Gun control is coming

Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Sir Napsalot said:
Handguns are designed to propel a projectile

I have six longbows which are designed to do the same
Click to expand...
False equivalency...Do they sell concealed carry holsters for your bow? Do they sell high capacity magazines for your bow? Does your bow have armor piercing arrows available? Do many people commit suicide with a bow like yours? When was the last time you read about a mass arrow shooting? Do you have a shoulder quiver?
 
Dixonsideproject

Dixonsideproject

Member
2A is to protect the people from the government. A criminal is going to be a criminal whether they have a gun or not. If you’re anti gun you need to read a history book and maybe ask a Ukrainian what they think. This country has not been attacked because everyone in the world knows that Americans have the guns. The only reason to ban guns is to secure a future of control when the government oversteps its bounds. If you carry insurance it’s for protection, you hope to never have to use it but if you do you are protected, same goes for guns
 
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
Dixonsideproject said:
2A is to protect the people from the government. A criminal is going to be a criminal whether they have a gun or not. If you’re anti gun you need to read a history book and maybe ask a Ukrainian what they think. This country has not been attacked because everyone in the world knows that Americans have the guns. The only reason to ban guns is to secure a future of control when the government oversteps its bounds. If you carry insurance it’s for protection, you hope to never have to use it but if you do you are protected, same goes for guns
Click to expand...
If you read through this thread, you'll see the argument is not against guns but reasonable gun control. While I can't say for sure, but I would argue that no country that would attack the US cares about any individuals owning guns and the deterrent is having to face the wrath of the military that no country could defeat.
 
Last edited:
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Dixonsideproject said:
2A is to protect the people from the government. A criminal is going to be a criminal whether they have a gun or not. If you’re anti gun you need to read a history book and maybe ask a Ukrainian what they think. This country has not been attacked because everyone in the world knows that Americans have the guns. The only reason to ban guns is to secure a future of control when the government oversteps its bounds. If you carry insurance it’s for protection, you hope to never have to use it but if you do you are protected, same goes for guns
Click to expand...
There's almost no one here that's anti gun. Most of us are pro regulation. More rules, more strictly enforced, with more penalties for breaking them.
I own more than one. 90% of the time they're all locked up.
The current "policies" are insane and causing a lot of deaths. That's it. They need to be changed. Background checks have to be real, and they have to be thorough, and you just have to wait till it's your turn. Get rid of all person to person sales, no more gun shows unless they make you fill out the paperwork and wait, just like the dealers. No more crazy shit that no one needs, you say it's for protection, you need hundreds of rounds for protection? then you need to get out of where you live. Anything more than semi-auto is already illegal, anyone one caught modifying a weapon to make it more than it is supposed to be not only goes to jail for a while, but they can never have another, of any type. Close those stupid ass black powder laws.
But take away anyone's weapons? only if they've been modified to make them illegal...
 
Dixonsideproject

Dixonsideproject

Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
There's almost no one here that's anti gun. Most of us are pro regulation. More rules, more strictly enforced, with more penalties for breaking them.
I own more than one. 90% of the time they're all locked up.
The current "policies" are insane and causing a lot of deaths. That's it. They need to be changed. Background checks have to be real, and they have to be thorough, and you just have to wait till it's your turn. Get rid of all person to person sales, no more gun shows unless they make you fill out the paperwork and wait, just like the dealers. No more crazy shit that no one needs, you say it's for protection, you need hundreds of rounds for protection? then you need to get out of where you live. Anything more than semi-auto is already illegal, anyone one caught modifying a weapon to make it more than it is supposed to be not only goes to jail for a while, but they can never have another, of any type. Close those stupid ass black powder laws.
But take away anyone's weapons? only if they've been modified to make them illegal...
Click to expand...
The misunderstanding is that the hundreds of rounds aren’t to protect from someone breaking in. They are to protect from a tyrannical government. If you think I’m full of it. Recently, the government attempted to use the pandemic as an attempt to violate our American rights by forcing many to get a vax and succeeded for a while. This tyranny usually starts by saying martial law is in affect during riots. As far as background checks go they are in effect.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Dixonsideproject said:
The misunderstanding is that the hundreds of rounds aren’t to protect from someone breaking in. They are to protect from a tyrannical government. If you think I’m full of it. Recently, the government attempted to use the pandemic as an attempt to violate our American rights by forcing many to get a vax and succeeded for a while. This tyranny usually starts by saying martial law is in affect during riots. As far as background checks go they are in effect.
Click to expand...
oh. Never mind then.
 
Dixonsideproject

Dixonsideproject

Member
cannabineer said:
Can you describe a scenario in which your and my guns would make any difference, should the government decide to do something unacceptable?
Click to expand...
Yes- a fighting chance. (Think reading about Vietnam) You can see what happens when guns aren’t there (think reading about hitler ww2, genocide). How about all the people that died in Ukraine before the government could arm them. That invasion would have started a lot differently if they had the guns. This question is like saying because a bully is bigger than you, you should just take the punches and don’t fight back TBH
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Roger A. Shrubber said:
nope...no matter how many you own, you can only use one at a time effectively. Most people can't even do that.
Click to expand...
more to the point, the government will always have more and better weapons than civilians. I cannot imagine a scenario in which a well-armed and pissed-off community would prevail over the inevitable siege. I don’t have a single antiair weapon, I am forced to admit. And my buddy with the fighter jet is clean out of 20mm and HARMs. Some sorta shortage.

It makes me a proponent of minding and steering the system from within the system, using the tools of lawful activism. Had agent orange won, and were the consequent slide into frank fascism proceeding, neither activism nor armed revolt would make a real difference. Our new contestant is reciting an element of flag-draped mythology that does not hold up to even cursory examination.

The business with the vaccine suggests to me that he (it’s always a dude) has been to the usual libertunatic watering holes. So I do not expect much more than depressingly familiar slogans.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Dixonsideproject said:
Yes- a fighting chance. (Think reading about Vietnam) You can see what happens when guns aren’t there (think reading about hitler ww2, genocide). How about all the people that died in Ukraine before the government could arm them. That invasion would have started a lot differently if they had the guns. This question is like saying because a bully is bigger than you, you should just take the punches and don’t fight back TBH
Click to expand...
Uncle has helos and main battle tanks. One round of APFSDS and I just don’t wanna play any more.
 
OldMedUser

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
Dixonsideproject said:
Yes- a fighting chance. (Think reading about Vietnam) You can see what happens when guns aren’t there (think reading about hitler ww2, genocide). How about all the people that died in Ukraine before the government could arm them. That invasion would have started a lot differently if they had the guns. This question is like saying because a bully is bigger than you, you should just take the punches and don’t fight back TBH
Click to expand...
You're delusional if you think the people could protect themselves from a US gov't gone rogue. All these gun nut militia groups would go down like wheat before a combine and the average citizen in their home even easier.

It would be hard if not impossible for any other country to mount any kind of conventional attack against the US. How would you move the million or better men over to mount an attack without being spotted thousands of miles away and snuffed out.

All you got is too many guns, too easy access to those guns and too many weapons of war in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Lack of education, poor access to mental health care and a child's fascination with the wild wild west that was only about 50 years of your history but seemingly the only era that means anything to gun-toting tough guys.

How can two mass shootings a day this year make you feel proud of all the gun freedumb? At least the US is #1 in the free world for that accomplishment!

Only citizens that are scared little children inside need to walk the streets packing.
 
HGCC

HGCC

Well-Known Member
Lol, I agree with that weirdo but sure am not gonna defend it. My gun views are weird nonsense.

Well just slightly, from an argumentative perspective.

So yeah of course the military/government has superior firepower. You aren't throwing equal sides against each other though, there are a shitload more citizens than military in terms of sheer numbers. Weapons serve as a multiplier of force, if you multiply by zero you have zero. Think those colonial African wars where 5 dudes with a gatling gun mowed down a tribe, tribe would have stood a better chance if they at least had muskets, still going to face massive losses but its greater than zero. *...and that's where my weird view that you should be able to own any crazy weapon you want, but have it be wildly illegal to take anything at all in public fits.

The more reasonable argument is that it wouldn't be sending in the troops or whatever against people, so no major heavy weapons, but rather something at the local level to be protecting yourself against. I think most would agree it's necessary for police to have guns, crime and violence being what they are and the fact that so many are in circulation. Its great that some counties can have unarmed cops, but that isn't feasible here. So the proposal to ban guns from citizens puts these incredibly powerful tools in the hands of a few people. Have you met cops? They aren't great as a whole, not exactly known as a benevolent force of good. Tend to have some troubling associations, for example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/15/joey-gibson-portland-police-relationship-cooperation-text-messages

Or the classic southern thing with the sheriff and the Klan.

Anywho, let's say the political unrest gets worse and comes to the point of violence. The only people with guns are pretty clear what side they wind up on. That silly example above comes into play here, one side having some sidearms vs the other not having any, not going to go great for one of them. There are quite a few scenarios I could see playing out where it would create an unequal power structure in these small interactions.

The shortcoming of that argument as an argument being that the prevelence of guns that requires armed police also means that both "sides" would be able to get them in that political violence/dystopian situation.

Edit: also...I don't own guns, don't think you should have guns in your house if you have kids. So muahahaha not a gun weirdo.
 
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
HGCC said:
Lol, I agree with that weirdo but sure am not gonna defend it. My gun views are weird nonsense.

Well just slightly, from an argumentative perspective.

So yeah of course the military/government has superior firepower. You aren't throwing equal sides against each other though, there are a shitload more citizens than military in terms of sheer numbers. Weapons serve as a multiplier of force, if you multiply by zero you have zero. Think those colonial African wars where 5 dudes with a gatling gun mowed down a tribe, tribe would have stood a better chance if they at least had muskets, still going to face massive losses but its greater than zero. *...and that's where my weird view that you should be able to own any crazy weapon you want, but have it be wildly illegal to take anything at all in public fits.

The more reasonable argument is that it wouldn't be sending in the troops or whatever against people, so no major heavy weapons, but rather something at the local level to be protecting yourself against. I think most would agree it's necessary for police to have guns, crime and violence being what they are and the fact that so many are in circulation. Its great that some counties can have unarmed cops, but that isn't feasible here. So the proposal to ban guns from citizens puts these incredibly powerful tools in the hands of a few people. Have you met cops? They aren't great as a whole, not exactly known as a benevolent force of good. Tend to have some troubling associations, for example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/15/joey-gibson-portland-police-relationship-cooperation-text-messages

Or the classic southern thing with the sheriff and the Klan.

Anywho, let's say the political unrest gets worse and comes to the point of violence. The only people with guns are pretty clear what side they wind up on. That silly example above comes into play here, one side having some sidearms vs the other not having any, not going to go great for one of them. There are quite a few scenarios I could see playing out where it would create an unequal power structure in these small interactions.

The shortcoming of that argument as an argument being that the prevelence of guns that requires armed police also means that both "sides" would be able to get them in that political violence/dystopian situation.

Edit: also...I don't own guns, don't think you should have guns in your house if you have kids. So muahahaha not a gun weirdo.
Click to expand...
Strawman fallacy, gun control ≠ no guns for citizens. The conversation is not about taking away anyone's muskets or the like; unless discussing the topic of red flag laws or mentally ill people having access to firearms. I personally believe that if someone's family has called the authorities with concerns regarding one's mental health, and after a hearing a court agrees there are concerns,, there is a responsibility to the community to remove that person's access to a firearm until there is no longer a concern.

I don't understand the whole citizens need guns to keep cops honest argument. The bad cops are going to abuse the power granted to them regardless, they are not going to be deterred by anyone's ability to have a firearm or not. In fact I would argue that it provides a built in excuse for bad cops to justify using force against a citizen. Not having any restrictions in regards to fiearm's is certainly going to make all cops more on edge, but not sure how that helps?
 
Wattzzup

Wattzzup

Well-Known Member
Dixonsideproject said:
2A is to protect the people from the government. A criminal is going to be a criminal whether they have a gun or not. If you’re anti gun you need to read a history book and maybe ask a Ukrainian what they think. This country has not been attacked because everyone in the world knows that Americans have the guns. The only reason to ban guns is to secure a future of control when the government oversteps its bounds. If you carry insurance it’s for protection, you hope to never have to use it but if you do you are protected, same goes for guns
Click to expand...
So you having no military training, and a pistol is keeping another country’s army from attacking our country? :roll: :roll:

Wow someone is drinking the koolaid :wall:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top