For the pro-AWBers

[CoolWhip]

It seems we have 2 directions to go if we want anything to change...

you seem opposed to making these types of weapons less prevalent, so the alternative is making them more prevalent.

Your arguments are asinine. Just as I would not assume that you want to ban all guns from everyone including our police and military, you should not assume that jbot wants to give them to everyone.

[Tpoppa]

you seem opposed to making these types of weapons less prevalent, so the alternative is making them more prevalent.

Seriously flawed logic right there.

You're making the point that the exact opposite of your opinion is the only alternative. Politicians routinely try that crap. That kind of logic is an obstacle to clear, rational thinking.

[magley64]

Your arguments are asinine. Just as I would not assume that you want to ban all guns from everyone including our police and military, you should not assume that jbot wants to give them to everyone.

if I had my druthers, it would be military only.

With the exception for single shot hunting rifles.

Now I wouldn't propose that as a form of policy. It is just my personal view.

Like sport sedans. I wouldn't ever propose that you couldn't buy one, I just don't see a purpose in making a boring ass grandpa car with a fun drivetrain.

Edited December 17, 2012 by magley64

[jbot]

It seems we have 2 directions to go if we want anything to change...

you seem opposed to making these types of weapons less prevalent, so the alternative is making them more prevalent.

that is because you are a simpleton when it comes to debates like this.

don't let your tard rage get the best of you. it just makes you easy pickings.

[magley64]

that is because you are a simpleton when it comes to debates like this.

don't let your tard rage get the best of you. it just makes you easy pickings.

okay, if a AWB won't help, what will?

[cmh_sprint]

And what? You think that if the U.S. was in a civil war or were to be invaded that no other country would be arming us? It's nice to at least have something to start with.

Exactly. Any major conflict had arms being supplied from outside resource(s). Not to mention the arms and supplies that would come out of bases and depots when a percentage of soldiers would refuse to fire on their friends, neighbors and family.

[Tpoppa]

if I had my druthers, it would be military only.

With the exception for single shot hunting rifles.

Do you have any clue why the 2nd ammendment exists? Seriously? Here's a hint...it's not for deer hunters.

The founders of the US of A were generally fearful of government and government controlled military. And they had good reason...

Edited December 17, 2012 by Tpoppa

[Coyote]

...why don't we just hand out armed guns to everyone? a 3 yr old can be taught how to shoot.. right?

Aside from lack of aptitudinal development, most toddlers have poor situational awareness and have neither yet developed the fine motor skills nor strength to be effective in mitigating any sort of escalated confrontation.

As an aside, you might want to consider seeing a health care professional about your obsession with giving guns to small children. The number of times you've suggested it on this forum alone is cause for alarm.

[CoolWhip]

Aside from lack of aptitudinal development, most toddlers have poor situational awareness and have neither yet developed the fine motor skills nor strength to be effective in mitigating any sort of escalated confrontation.

As an aside, you might want to consider seeing a health care professional about your obsession with giving guns to small children. The number of times you've suggested it on this forum alone is cause for alarm.

REP!

[Tpoppa]

It seems we have 2 directions to go if we want anything to change...

you seem opposed to making these types of weapons less prevalent, so the alternative is making them more prevalent.

Your arguments are asinine. Just as I would not assume that you want to ban all guns from everyone including our police and military, you should not assume that jbot wants to give them to everyone.

Seriously flawed logic right there.

You're making the point that the exact opposite of your opinion is the only alternative. Politicians routinely try that crap. That kind of logic is an obstacle to clear, rational thinking.

that is because you are a simpleton when it comes to debates like this.

don't let your tard rage get the best of you. it just makes you easy pickings.

Magz, perhaps you should read the responses...slowly.

[magley64]

Do you have any clue why the 2nd ammendment exists? Seriously? Here's a clue...it's not for deer hunters.

The founders of the US of A were generally fearful of government and government controlled military. And they had good reason...

so you honestly believe the weapons you have access to would be effective against the number 1 military in the entire world... SERIOUSLY?

again... would've held water in 1859, but welcome to 2012...

unless you've spent 700 billion dollars every year for the past 2 decades building an anti-government military arsenal, I'm afraid you're severely, totally, and laughably out-gunned.

Edited December 17, 2012 by magley64

[Brownsfan1]

[Tpoppa]

so you honestly believe the weapons you have access to would be effective against the number 1 military in the entire world... SERIOUSLY?

Are you suggesting a well armed militia that is not under the controll of the goverment?

Before you answer, go ahead and ask your robot-killer-navy-cousin.

[magley64]

Are you suggesting a well armed militia that is not under the controll of the goverment?

Before you answer, go ahead and ask your robot-killer-navy-cousin.

No, what I am suggesting (if I'm suggesting anything) is that if we are so afraid that the government is going to try to enslave us, why don't we take action to de-fund their military, or remove their power over the military? Make our OWN miltary...

OR we can just accept that the US government has the best interests of the american people at heart (for the most part) and leave the assault weapons to the soldiers we depend upon to defend our freedom already.

the 2nd amendment was written in the 1700's when the muzzle loaded musket was the epitome of military precision and a blunderbuss the "heavy hitter". Cannons were the "tanks" and were slow, heavy nearly impossible to move any great distance at a decent speed, and provided no cover to the people using it.

They hadn't imagined tanks, jets, cruise missiles...

so yes, the 2nd amendment might very well have been concieved to try to keep the military on level playing field with the citizenry, but it doesn't anymore, not even close. With the advent of technology, First rate military grade weapons are well out of the scope of practicality for 99% of the population.

Edited December 17, 2012 by magley64

[speedytriple]

Hey Magz you have anymore coolaide left? I love reading these types of threads..

Carry-on

[Cheech]

Exactly. Any major conflict had arms being supplied from outside resource(s). Not to mention the arms and supplies that would come out of bases and depots when a percentage of soldiers would refuse to fire on their friends, neighbors and family.

So, in the context of arming yourself to prevent a *actual* repressive government (not the Alex Jones/Rush Limbaugh/Wayne LaPierre/etc. version), your plan is to depend on a foreign actor to help you, or hoping that highly trained soldiers that have sworn to obey the chain of command (which now leads to the new asshole) will suddenly say "screw it" and abandon their posts?

Although the former is plausible given the history surrounding this, it doesn't sound like a good plan (what happened to autonomy and self-preservation?), the latter just sounds silly. You don't think that the soldiers would be fed sufficient propaganda to ensure their compliance and loyalty to the regime?

[Tpoppa]

OR we can just accept that the US government has the best interests of the american people at heart (for the most part)

Here is the problem with your simplistic understanding of the world around you...

On paper, I think that the government does have the peoples best interest in mind. In practice, however, the bloated, argumentitive bureacracy that is going to wait till the very last minute (if we're lucky) to resolve this fiscal cliff bullshit isn't always capable of making great decisions or effectively enforcing policy.

You are making the arguement that giving up the right to bear arms will make us safer. From the perspective of the FBI, CIA, and other super-secret government agencies that are protecting us...we could be safer if we gave up rights regarding:

Illegal search and seizure

Trial by jury

Cruel and unusual punishments

Rather than typing, here is a link to the rest http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

The Bill of Rights wasn't random. It is a well thought out document written by very smart people who previously lived under a government that supposedly had their best interest in mind. Every ammendment wasn't written to address paranoid theories, they were written to prevent ACTUAL government infringement on rights of it's citizens.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Tpoppa

[Bad324]

okay, if a AWB won't help, what will?

expanded mental health care...DONE

as Tpoppa noted earlier its not the problem of the choice of weapon, the problem lies within the brain of those who use them for wrong

[magley64]

You are making the arguement that giving up the right to bear arms will make us safer. From the perspective of the FBI, CIA, and other super-secret government agencies that are protecting us...we could be safer if we gave up rights regarding:

Illegal search and seizure

Trial by jury

Cruel and unusual punishments

Rather than typing, here is a link to the rest http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

Illegal search and seizure, I might agree that could make us safer in theory, not that I would support such a change...(as if it weren't already occurring under the patriot act)

jury trials and unusual punishments, not so much.

The Bill of Rights wasn't random. It is a well thought out document written by very smart people who previously lived under a government that supposedly had their best interest in mind. Every ammendment wasn't written to address paranoid theories, they were written to prevent ACTUAL government infringement on rights of it's citizens.

Again, was written in the 1700s when everyone had access to the same weapons... Please tell me where I can get a SR-71 blackbird (even if I had the money) or purchase a cruise missile...hey I got a huge tax return, and christmas bonus. Where do i go to order an aircraft carrier?

The scale is already absurdly skewed, if the evil government attacked the citizens, assault weapons won't save us.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

hoping that highly trained soldiers that have sworn to obey the chain of command (which now leads to the new asshole) will suddenly say "screw it" and abandon their posts?

\

No they swear to up hold the constitution

[magley64]

expanded mental health care...DONE

as Tpoppa noted earlier its not the problem of the choice of weapon, the problem lies within the brain of those who use them for wrong

Okay, what does that mean?

Everyone needs a government mandated mental health screening before they can buy a gun? before they can vote? Before they turn 21? every 2 years? every 5 years? What rights are dependent upon the results of those screenings? Is this paid for by tax payers? Is this a requirement to live in this country?

lots of questions and details.

[kawi kid]

By using the term assault weapon you aren't helping yourself look any brighter.

[speedytriple]

BUT you just said you were ok with the government limiting your right?

[Gunner75]

Pass the popcorn pls

[magley64]

By using the term assault weapon you aren't helping yourself look any brighter.

I'll be the first to admit, I don't know a thing about any of the guns.

I never bothered to study them. However, if handed a loaded functioning one, they are so intuitive that I bet I could get bullets to come out the business end towards a target... ultimately damaging or destroying it.