The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Heller Affirmed - SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment Individual Right Determination
Posts
Zombies.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Regarding some of the other random posts. Ad hominem, straw man, and appeal to popularity are all on the don't section of the rules page. Let's try to argue the point and not the redneck cliche.
Going to lunch with some of my redneck colleagues, be back to argue later.
um, ok, that's kinda interesting. But I think that, at least in the first four examples guns weren't really common in those societies to have posed any problem to a determined government.
I think we all agree that if a modern western society experimented with gun control, it wouldn't be a cunning plan to kill its citizens.
Non-existent, really. Which means that everything else beyond gun control should matter a great deal.
Uh... lots of people hunt with semi-automatic rifles. Sure, more people prefer to use bolt action rifles for hunting, but using a semi-auto isn't uncommon. Semi-autos fire bullets just as well as pretty much any other action and they're great for target shooting as well. Full auto would be useless for hunting, but they're a fair bit harder to get.
For self defense, a semi-auto on anything other than a shotgun is pretty much a requirement. Missing a deer with one shot isn't a big deal, but that doesn't apply when your life is on the line.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Joke about you stepping outside with a spatula in search of roadkill.
edit: keep mixing up my fucking gun terminology. I actually did take some classes on this shit but I didn't pay much attention. I'm going to go look at dicks.
Gun control contributing to genocide is ridiculous.
I don't understand your notion of the other rights being "meaningless" without guns.
Besides, if we ever are taken over by a dictator, odds are that the people with the guns will be the ones helping him.
Not to mention the fact that a few yokels with guns aren't going to "stand up to" or "overpower" or "overthrow" the US government. Last I checked, firearms in the US army in the late 1700's were on par with what civilians could have, ie flintlocks and muskets. This is as opposed to now were the differential in armaments between civvies and the Fed currently is a fucking joke. The law is outdated as shit given this context and anyone who doesn't realize this is either disingenuous, retarded, or just too fucking selfish to give up their gat for the good of society as a whole.
FACT: Genocides didn't happen before guns.
Also, ignore the ones that happened inside of the US, when the oppressed minority had guns and it didn't help them. That's irrelevant.
Well, people shouldn't be required to give up their gat. The reasoning behind that just doesn't have anything to do with preventing a home grown King George the 3rd. Which isn't to say that gun ownership shouldn't be regulated, either.
I was half-joking when I said "that's irrelevant," because not only has it been ignored so far in discussions about genocide, but it actually is irrelevant to the thread, since the start of a genocide isn't going to be an issue in the US anytime soon.
Is it too much to ask for effective laws that actually enforce the existing laws? Also, end the gun show loophole and I would be pretty content with the current level of gun control.
I'd be curious to see the monthly stats and then compare the warmest months (say, June-July-August) year-to-year for the US and Canada. Anyone have those figures?
If you really believe that, then you should ask your history teachers for your taxes back. Because they clearly failed to teach you anything.
This. I openly disagree with Obama on a lot of points, but overall I think he's the guy we need to have in power right now.
Well, that too. But mostly the above.
The fact that the people who liked saying that gun rights are the basis of all others tended to support Dubya sort of leads credence to your point, Than.
(sigh) You know, I sorta liked stare decisis.
Fine, I admit it, I was lazy.
My thought is, all gun control laws are infringing upon the ability to legally obtain a gun. We primarily want gun control to reduce crime. Since the criminal is already committing a crime, why should he care about the gun law?
Gun laws are special in this case because they are designed to be 100% redundant, adding an additional crime onto the crime or attempted crime already committed.
Also, everything that you said about illegal connections stands.
Finally, I hate hippies and wish they would die.
That said, the list of genocides amuses me because it assumes all the groups would have been heavily armed and able to turn back a military had there not been gun control laws.
The Armenians were known for their marksmanship after all.
A large part of why criminals have access to weaponry is the sheer amount of it being put out by the manufacturers. This is one of the "dirty little secrets" of the gun industry, and it's the big reason the GOP has tried to do everything they can to get the industry retroactive immunity.
That would be really funny if it didn't work.
Edit: See Mutually Assured Destruction.
forgot I could lime stuff
Lovely, I agree entirely, lets go after them then. Oh wait, the gun lobby is too big to take on. I know, lets pass useless bans and pretend like we're doing something, that'll show them!
What I heard from you is that gun bans wont do squat because the gun companies are pumping out too many guns. Did I understand that right?
Just to put it out there, the reason I think gun control laws are useless is specifically because they don't reduce gun crime. If they did, then I would love it, but gun control laws in America wont work for demographic reasons (IE we don't give a shit about the poor).
It doesn't.
Seriously, have you ever heard of supply and demand?
I'd wager it depends on how modernized the military is. If they're limited to jeeps and some M-16s and a bunch of machetes (I'm thinking Rwanda, here), then I can see how a people armed with handguns might dissuade them a bit. It's not that the military couldn't wipe them all out if it really wanted to, it's that when you know you're going to lose a couple soldiers guaranteed at every house you hit, you might not want to after all.
But that requires a very well-armed populace and a comparatively limited military. If the US government really decided it wanted to kill all the Jews, for example, it would be able to, gun control or no. In a place like Iraq, though? We've seen how hard it is stabilizing that area when the people have a shit-ton of guns. I don't think attempted genocide against Sunnis or Shiites would fare well.
Eh it was due for a new interpretation. From what I've seen so far it's not a terrible one, either. But I haven't read the whole opinion.
The reason stabilizing Iraq is such a clusterfuck has more to do with the fact that the U.S. military has to maintain some semblence of caring about the populace despite the fact that most of the populace doesn't really want them there. If our military wanted to just kill EVERYBODY I doubt they'd have a very hard time.
It'll be interesting to see if the Democrats fight this. If not the GOP might have just lost a talking point.
So, wait, the reason gun control laws are useless is because people want the guns despite the law? I'm sorry, I'm really not following you.
See: edit. Then again, that only works on a world destroying scale, so I guess in regards to guns the image is rather funny.
Well, yeah, killing everyone is pretty easy. You just bomb the fuck out of everything.
Genocide is usually meant to be more targeted than that, though.
Still, military forces amoral enough to commit systematic genecide are probably not going to worry about combatant status or harming civiliians. If you feel you really absolutely must kill an entire race offing anyone who gets in your way or doesn't instantly obey probably isn't going to weigh on your mind much.
On that note, if the U.S. government was cruel enough to warrent armed rebellion, the only chance the civilian population would have would be getting the military on their side. One of the problems with better military tech and tactics is it makes the military that much more untouchable by yahoos with shotguns.
I don't see how. Democrats are still going to want regulations over individual gun ownership so they can still frame it as 'they want to take yer guns!' The only thing this really solved was the individual or militia question, and correctly in my opinion, all the more delicate questions still exist and can still be exploited.
I'm unaware of any precedent for a genocide that ruthless, though. Killing outright supporters of the targets, or those who protect them, sure. But if the military comes in and starts just blowing the fuck out of everything, the support for genocide pretty much tanks.
Genocide doesn't really just spring up one day out of the blue, where some group is all, "Hey, you know what? Let's kill all of group X!" You need to have some fierce grievances, made up or no, between the targets and the others. You need to foster a sense of kinship amongst those not targeted, so that the targets are established as "Others" that need to be removed. That's not really compatible with just killing everyone and letting God sort 'em out.
See, I'm an expert on genocide because I've seen both Hotel Rwanda and Schindler's List. I know what I'm talking about.
But not as easily. Look at what happened with feminism and Roe v. Wade.