• Democrats to pursue assault weapons ban, as Sandy Hook Elementary 'unlikely to re-open'
    232 replies, posted
The US government would justify cracking down on a revolution because they're breaking the law and thus criminals or terrorists.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38852991]except the american military has good supplies, communications, training and coordination[/QUOTE] Then why have we been in Afghanistan for 10+ years?
Alright, seriously. I doubt the U.S. Army would annihilate their own people if the government turned corrupt for a powergrab and all this stupid hypothetical shit. They're as much human and U.S. citizens as everyone else is. If it was a crazed gunman, that's one thing which the National Guard would be called in for if it got serious enough, but a political revolution is a whole 'nother thing.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38852991]except the american military has good supplies, communications, training and coordination if a revolution occurred in america the "intended" way, i can summarize the events: 1. localized outbreaks of violence, looting, pillaging, shooting and seizing of things like post offices 2. the police, and then the armed forces would quell this 3. any groups left fighting on would run out of bullets, food, manpower and often be captured or surrender[/QUOTE] more like 1. government attempts to take guns away for whatever reason 2. public says no. but if the gov actually forces it on us. 1. gov attempts to take guns. 2. some submit. 3. the rest are fucking pissed 4. US military may be the best in the world for mobilizing troops but you really can't just fight your own public. 5. now the government has both military and citizens pissed 6. citizens being given military equipment 7. gov says fuck this
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;38852782]Didn't even fucking USE the "assault weapons". Not to mention I'm pretty sure that those weren't even "assault weapons" in the fucking first place.[/QUOTE] Who fucking knows what an "assault weapon" is, it's an imagined term to be used as political rhetoric.
It's all fine and dandy saying "oh what about mental healthcare" but it's not like this guy didn't have access to it, his dad was apparently pretty well off so what are you going to do then? Monitor everyone with the slightest problem and then just pounce on them the second they do something shifty?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38853018]Then why have we been in Afghanistan for 10+ years?[/QUOTE] because a stable government hasn't managed to solve all the problems yet even then, the usa occupying forces or the new government have yet to be booted out or overthrown
[I]Or...[/I] You just do more extensive background checks on people with any mental disorders, criminal backgrounds , etc instead of also punishing law abiding citizens. What the hell is going on with our mental health system, do we even have one because things like this make me think we don't.
[QUOTE=markg06;38853054]It's all fine and dandy saying "oh what about mental healthcare" but it's not like this guy didn't have access to it, his dad was apparently pretty well off so what are you going to do then? Monitor everyone with the slightest problem and then just pounce on them the second they do something shifty?[/QUOTE] Maybe just have them not so much monitored, but just get a check-up every few months?
[QUOTE=Zarjk;38853046]more like 1. government attempts to take guns away for whatever reason 2. public says no. but if the gov actually forces it on us. 1. gov attempts to take guns. 2. some submit. 3. the rest are fucking pissed 4. US military may be the best in the world for mobilizing troops but you really can't just fight your own public. 5. now the government has both military and citizens pissed 6. citizens being given military equipment 7. gov says fuck this[/QUOTE] you automatically assume hundreds of millions of people would suddenly rise up if the federal government banned guns tomorrow, you would find people who wouldn't give two shits not that gun control is even about banning guns in the first place
[QUOTE=Atlascore;38853076] lets just ignore the fact that most American's these days are too lazy to even protest..[/QUOTE] Or that there's this amazing new thing that lets you speak your mind from your own home. It's called the Internet or something.
It isn't exactly easy to prevent tragedies like this to begin with. He didn't even own or buy the guns in the first place, he took (stole) them from his mom. Really the fault lies with the parents.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38853084]It isn't exactly easy to prevent tragedies like this to begin with. He didn't even own or buy the guns in the first place, he took (stole) them from his mom. Really the fault lies with the parents.[/QUOTE] Any gun owner in their right mind would keep them far away from any grabby hands, even if that means placing them in a keypad locked safe.
Welp, I tried. I have no idea how this devolved into a rambling argument on whether or not the American public could take on the government and the military (which, interestingly enough, bodies both composed of [b]members[/b] of the American public, in most cases elected or put in their position by the American public, and aren't a part of some religious minority sect or minority group in a position of ultimate power), but have fun, I guess v:v:v
I'll assuage the fears of any gun owners here and say that nothing is going to pass. Endorsing gun control on a national level is political suicide at this point. If Obama can barely say anything with no fear of being voted out of office, senators and representatives ain't going to do shit neither. which is a good thing, because assault weapons bans have more to do with banning weapons for their aesthetics than anything else, and it becomes frustrating having a conversation with gun owners in America, bringing up any kind of gun control, and having them reference the federal AWB as if that is the example to follow.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38853079]you automatically assume hundreds of millions of people would suddenly rise up if the federal government banned guns tomorrow, you would find people who wouldn't give two shits not that gun control is even about banning guns in the first place[/QUOTE] i'm not implying hundreds of millions would rise up, but even a tiny percent of that population is enough to put the government at bay.
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;38852662]he left his Buschmaster in the car for the attack. no no no, they're going the wrong way, what is needed are mental health care reforms so the nut cases can be identified, treated, and watched[/QUOTE] exactly
[QUOTE=Zarjk;38853311]i'm not implying hundreds of millions would rise up, but even a tiny percent of that population is enough to put the government at bay.[/QUOTE] Even if a tiny number of gun nuts, survivalists, nationalists, etc rise up and somehow manage to topple the most powerful army on Earth, they won't be ordinary people in the street. These people will be well trained, well armed, possibly disregarding several things in their quest to overthrow the government, and small in number. And you trust these people to create a stable government without any foreign nation taking any action whatsoever? Do you trust them to recreate a free society as various services provided by the state (sanitation, electricity, transportation, etc) may actually collapse in a massive country of hundreds of millions of differing people, some of which hate each other?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38853395]Do you trust them to recreate a free society as various services provided by the state (sanitation, electricity, transportation, etc) may actually collapse in a massive country of hundreds of millions of differing people, some of which hate each other?[/QUOTE] So the states would split up, big fucking deal. [editline]16th December 2012[/editline] It's not like we'd have to rebuild from scratch :v:
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;38853418]So the states would split up, big fucking deal.[/QUOTE] Revolutions aren't romanticized as "we just need to overthrow the gubbermint and everything is diddly dandy". Revolutions are often violent, bloody affairs where it may take decades for a country to recover, and even then, you won't create a perfect society. EVEN then, this is discounting economic collapse and foreign intervention that is going to happen.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38853395]Even if a tiny number of gun nuts, survivalists, nationalists, etc rise up and somehow manage to topple the most powerful army on Earth, they won't be ordinary people in the street. These people will be well trained, well armed, possibly disregarding several things in their quest to overthrow the government, and small in number. And you trust these people to create a stable government without any foreign nation taking any action whatsoever? Do you trust them to recreate a free society as various services provided by the state (sanitation, electricity, transportation, etc) may actually collapse in a massive country of hundreds of millions of differing people, some of which hate each other?[/QUOTE] yes. because maybe I'm a slightly patriotic american who believes that fully automatic guns of all types should be legalized. maybe because I believe that they won't go mad with power, besides. it's a endless cycle. one government becomes a tyranny, a new one arises to over throw it.
[QUOTE=Zarjk;38853463]it's a endless cycle. one government becomes a tyranny, a new one arises to over throw it.[/QUOTE] It's a pretty shit system in that case if you create a state with the intention of it becoming a tyranny. It's why we have the much more powerful right (the right to free speech).
but my point is you get a cycle until the tyranny is broken. nobody wants a shitty life, nobody wants to revert back to wooden huts. [quote] 4. US military may be the best in the world for mobilizing troops but you really can't just fight your own public. 5. now the government has both military and citizens pissed[/quote] to answer the question about military might
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38853495]It's a pretty shit system in that case if you create a state with the intention of it becoming a tyranny. It's why we have the much more powerful right (the right to free speech).[/QUOTE] It's not intended to become tyrannical, it's just a failsafe if it does Have you just not read the bill of rights or what
Ban water, it's the leading cause of drowning. On a more productive note, why not just train teachers to use firearms and let them keep them in their desk or something? Surely that'd be a better solution?
Why close the school, I know there's been a great tragedy, but why....
-snip-
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38852655]So I guess the Libyans and Syrians who didn't even own weapons to begin with shouldn't have won in their revolution? Cause the government is oh so powerful its unstoppable.[/QUOTE] if there's a revolution private ownership of firearms won't change much really it's mostly about defecting military units.
[QUOTE=SFC3;38853566]Why close the school, I know there's been a great tragedy, but why....[/QUOTE] It's way too large of a tragedy.
[QUOTE=draugur;38853544]Ban water, it's the leading cause of drowning. On a more productive note, why not just train teachers to use firearms and let them keep them in their desk or something? Surely that'd be a better solution?[/QUOTE] Are you seriously suggesting letting teachers keep firearms around inquisitive children? That's just asking for it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.