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

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36874453]yeah try not to let that idea shock you too much but if the US military is told "hey theres some dudes forming their own army in Colorado, they're threatening to take over city hall in an armed revolt", chances are they'll be ok with taking them down for the greater good.[/QUOTE] I don't think we're talking about just one militia group. I think this is more about if the majority of the US took up arms against an oppressive government. Do you honestly think the military would be okay with carpet-bombing the entire goddamn country? Even if a good portion of the military didn't agree with the revolutionaries I seriously doubt they'd be willing to blow up the entire country to make that point.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36874655]Ah, I still remember the reason they introduced the Short Barreled Rifle tax. Was because of John Dillinger's sawed-off BAR.[/QUOTE] I like how you say it like you lived to see it happen. :v:

[QUOTE=Camundongo;36874414]They weren't initally issued with enough to maintain them all. I guess the whole thing is somewhat common to the new weapons issued that era - the British Army had similar problems with the SA-80, until a new version was issued (My old man was in when they were issued, and hated the things).[/QUOTE] the thing about the SA80 is that they still suck

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;36874835]I don't think we're talking about just one militia group. I think this is more about if the majority of the US took up arms against an oppressive government.[/QUOTE] I feel like america is too fundamentally broken for this to happen. What oppresive government is going to unite this disparate populace? A government that begins taxing religions would be seen as crossing the line by one group, but another group would see it as a great step forward. Sending gays to re-education camps would be a call to arms for some, but others would be ready to defend such a bold moral advancement.

[QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36874820]under what circumstances would 90% of them defect? the military is over 3/4ths republican, they're not going to support a populist uprising[/QUOTE] I'm a republican and I'd hop on any revolt besides that it's illegal for a CO to tell his troops to kill civillians, the troops are required to say no

I figure I'll get a gun when I'm older, and a concealed carry permit. I won't misuse it.

[QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36874980]I feel like america is too fundamentally broken for this to happen. What oppresive government is going to unite this disparate populace? A government that begins taxing religions would be seen as crossing the line by one group, but another group would see it as a great step forward. Sending gays to re-education camps would be a call to arms for some, but others would be ready to defend such a bold moral advancement.[/QUOTE] A government that taxes more and more while doing less and less. A government that imprisons people for pointing out their follies. A government that launches wars across the globe and tightens security against it's own people it has sworn to protect.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36874994]I'm a republican and I'd hop on any revolt[/QUOTE] Awesome! I was thinking first we'd demand the government end personal and corporate contributions to political candidates, and then we'd get rid of the electoral college. Y'know, basically cripple the republican party for life. You down?

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36874994]I'm a republican and I'd hop on any revolt besides that it's illegal for a CO to tell his troops to kill civillians, the troops are required to say no[/QUOTE] why not start a revolution right now, country is pretty messed up and clearly you've got the balls to participate in a revolution, you may as well start it. after all, not like the police/military will retaliate. whats stopping you?

*stands in front of giant american flag* [QUOTE=Ridge;36875028]A government that taxes more and more while doing less and less.[/quote] don't you mean a government that finally has the strength to fulfill it's promise of prosperity, while at the same time preventing handouts to the least productive citizens? [quote]A government that imprisons people for pointing out their follies.[/quote] by which you of course mean a government that dilligently works to prevent domestic terrorism! [quote]A government that launches wars across the globe and tightens security against it's own people it has sworn to protect.[/QUOTE] WE WILL NEVER BOW TO EXTREMISTS. *cue crying eagle*

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36875114]why not start a revolution right now, country is pretty messed up and clearly you've got the balls to participate in a revolution, you may as well start it. after all, not like the police/military will retaliate. whats stopping you?[/QUOTE] shit man lets go, meet in town square and we'll start

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36875114]why not start a revolution right now, country is pretty messed up and clearly you've got the balls to participate in a revolution, you may as well start it. after all, not like the police/military will retaliate. whats stopping you?[/QUOTE] I have some pretty rightist ideas that would leave me backed by only the most extremist conservatives, but I also have some leftist ideas that would put off enough of those conservatives that I'm really just fighting with libertarians, but they're too busy smoking weed to revolt.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36875174]I have some pretty rightist ideas that would leave me backed by only the most extremist conservatives, but I also have some leftist ideas that would put off enough of those conservatives that I'm really just fighting with libertarians, but they're too busy smoking weed to revolt.[/QUOTE] lets go man right now, we got this me and you

[QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36875052]Awesome! I was thinking first we'd demand the government end personal and corporate contributions to political candidates, and then we'd get rid of the electoral college. Y'know, basically cripple the republican party for life. You down?[/QUOTE] Democrats are just as guilty of accepting bribes from corporations as Republicans are and you know it. The only difference is who we take bribes from.

We'll need some auxiliary units. So far the only volunteers are the Black Panthers and the KKK. We'll just tell em both to meet us in town square and figure it out from there.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36875202]Democrats are just as guilty of accepting bribes from corporations as Republicans are and you know it. The only difference is who we take bribes from.[/QUOTE] the only difference is that democrats have continually tried to change the way campaign funding and bribery affects our politics, and republicans have blocked those attempts

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36875202]Democrats are just as guilty of accepting bribes from corporations as Republicans are and you know it. The only difference is who we take bribes from.[/QUOTE] Democrats have to be (and are) sleazy and underhanded about it. For republicans accepting money from the private sector is a public re-affirmation of their political doctrine. [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;36875235]the only difference is that democrats have continually tried to change the way campaign funding and bribery affects our politics[/QUOTE] eh I'm not sure about that. Seems more like they made a big fuss to placate their (alleged) constituency, then went right back to putting their hand out for more.

[QUOTE=SwayzeTrain;36875209]We'll need some auxiliary units. So far the only volunteers are the Black Panthers and the KKK. We'll just tell em both to meet us in town square and figure it out from there.[/QUOTE] I'll go get the Animal Liberation Front, gimme a minute

[QUOTE=deanpfr;36870609]Ugh. Making guns illegal is useless because criminals will still get a hold of them because they don't care about the law. [B]Why is this so hard to follow?[/B][/QUOTE] it's not, which is why gun control hasn't been an issue for the democrats for decades now One of the democrat's policies [I]used[/I] to be strict gun control, but that is no longer a policy

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36875235]the only difference is that democrats have continually tried to change the way campaign funding and bribery affects our politics, and republicans have blocked those attempts[/QUOTE] Didn't Obama promise no lobbyists in his administration, and then put a bunch of them in his cabinet?

[QUOTE=The Baconator;36875493]it's not, which is why gun control hasn't been an issue for the democrats for decades now One of the democrat's policies [I]used[/I] to be strict gun control, but that is no longer a policy[/QUOTE] There are other arguments against gun control other than that one, which is good because it's terrible argument. Criminals by default break the law, because otherwise they would be criminals. This is applies to any law. Making theft illegal is pointless because people still steal, making murder illegal is pointless because people still kill other, etc. You could focus on self-defence, on how that, due to the number of guns in the US, very strict gun controls are nigh-on impossible to implement. They are all pertinent arguments. Arguing that criminals break the law is, well, pointless.

I suck, and cannot delete posts.

Posts cannot be deleted except by moderators.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;36872305]So then one right is more valuable than another? That being the case, which is more valuable, the First Amendment or the Sixth? That's not the case, they are all equally valuable, you can't pick and choose which one you don't want, they all come free and as a whole.[/quote] In all honesty I am in a bind I do agree that there should be a definite, unalienable set of rights and in that sense the bill of rights should be untouchable However I feel the second amendment should have no part of it, and that it is no way on par with the right to free speech and so on [QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;36872305]Vehicles certainly do a lot of killing that's for sure, people make bad decisions on how they use vehicles all the time and it results in the injury and death of others on a regular basis. People shouldn't be allowed to make such decisions, so ban the use of vehicles on the public motorway. Does it bother you that someone might want to take your car away from you, say you can't have one anymore?[/QUOTE] I would be annoyed if cars were banned as currently they are pretty essential (unlike guns)

at least I can edit away my shame most of it anyway

Regardless of whether gun control is good or bad, what kind of gun control laws would you even pass to prevent this kind of tragedy? The only real course I'm seeing is to improve mental health screening in the background check.

[QUOTE=James*;36875896]In all honesty I am in a bind I do agree that there should be a definite, unalienable set of rights and in that sense the bill of rights should be untouchable However I feel the second amendment should have no part of it, and that it is no way on par with the right to free speech and so on I would be annoyed if cars were banned as currently they are pretty essential (unlike guns)[/QUOTE] The second amendment ensures your right to free speech in the event all else fails, you can have the means to fight to restore it if need be. Imagine if the Libyians or Syrians didn't have the means to overthrow their governments? I'm not saying the US government is that bad, yet anyway, give them another 20 or 30 years and we'll see if they can turn around, but I doubt it seeing as they've been going the same way for the last 60 years. Cars wouldn't be essential if there was an on the rails public transportation. Personal transportation would just be another thing that was once essential to every day life. Now I should clarify, I wouldn't support a law restricting the private ownership of any vehicle. But if the argument is going to be about what might happen, someone might make a bad decision at the wheel of a car and take someone's life. Most drivers are good responsible people who will likely never get into anything more than a fender bender, and that applies to gun owners too, most are good responsible people who take safety very seriously and will likely never have anything more than a negligent discharge. I had one myself about 10 years ago and never since, I'm extremely careful about where the muzzle of my gun is pointing and no one got even close to being hit, the bullet hit the dirt about 10 feet from me down range.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;36874262]Your second assumption is that the military bombing their own people won't bring any negative response from the rest of the UN. All it takes is a few unarmed civilians getting caught in the blast for the UN to denounce the US, enact sanctions, or if worst comes to worse they might even try to intervene on their own. A revolution backed up by the military of another nation is an entirely different story from the one you're trying to write.[/QUOTE] You're a fool if you think 1. The U.N. would ever invade the U.S. because, yeah, it needs a U.S. vote to do anything militarily. 2. The U.S. could ever be invaded.

[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] Syria.

[QUOTE=iFail;36876337]Regardless of whether gun control is good or bad, what kind of gun control laws would you even pass to prevent this kind of tragedy? The only real course I'm seeing is to improve mental health screening in the background check.[/QUOTE] I believe the main reason that approach never works here in the US is that Americans value individualism. "Do it yourself", blaze your own trail, make your own way in life. When someone suggests something like we need to make better mental healthcare available, it sounds suspiciously like you're telling people that it is society's job to take care of them. This goes against their cherished concept of taking care of your own problems. Of course they ignore the fact that mentally ill people [i]can't[/i] even realize they have a problem a lot of times, much less take care of it themselves. It's easier for society in general to just say "Ban guns- problem solved." and that way they don't have to take care of anybody. That's why in the US whenever anything bad happens everyone starts throwing out ideas for new laws, as if new laws will stop anything.