'Mass shooting' reported at small town church in Texas - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Ona;52874788]This isn't about what "should" have been. This whole event "should" never have even happened, I think we can all at least agree on that. But the fact remains that, despite the current legal situition, the access to firearms is far more widespread in the U.S than it is elsewhere.[/QUOTE] Christ can you please acknowledge all of the other posts and points. Just do that.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52874791]Christ can you please acknowledge all of the other posts and points. Just do that.[/QUOTE] I'm on a sansung phone with a cracked screen and I haven't slept in 20 hours, not to mention that whenever I reply to one person I get five other people yelling the same things at me over and over again. It's hard enough to copy and paste one reply at a time, let alone keep my typing coherent. Cut me some slack, here, pal, I'm working on it. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;52874807]And what would more laws do to combat that. Given the current situation where gun laws are a massive clusterfuck and next to impossible to enforce right now anyway? You want them restricted, and I get that. I ask you, how? How are you going to do that? If you restrict them, all of a sudden their value goes up. My 500$ AR-15 becomes a 10,000$ AR-15, and with no registry and no way of tracing it back to me if I use bleach to clean off my fingerprints, how do you stop me from trading my suddenly significantly more valuable AR-15? Furthermore, how do you stop me from simply just.. not giving it up? I live out in the middle of nowhere, my closest neighbor can't even hear the gunshots when i'm shooting on my property, how do you convince me to give it up, bear in mind that the local and federal law enforcement have no idea what I possess. What you're suggesting is such a logistical clusterfuck that you'd create yet another unenforcable law.[/QUOTE] Did I ever once claim to know "how" to accomplish this? I don't believe that I did. All I've done is point out the core of the issue and also the fact that people will take any avenue possible to try and direct the blame away from said core, which in itself is a major part of the problem. Case in point: these last two pages.

[QUOTE=Ona;52874820]I'm on a sansung phone with a cracked screen and I haven't slept in 20 hours[/QUOTE] I can tell. [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ona;52874820] Did I ever once claim to know "how" to accomplish this? I don't believe that I did. All I've done is point out the core of the issue and also the fact that people will take any avenue possible to try and direct the blame away from said core, which in itself is a major part of the problem. Case in point: these last two pages.[/QUOTE] In 13 posts across 2 pages you've effectively said absolutely nothing and refuse to acknowledge anything anyone has said. [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] And. AGAIN. You keep pointing to this core, and when prompted, cannot give any kind of actual solution.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52874054]We're a country of over 330 million people spread over an area comparable to the entirety of Europe[/QUOTE] this makes me wonder what the stats would look like if europe was treated as a singular country when comparing it to the US. that makes a lot more sense to me, the size of land and even population are a lot more comparable [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ona;52874820]I'm on a sansung phone with a cracked screen and I haven't slept in 20 hours[/QUOTE] go get some sleep and come back to it if it is an important enough discussion for you to delay your sleep as much as you have for it

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52874827] In 13 posts across 2 pages you've effectively said absolutely nothing and refuse to acknowledge anything anyone has said.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't understand why you think I'm not addressing people's points, here. Most of my posts have been direct responses to arguments, in fact. I think it's moreso that you just don't like my answers and, I dunno, expect me to come up with something else to say on the matter? Look, this entire discussion past two pages? It's exactly what I've been trying to point out. I said, more or less: "I think this wouldn't have happened if guns weren't so prevelent, but people are so obsessed with their "right" to own them that they will seek to blame anything and everything [I]but[/I] guns for these situations." And in response, what do I see? People saying "it's not the guns, it's mental health/regulation/population/history/[blank], leave the guns out of this!!!" People saying "But most gun owners are responsible, safe, law abiding citizens who don't go on rampages! Stop demonizing us law abiding gun owners by saying that a person with a gun can kill lots of people!!!" People saying "but we have gun laws already! Clearly they're not working!!!" People saying "Well if you're so smart, what do [I]you[/I] propose we do? It's not like legal professionals and politicians have been struggling to sort this issue out for years!!!" People saying "What would you know? You don't even live here!!!" And so on, and so on. Complete with personal attacks, name calling and taking my responses out of context all while dismissing my original - and only - point. I never claimed to have the answers. Only that I can see the problem. And this far, I've had many people proving my point over and over in an attempt to somehow "retaliate" against me getting angry about the current situation. I mean, the only reason I keep replying is to see what new angle of attack someone tries next in order to keep avoiding the real problem, here. It's facinating, it honestly is.

[QUOTE=Ona;52874913] Look, this entire discussion past two pages? It's exactly what I've been trying to point out. I said, more or less: "I think this wouldn't have happened if guns weren't so prevelent, but people are so obsessed with their "right" to own them that they will seek to blame anything and everything [I]but[/I] guns for these situations." And in response, what do I see? People saying "it's not the guns, it's mental health/regulation/population/history/[blank], leave the guns out of this!!!" People saying "But most gun owners are responsible, safe, law abiding citizens who don't go on rampages! Stop demonizing us law abiding gun owners by saying that a person with a gun can kill lots of people!!!" People saying "but we have gun laws already! Clearly they're not working!!!" People saying "Well if you're so smart, what do [I]you[/I] propose we do? It's not like legal professionals and politicians have been struggling to sort this issue out for years!!!" People saying "What would you know? You don't even live here!!!" And so on, and so on. Complete with personal attacks, name calling and taking my responses out of context all while dismissing my original - and only - point. [/QUOTE] You mean people are capable of bringing up reasonable responses and suggestions? Mind blown. [QUOTE=Ona;52874913] I mean, the only reason I keep replying is to see what new angle of attack someone tries next in order to keep avoiding the real problem, here. It's facinating, it honestly is.[/QUOTE] Dude, did you just admit to being a troll?

[QUOTE=Ona;52874913]I honestly don't understand why you think I'm not addressing people's points, here. Most of my posts have been direct responses to arguments, in fact. I think it's moreso that you just don't like my answers and, I dunno, expect me to come up with something else to say on the matter? Look, this entire discussion past two pages? It's exactly what I've been trying to point out. I said, more or less: "I think this wouldn't have happened if guns weren't so prevelent, but people are so obsessed with their "right" to own them that they will seek to blame anything and everything [I]but[/I] guns for these situations." And in response, what do I see? People saying "it's not the guns, it's mental health/regulation/population/history/[blank], leave the guns out of this!!!" People saying "But most gun owners are responsible, safe, law abiding citizens who don't go on rampages! Stop demonizing us law abiding gun owners by saying that a person with a gun can kill lots of people!!!" People saying "but we have gun laws already! Clearly they're not working!!!" People saying "Well if you're so smart, what do [I]you[/I] propose we do? It's not like legal professionals and politicians have been struggling to sort this issue out for years!!!" People saying "What would you know? You don't even live here!!!" And so on, and so on. Complete with personal attacks, name calling and taking my responses out of context all while dismissing my original - and only - point. I never claimed to have the answers. Only that I can see the problem. And this far, I've had many people proving my point over and over in an attempt to somehow "retaliate" against me getting angry about the current situation. I mean, the only reason I keep replying is to see what new angle of attack someone tries next in order to keep avoiding the real problem, here. It's facinating, it honestly is.[/QUOTE] Again with this snide arrogance and deriding condescension. You dont give a shit about any of this, you just want an excuse to feel smug and superior to other people.

[QUOTE=Smashing Good;52874922]You mean people are capable of bringing up reasonable responses and suggestions? Mind blown.[/QUOTE] Considering none of them actually work towards solving the issue of gun violence in America? How most of these arguments were made with the sole intent of attacking my original "America has a gun problem" post? I'd not be so hasty as to call those arguments "reasonable". For all the people demanding I come up with a magical solution, I sure don't see anybody else spending any energy to do it. I mean, why would you when you have a fun strawman to gang up on, amirite? [QUOTE=ilikecorn;52874931]You're just saying "ban guns" over and over. That's your solution. We've heard, we've refuted your arguments, you continue to make them. You just said "avoiding the real problem" and yet you're the one wanting to avoid the real problem by just "ban guns". All of your "but imagine if he DIDN'T have a gun" posts are conjecture, and foolish. I could say "imagine if he wasn't mentally ill, imagine if the airforce did their job, imagine if humans were imortal" I can say that all day long, and yet i've said nothing, the same as what you've done.[/QUOTE] Because getting rid of guns [I]is[/I] the solution, in my opinion. The "how" aspect is something I'm not even going to pretend that I know. I offered the suggestion to slowly shift American culture away from glorification of firearms, and was swiftly ignored and dismissed. My hypothetical "what if he didn't have a gun" point was simply to underline my original argument, in response to the people saying that guns themselves didn't factor into the main issue. But given what a clusterfuck this thread has become, I don't blame you for missing that little thread of conversation.

[QUOTE=Ona;52874934]Considering none of them actually work towards solving the issue of gun violence in America? [/QUOTE] Are you [i]fucking [b]serious?[/b][/i]

[QUOTE=Ona;52874934] How most of these arguments were made with the sole intent of attacking my original "America has a gun problem" post? I'd not be so hasty as to call those arguments "reasonable". For all the people demanding I come up with a magical solution, I sure don't see anybody else spending any energy to do it. [/QUOTE] Well, of course they're attacking your original post. That's what people do in a debate, especially if the original point was not particularly well thought out.

Addressing societal problems, inequality, poverty, associated safety nets, mental health among many other issues to help curb crime in general and gangs and prevent people from snapping to begin, generally attacking the root cause of crime would do nothing to solve gun crime what fuck. WHAT.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52874875]this makes me wonder what the stats would look like if europe was treated as a singular country when comparing it to the US. that makes a lot more sense to me, the size of land and even population are a lot more comparable[/QUOTE] Alternatively, how would things look if we broke it down state-by-state? Of course, the population distribution of Europe and the US are very different. Europe has more than double our number, and most of the land has been inhabited by the current populations for thousands of years. Population centers, to include major cities, tend to be much more compact due to developing before the rise of mass transit. That might seem trivial, it's not; a lot of Americans living in cities rely on public transportation to get to their jobs, they can't just walk to the other side of town in half an hour like you can in much of Europe. Public transportation in the US tends to be inadequate and underfunded; hence inner-city poverty, hence drug trade (in turn exacerbated by the War on Drugs, which is in itself often used as an excuse to crack down on minorities), hence gangs, hence inter-gang violence. I couldn't rightly say if any comparison between the US and Europe would even be valid.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52874938]Holy shit, i've suggested plenty of solutions to bringing gun crime down, and you've effectively just said "nuh uh, that's not gonna work, guns are the problem bro".[/QUOTE] You mean improving mental health care? Tightening law enforcement and regulation? Improving security? Yeah, that stuff [I]would[/I] help. I don't recall ever disagreeing with those notions. I simply pointed out that removing guns themselves would have a much [I]greater[/I] and more demonstrated impact overall. After all, even with improved health care, stricter regulations and better security, people will still slip between the cracks. As many are eager to point out; the Texas church shooter shouldn't have been legally able to get a gun. But he did anyway, and now dozens of people are dead because of him. He slipped through the cracks, and because he had access to a gun, he caused serious destruction. That was my point, nothing more, nothing less. And yet I continue to see people completely missing that point. Or dismissing it so that they can... How was it put, again? Oh, right, so that they can "feel smug and superior over other people", right?

[QUOTE=Ona;52874973] I simply pointed out that removing guns themselves would have a much [I]greater[/I] and more demonstrated impact overall. After all, even with improved health care, stricter regulations and better security, people will still slip between the cracks. [/QUOTE] People would still slip between the cracks even if all guns were banned. The Prohibition era, along with the entire drug trade, springs to mind. Furthermore, there are certain advantages of allowing the common man to possess guns, such as self-protection and harmless entertainment, and I don't think the American people should be deprived of them. Guns may be tools of mass destruction, but a tool cannot do anything without a human mind behind it. Thus, I think we should work to educate humans, instead of prohibiting the tools themselves.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52874985]How do you know that removing guns will have a "much greater impact". The countries that banned guns already had safety nets in place. Again, conjecture, logic doesn't support your statement, because quite frankly we don't know what a US with proper safety nets would look like. But we DO know just how low compliance with gun control is in the US, and we DO know that support for it is pathetically low in the vast majority of the country, and we DO know that the states with gun control still have rampant gun crime. So quite frankly the statistics don't support your idea of "just ban guns lol".[/QUOTE] I know it because I live in a country that has all the same problems with mental health, wealth distribution, culteral inequality, poverty, and general crime, that has far, far less acess to firearms and [I]does not[/I] have regular mass shootings. We still have crime over here. We still have violence, still have murder. This country is far from perfect, but even adjusted for population, our rate of gun violence - especially mass shootings - is [I]miniscule[/I] compared to the U.S. Europe as a whole is a bit worse for gun violence, but most of it occurs in less stable regions towards the East, which have been conflict hotspots for years. In places like England, Scotland, Germany and France, gun violence is minimal compared to the U.S, despite many of those countries having a wide range of other societal problems. [I]That[/I] is how I know. Again, I never once claimed that tackling those other issues wouldn't help. Simply that perhaps they shouldn't be the issue tackled first on this matter.

Saying "our rate of gun violence..." is moving goalposts. Obviously if you have less guns you have less gun violence. Why are you so hung up on the way violence is carried out rather than the fact that violence is being carried out? Do you have less [B]violence?[/B] [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] Hey, violent crime is fine with me as long as it's not being done with guns. :)))

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52875022]So we should restrict rights, rather than improve situations first? Got it. That's the entire reason gun control legislation is typically hailed as a "death sentence" to any politician that's not from a rampantly blue state.[/QUOTE] And herein lies the problem. That whole business about "rights". As if making it harder to own a gun will somehow make you less "free". Tell me, do you honestly feel like people living in places like England, Australia, Japan, Germany, ect... are less "free" than you are just because it takes a lot more effort to purchase a gun? I hate to break it to you, but by many standards, a lot of these countries give their citizens a lot more freedom than America does... perhaps not Australia, if only because our government acts like an agressively overbearing nanny sometimes, but even over here, I've got pretty much all the same rights as an American has. And even some that you guys [I]don't[/I] have. This idea that gun control = "stripping people of human rights" is one of the reasons this problem is so hard for the U.S to even talk about, let alone solve. I mean, look at how much animosity gets thrown at me over it! I'm just some twenty-something nerd in Australia with insomnia and the ability to type long winded sentences! I have no [I]power[/I] in this matter, no influence, no control over the status quo. And yet my pointint out that America has a gun problem was enough to make people feel [I]personally attacked![/I] it's so deeply ingrained in U.S culture that you "need" guns to be free that no cost is too much to bear and any alternative is better than giving them up. I really shouldn't have to explain the problem there. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;52875029]Saying "our rate of gun violence..." is moving goalposts. Obviously if you have less guns you have less gun violence. Why are you so hung up on the way violence is carried out rather than the fact that violence is being carried out? Do you have less [B]violence?[/B] [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] Hey, violent crime is fine with me as long as it's not being done with guns. :)))[/QUOTE] Actually, seeing as you mention it? Yes. Overall violence is lower, as far as I'm able to tell. Especially lethal violence. Guns are very, very good at killing people. Much better than knives or bats or even cars! So, yes.our overall violence [I]is[/I] lower, even when adjusted for population. Nice try, though.

We felt personally attacked because you called us parasites are you thick

[QUOTE=Ona;52875055]And yet my pointint out that America has a gun problem was enough to make people feel [I]personally attacked![/I][/QUOTE] Comparing people to parasites and repeatedly using a broad brush for people simply disagreeing with your arguments is a fair reason for people to get upset. Your argument has been picked apart and yet you refuse to defend it but instead rely on attacks on nationality and culture.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52875061]We felt personally attacked because you called us parasites are you thick[/QUOTE] I called [I]you[/I] a "parasite"? [I]That's[/I] why you're so angry!? Because I made up an analogy on the fly to describe the adherance toward firearm culture!? Yeesh, no wonder you've been acting like I killed your dog or something, if you took that as a personal slight. Rest assured, that wasn't the intention, merely a side effect of my long winded writing style. Sorry that you took offense to it.

[QUOTE=Ona;52875080]I called [I]you[/I] a "parasite"? [I]That's[/I] why you're so angry!? Because I made up an analogy on the fly to describe the adherance toward firearm culture!? Yeesh, no wonder you've been acting like I killed your dog or something, if you took that as a personal slight. Rest assured, that wasn't the intention, merely a side effect of my long winded writing style. Sorry that you took offense to it.[/QUOTE] Do you have an argument to make?

[QUOTE=Ona;52875015]I know it because I live in a country that has all the same problems with mental health, wealth distribution, culteral inequality, poverty, and general crime, that has far, far less acess to firearms and [I]does not[/I] have regular mass shootings. We still have crime over here. We still have violence, still have murder. This country is far from perfect, but even adjusted for population, our rate of gun violence - especially mass shootings - is [I]miniscule[/I] compared to the U.S. Europe as a whole is a bit worse for gun violence, but most of it occurs in less stable regions towards the East, which have been conflict hotspots for years. In places like England, Scotland, Germany and France, gun violence is minimal compared to the U.S, despite many of those countries having a wide range of other societal problems. [I]That[/I] is how I know. Again, I never once claimed that tackling those other issues wouldn't help. Simply that perhaps they shouldn't be the issue tackled first on this matter.[/QUOTE] Violence and Crime happens regardless of the method of attack. Of course it's always easy to blame the United States for the majority of the world's gun violence, because we have our right to bear arms and in other countries guns are only for special purposes or outright banned. I can tell you from experience on my daily commutes to class, family events and even going on trips to other parts of this country, never once had I feared of being gunned down by a raving mad man. Do shootings happen in this country, of course but it's not an annual event as you try to make it out to believe. - So what if we ban guns, the market will just shift to even darker corners of the wall while we continuously dodge the real threats at hand. Crime doesn't just go away because you take way the tools; You take away the guns people will just use other tools, the problem is still there and unsolved. If we mean to diminish crime we must weed out the causes of the crime. What you keep on proposing is a nothing more than a band-aid to the real woes of the people.

[QUOTE=Ona;52875080]I called [I]you[/I] a "parasite"? [I]That's[/I] why you're so angry!? Because I made up an analogy on the fly to describe the adherance toward firearm culture!? Yeesh, no wonder you've been acting like I killed your dog or something, if you took that as a personal slight. Rest assured, that wasn't the intention, merely a side effect of my long winded writing style. Sorry that you took offense to it.[/QUOTE] Hey you said you've been up for more than 20 hours? I have something that might help. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udj-o2m39NA[/media]

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52875077]I mean it's kinda.. written into the bill of rights.. thus making it a right. Look, I don't care about what the UK does with guns, or japan, or australia, or other countries. Because quite frankly those countries didn't codify gun ownership into their laws, when writing their constitutions. Their governments were free to regulate arms as they saw fit, and that's fine, thats dandy. I don't look at you in pity and say "you poor gunless plebs", I don't think i've ever argued that European countries needed more guns.. at all.. ever. I don't care that you can't go to walmart and buy a gun. If it works for you, great. I do care when someone says "JUST GIVE UP YOUR GUNS, FUCK MAN" because such an argument flies in the face of the constitution, and decades of supreme court rulings that have constantly re-affirmed the right to bear arms. Which is something that you conveniently ignore. The second you move to ban guns, its going to get ripped to shreds by the supreme court. The second you put a "license" or "fee" on buying guns, its getting ripped up by the supreme court. So, lets put it this way: YOU CAN'T LEGALLY BAN GUNS IN THE US. Its a non solution, its flat out illegal, hell the only reason that California and New York have sustained bans are because they haven't been brought to the supreme court yet. So suggestions like "BAN GUNS" aren't going to happen. You can parrot them until you're blue in the face, but the simple fact of the matter is: You can't. The only way that's happening is if you call a constitutional convention, and repeal the second amendment, and again, it's not going to happen, because you'd need 3/4ths of the states to agree with that.. and 3/4ths of the states flat out don't agree. Hell 46/50 states don't agree with "bans", let alone anywhere near 3/4ths.[/QUOTE] Yes, written into the bill of rights... written in at a time when guns were mostly single-shot precussion-cap weapons with much lower power and accuracy than modern firearms. Written at a time where the majority of Americans lived in rural areas and required firearms to hunt, maintain farmland and defend livestock. Written at a time when the U.S population was much lower and thinly spread than it is now. Written at the tail end of a conflict that the U.S fought hard to win and was eager to maintain. Times have changed. Technology has changed. People have changed. And yet those same centuries old laws are still being used - and [I]abused[/I] - by thousands. Far be it from me to tell you lot how to run your country, but perhaps operating under the assumption you're all using muzzle-loaders to protect your goats from cayotes isn't the best idea for an urbanised 21st century civilisation with acess to more firepower than most of the world combined... maybe?

[QUOTE=Ona;52875117]Yes, written into the bill of rights... written in at a time when guns were mostly single-shot precussion-cap weapons with much lower power and accuracy than modern firearms. Written at a time where the majority of Americans lived in rural areas and required firearms to hunt, maintain farmland and defend livestock. Written at a time when the U.S population was much lower and thinly spread than it is now. Written at the tail end of a conflict that the U.S fought hard to win and was eager to maintain. Times have changed. Technology has changed. People have changed. And yet those same centuries old laws are still being used - and [I]abused[/I] - by thousands. Far be it from me to tell you lot how to run your country, but perhaps operating under the assumption you're all using muzzle-loaders to protect your goats from cayotes isn't the best idea for an urbanised 21st century civilisation with acess to more firepower than most of the world combined... maybe?[/QUOTE] Oh my god why do people keep saying this shit. As if the founding fathers were incapable of understanding that technology would improve over time. There existed automatic weapons and even then its been upheld by the Supreme Court since then, the Court which helps clarify the evolving nature of technology and the times relating to the Amendments.

[QUOTE=Ona;52875015]I know it because I live in a country that has all the same problems with mental health, wealth distribution, culteral inequality, poverty, and general crime, that has far, far less acess to firearms and [I]does not[/I] have regular mass shootings. We still have crime over here. We still have violence, still have murder.[/QUOTE] [quote]Actually, seeing as you mention it? Yes. Overall violence is lower, as far as I'm able to tell. Especially lethal violence. Guns are very, very good at killing people. Much better than knives or bats or even cars! So, yes.our overall violence [I]is[/I] lower, even when adjusted for population. Nice try, though.[/QUOTE] by your own admittance, Australia and the US do not have the same scale of problems. [editline]9th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ona;52875080]Sorry that you took offense to it.[/QUOTE] :s:

[QUOTE=Ona;52875015]I know it because I live in a country that has all the same problems with mental health, wealth distribution, culteral inequality, poverty, and general crime, that has far, far less acess to firearms and [I]does not[/I] have regular mass shootings.[/QUOTE] What is Switzerland, what is New Zealand, what is the Czech Republic, what are any of the other countries with widespread access to firearms but not regularly experiencing mass shootings Is your argument really 'my country has problems too but they're not the same problems, therefore the [I]only[/I] possible explanation is it's because you have guns and we don't'

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52875118]Oh my god why do people keep saying this shit. As if the founding fathers were incapable of understanding that technology would improve over time. There existed automatic weapons and even then its been upheld by the Supreme Court since then, the Court which helps clarify the evolving nature of technology and the times relating to the 2nd Amendment.[/QUOTE] Somehow I don't think a crank operated gatling gun that takes two people to lift, ten minutes to load, and costs the monetary equivelant of a fighter jet quite ranks up with a semi-auto pistol you can buy for a few hundred dollars that fires faster, loads quicker and fits down your pants. I'm aware of the whole "it covers evolving technology' business. But somehow I doubt the Founding Fathers could predict something like an AR-15 with a 50 round magazine and a bump-stock. Either way, the mere fact that firearms were written into the U.S constitution as a "right" rather than a privelage was a recipe for disaster. Regardless, this phone is almost out of charge and I can't be arsed starting up my laptop. I'll give you all what you no doubt want and leave my argument there. I've said what I wanted to say a dozen times over. Hell, my very first sentence was "I know this will step on some feet." So hey, cheers for affirming my suspicions, I'm gonna go wallow in my existential dread for the future of humanity, peace. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting. If you have an argument, you can make it without using smug quips and feigning superiority." - Pascall))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Ona;52875146]Somehow I don't think a crank operated gatling gun that takes two people to lift, ten minutes to load, and costs the monetary equivelant of a fighter jet quite ranks up with a semi-auto pistol you can buy for a few hundred dollars that fires faster, loads quicker and fits down your pants. I'm aware of the whole "it covers evolving technology' business. But somehow i doubt the Founding Fathers cpuld predict something like an AR-15 with a 50 round magazine and a bump-stock. Either way, the mere fact that firearms were written into the U.S constitution as a "right" rather than a privelage was a recipe for disaster. Regardless, this phone is almost out of charge and I can't be arsed starting up my laptop. I'll give you all what you no doubt want and leave my argument there. I've said what I wanted to say a dozen times over. Hell, my very first sentence was "I know this will step on some feet."[/QUOTE] Why does it even matter? Even then, do you know what the intention of the 2nd is? Its a safeguard against a tyrannical government, that intention doesnt change no matter how advanced weapons technology is. [QUOTE=Ona;52875146]So hey, cheers for affirming my suspicions, I'm gonna go wallow in my existential dread for the future of humanity, peace.[/QUOTE] Jesus christ you're so god damn arrogant.

[QUOTE=Ona;52875146]Somehow I don't think a crank operated gatling gun that takes two people to lift, ten minutes to load, and costs the monetary equivelant of a fighter jet quite ranks up with a semi-auto pistol you can buy for a few hundred dollars that fires faster, loads quicker and fits down your pants. [/QUOTE] 1) Gatling guns weren't invented at the time 2) The FF knew that firearms would eventually adapt in regards to military operations, hence why it would make sense that citizens be matched to the military to prevent a boot on the neck like the British were in the 1770s. [QUOTE=Ona;52875146] So hey, cheers for affirming my suspicions, I'm gonna go wallow in my existential dread for the future of humanity, peace.[/QUOTE] Wew