US Senate rejects universal (expanded) background checks - Polidicks

[QUOTE=dogmachines;40320016]The first amendment only affects those who wish to speak their mind publicly. The second amendment allows anybody to possess a firearm.[/QUOTE] The first amendment is what's allowing each of us to have an opinion on this matter that isn't sponsored by the state without fear. I guarantee you'd be hard pressed to find someone who isn't willing to publicly share their opinions in this country.

[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40319962]You are also an idiot because you think a gun registry is okay. They do not prevent crimes, and there are a few states that have had them for years. All they do is give the upper hand to governmental forces, whether they be state or federal. Just look at the handgun ban of San Francisco. That ban passed, despite being utterly unconstitutional in every way. Every person living in San Francisco in their registry would have been a criminal had they not turned their handguns in by the deadline. Thankfully that ban was overturned. All a gun registry will do is potentially criminalize any and all gun owners.[/QUOTE] please do not flame me i'm extremely sensitive and i've not called you any names so be cool dogg i don't support all out gun bans nor do i support gun confiscation or mandatory "turn-ins", i believe in grandfathering for p much all gun legislation/restrictions. i'm curious why you think it's bad to give the government the upper hand though lol. do we want law enforcement to NOT be able to enforce the law or something

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40320032]It effects everyone. It's everyone's right. I don't protest. Should I oppose the right to protest? I'm Athiest. Should I oppose religious establishment rights, forcing them to pay taxes and not respect religious people and their holidays and prayer times? Just because it doesn't effect you doesn't mean it's a lesser right. It's a right that should be upheld just as much as the others, because a right that you use every day, might not be used by someone else, and do you [I]really[/I] want those people to decide for you?[/QUOTE] That's fair.

[QUOTE=erfinjerfin;40320037]The first amendment is what's allowing each of us to have an opinion on this matter that isn't sponsored by the state without fear. I guarantee you'd be hard pressed to find someone who isn't willing to publicly share their opinions in this country.[/QUOTE] And the second amendment is there to keep it that way.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;40320054]And the second amendment is there to keep it that way.[/QUOTE] do americans really believe a bunch of gun enthusers will be able to hypothetically defend themselves and take down the government of the us of a

[QUOTE=Eltro102;40320063]do americans really believe a bunch of gun enthusers will be able to hypothetically defend themselves and take down the government of the us of a[/QUOTE] You're right we should just lay down and take it if anything bad happens. It's not like a bunch of guys with basic weaponry managed to stage a successful insurgency against us or anything.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;40320075]You're right we should just lay down and take it if anything bad happens. It's not like a bunch of guys with basic weaponry managed to stage a successful insurgency against us or anything.[/QUOTE] in a foreign country losing the war for the middle east is more a matter of apathy than firepower. we could easily continue fighting and enforcing our limited control in the middle east but there's not much reason to. if a conflict erupted in the USA though, all involved parties are basically in "go big or go home" mode. there's no turning back and there's no neutrality, it's a fight to the end and i definitely would place my bets on the US military over a handful of american revolutionaries. the fact that you guys honestly think american citizens have the same psychological and cultural revolutionary mindset, and the sheer willpower necessary to carry out a revolution, that middle eastern people do is p funny

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40320079]in a foreign country[/QUOTE] On terrain they were familiar with, yes. The military doesn't know every nook and cranny of the US. If you sent a battalion of soldiers to the heart of the Appalachians, they wouldn't exactly know the place like the back of their hand. But the point isn't how successful such a thing can be: it's whether you would resist an unjust government or not.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;40320063]do americans really believe a bunch of gun enthusers will be able to hypothetically defend themselves and take down the government of the us of a[/QUOTE] This has been discussed, over and over again. The government would never be able to tyrannically take over, because of how our country is currently. Assuming every enlisted person in our military (1.4 million) where to go against the people, they would face a force of 50 million gun owners, some of which have multiple guns, and would be able to arm non-owners. That assumption aside, the large majority, if not all of the military, would never go against family, friends, or other Americans. The people would gain the majority of the armed forces, and with them the equipment they have access to. Members of the military take an oath to defend against foreign and domestic threats. If the federal government were to go tyrannical, they become a domestic threat against the people. EDIT: Also, conventional arms like missiles, nuclear warheads, etc, would not be used in such an event. The government can give the call to fire such a weapon, but they don't turn the key, the people do.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;40320109]On terrain they were familiar with, yes. The military doesn't know every nook and cranny of the US. If you sent a battalion of soldiers to the heart of the Appalachians, they wouldn't exactly know the place like the back of their hand. But the point isn't how successful such a thing can be: it's whether you would resist an unjust government or not.[/QUOTE] i feel like with that closing line you're trying to force me into some weird "question your integrity" bullshit where if i say i would just flee the country i sound like a coward rather than someone who's just realistic about military conflicts and revolution [editline]17th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40320113]This has been discussed, over and over again. The government would never be able to tyrannically take over, because of how our country is currently. Assuming every enlisted person in our military (1.4 million) where to go against the people, they would face a force of 50 million gun owners, some of which have multiple guns, and would be able to arm non-owners. That assumption aside, the large majority, if not all of the military, would never go against family, friends, or other Americans. The people would gain the majority of the armed forces, and with them the equipment they have access to. Members of the military take an oath to defend against foreign and domestic threats. If the federal government were to go tyrannical, they become a domestic threat against the people.[/QUOTE] those 50 million dudes dont have consistent supplies, military training, artillery, a huge coordination and intel network, air superiority, proper communication networks, or anything else the american military has. i would definitely trust one serviceman in a tank to knock out his equivalent 50 "revolutionaries" with semi automatic weapons standing around in their jeans and tank tops

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40320119]i feel like with that closing line you're trying to force me into some weird "question your integrity" bullshit where if i say i would just flee the country i sound like a coward rather than someone who's just realistic about military conflicts and revolution[/QUOTE] My point was that you don't take up arms against a government because success is easy, or even likely. I admit that for some the answer isn't to fight at all, but there are people who would rather fight to the death than live in tyranny.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;40320063]do americans really believe a bunch of gun enthusers will be able to hypothetically defend themselves and take down the government of the us of a[/QUOTE] Does it really matter what they really think? Would you rather take away any possible fighting chance? Just because we want the second amendment untouched in the current form doesn't mean we're conspiracy theory nuts. I don't think the government is becoming oppressive at all, but I'm kinda weirded out and uncool when the government makes it harder for me to possibly fight against them if they were to become oppressive. Law makers have their heart in a good place I think. They don't want something like sandy hook to happen again and they want gun violence to go away, I get it. But this is all making it a lot easier to piss away the second amendment. This isn't part of some major plan, but "your guy", be it Democrat or Republican, will not always be in the White House. Eventually someone you DON'T like will be in power. Ask yourself: would you feel okay knowing that if someone you really don't like or trust is in power, and you have nothing to defend yourself?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40320119]those 50 million dudes dont have consistent supplies, military training, artillery, a huge coordination and intel network, air superiority, proper communication networks, or anything else the american military has. i would definitely trust one serviceman in a tank to knock out his equivalent 50 "revolutionaries" with semi automatic weapons standing around in their jeans and tank tops[/QUOTE] Yes, because the military's superior training, equipment, tactics, and support worked so well in the Mogadishu conflict. We were utterly outnumbered by the Somalis in that conflict, the majority of which were citizens forced to fight by the militia. It took two foreign interventions to pull our men out. You also seemed to dismiss the majority of my post. Your response only assumes that members of our military would go against the people. The fact is, the majority would not. They will also take the government equipment they have access to, in order to defend their people.

[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40320185]Yes, because the military's superior training, equipment, tactics, and support worked so well in the Mogadishu conflict. We were utterly outnumbered by the Somalis in that conflict, the majority of which were citizens forced to fight by the militia. You also seemed to dismiss the majority of my post. Your response only assumes that members of our military would go against the people. The fact is, the majority would not. They will also take the government equipment they have access to, in order to defend their people.[/QUOTE] so basically you don't need the second amendment to do this because the military will refuse to shoot

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40319189]Within the past hour the senate also killed the new AWB, and the mag cap ban. praise liberty.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty fucking late on the reply but do you have a source on this? I want to believe, but I'm skeptical until I see it from them (or some other source).

I don't understand the logic of "You couldn't fight the government anyway and win, so whats the point?" So we should just toss in the cards now and just float in the stream of uncertainty, blindly trusting that our government will do everything that's in our best interest?

Background checks would not prevent mass shootings like this. People determined to do evil things like that will succeed if they are determined.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40320219]I don't understand the logic of "You couldn't fight the government anyway and win, so whats the point?" So we should just toss in the cards now and just float in the stream of uncertainty, blindly trusting that our government will do everything that's in our best interest?[/QUOTE] the logic is that you shouldn't prevent legislation that will save people's lives from gun violence just to pump up a pipe dream of standing in the middle of your suburban street with a semiautomatic rifle shouting "you'll never take me alive", pretending you're capable of overthrowing the united states government

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40320247]the logic is that you shouldn't prevent legislation that will save people's lives from gun violence just to pump up a pipe dream of standing in the middle of your suburban street with a semiautomatic rifle shouting "you'll never take me alive", pretending you're capable of overthrowing the united states government[/QUOTE] Thats so horribly inaccurate of any gun owners standing it's funny. You've already shown you know absolutely nothing about the standing topic, why continue to prod and make a fool of yourself?

[QUOTE=snapshot32;40320295]Thats so horribly inaccurate of any gun owners standing it's funny. You've already shown you know absolutely nothing about the standing topic, why continue to prod and make a foll of yourself?[/QUOTE] ok this post doesn't really prove me wrong but i appreciate your contribution to the discussion

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40320247]the logic is that you shouldn't prevent legislation that will save people's lives from gun violence just to pump up a pipe dream of standing in the middle of your suburban street with a semiautomatic rifle shouting "you'll never take me alive", pretending you're capable of overthrowing the united states government[/QUOTE] I disagree. I don't want people to die, but I also do not want to give up my fighting chance at protecting myself from an oppressive government. The government could do a lot of things to save lives. They could search everyone's house daily, they could put up cameras everywhere and enforce martial law at night. They could phone tap everyone, and record their online interactions. These would of course by a breach of our rights, but you seem to take them loosely anyway. My point is that we are not a perfect place, and we never will be. There will be trade offs for our freedoms. Some minor, some severe. The price we pay for not tapping phone and internet traffic, along with CCTV on every corner are things like the Boston Bombing. When things like that happen, they make me sad and I hope that nothing like that happens again, but I do not call for taking away peoples freedom because of it, even if those freedoms allowed such a tragedy to occur.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40320305]ok this post doesn't really prove me wrong but i appreciate your contribution to the discussion[/QUOTE] You generalized that its every american gun owners wet dream to stand in the streets shooting at the guberment, thats so fucking stupid its funny.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40320079]in a foreign country losing the war for the middle east is more a matter of apathy than firepower. we could easily continue fighting and enforcing our limited control in the middle east but there's not much reason to. if a conflict erupted in the USA though, all involved parties are basically in "go big or go home" mode. there's no turning back and there's no neutrality, it's a fight to the end and i definitely would place my bets on the US military over a handful of american revolutionaries. the fact that you guys honestly think american citizens have the same psychological and cultural revolutionary mindset, and the sheer willpower necessary to carry out a revolution, that middle eastern people do is p funny[/QUOTE] you don't have to be the stronger combatant to win an insurrection. read guerilla warfare by che, or look at places like libya and syria. there are a lot of factors that go into a civil war, military strength and military dedication are only two of a multitude. [editline]18th April 2013[/editline] hell i don't think a gun ban would necessarily impact a civil war. even if the rebels were mostly unarmed, they still could win in the right circumstances.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;40320325]You generalized that its every american gun owners wet dream to stand in the streets shooting at the guberment, thats so fucking stupid its funny.[/QUOTE] no.. i said people shouldn't oppose gun control legislation because they are deluded into the idea that not only will they one day be forced into an armed revolution against the United States military but that they have a chance at winning

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40320345]no.. i said people shouldn't oppose gun control legislation because they are deluded into the idea that not only will they one day be forced into an armed revolution against the United States military but that they have a chance at winning[/QUOTE] Whatever makes you think your right. [QUOTE=Kopimi;40320247] just to pump up a pipe dream of standing in the middle of your suburban street with a semiautomatic rifle shouting "you'll never take me alive", pretending you're capable of overthrowing the united states government[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=snapshot32;40320363]Whatever makes you think your right.[/QUOTE] To be fair he's not saying everyone who owns a gun. He's talking about the people who oppose tighter gun legislation because of fear of needed revolution. His point was that you shouldn't value the right more than a potential human life.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;40320363]Whatever makes you think your right.[/QUOTE] are you trying to be clever or something because that quote just reaffirms what i said so

Glad to see none of this passed

Off topic but still on topic, man check out any of the usual clowns twitters (Piers Morgan, Michael Moore, etc) they must be sobbing into their phones as they type.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40320434]Off topic but still on topic, man check out any of the usual clowns twitters (Piers Morgan, Michael Moore, etc) they must be sobbing into their phones as they type.[/QUOTE] Piers Morgan's been throwing a shitfit