General Politics Thread

[DayWalker]

Oh here we go again. Now Obama wants to take people's guns.

I know what you mean... the gun industry makes a killing off these folks...
Every 8-14 months or so they publish and article saying the Democrats are coming for their guns... and they come a running!!!

sales spikes, nothing happens... repeat.

You can set your watch to it.

[MATRIX 2]

lol...setting limits on certain type of weapons and more background checks isn't infringing on anyone's rights. I guess people should be able to walk around carrying grenade launchers, .50 cal machine guns, stinger missiles too right...lol

Bullshit.

Grenade launchers and stinger missiles aren't firearms. But yes to the .50 cal machine gun, assuming you could even lift it off the ground.

[MATRIX 2]

I know what you mean... the gun industry makes a killing off these folks...
Every 8-14 months or so they publish and article saying the Democrats are coming for their guns... and they come a running!!!

sales spikes, nothing happens... repeat.

You can set your watch to it.

Everytime feinstein and company open their mouths they cause people to buy firearms in record quantities.

Their actions and words, not anybody else's.

[-Kwesnoth-]

lol...setting limits on certain type of weapons and more background checks isn't infringing on anyone's rights. I guess people should be able to walk around carrying grenade launchers, .50 cal machine guns, stinger missiles too right...lol

Do you know the reason for the 2nd amendment? To protect our freedom, and other rights against tyranny should it happen. Once enough of that amendment has been hacked away, there is really nothing stopping the government from doing what ever the fuck it wants.

[Sub-stance1]

I know what you mean... the gun industry makes a killing off these folks...
Every 8-14 months or so they publish and article saying the Democrats are coming for their guns... and they come a running!!!

sales spikes, nothing happens... repeat.

You can set your watch to it.

The sad part is that the NRA doesn't really care about the gun owners. It's the manufacturers they care about. over 70% of the NRA members agree to stiffer background checks but you don't hear them saying that. All you here is "they are coming after your guns" and people are believing them. If the Gov really wanted to take guns they would done it already.

[MATRIX 2]

The sad part is that the NRA doesn't really care about the gun owners. It's the manufacturers they care about. over 70% of the NRA members agree to stiffer background checks but you don't hear them saying that. All you here is "they are coming after your guns" and people are believing them. If the Gov really wanted to take guns they would done it already.

Yes because a Mayors against illegal guns survey (without details about the survey itself) isn't suspect at all.

Last I checked NRA membership is completely optional.

Yet they added 250k memberships over the past few weeks in addition to the 4.25-4.3 million they previously had.

Yep totally at the will of the manufacturers.

If that were to happen, a second civil war would occur.

[DayWalker]

The sad part is that the NRA doesn't really care about the gun owners. It's the manufacturers they care about. over 70% of the NRA members agree to stiffer background checks but you don't hear them saying that. All you here is "they are coming after your guns" and people are believing them. If the Gov really wanted to take guns they would done it already.

Did you hear Biden's comments today?
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...143.html?hp=r2

I found it interesting b/c its the exact same position a lot of my co-workers have expressed over the last month. (I work with about 90% republicans... most of them are rational/reasonable )

Excellent point though.
Shotgun is the best gun for defense for someone who lacks firearm training... aka 80% of gun owners!

[-Kwesnoth-]

Excellent point though.
Shotgun is the best gun for defense for someone who lacks firearm training... aka 80% of gun owners!

Based off of what statistics? If they are a gun owner, then they would likely have some training. Now if you are referring to the nation as a whole, including non-gun owners, then that might be closer.

[MATRIX 2]

Did you hear Biden's comments today?
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...143.html?hp=r2

I found it interesting b/c its the exact same position a lot of my co-workers have expressed over the last month. (I work with about 90% republicans... most of them are rational/reasonable )

Excellent point though.
Shotgun is the best gun for defense for someone who lacks firearm training... aka 80% of gun owners!

And Joe Biden has how much credibility on this subject.....

[Rapture]

I think it should be clarified that guns are not some grand champion standing in defense of the peoples' rights and freedoms in this nation. It's not how things work anymore. Reality shows that despite many US citizens having access to firearms it doesn't prevent the Government from eroding our liberties. The days since 9/11 are proof of that. Guns are only effective against a directly hostile government, not one nicking away silently and cheerfully outside the view of the masses. In our scenario an educated population would be much more effective at combating the developing Government power grip, and work better to prevent it from happening in the first place.

[DayWalker]

Do you know the reason for the 2nd amendment? To protect our freedom, and other rights against tyranny should it happen. Once enough of that amendment has been hacked away, there is really nothing stopping the government from doing what ever the fuck it wants.

according to you all... if a criminal wants a gun he can get it via the black market... hence your argument against gun control...

now all of a sudden if there was a gun ban you're helpless and unarmed with no means of obtaining them

which is it?

[Sub-stance1]

Bullshit.

to you maybe. Explain how restricting a military weapon to the military is infringing on someone's rights....lol

Grenade launchers and stinger missiles aren't firearms. But yes to the .50 cal machine gun, assuming you could even lift it off the ground.

No shit but I guess you missed the point there.

[MATRIX 2]

I think it should be clarified that guns are not some grand champion standing in defense of the peoples' rights and freedoms in this nation. It's not how things work anymore. Reality shows that despite many US citizens having access to firearms it doesn't prevent the Government from eroding our liberties. The days since 9/11 are proof of that. Guns are only effective against a directly hostile government, not one nicking away silently and cheerfully outside the view of the masses. In our scenario an educated population would be much more effective at combating the developing Government power grip, and work better to prevent it from happening in the first place.

The 2nd amendment is a safeguard against a tyrannical government. While there has been erosion of several rights by the federal government over the past several decades we do not have/face a tyrannical government at this time. They are moving in that direction, but they are not there in the present.

Unfortunately reality dictates how we go about our lives. There will never be enough people like you described around to prevent such infringement of various liberties. Which is why we rely on the 2nd amendment to ensure that if the government does descend into tyranny we can fight back and change course.

[DayWalker]

I think it should be clarified that guns are not some grand champion standing in defense of the peoples' rights and freedoms in this nation. It's not how things work anymore. Reality shows that despite many US citizens having access to firearms it doesn't prevent the Government from eroding our liberties. The days since 9/11 are proof of that. Guns are only effective against a directly hostile government, not one nicking away silently and cheerfully outside the view of the masses. In our scenario an educated population would be much more effective at combating the developing Government power grip, and work better to prevent it from happening in the first place.

examples of your eroded freedoms since 9/11?

[-Kwesnoth-]

according to you all... if a criminal wants a gun he can get it via the black market... hence your argument against gun control...

now all of a sudden if there was a gun ban you're helpless and unarmed with no means of obtaining them

which is it?

...Seriously? The black market is usually for obtaining illegal things with which are used to commit crimes, like shooting up a school, or movie theater. We as law abiding citizens would not think of illegal means of attaining a firearm.

So then a criminal, who does not live under the same laws, can get one, while a person without a gun has no means to get a gun legally.

Do you understand now?

[DayWalker]

...Seriously? The black market is usually for obtaining illegal things with which are used to commit crimes, like shooting up a school, or movie theater. We as law abiding citizens would not think of illegal means of attaining a firearm.

So then a criminal, who does not live under the same laws, can get one, while a person without a gun has no means to get a gun legally.

Do you understand now?

...in the scenario that I presented... YOU ARE the criminal!

DUM DUM DUM!!!!!!

a rebel alliance of cowboys and Halo activist rise up to take down Hitler Part Deuce!!!

[MATRIX 2]

to you maybe. Explain how restricting a military weapon to the military is infringing on someone's rights....lol

No shit but I guess you missed the point there.

Last I checked an AR-15 isn't a military weapon.

M16A4's are select fire (burst) M4's can be fired in a fully automatic fashion. AR-15's are semi automatic by default. They may look like so called military weapons but they do not have the same functionality/capability. Which makes your question completely pointless.

To the second part:

You didn't have one. Unless you consider hyperbole a point (I don't.)

[-Kwesnoth-]

...in the scenario that I presented... YOU ARE the criminal!

DUM DUM DUM!!!!!!

Explain?

I own guns, so I have no need to purchase any, legally or otherwise.

[Rapture]

according to you all... if a criminal wants a gun he can get it via the black market... hence your argument against gun control...

now all of a sudden if there was a gun ban you're helpless and unarmed with no means of obtaining them

which is it?

That's not a dichotomy. If someone really wanted to get a gun for legitimate self-defense then they will find a way if they really want it enough. But it would be illegal for them, and they would face federal consequence if they used it to protect themselves.

The 2nd amendment is a safeguard against a tyrannical government. While there has been erosion of several rights by the federal government over the past several decades we do not have/face a tyrannical government at this time. They are moving in that direction, but they are not there in the present.

Unfortunately reality dictates how we go about our lives. There will never be enough people like you described around to prevent such infringement of various liberties. Which is why we rely on the 2nd amendment to ensure that if the government does descend into tyranny we can fight back and change course.

I'm just making the point that guns are not the only safeguard, and that in some cases an educated population would be much more effective. Imagine if much of the US population wasn't comprised of socially-backwards, politically ignorant idiots, and now imagine how much better this country would already be. No need for a directly hostile government agenda nor is there a need for some civil war to safeguard lost freedoms. Even with all the guns in the world, if your citizenry remain passive and uncaring of their predicament then absolutely nothing will be accomplished.

[DayWalker]

Explain?

I own guns, so I have no need to purchase any, legally or otherwise.

ok... guns are banned/confiscated/whatever... a tyrant rises...

you want to fight back.... you need a gun... you obtain one ILLEGALLY... from a market supply that you say is readily available.

...and lets not forget that we share a border with Mexico
we have all the guns (American Made!) that we could ever want

That's not a dichotomy. If someone really wanted to get a gun for legitimate self-defense then they will find a way if they really want it enough. But it would be illegal for them, and they would face federal consequence if they used it to protect themselves.

I don't think the reason for obtaining it matters. The argument is that gun laws/bans don't stop criminals from getting them.

So why would it stop non-criminals from getting them?

[-Kwesnoth-]

ok... guns are banned/confiscated/whatever... a tyrant rises...

you want to fight back.... you need a gun... you obtain one ILLEGALLY... from a market supply that you say is readily available.

...and lets not forget that we share a border with Mexico
we have all the guns (American Made!) that we could ever want

So in your opinion, what is better? Allowing guns to be had to prevent a tyranny? Or ban guns, and just hope for the best.

[DayWalker]

So in your opinion, what is better? Allowing guns to be had to prevent a tyranny? Or ban guns, and just hope for the best.

well I am not in favor of banning guns. And believe that people should be able to defend themselves. And sure hunt...

I am also in favor people who want a gun proving that they are sane, competent, and have basic training on how to use a tool...

And I believe the prospect of a domestic tyrant coming about far fetched...
And I believe that a foreign tyrant... who presumably has already whooped the military of the current world heavy weight champ... really wouldn't have trouble with cowboys and Halo enthusiasts...

[MATRIX 2]

That's not a dichotomy. If someone really wanted to get a gun for legitimate self-defense then they will find a way if they really want it enough. But it would be illegal for them, and they would face federal consequence if they used it to protect themselves.



I'm just making the point that guns are not the only safeguard, and that in some cases an educated population would be much more effective. Imagine if much of the US population wasn't comprised of socially-backwards, politically ignorant idiots, and now imagine how much better this country would already be. No need for a directly hostile government agenda nor is there a need for some civil war to safeguard lost freedoms. Even with all the guns in the world, if your citizenry remain passive and uncaring of their predicament then absolutely nothing will be accomplished.

Unfortunately that is not the world we live in. So we have our present solution to our present realities.

[raremew]

well I am not in favor of banning guns. And believe that people should be able to defend themselves. And sure hunt...

I am also in favor people who want a gun proving that they are sane, competent, and have basic training on how to use a tool...

Yeah same. I wanna be able to protect myself somehow...lol

[Sub-stance1]

Last I checked an AR-15 isn't a military weapon.

you are mistaken. An ar 15 is nothing but an M16. Trust me I know. They are both made for hunting down humans.

M16A4's are select fire (burst) M4's can be fired in a fully automatic fashion. AR-15's are semi automatic by default. They may look like so called military weapons but they do not have the same functionality/capability. Which makes your question completely pointless.

The two weapons you describe above are based on the Ar15 rifle design. Military styled.

To the second part:

You didn't have one. Unless you consider hyperbole a point (I don't.)

You are confused my friend. Just because you have gun rights doesn't mean they can't be restricted.