Obama has largely steered clear of gun debate; For Democrats, gun politics are bad politics - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36873646] why bother putting forth an actual, earnest opinion in a debate characterized by shit like this?[/QUOTE] um well for starters this is a discussion board. if you're just going to drop bombs and leave without substantiating anything, nobody is going to take you seriously [editline]1[/editline] you essentially signed up to shitpost

[QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36873646]I'm adding to the argument. Adding the perspective that you people are defending invalid points with even more invalid points. "making guns illegal will prevent dangerous people from acquiring guns" - ridiculous fairy tale logic "crossfire will make shooting situations less dangerous" - also ridiculous fairy tale logic why bother putting forth an actual, earnest opinion in a debate characterized by shit like this? edit: especially if you're a politician. I mean, holy shit![/QUOTE] except a lot of points that have brought into this argument are fully valid. You're just too lazy and apathetic to listen and formulate an opinion so you instead discredit everyone elses.

uh oh guess my book deal is fallin through

Also, guns should not be banned. They are not weapons, they are tools or hobby pieces. You wouldn't ban a sledgehammer because people can kill people with it, would you?

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36873678]except a lot of points that have brought into this argument are fully valid. You're just too lazy and apathetic to listen and formulate an opinion so you instead discredit everyone elses.[/QUOTE] I'm not discrediting everybody, but I'm certainly discrediting the loudest and most prevalent arguments. rational points simply don't recieve the kind of attention that Clavus and Scorpius get

[QUOTE=cardfan212;36873617]The reason for the 2nd amendment is so the people can revolt against the government in case they start getting power hungry/making dumb decisions. If there's a gun ban and we end up like Canada or Australia, I will not have second thoughts about forming a militia group to protect our freedoms.[/QUOTE] Except that in practicality there's no way that would actually work, considering that the military has all manner of weapons civilians do not, and that your AR-15 or whatever else you may have will not be able to fight.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36871122]Plenty of soft spots to shoot at. Been to the range enough im completely confident in my ability to put three shots grouped in the size of a half dollar. You might find the argument retarded- it doesnt make it less true. If i was in that theater- with my 9mm- theres a good chance he would have been stopped. Many other americans are well trained in the use of firearms as well. If you feel safe enough w/o a gun- good for you. But though the intentions of gun control may be good (who is against less crime?) it would cause more harm then good (because criminals dont follow the laws) Many ppl with a concealed carry permit have their guns with them all the time- its not that big of deal, its just a gun. Its not like your totting around a 1/2 ton surface to air missile...[/QUOTE] i'm more than confident that while you were choking on teargas and floating in a pool of your own urine after seeing an armed gunman break in through the back door and start shooting people, you'd have enough composure to shoot through his armor plating and nail him in a "soft spot". not only that but i'm sure the police would easily be able to identify you as an innocent civilian, and i'm sure there'd be no chance of anyone getting hurt in the crossfire. i mean, the chances of people/police thinking you were working in tandem with the gunman are slim to none, right?

[QUOTE=Dori;36873557]you only draw your gun if you intend to kill. shooting to incapacitate only works in movies and will not hold up in court[/QUOTE] You shoot to live, not to kill. That means if you don't have to shoot to stay alive, [B]don't[/B]. [QUOTE=NightmareXx;36873159]most illegal guns are from gun stores that do under the table deals[/QUOTE] If a gun dealer did something like that, the ATF would launch such a crusade against them it would ruin that dealer for the rest of his life. If you're a gun dealer then you have to have a SPOTLESS record, if you make one little mix up and a gun goes missing your license is done forever, your entire inventory is confiscated and your finances will be completely fucked, then you get to spend 30 years or more in prison. The bad kind of prison. The ATF does not fuck around and they take things to the extreme of extremes. If you've seen the show Sons of Guns, Red Jacket very nearly went under for this reason a not too long ago when some things went missing. If a gun dealer is doing under the table deals then they're not a licensed dealer and are operating illegally anyway.

[QUOTE=Megafan;36873742]Except that in practicality there's no way that would actually work, considering that the military has all manner of weapons civilians do not, and that your AR-15 or whatever else you may have will not be able to fight.[/QUOTE] There is one hole in your argument though, to fight a rebellion requires soldiers, these soldiers come from the population, and these soldiers also have to kill quite a few of their own people in such an event. The US government would have to pull some serious shit to avoid defecting troops.

One more statement: if stricter gun control laws were put into place, they would only affect law-abiding citizens. Take Bonnie and Clyde for example. They robbed armories to get their weapons. It's not like they went to the local shop and filled out proper paperwork.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;36873749]You shoot to live, not to kill. That means if you don't have to shoot to stay alive, [B]don't[/B]. If a gun dealer did something like that, the ATF would launch such a crusade against them it would ruin that dealer for the rest of his life. If you're a gun dealer then you have to have a SPOTLESS record, if you make one little mix up and a gun goes missing your license is done forever, your entire inventory is confiscated and your finances will be completely fucked, then you get to spend 30 years or more in prison. The bad kind of prison. The ATF does not fuck around and they take things to the extreme of extremes. If you've seen the show Sons of Guns, Red Jacket very nearly went under for this reason a not too long ago when some things went missing. If a gun dealer is doing under the table deals then they're not a licensed dealer and are operating illegally anyway.[/QUOTE] whatever your arbitrary moral code is regarding firearms is irrelevant. the first rule of gun safety is that if you point it at something, you expect that thing to end up dead. even if you're deluded enough to hope you have the accuracy and self control to only "incapacitate" the attacker, the moment you started shooting you were working to kill that person, consciously or not.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36873790]There is one hole in your argument though, to fight a rebellion requires soldiers, these soldiers come from the population, and these soldiers also have to kill quite a few of their own people in such an event. The US government would have to pull some serious shit to avoid defecting troops.[/QUOTE] Basically what happened with Libya.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;36873749]You shoot to live, not to kill. That means if you don't have to shoot to stay alive, [B]don't[/B].[/QUOTE] that's cute and all but what I'm saying is grounded in reality. shooting to incapacitate is almost always criminal neglect and unlawful use of deadly force

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36873747]'and i'm sure there'd be no chance of anyone getting hurt in the crossfire.'[/QUOTE] What do you think constables do? Shoot at the civilians taken hostage like ravenous slobs while tieing their shoes and picking daisies? Stop believing movies are real, you bloody - I need to remember that insults are for the weak debators, sorry for that, chap.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36873790]There is one hole in your argument though, to fight a rebellion requires soldiers, these soldiers come from the population, and these soldiers also have to kill quite a few of their own people in such an event. The US government would have to pull some serious shit to avoid defecting troops.[/QUOTE] if american citizens did engage in a violent revolt against their govt they would (accurately) be labeled terrorists and there'd be plenty of servicemen/women who feel that is justification for attacking americans. in the end no matter how many people you think are willing to defect, it takes one guy to pilot a drone over you and your AR15 and kill everyone around you. the idea of the 2nd amendment being a practical response to an oppressive government is a pathetic pipe dream. the only use for firearms in america is self defense and hobby shooting.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36873827]if american citizens did engage in a violent revolt against their govt they would (accurately) be labeled terrorists and there'd be plenty of servicemen/women who feel that is justification for attacking americans. in the end no matter how many people you think are willing to defect, it takes one guy to pilot a drone over you and your AR15 and kill everyone around you. the idea of the 2nd amendment being a practical response to an oppressive government is a pathetic pipe dream. the only use for firearms in america is self defense and hobby shooting.[/QUOTE] oh i forgot all servicemen are irrational bloodthirsty killers who would step up to the plate immediatly to slaughter americans.

the 2nd amendment stopped being practical 200 years ago

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36873837]oh i forgot all servicemen are irrational bloodthirsty killers who would step up to the plate immediatly to slaughter americans.[/QUOTE] literally nowhere in my post did i even imply that was the case. if a group of american citizens engaged in a violent revolt against their government (and by extension, their military), they would be labeled terrorists (an accurate label) and would be responded to appropriately by the military. congratulations by the way on ignoring the last part of my post where i said that even if we assume plenty of the military does stand down and refuse to attack americans, all it takes is one dude piloting a drone to put your little revolution to an end.

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36873837]oh i forgot all servicemen are irrational bloodthirsty killers who would step up to the plate immediatly to slaughter americans.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Dori;36873845]the 2nd amendment stopped being practical 200 years ago[/QUOTE] man do I ever feel bad for impugning the earnesty and rationality of this debate apologies all around guys

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36873790]There is one hole in your argument though, to fight a rebellion requires soldiers, these soldiers come from the population, and these soldiers also have to kill quite a few of their own people in such an event. The US government would have to pull some serious shit to avoid defecting troops.[/QUOTE] No government is going to pull off a change of law that would completely alienate the entire populace in one fell swoop outside a comic book or film. Far more likely is that they'd have huge swathes of the population who agreed with them, and voted for them, and people in that party who followed the party line. They'd creep in emergency laws and necessary measures, and by the time they'd finished, if you tried rebelling you'd likely find yourself not only up against soldiers and the police, but other militias as well.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36873827]if american citizens did engage in a violent revolt against their govt they would (accurately) be labeled terrorists and there'd be plenty of servicemen/women who feel that is justification for attacking americans. in the end no matter how many people you think are willing to defect, it takes one guy to pilot a drone over you and your AR15 and kill everyone around you. the idea of the 2nd amendment being a practical response to an oppressive government is a pathetic pipe dream. the only use for firearms in america is self defense and hobby shooting.[/QUOTE] Yes, they all sodding love killing others, they totally feel better about themselves and others by killing hostiles or accidentally shelling a civilian they're totally not there to help protect from others that aren't the actual bloodthirsty killers! Only a dodgy wanker would think that!

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36873895]literally nowhere in my post did i even imply that was the case. if a group of american citizens engaged in a violent revolt against their government (and by extension, their military), they would be labeled terrorists (an accurate label) and would be responded to appropriately by the military. congratulations by the way on ignoring the last part of my post where i said that even if we assume plenty of the military does stand down and refuse to attack americans, all it takes is one dude piloting a drone to put your little revolution to an end.[/QUOTE] You're assuming just slapping terrorist on them will make them think differently. Also this just in, blowing up your country doesn't exactly stop a rebellion.

[video=youtube;3kt0U2cO9e0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kt0U2cO9e0[/video] I also feel that this video fits in with the current debate.

[QUOTE=Dori;36873845]the 2nd amendment stopped being practical 200 years ago[/QUOTE] As long as violent crimes occur, the right to defend one's self in any way necessary should be upheld, even if that requires the use of firearms.

Here's my contribution to this arguement. As I have stated in another thread, not all Americans have the comfort of living next to a store. Some Americans live so far away from a store their car would run out of gas before they would even reach one. What do these Americans do? They hunt. They hunt every day of their lives to live and some don't even use money, they just live off the land. What happens when guns are taken away? They can't hunt, they can't move away and then they could most likely die.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36873795]whatever your arbitrary moral code is regarding firearms is irrelevant. the first rule of gun safety is that if you point it at something, you expect that thing to end up dead. even if you're deluded enough to hope you have the accuracy and self control to only "incapacitate" the attacker, the moment you started shooting you were working to kill that person, consciously or not.[/QUOTE] What I was saying is that once you pull the trigger there is a very real chance that shot will kill whoever it hits. If you do not have to pull the trigger to protect your life or don't want to kill anyone, it's not worth pulling the trigger. If however killing the bastard is what is needed to save your life then do it. That's shoot to live, it's not about the one being shot, it's about you staying alive.

[QUOTE=Bob_Namg;36873926]Yes, they all sodding love killing others, they totally feel better about themselves and others by killing hostiles or accidentally shelling a civilian their totally not there to help protect from others that aren't the actual bloodthirsty killers! Only a dodgy wanker would think that![/QUOTE] ummm [QUOTE=Carnage2323;36873929]You're assuming just slapping terrorist on them will make them think differently. Also this just in, blowing up your country doesn't exactly stop a rebellion.[/QUOTE] no, "slapping terrorist on them" won't do anything. being presented with a group of american citizens waving their rifles around and shooting police officers and, you know, causing a violent revolution, should be motivation enough for the military to say "yeah these guys gotta go". and once a-fucking-gain, even if you assume 90% of the military says "fuck that im not killing americans", there'll still be more than enough people willing to follow orders and take out your revolution. you don't stand a chance against the military and if you try saying otherwise you're lying to yourself.

[QUOTE=Clavus;36870996]You do know this guy was fully armored in case of such an event right? I find the argument that "this wouldn't happen if the civilians were armed" completely retarded. They were going to the cinema for christ sake. Who the fuck is going to arm himself for a night out to the cinema with friends or family.[/QUOTE] I haven't heard any reports indicating otherwise, but I doubt he was wearing type III or IV, my 7.62x25 will punch right through type I, IIA, or II and 2-3 good shots will cut through type IIIA

I don't have any faith in the willingness of the american military to act on moral grounds rather than financial self interest. lockheed-martin and the rest of the military industrial complex are not idealistic organizations and, unfortunately, I don't have any faith in the ability of enlisted men to act against military command

[video=youtube;W3dimFbJEfs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3dimFbJEfs[/video] Actually, here you go. An even better video for the debate.