Quick, someone blow them all up since they are going to be in one place at the same time!!!
So what? Because there is a small amount of individuals who go bezerk I should yield what little personal freedom I may or may not have for the sake of the safety of others or myself???
Well that’s to bad because the freedom of the individual (whatever it may be at this point) should be upheld and maintained even if it means things like this can occur. The personal freedom of an individual with respect to the constitution should come before the safety of others. People shouldn’t be penalized for the stupidity of the few, and I shouldn’t have to yield my personal freedom too the point of ridiculousness, for the sake of your safety.
That’s not hard to understand, 200+ years of being able to buy firearms to be used as tools is going to ingrain those beliefs. A citizen who limits the monopoly of power the state has over him is a citizen of the state, and the state is a government of the people. A citizen who completely yields the monopoly of power to the state is a subject of the state.
Funny thing is that there used to be an assault weapons ban in the 90s which the Bush administration let expire. Cops were opposed to it because of the shooting that happened in California; perp had full auto weapons and body armor.
noho shootout? i remember that shit. crazy there were actually no casualties
You’re right, no one wants MAD. That’s why no other country would risk it by supporting a rebellion that may not even be in their best interests.
Sherman fought for the Union which had more men and more materials. The Union was also at an advantage as the tide of the war by that time had turned against the south. Sherman’s army was also not on the verge of starvation. He didn’t do those things with a band of roving hillbillies, he did them with soldiers.
The US govt would not need to conduct any genocides. Even if it did, you think it would be hard for the govt and the media to just spin it? We all know that that’s never happened before.
The government would still be able to conduct trade with other nations just as it was able to do during the Civil War. Do you care to explain how those hillbillies are going to simultaneously live off the land while executing a scorched earth policy? What are they going to do when they run out of food, water and ammunition? Where are they going to do for medical supplies or other health care? The government and those who didn’t join the rebellion would be able to get those things whereas the rebels wouldn’t. Do you really think that hillbillies would be able to do a damn things to interrupt supply lines? If the government had to move supplies through areas where there might be a concentration of rebels, they certainly wouldn’t do it via covered wagon. There would be tanks, armored vehicles, radar, air support, etc.
You’re also assuming that most of the country would even join the rebellion when this is highly unlikely.
It wouldn’t have mattered what they did. With no help from England and France, they had no hope whatsoever of winning that war.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
The South never came close to winning. To quote a historian "The North fought that war with one hand tied behind it’s back. Had it been in any danger of losing, it would have simply taken out the other hand.
Other countries not supporting the South had nothing to do with the Emancipation Proclamation. England and France had already made up their minds not to support the Confederacy long before the Lincoln ever issued the proclamation. They surrendered because it wasn’t economically viable to fight a war against the US. Like I said, they both relied on the US for half of their food supply. War with the Union would have caused starvation.
There’s also this tidbit. France and England both had overseas empires, and England had Scotland and Ireland right at home. A confederate victory could have sparked similar and more serious independence movements in those territories which was the last thing that they wanted, especially England.
Again, no it doesn’t keep the government honest. Did the widespread gun ownership in Iraq keep Saddam Hussein honest? The US military is far more powerful than what Iraq had.
Stating that it’s not impossible is a red-herring because nothing is impossible. It’s possible that an unarmed, sixty-year-old woman could single-handedly win a fight against 20 knife-wielding opponents, but I don’t think that too many people would put their money on it.
You’re really grasping at straws here.
is piers morgan aware that (correct me if i’m wrong) most guns sold in stores are semi automatic?
and that the same effect could have been achieved with a glock with a 33 round magazine…?
he comes off as a complete idiot. it would be nice if both sides were completely educated on the matter and had their facts right before they get on tv and frame the debate.
That’s most people. NY Times just released an article detailing the differences from a rifle and an assault rifle according to Connecticut law but it dismisses some key differences.
well you get more “stopping power” and a weapon thats larger and more capable of handling the kick back that will allow even an amateur to do work with some semi automatic rifles, but yeah, its a point ive been saying whenever gun shit is brought up, that yo, someone proficient with a decent handgun, with some clips, extended or not on deck for quick reloads could hammer down on a rack of unsuspecting people and get a ton of kills easy. semi auto just makes it easier for a noob i guess you could say.
i mean there are semi auto shotguns too, and the media needs to stop equating ar15’s and shit to MACHINE GUNS. fully automatic weapons have been banned since like 86, and you can only own one before that year, and you have to register it with the atf, pay taxes on it, get a license, a second background check, and basically be on that watch this motherfucker list. lol
but yeah, people are definitely willingly ignorant as to how much damage someone could do with some handguns and a shotty, and they sell those at walmart in most states, not to mention just a common hunting rifle is no less a weapon we shouldnt worry about either considering you can just snipe niggas from good distances with it with a higher likely hood of escaping if your not on one of these crazy suicide missions.
@ Pedoviejo. Personal freedom in that sense should come with a pinch of salt in this day and age. I get why it would be important to anyone, but the truth is that US citizens are likely as controlled as anybody else in the western world. Actually the Lionel Shriver interview I posted, if it is still active on that BBC page, pretty much sums up how I feel. I thought she gave a very precise take on why Americans like to own guns. It played exactly in to what you have just said about personal freedom. I do realise my feelings are NOT as important as you guys. Neither do I or would I have anything against anyone that wanted to own a gun responsibly.
My own feelings are that there is every chance this will simply end with a few new sanctions regarding gun ownership. But my overriding view is that anything that makes a difference in situations like these, that is a good thing. There needs to be a stand for those innocents that have taken a bullet, not just from this situation, but every other. But a start needs to start somewhere.
So apparently Obama is using this event to spear head another “assault” weapons ban.
And people thought I was stupid for buying a crap load of high capacity magazines for guns I don’t even have. I’m gonna be riiiiich! Suck on that, poor people!!
I originally intended to stock up on “assualt” weapons when Obama got re-elected, but now it seems I missed my chance.
[media=youtube]pUjh9Id6Id8[/media]
There are no laws that were placed now that would prevent you from purchasing those firearms. Go get your guns.
I really dislike that a tragedy is being spun to push anti-gun propaganda… it just another opportunity for people looking for an excuse to push something into law… no more no less…
Anyone see the video of the dad laughing and cordially approaching the microphone then forcing his face into sad mode to make a speech? Odd.
I’m probably going to by some 30 round mags myself. I don’t think they will ban any type of rifle but i do think high capacity magazines will be banned.
sent from my Sprint Galaxy Nexus on PPC
That’s how laws are created though. Something happens, they want to prevent it, they create laws.
I’d rather they spend their time working on real issues than creating laws like how many chickens you can own.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Asshole is already talking about it, and saying there is a majority of the American people wanting to ban “Military Assault Style Weapons”, and how felons abuse “legal loopholes”.
Dude is such a tool, dumbass doesn’t even probably know the difference between a AR-15 or M-16, or doesn’t know that its illegal to buy weapons from 1950 something and up without doing it through a dealer who does a background check. And even if it is a WWII and below weapon, baring BAR Thompson or any automatic firearm (these have to go through dealer), you still have to register them.
LOL, “If there is a just a iota of the courage that the teachers showed on Sunday we can do something”
What a scheming bastard.
I wonder how many more innocent people will have to die for someone to finally make it more difficult to buy guns