on both sides. This guy right here is the definition of it.[/QUOTE] ____ kills more than _____= fact You ~ "sensationalist!!!!" [QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270905] We're no longer a nation controlled by the media. With advancements in social networking people can obtain their news anywhere they please.[/QUOTE] LOL

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39270975]____ kills more than _____= fact You ~ "sensationalist!!!!" LOL[/QUOTE] I was referring to the way you spoke about anti-gun people and your general immaturity regarding the whole thing.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270999]I was referring to the way you spoke about anti-gun people and your general immaturity regarding the whole thing.[/QUOTE] p.much exactly like they treat us? I give like I get babe

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270905] We're no longer a nation controlled by the media. With advancements in social networking people can obtain their news anywhere they please.[/QUOTE] But they don't. It's typically easier to sit down at the end of a days work and watch MSNBC or FOX than it is to read articles on Huff. post or al-jazeera.

And most people only look at the front page and quickly skim.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39271045]But they don't. It's typically easier to sit down at the end of a days work and watch MSNBC or FOX than it is to read articles on Huff. post or al-jazeera.[/QUOTE] People need to be responsible for acquiring knowledge themselves especially when it is so easy to procure. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39271043]p.much exactly like they treat us? I give like I get babe[/QUOTE] That's a hasty generalization. Some people on both sides have been immature but judging all people on either side based on that is just silly.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39271078] That's a hasty generalization. Some people on both sides have been immature but judging all people on either side based on that is just silly.[/QUOTE] hit me up when you start decrying people on the anti-gun side for being immature (most of SH lol)

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39271100]hit me up when you start decrying people on the anti-gun side for being immature (most of SH lol)[/QUOTE] I'm calling out people on both sides as being immature. The majority on both sides can handle themselves but there are a few that are immature. And SH is not majorly anti-gun are you kidding me?

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270469]I'm failing to see how fast and furious is related to this, it was a scandal yes but it's really not relevant to the topic at hand.[/QUOTE] It is relevant because President Obama is telling the American people we need to be more repsonsible with firearms when Mexican drug cartels obtained fully automatic rifles under his watch. The American people need to be more responsible with firearms? No, Mr. President, [I]y[/I][I]ou[/I] need to be more responsible with firearms.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39271225]It is relevant because President Obama is telling the American people we need to be more repsonsible with firearms when Mexican drug cartels obtained fully automatic rifles under his watch. The American people need to be more responsible with firearms? No, Mr. President. [I]You[/I] need to be more responsible with firearms.[/QUOTE] It's not Obama's direct responsibility to handle that. It was a scandal, yes, but it wasn't his doing and regardless of it's relation to Obama it has nothing to do with the argument on gun control.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39271245]It was a scandal, yes,[/QUOTE] It's not a scandal, it is a failed operation which took the lives of countless, innocent Mexican citizens including women and children, aswell as the lives of several federal agents. I see nothing that can be effective in terms of gun control. Do you have any suggestions?

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39271331]It's not a scandal, it is a failed operation which took the lives of countless, innocent Mexican citizens including women and children, aswell as the lives of several federal agents. I see nothing that can be effective in terms of gun control. Do you have any suggestions?[/QUOTE] if you can find me an article or other proof showing that Obama personally OK'd and signed the "Fast and Furious" program into action, then you can start blaming the president. Otherwise, blame the people that are directly responsible.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39271225]It is relevant because President Obama is telling the American people we need to be more repsonsible with firearms when Mexican drug cartels obtained fully automatic rifles under his watch. The American people need to be more responsible with firearms? No, Mr. President, [I]y[/I][I]ou[/I] need to be more responsible with firearms.[/QUOTE] He didn't really have anything to do with it though. It was carried out by Republicans in the house.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39263786]Treat the causes of violent crime, don't just attempt to eliminate one of the methods.[/QUOTE] this is another really annoying point you guys make to deter any talks of gun control how about we treat both? nobody is saying "ban the guns, leave mental health and poverty how it is", we're saying "hey, while we're working on taking forward-reaching steps to change society as a whole by addressing crushing poverty and a failing mental healthcare system in our country (which will all takes years and years to have any slight effect on our society and our violent culture), lets work on restricting who can buy what weapons!" ever since somebody on fp pointed out that our mental healthcare system in america is failing as well, so many of you gun guys have been making these stupid posts over and over again, "how about we fix the mental healthcare system instead of working on gun control?". how about we do both?? [editline]19th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=UziXxX;39271331]It's not a scandal, it is a failed operation which took the lives of countless, innocent Mexican citizens including women and children, aswell as the lives of several federal agents. I see nothing that can be effective in terms of gun control. Do you have any suggestions?[/QUOTE] it's not even remotely close to being obama's fault that fast and furious was a failure. fast and furious' concept was acceptable and probably would have had a positive effect if it were carried out as intended. the people on the ground actually running the operation are the ones that blew it, it's not like obama's sheer willpower and hatred for america sent out brainwaves forcing the fast and furious team to fail. it's like blaming obama for the lines at the DUI being too long, just because he said "alright guys do your thing" doesn't mean he's supposed to absorb the blame for people fucking up and not doing what he said properly [editline]19th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39270736]that's the problem, anti-gun nuts aren't logical. they have a phobia of a inanimate object. you fear what you don't know, and it shows when they post shit like "ban fully automatic assault rifles" and "why do u need gun, i don't!"[/QUOTE] hey i know you're still riding on the euphoria of being really animated and obnoxious in all of your responses to people in these threads but once again this "you fear what you don't know" thing is completely wrong, just like the "fear of inanimate objects". i own guns, i shoot guns, have grown up with guns, and i'm for gun control. i like shooting at targets and stuff and i think they look neat, but they're nothing more than a casual hobby and i don't let that hobby override my concern for human lives. i'm not afraid of guns, nobody else is, nobody walks into an empty room where a gun is sitting on a nightstand and thinks "oh man i'm terrified what if that gun shoots me!!", they walk into a room with a guy holding a gun and think "uh oh fuck is he going to shoot me?". the "inanimate objects" garbage is a completely nonsensical argument that your friends agree with because it makes them feel more comfortable laughing away any legitimate criticism of the lack of gun control in the country. it's complete nonsense and anyone who takes a second to actually think about it rather than just rating your post agree because you said something pro-gun should recognize that. people aren't afraid of guns, they're afraid of people WITH guns, and unfortunately we can't preemptively arrest people who might obtain a gun and shoot someone in the future, so our next best option is to prevent them from obtaining a firearm in the first place

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39272340]He didn't really have anything to do with it though. It was carried out by Republicans in the house.[/QUOTE] He COULD have stopped it... [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;39272422] lack of gun control in the country. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kopimi;39272422] [B]lack of gun control in the country.[/B] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kopimi;39272422] [B][I]lack of gun control in the country.[/I][/B] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kopimi;39272422] [B][I][U]lack of gun control in the country.[/U][/I][/B] [/QUOTE] and you expect us to take you seriously? We already have a LOT of gun control that targets the guns. Clearly it isn't working. And California with its shitty gun laws that can easily be bypassed is a perfect example. So why don't we go after the root of the problem, the mental healthcare, of whose role you downplay so easily? And gun control laws that actually make sense, like increased background checks and mental evaluations, familial analysis, etc.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39273041]So why don't we go after the root of the problem, the mental healthcare, of whose role you downplay so easily? And [B]gun control laws that actually make sense, like increased background checks and mental evaluations, familial analysis[/B], etc.[/QUOTE] but that's what i'm advocating and referring to by lack of gun control.. so why are you even arguing with me

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39273135]but that's what i'm advocating and referring to by lack of gun control.. so why are you even arguing with me[/QUOTE] Because you seemed to also be advocating further regulating guns than they already are we already have pretty reasonable gun regulations as a country in general- you can't have automatic weapons without jumping through a lot of hoops, you can't get conversion kits for semis, military grade explosives/ rocket launchers are basically illegal, and AFAIK you can't really get any huge guns like a recoilless rifle I'm open to Capacity regulations on magazines but IMO they shouldn't go any lower than ~45, which is just slightly above standard going below 30 is just ridiculous In any case sorry I misunderstood your post; upon second reading I didn't see anything where you actually outright stated that "assault weapons be banned" etc. [editline]18th January 2013[/editline] Holy crap I just realized I passed 1000 posts At least 200 of those were probably from these gun debate threads :v:

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39273239] I'm open to Capacity regulations on magazines but IMO they shouldn't go any lower than ~45, which is just slightly above standard going below 30 is just ridiculous [/QUOTE] any mag capacity restrictions are absolutely ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39273259]any mag capacity restrictions are absolutely ridiculous.[/QUOTE] yes, but I'm saying that if they absolutely HAVE to have their capacity restrictions to have their feelgood feeling, I'm not going to be happy with anything less than 30.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39273325]yes, but I'm saying that if they absolutely HAVE to have their capacity restrictions to have their feelgood feeling, I'm not going to be happy with anything less than 30.[/QUOTE] You shouldn't be willing to compromise at all.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39273406]You shouldn't be willing to compromise at all.[/QUOTE] I don't want to; but at this rate it looks like we have to

[QUOTE=BFG9000;39273480]I don't want to; but at this rate it looks like we have to[/QUOTE] no we wont lol. By the time any gun legislation comes up to vote they'll be DOA.

Dear God I hope so

To be honest , Any breach of rights is terrible and be avoided. But this isn't a perfect world so let's get that dream out of the way and look at some basics. The right to bear arms was given over 200 years ago , Back when all we really had for guns were [b]muzzle-loaders[/b]. Comparatively today we have machine guns with the appropriate gear that can devastate a city block of innocent people. It might be time to look into requiring extensive licensing (think like at least driver license level) for most of these weapons that were originally made for military use. Note that this doesn't solve the gun violence problem , but reducing the amount of unstable people with military gear isn't a bad thing.

[QUOTE=Jdeedler;39274200]To be honest , Any breach of rights is terrible and be avoided. But this isn't a perfect world so let's get that dream out of the way and look at some basics. The right to bear arms was given over 200 years ago , Back when all we really had for guns were [B]muzzle-loaders[/B]. Comparatively today we have machine guns with the appropriate gear that can devastate a city block of innocent people. It might be time to look into requiring extensive licensing (think like at least driver license level) for most of these weapons that were originally made for military use. Note that this doesn't solve the gun violence problem , but reducing the amount of unstable people with military gear isn't a bad thing.[/QUOTE] There are already laws in place in the U.S. that deal with auto guns. And buying any guns from dealers have a federal form and background check that goes with getting them.

It's not that hard to take semi-auto versions of machine guns and make them automatic again. Solving nothing.

[QUOTE=Jdeedler;39274279]It's not that hard to take semi-auto versions of machine guns and make them automatic again. Solving nothing.[/QUOTE] And the last time a crime was committed with those was...

If you want to get deep in to crime rates of weapons rifles aren't even a problem. It's just these mass killings get the most attention from the public and the media goes crazy with it.