Connecticut School shooting!

[lotus503]

I can just replace the WMD's, tanks and drones with rifles and handguns and your post would be the exact same, given your posts in this thread. So essentially your rationale as to why people just bow down to the state is because "society" is better off that way?

No point talking to you any more.

I don't equate not allowing you access to what you want as Bowing down to the state.

Your 2nd amendment rights have limits and society is better off because of those limits. And if the issues with rampage killings can only be addressed with further restrictions for the betterment of society than I support it.

You don't have to like it, agree or comment.

 

[Screech]

A few citizens with weapons can be pretty effective against a government that a large fraction of the people feel has gone too far......the rebels in syria don't have an air force or artillery battalions(well.....to my knowledge anyway) but are still fighting. You don't need a nuke to resist a government that has nukes.

 

[dmens]

I don't equate not allowing you access to what you want as Bowing down to the state.

Your 2nd amendment rights have limits and society is better off because of those limits. And if the issues with rampage killings can only be addressed with further restrictions for the betterment of society than I support it.

You don't have to like it, agree or comment.

You simply support the removal of the means to resist the state. That is the same as bowing down to the state, as far as I'm concerned.

Of course your various claims about gun control leading to "the betterment of society" have no basis in reality whatsoever*, so your stance is doubly abominable, both from a 2A/resistance against the state point of view, as well as a sociological point of view.

*For more details refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-kon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

 

[Farmer]

Yup one lone guy standing in the way of tanks, no gun, no tank of his own, pretty effective too.

So your very restricted right to bear arms does nothing to resist the state that a lone guy with some conviction can't do.

Thanks for proving my point, that the 2nd amendment as a means to resist the government is ridiculous outside of metal security blanket.

Sigh, there's no point in arguing with you. Pick a point and stick to it. First you argue small arms are insufficient. Now you argue you don't need small arms.

Regardless of what you might think, firearms in the hands of citizens provides a means of resistance, regardless of how many tanks and smart bombs the supposedly tyrannical regime might possess. For a recent example, look at the Iraqi insurgency.

I am not saying it's going to happen, I'm saying you shouldn't dismiss it without giving evidence or reason.

 

[lotus503]

Yeah, 2A never did any good at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)



Because symbols mean nothing. Of course that is in a country where the supremacy of the state is literally the law, without exception, so the fact that one man in China can do such a thing means the people here ought to be able to do a little more. Well, not you of course.

Your guns are not resistance from tyranny, they are not effective vs heavy armor, drones, missile strikes. They are a security blanket for your fears.

I stand up for what I think is right and I think it's time to do what we can to stop rampage killings, even if it means we add assault weapons, along side, tanks and nukes etc to the list if things you can't own.

 

[Farmer]

Your guns are not resistance from tyranny, they are not effective vs heavy armor, drones, missile strikes. They are a security blanket for your fears.

I stand up for what I think is right and I think it's time to do what we can to stop rampage killings, even if it means we add assault weapons, along side, tanks and nukes etc to the list if things you can't own.

In these past few replies you have shown absolutely no reason nor evidence supporting your claims.

Yes, it's time to do what we can. Great job. What were we doing again?

 

[dmens]

Your guns are not resistance from tyranny, they are not effective vs heavy armor, drones, missile strikes. They are a security blanket for your fears.

I stand up for what I think is right and I think it's time to do what we can to stop rampage killings, even if it means we add assault weapons, along side, tanks and nukes etc to the list if things you can't own.

Yeah, ask the cave-dwellers in Afghanistan how they're doing against the entire high-tech might of the US regime, with a bunch of barely functioning cold war arms.

In any case, I already said issues with mental healthcare and the sensationalist media have far more culpability than the supposed lack of gun controls, but you simply plow on with your asinine claims. I think I'll go now.

 

[berzerker60]

Gun deaths vs. gun ownership:

http://mark.reid.name/iem/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't think gun control would work to prevent incidents like what this thread is about. I'm against it because I think it will be ineffective. With or without 2A, I think we have to honor the general principle of personal freedom unless there is a compelling reason not to, and that means not only having an important objective but actually being able to accomplish it, and using the least restrictive means possible. Under that framework, increased gun regulation is not a good option. To be effective, it would have to be extremely draconian.

However, personal fire arms are entirely irrelevant as a means of resisting the modern state. There are ways to resist, but using guns isn't one of them. The idea that one can use guns to resist the state is a fantasy of libertarians who romanticize using martial prowess to somehow resist "tyranny," a concept which they do not even understand as they're pampered Americans who have never experienced anything like it. Self-righteous lectures about resisting tyranny aside, many of the arguments against gun control do have merit.

 

[lotus503]

Sigh, there's no point in arguing with you. Pick a point and stick to it. First you argue small arms are insufficient. Now you argue you don't need small arms.

Regardless of what you might think, firearms in the hands of citizens provides a means of resistance, regardless of how many tanks and smart bombs the supposedly tyrannical regime might possess. For a recent example, look at the Iraqi insurgency.

I am not saying it's going to happen, I'm saying you shouldn't dismiss it without giving evidence or reason.

I'm saying your 2a rights already limit you to a point you can't defend against tyranny from an oppressive government any more than the guy standing unarmed in front of tanks.

Hence metal security blankets. If the government wanted to go full tilt oppressive murderous dictatorship you wouldn't be able to stop it.

You can lie to yourself and tell yourself otherwise but it's not living in reality.

In reality you have limited 2nd amendment rights and if we don't find a way to stop these rampage killings by other means, they will eventually be even more limited.

 

[Farmer]

Gun deaths vs. gun ownership:

Gun homicides vs. gun ownership:

 

[Farmer]

I'm saying your 2a rights already limit you to a point you can't defend against tyranny from an oppressive government any more than the guy standing unarmed in front of tanks.

Hence metal security blankets. If the government wanted to go full tilt oppressive murderous dictatorship you wouldn't be able to stop it.

You can lie to yourself and tell yourself otherwise but it's not living in reality.

In reality you have limited 2nd amendment rights and if we don't find a way to stop these rampage killings by other means, they will eventually be even more limited.

I guess you're an oracle?

The scenario of resisting a tyrannical government in the United States is unlikely, but don't speak as if you know what would happen. There have been many historical examples of insurgent resistance using things like small arms. To dismiss it as useless is extreme.

 

[lotus503]

Yeah, ask the cave-dwellers in Afghanistan how they're doing against the entire high-tech might of the US regime, with a bunch of barely functioning cold war arms.

In any case, I already said issues with mental healthcare and the sensationalist media have far more culpability than the supposed lack of gun controls, but you simply plow on with your asinine claims. I think I'll go now.

We agree mental health issues and the media contribute more to these types of killings than guns. So let's get some solutions to those issues going. If we can't, gun control is up next.

 

[lotus503]

In these past few replies you have shown absolutely no reason nor evidence supporting your claims.

Yes, it's time to do what we can. Great job. What were we doing again?

And you offer no solutions to the issue, outside of more limits in your 2nd amendment rights not solving anything.

I don't contend it will solve anything nearly pointing out your 2nd amendments rights already are limited.

And that I would support limiting them further

 

[Farmer]

If we can't, gun control is up next.

Because you have to do "something," even though that "something" could be entirely counterproductive? I'm done.

 

[lotus503]

I guess you're an oracle?

The scenario of resisting a tyrannical government in the United States is unlikely, but don't speak as if you know what would happen. There have been many historical examples of insurgent resistance using things like small arms. To dismiss it as useless is extreme.

No I just am practical not psychic.
If you want to live in a red dawn reality in the times if modern warfare and weaponry be my guest.

 

[lotus503]

Because you have to do "something," even though that "something" could be entirely counterproductive? I'm done.

I am willing to try something vs doing nothing.

You have been done a few times, maybe now you actually mean it.

 

[Farmer]

No I just am practical not psychic.
If you want to live in a red dawn reality in the times if modern warfare and weaponry be my guest.

Once again, I am not suggesting that such a scenario is even remotely likely, but look at the Iraqi insurgency.

You cannot completely dismiss something without a single shred of evidence, despite that being the basis for your entire argument regarding gun control.

 

[Farmer]

I am willing to try something vs doing nothing.

You have been done a few times, maybe now you actually mean it.

Maybe I should mention to you it has been tried, with no affect?

But no, I mentioned that already a few pages back.

 

[Engineer]

Thought you were done?

Guess not

 

[ultimatebob]

Gun homicides vs. gun ownership:

Yay, our number of gun deaths per capita are on par with Sub-Saharan African and Central American countries run by warlords! Now there is something to be proud of

 

[spidey07]

Dear lord. Thank you for republicans in the house. Amen.

Our country is in stuggle against evil. I know they have rejected your hand but I know you are with me.

Those in this tradgedy have rejected your word and guidece.

I pray for them and this country. Give me the strength to combat this evil. Amen.

 

[Geosurface]

We agree mental health issues and the media contribute more to these types of killings than guns. So let's get some solutions to those issues going. If we can't, gun control is up next.

I suggest that we respond to the threat of rampage killers in the same way we respond to serial killers.

Use our existing law enforcement infrastructure to attempt to respond once the killing begins as quickly as possible, while holding out hope that these happen as rarely as possible and that on some off chance a private citizen with bravery (with or without a firearm) is able to stop them before too many die.

Make mental health services more widely and cheaply available, perhaps with a network of therapists who volunteer their services at free or reduced rates to anyone who anonymously reports concern that they may be on the verge of becoming a rampage or serial killer, connected via a database of said therapists with one who is in their vicinity.

And like rational, mature adults, accept that due to the nature of how reality works that there will occasionally be serial killers who rack up multiple victims before they are stopped, and even sometimes dozens of victims and never be caught (like Zodiac), and that likewise there will be rampage killers who do the same.

It's frustrating that Hitler was able to commit suicide rather than face trial and execution, and it's frustrating that the Columbine killers, and this guy in Newtown, CT were able to end their own lives, on their own terms, rather than face trial and punishment.

Frustration is part of life.

 

[lotus503]

Once again, I am not suggesting that such a scenario is even remotely likely, but look at the Iraqi insurgency.

You cannot completely dismiss something without a single shred of evidence, despite that being the basis for your entire argument regarding gun control.

My entire argument in gun control?

You must have missed my posts where I state I don't know if it will product the desired results, where I state I favor other solutions rather than gun control.

My position is that gun control as a solution is better than doing nothing at all.

I own a few guns, the times I have gone shooting I have enjoyed it, it was fun.

While I don't subscribe to gun culture, I have 2 years worth of mountain house for my family, a means of food production. Water, water filtration. Other supply's a secondary bugout location.

I believe in being prepared and accept that gun ownership comes with some gun violence.

But I also think with the freedoms of a gun ownership society, comes a great responsibility of reducing gun violence, especially of the recent kind.

You would think the gun culture in this country would be clamoring for ways to resolve the problems, but outside of select few all we get are, the price for freedom type comments.

Doing nothing is not an option, so what do you propose we do to help fix the problem?

 

[paperfist]

Once again, I am not suggesting that such a scenario is even remotely likely, but look at the Iraqi insurgency.

You cannot completely dismiss something without a single shred of evidence, despite that being the basis for your entire argument regarding gun control.

The people in Iraq are battle hardened people who have been in or surrounded by war their whole lives. The people in America are far removed from the war hero's fighting off Hitler and are largely not going to put up much of a fight when our government begins oppression.

I know there are a lot of able bodied American's willing to fight, but I'm not sure the outcome would be in the minorities favor.