So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?

cannabineer said:

Can you show me that this is the case? "The people" are not a monolith! If "more thna half of all people", okay, but I'd still need to see it supported by people and not media editors.
I do not think "not having a good answer" can be cast as apathy. When you say "complicity" you are saying that by supporting gun rights, the right are guilty of murder. Am i reading that right? cn

Click to expand...

I've seen a number of polls indicating that most people, gun owners and others do not object to reasonable gun control. I don't know what that means exactly. Those who support gun rights are not coplicit in murder, that word was yours and not mine.

I think the problem is not guns but the people getting their hands on them. I own a few guns and I am not shooting shit up, We need stricter law regulations to acquire a weapon. Plus these guys that do these shootings always take advantage of people they know are not armed. This Sandy Hook shooting is the saddest shit I seen in a long time. I think schools should either have bulletproof doors with better locking systems or have some sort of policing like airlines have Marshals.

The assault weapon ban did not prevent columbine, so what makes you think it would prevent another mass shooting?

canndo said:

The people actually do want gun restrictions.

Click to expand...

stopped reading here.

youre full of shit. "the people" you refer are panicky leftists and the media machine.
fear is the tool you gun haters swing around at every opportunity, but some of us aint scared buy your boogeymen.
even my aged mother doesnt want any more restrictions on guns.

canndo said:

Yet the presumption of many gun owners is that they are singlehandedly protecting us from governmental tyranny. They aren't. Your and your neighbor's guns will not protect us from any modern assault on our rights - that time is long over.

Click to expand...

Nope, but a collective of 5 Million AR 15 owners in the rugged mountains of Georgia, Montana, and Colorado fighting a guerrilla war has an excellent chance.

cannabineer said:

While I harbor no Rambo fantasies and don't care for the Tacticool look ... I do think that individual gun ownership has value in keeping gov't honest, even if that value seems small today. Declaring "that time is long over" doesn't make it so. And if we do have a serious economic time of troubles ... individual gun ownership will matter a lot. I'm not talking about Hollywood-style social collapse. A return to the '30s would do. I don't know how firmly I holds this opinion, but just as you viscerally react to gun defense stats, so do i viscerally react to the idea that we are permanently stripped of power ... even if at this moment there's not much to say otherwise. A hundred million guns, especially battlefield-style, would be a powerful deterrent to serious door-to-door action like the Kristallnacht was ... cn

Click to expand...

Sure, but times are changed. On the one hand we have something I consider quite dangerous and that is non-lethal weapons. Sure, it is kind to criminals to not kill them when we shoot them, it is kind to crowds that we gas them rather than simply shooting into their midst but the truth is that now the government can control large crowds or small groups without inciting the ire that they would if those people were killed.

Just as the gun toters claim that guns don't kill people, several million guns don't alter the balance of power in this couuntry without people behind them. Those people are rarely trained, have no central control, no tactics, and no real will whereas government controled, trained militia that also have helicopters and tanks and have been long prepared for civil insurection of any sort are fully capable of managing all those millions of mismatched firearms.

There will be no need for door to door action, as I have long described, there are other far more sophisticated methods of controling the masses - even if those masses have firearms.

CSI Stickyicky said:

Why not ban marijuana? Surely, if it was illegal, nobody could obtain it, right? As we all know, herb is REALLY hard to find now that it's been federally illegal since 1937, so semi-autos would disappear immediately from the streets if we banned them, right?

You see how much sense that makes?

If you force semi-autos into the black market, only criminals will have them. It will sure be a hell of a lot harder to stop a criminal with a semi-auto for a law abiding CCW permit holder who has to reload if he needs more than 6 shots. Passing legislation to make semi-autos illegal will only harm the innocents.

Click to expand...

The day you can plant a glock seed and grow your firearms in your back yard or garage under lamps is the day your particular argument will make any sense at all.

Johnny Retro said:

The assault weapon ban did not prevent columbine, so what makes you think it would prevent another mass shooting?

Click to expand...

No one says that banning semi-automatic weapons would prevent mass shootings, but it might slow them down.

canndo said:

I've seen a number of polls indicating that most people, gun owners and others do not object to reasonable gun control. I don't know what that means exactly. Those who support gun rights are not coplicit in murder, that word was yours and not mine.

Click to expand...

I believe there is a gap between polls and majorities and ill-defined arguably-reasonable steps, and "the people want gun restrictions". cn

canndo said:

Sure, but times are changed. On the one hand we have something I consider quite dangerous and that is non-lethal weapons. Sure, it is kind to criminals to not kill them when we shoot them, it is kind to crowds that we gas them rather than simply shooting into their midst but the truth is that now the government can control large crowds or small groups without inciting the ire that they would if those people were killed.

Just as the gun toters claim that guns don't kill people, several million guns don't alter the balance of power in this couuntry without people behind them. Those people are rarely trained, have no central control, no tactics, and no real will whereas government controled, trained militia that also have helicopters and tanks and have been long prepared for civil insurection of any sort are fully capable of managing all those millions of mismatched firearms.

There will be no need for door to door action, as I have long described, there are other far more sophisticated methods of controling the masses - even if those masses have firearms.

Click to expand...

In our current cybernetic village of a society, i agree. But you cannot guarantee that simpler, harder times aren't right around the corner. Fwiw. cn

FootballFirst said:

Nope, but a collective of 5 Million AR 15 owners in the rugged mountains of Georgia, Montana, and Colorado fighting a guerrilla war has an excellent chance.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry - to do what exactlyl? what are they protecting in the mountains of georgia, montana and colorado? Why does anyone need to go there? Now exactly how are 5 million AR 15 owners going to survive there without supply lines?

In attacking that school the shooter broke over 41 laws.

More laws would've stopped him tho.

Cool story bro

cannabineer said:

I believe there is a gap between polls and majorities and ill-defined arguably-reasonable steps, and "the people want gun restrictions". cn

Click to expand...

I am listening to Lapier still claiming that this is all a part of a massive conspiracy to decieve voters and take away their firearms. This is the sort of nutzoid creepy right leader floating around at the top of the rightist heap.

Harrekin said:

In attacking that school the shooter broke over 41 laws.

More laws would've stopped him tho.

Cool story bro

Click to expand...

We are not talking about laws directly changing the behavior of individuals but laws curtailing the availability of such weapons - laws on the producers and vendors of them.

canndo said:

We are not talking about laws directly changing the behavior of individuals but laws curtailing the availability of such weapons - laws on the producers and vendors of them.

Click to expand...

Auto accidents kill far more people than homocides with firearms.

We should ban cars! People don't need them anyways, they could ride a horse or cycle.

See the complete lack of logic there?

canndo said:

I'm sorry - to do what exactlyl? what are they protecting in the mountains of georgia, montana and colorado? Why does anyone need to go there? Now exactly how are 5 million AR 15 owners going to survive there without supply lines?

Click to expand...

somebody doesnt understand the nature of country folk.

the urban population of weenies nebbishes and surrender monkeys are easy to control. cut off their food supplies and any city folds like a house of cards, rural folk are not so easy to cut off.

frankly during the waco fiasco a lot of people were quietly heading for the hills, only the media's lies and deception prevented mass protests. as you may recall, the press declared Waco's 7th day adventists were variously:

Child Molestors
Meth Cooks
Gun Runners
Apocalyptic Manson Style Helter Skelter Loonies
Anti-Government Extremists
Racists
Bomb Throwing Anarchists
A Crazy Cult
Part Of A Mass Suicide Pact

each of these claims in turn was proved to be a lie, and had not the media presented these lies to assure the rest of the nation that "Theres Nothing To See Here" we could have easily had a second revolution.

the people will not be so readily fooled again, which is why the government walks much softer now, and instead uses emotiuonal appeals and sobbing family members on TV as the main thrust of their disarmament propaganda machine.
a machine which you seem to want to be a part of.

Harrekin said:

Auto accidents kill far more people than homocides with firearms.

We should ban cars! People don't need them anyways, they could ride a horse or cycle.

See the complete lack of logic there?

Click to expand...

Nope, no illogica at all, automobiles are designed to transport things and people from one place to another, when people get killed it is most often damage collateral to a different purpose entirely.


Guns are designed to kill things. The point of banning them would be to reduce the incidence of them doing so. (not that it would work) The point is that your argument is off the mark.

canndo said:

Those people are rarely trained, have no central control, no tactics, and no real will whereas government controled, trained militia that also have helicopters and tanks and have been long prepared for civil insurection of any sort are fully capable of managing all those millions of mismatched firearms.

Click to expand...

You are talking about a country that has been in war almost continuously for the last 50 years, we have a SHITLOAD of veterans. trained in tactics and operations; hell a whole bunch of em got more kills than you got family members.

canndo said:

View attachment 2447910I am listening to Lapier still claiming that this is all a part of a massive conspiracy to decieve voters and take away their firearms. This is the sort of nutzoid creepy right leader floating around at the top of the rightist heap.

Click to expand...

so which of these should apply to voting or free speech as well?

background checks? gotta make sure any voters will vote in the approved manner you know...
banning semi-automatic voting? voting for more than one issue in each ballot? keep those pesky politically active assholes from voting against or for too many things, so they gotta pick what REALLLY matters to them.
banning high capacity opinions? man it really sucks when newspapers are too thick. reducing the size of newspapers will reduce the amount of space available for criticism of our Dear Leader!
felons and the mentally ill are already prohibited from owning fiearms, in most states felons and wackos are not allowed to vote either, this is here to imply popular support = constitutionality. it doesnt.
limiting expose to ideas and opinions to one book a week, or 5 books in a year would really help reduce subversive action from those damned intellectuals. Onward my faithful Khmer Rouge!
perhaps a license for those who wish to write their opinions down? keep those pesky journalists under control by revoking the license of any who get too subversive or who dare oppose The Party
fuckit, we can just ban all opinions and voting, that'll really help keep the powerful in power too.

we get it, you hate guns, fear your neighbors and worry all the time that somebody might not submit to your will. damn those damned righties! we should put them all against the wall and umm... shit. give them a good talkiing to?
damn, thats why we need to keep some guns, but only in the hands of Party Loyalists and those we can trust to be Properly Radicalized, you know, The Vanguard, so we have somebody to hurl their bodies at the barricades when the Grand Socialist Revolution comes.

edit: also, from whence this graph comes? i doubt they polled anybody outside the offices of Handgun Control Inc.
even the title simply describes the opinion of the maker, not the opinions of the supposed people polled.

NoDrama said:

You are talking about a country that has been in war almost continuously for the last 50 years, we have a SHITLOAD of veterans. trained in tactics and operations; hell a whole bunch of em got more kills than you got family members.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and they train together for days or weeks right? And they have helicpoters, drones, satelite imagery, comand and control capabilities, onging supply lines, interchangeable ammunition, secure communications, tanks and the like. sure.