Gun control, Tyranny and Genocide...

Great Debates
181

I gave you the situation. The will of the people, lawfully enacted and validated by the judiciary. Your response tells me that the real threat to America is people like you. And you want to be allowed assault weaponry?

Having illegal weapons is not quite like opposing slavery. I wouldn’t laud someone for violating current laws regarding firearms. Would you?

Were it enacted as I described above, I would feel perhaps like I do about current alterations to FISA. I would have to consider whether I found that country suitable to live in.

Having other people spell properly is not what I consider a victory. I am suspecting, however, that gun… advocates do not spend much time reading or thinking about the actual Bill of Rights because as a rule, they don’t know how to spell “amendment.”

182

Generally speaking, those who bother to hone their skills to that nearly superhuman level, are not the same people who go off on a shooting spree. (just sayin’)

183

I didn’t say there was one. I just wanted to know if Hentor would ever “circumvent American due process of law” or if he ever thought it might be right to do so.

184

I don’t disagree.

185

Answer my question about slavery please. Would you break the law or wouldn’t you?

186

If the majority favored restricted speech like you describe, and it was legally enacted, I would not take up arms against the government.

187

Would you break the law, or remain obedient?

188

Just as slavery and gun ownership are different, not all remedies are alike. For instance, I could easily see joining in a march or a sit- in in contravention of a lawful order to disperse. Sitting in is different from shooting a police officer srving a warrant. Not everyone lauds David Koresh.

189

So you really had no point in bringing it up? I’m shocked!:eek:

190

FWIW I don’t laud David Koresh. So it seems you would break some laws. You still haven’t answered if you would help free a slave if you were in a time or place where it were illegal to do so. Would you?

191

I had a point for bringing it up and I think the point is obvious.

I would like to know what your thoughts are on revolvers that fire a round every time you pull the trigger. Do you think they should be outlawed too?

192

Actually I like to fantasize about busting on to a plantation in the Old South with my P90 and hipfiring headshots into all the bad guys while freeing the good guys. I walk alone. I stalk the night hunting injustice.

I also like to imagine a heavily fortified Walden Pond with motion detectors and trip wires. I went to the woods to kill decisively and drink the marrow of my fallen enemies.

I’ve got no idea what the fuck you’re on about. You’d start a shooting war against Americans. I wouldn’t. One of us should reconsider our perspective.

193

If you have any incite into who goes on shooting sprees I am sure the world would be grateful.

Charles Whitman showed lots of skill and many of many of these spree shooters plan for a very long time, enough time to be reasonably fast.

Moon clips make the skill and time involved with reloading a revolver irrelevant in a spree shooting.

And you have still failed to explain away how the most deadly shooting in this country at VA tech was done with a 15 round 22LR pistol and a 9MM pistol that was limited to 10 rounds.

Focusing on the physical object vs. the actual causes of the crime is doomed to be a game of wack-a-mole.

194

I didn’t say I would start a shooting war against Americans. Would you help free slaves if it were illegal? Rather than continue ignore the question you can just say you would rather not answer, or you would have to judge the situation first hand. I would understand.

Hypothetically, would you illegally lie to Nazi’s to protect Jews?

195

Sure…give me the numbers…but really I would rather just not run away or block either, given the choice I would just rather someone not use deadly force on me.

But as an internet expert I will ask how many weapons retention classes you have taken?

[

](The number of gunshot wounds does not predict injury severity and mortality - PubMed)

But lets look at hangun mortality, if you are shot with a single bullet (not in the head) the mortality rate in this study was 8.4%

The chance of being hit when shot at is right about 50% so right there your mortality rate from being shot at by a pistol is about at 4.2%.

Now if you are close and you grab for a knife you will likely be cut and maybe deeply. Where as it is actually fairly easy (if highly unlikely) to disable a handgun by grabbing it.
In the highly unlikely event you do grab for that weapon all you have to on a Semi-auto is to push the slide back a fraction of an inch and it won’t fire, on a revolver grasping the cylinder will prevent it from firing due to leverage.

Now these are both super duper limited chance examples as is the one above and in all the chances that you will have a serious injury are way way too high.

Really if someone points a knife or a gun at me they will get my wallet if it is a robbery, as for if I was forced to carry a weapon due to someone making actual threats to me (which I was for a couple of years) I would have both a pistol and a knife. As to the issue with violent arguments, I have learned to deescalate and have made a point to remove violent people from my life.

So as being a person who would avoid in every way possible having someone commit violence against me and as a person who does not arm himself I would consider any form of deadly force that was used against me as well…Deadly force no matter which is “more deadly” according to non-empirical data. The numbers seem to show that those who want to kill find a way to kill.

And none of this changes the fact that no one has provided a cite to show that reducing the number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens changes the murder rate.

I have not given a full reason for that and I don’t know the all the reasons it is not my job, you are the ones looking to ban items, show that those bans actually do anything.

Of course this is why you and others who are on a witch hunt ban crusade push this type of red herring, it doesn’t fit your narrative and you can’t provide even a single tiny bit of causal correlation between legal gun ownership rates and homicide rates.

And thus you waste political capital, the will of the people and the chance to move in a direction that may help on feel good legislation that does nothing but elect more Republicans.

196

I know this isn’t exactly the question you asked, but they did it with the help of the French fleet, which happened to be the second most powerful fleet in the world at the time. In fact, no armed populace has ever put down a tyrannic government without outside help. Scant few armed revolts (with outside help) resulted in a better government than the one they replaced. Almost all of the successful rebellions in the past 100 years have been non-violent; your odds of a new, peaceful government are much better if you don’t use guys at all.

When trying to gauge how successful an armed resistance by American citizens would be, I think a good case study is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A modern, well-trained army has little problem against insurgents when fighting on their own (or nearly so) soil, even though the insurgents are supplied by outside governments. American citizens would be about as successful.

197

Here you go, this is what I was talking about in my earlier post:

The courts are upholding the right of the government to kill American citizens, without any pretense of charges or trial, just because they are suspected of terrorism. If you follow the link in one of the early posts, you’ll see Obama’s press secretary defending the decision to assassinate a 16-year old American with an armed drone by saying, “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children.”

So for all the tough guys in this thread, what are you waiting for? Why aren’t you already in armed rebellion? This policy of assassinating Americans without charges or trial was started by Bush, but now it’s being expanded by Obama. Do you seriously think if a Republican wins the next election, he will stop it?

With predator drones, the government has no need to have a gunfight with you. Someone in Washington can push a button and blow up your house in Kansas while you’re sleeping, probably for less cost than sending a couple armed agents, let alone a squad of infantry. If a few of your buddies band together in a compound, you just allow them to kill you more efficiently. If you assemble an entire army, then I guess they can take off the gloves and use real bombs and missiles from planes, instead of pussyfooting around with drones.

So exactly what are you and your assault weapons going to prevent?

198

If aw’s are so meaningless, why is everyone and their brother trying to ban them?

199

Because they are not needed for hunting, they are overkill for home defense against a burglar or whatever, and they are next to useless if the government comes after you. So about all they are good for is shooting up schools.

200

And what is “needed” for hunting? Should we outlaw the XBOX360 because it isn’t “needed” and contributes to low cardio health?

As for home defense it is not overkill, an AR15 is easier to shoot than pistols or shotguns especially during times of stress. It is also more effective in the highly unlikely chance you need to use it.

Also note that the deadliest school shooting (VA tech) was done with a 22 pistol and a 9mm pistol that had a 10 round mag.

By what measure are you claiming they faux label of “assault weapon” are “only good for shooting up schools”

Or will you admit that this rant is more about your assumptions than fact?