And of course, no one can get shot without some mention of gun control...

[Nemesis 1]

It wouldn't bother me if no one has guns . I just don't like the idea of someone else having them including the criminal run government. IF governmrnt has right to bear arms so does its people for WE the People are the GOVERNMENT.

 

[Zebo]

It wouldn't bother me if no one has guns . I just don't like the idea of someone else having them including the criminal run government. IF governmrnt has right to bear arms so does its people for WE the People are the GOVERNMENT.

you may have a good point. check this out

Further, the number of mistaken killings by civilians is one tenth that of police - who kill, on accident, about one innocent person a day with their service weapons. This is true despite the fact that there are about 800,000 law enforcement officers of all sorts in The United States and 330,000,000 people.

One such incident:

At 12:30 a.m. on Wednesday, January 5, the Framingham Police SWAT Team served a search warrant at 26 Fountain St. in Framingham. During the service of the search warrant Mr. Eurie Stamps was tragically and fatally struck by a bullet which was discharged from a SWAT officer’s rifle. Despite immediate intervention by tactical medics, he died at the scene.

Mr. Stamps wasn't the subject of the warrant and he wasn't armed. I'll bet my last dollar that the cop who shot him won't be charged with capital murder or even 1st degree manslaughter, even though this is quite-clearly homicide. Not only was Mr. Stamps unarmed, he's a 68-year old grandfather of 12 and there were no weapons found in the house.

Anyone remember the shooting in Detroit where the cops shot and killed a young girl asleep on the couch?

These aren't isolated incidents - in point of fact they happen about once a day.

That is, statistically speaking, you are forty thousand times more likely to be mistakenly shot by a police officer than an ordinary citizen.

But the left doesn't promote disarming the cops.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Or he would have just found one in gun free Mexico of the full auto not sold in the USA variety and smuggled it over the border like the Mexicans do.

Why would he go to Mexico when it's perfectly legal to sell a full auto privately?

Of course, Mexico isn't exactly comparable to the US and most other western nations, is it? Or has US really gotten that bad?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Whatever. Mexico has the strongest gun laws in the world and 15,000 murders were committed last year. MORE than USA per capita with almost no restrictions. MANY politicians and LEOs killed dead with guns. Laws don't work because criminals don't give a fuck. There are illegal guns in UK and every EU nation as well murders. Not to mention you don't need a gun to kill people. A car moving at 15 MPH or gasoline cocktail does too and about a million other ways. You can't stop crazy. You can't stop criminal. All more laws do is make law abiding people victims in a shooting gallery.

Well, i don't believe that the US has quite the shithole status of Mexico quite yet so let's make comparisons where comparisons are actually worth making?

Or perhaps not because then you'll lose this argument immediatly.

Thing is, guns are great for killing people, way easier, even a little 20-year old punk can murder several people and injure twice as many with a gun, with a knife, that won't happen.

In reality, where i live, there is a HELL OF A LOT less gun crime in (comparable) nations that have strict licences for gun ownership so your argument carries no weight what so ever.

Of course, this debate is hypothetical, you can't change the US into anything else at this point and i doubt you can at any point in the future either so the entire discussion is really moot.

As i said before, we'll never agree on this issue because our viewpoints are very different, i'm good with leaving it at that now, you may want to respond in kind to the above before you are but i'm probably going to exit this thread now. Cheers.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It wouldn't bother me if no one has guns . I just don't like the idea of someone else having them including the criminal run government. IF governmrnt has right to bear arms so does its people for WE the People are the GOVERNMENT.

And what are you going to do with your plinkers? Have a little revolution? I don't think so.

The military will either defend the government in which case your little plinkers won't matter OR it will stand by the people (you really don't want a military instituted dictatorship so be careful what you wish for) and then no one really has any use for their plinkers anyway.

I choose the term plinkers because that is the sound your guns will make against the steel of the tanks when they roll in to take care of your little revolution.

 

[JSt0rm]

I choose the term plinkers because that is the sound your guns will make against the steel of the tanks when they roll in to take care of your little revolution.

Thats what confuses me about the whole thing. There is no way in hell these little revolutions would get off the ground. I think considering what just happened nemesis should be reported for even talking such things.

 

[Amused]

Thats what confuses me about the whole thing. There is no way in hell these little revolutions would get off the ground. I think considering what just happened nemesis should be reported for even talking such things.

In 1992, the United States declined to intervene in the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina after an aide to General Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised the Senate Armed Services Committee that the widespread ownership of arms in the former Yugoslav republic made even limited intervention "perilous and deadly." The deterrent effect of an armed populace was emphasized by Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie, who led United Nations peace keeping troops in Sarajevo for five months. Despite the tremendous capabilities of the United States Armed Forces, he explained, the prevalence of arms ownership in the area caused him to believe that if American forces were to be sent to Bosnia, "Americans [would be] killed.... You can't isolate it, make it nice and sanitary."

History is filled with locals bearing, for the most part, only small arms holding off major military powers.

 

[spidey07]

Why would he go to Mexico when it's perfectly legal to sell a full auto privately?

Of course, Mexico isn't exactly comparable to the US and most other western nations, is it? Or has US really gotten that bad?

No it's not. You are clueless to our laws. What you are describing is a mandatory 10 year federal sentence if memory serves me correct.

 

[JulesMaximus]

It's already illegal for a felon to own a gun. You want to make it against the law for a felon to own a gun? Already a law.

How about make it against the law to sell to a felon privately? WAIT! It already is against the law to do so!

So, does the prospective gun buyer bring his Mom to the gun show to vouch for him? I'm curious how this is handled at gun shows.

 

[JSt0rm]

In 1992, the United States declined to intervene in the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina after an aide to General Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised the Senate Armed Services Committee that the widespread ownership of arms in the former Yugoslav republic made even limited intervention "perilous and deadly." The deterrent effect of an armed populace was emphasized by Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie, who led United Nations peace keeping troops in Sarajevo for five months. Despite the tremendous capabilities of the United States Armed Forces, he explained, the prevalence of arms ownership in the area caused him to believe that if American forces were to be sent to Bosnia, "Americans [would be] killed.... You can't isolate it, make it nice and sanitary."

History is filled with locals bearing, for the most part, only small arms holding off major military powers.

I thought we intervened in that?

 

[JulesMaximus]

CA has a higher murder rate, and gun violence rate than Arizona.

But my point was it doesn't matter if he wasn't from Oakland. The vast majority of CA's restrictive gun laws are state laws, not local.

It also has a higher population. In fact, the entire state of Arizona has 3 million fewer people than Los Angeles does.

 

[spidey07]

So, does the prospective gun buyer bring his Mom to the gun show to vouch for him? I'm curious how this is handled at gun shows.

You sign an affidavit or they run a background check. It's still illegal to sell to a felon and illegal for a felon to own or be in a residence with firearms.

 

[exdeath]

And what are you going to do with your plinkers? Have a little revolution? I don't think so.

The military will either defend the government in which case your little plinkers won't matter OR it will stand by the people (you really don't want a military instituted dictatorship so be careful what you wish for) and then no one really has any use for their plinkers anyway.

I choose the term plinkers because that is the sound your guns will make against the steel of the tanks when they roll in to take care of your little revolution.

By your reasoning we should have 0 American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan rolling through there with tanks.. wait wut?

 

[Zebo]

In 1992, the United States declined to intervene in the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina after an aide to General Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised the Senate Armed Services Committee that the widespread ownership of arms in the former Yugoslav republic made even limited intervention "perilous and deadly." The deterrent effect of an armed populace was emphasized by Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie, who led United Nations peace keeping troops in Sarajevo for five months. Despite the tremendous capabilities of the United States Armed Forces, he explained, the prevalence of arms ownership in the area caused him to believe that if American forces were to be sent to Bosnia, "Americans [would be] killed.... You can't isolate it, make it nice and sanitary."

History is filled with locals bearing, for the most part, only small arms holding off major military powers.

Please. Only because US military fights with one hand tied behind back. I'm afraid if nation was at stake they would not be so nice. Try this: get a resistive town. Wipe it out from 40,000 ft and warn next town of the same. Americans pea shooting will end real quick like. Even the most ardent 2nd Amendment rights defender will roll their militants to save their children.

Old lessons will be remembered instead - "When your quarry goes to ground leave no ground to go to."

 

[irishScott]

Please. Only because we fight with one hand tied behind back. Try this: get a resistive town. Wipe it out from 40,000 ft and warn next town of the same. Americans pea shooting will end real quick like. Even the most ardent 2nd Amendment rights defender will roll their militants to save their children.

Well lets see. So far the US hasn't had the guts to do anything like that since Vietnam. And even then not so much. What makes you think they'll do so nowadays on their own citizens?

 

[Zebo]

Well lets see. So far the US hasn't had the guts to do anything like that since Vietnam. And even then not so much. What makes you think they'll do so nowadays on their own citizens?

Well I sure hope they wouldn't but to claim some hunting rifles can go up against the US military is absurd and depends on benevolence on whom the revolutionaries/break away states/whatever are attacking. Resistance would be futile if the US military employed all methods of warfare.

 

[irishScott]

Well I sure hope they wouldn't but to claim some hunting rifles can go up against the US military is absurd and depends on benevolence on whom the revolutionaries/break away states/whatever are attacking. Resistance would be futile if the US military employed all methods of warfare.

Assuming the US military was one and whole sure, but in the age of youtube I doubt a modern Sherman's March would occur for publicity reasons. Not to mention the states are much more co-dependent nowadays, so supply would be more of an issue.

 

[Amused]

Please. Only because US military fights with one hand tied behind back. I'm afraid if nation was at stake they would not be so nice. Try this: get a resistive town. Wipe it out from 40,000 ft and warn next town of the same. Americans pea shooting will end real quick like. Even the most ardent 2nd Amendment rights defender will roll their militants to save their children.

Old lessons will be remembered instead - "When your quarry goes to ground leave no ground to go to."

The problem is, warfare is not lke that anymore. Ask the Soviets.

 

[JulesMaximus]

You sign an affidavit or they run a background check. It's still illegal to sell to a felon and illegal for a felon to own or be in a residence with firearms.

Who runs a background check? They do on the spot background checks in the parking lot at gun shows? And what good is an affidavit if the person who bought your gun lied to you about who they were?

 

[Zebo]

Who runs a background check? They do on the spot background checks in the parking lot at gun shows? And what good is an affidavit if the person who bought your gun lied to you about who they were?

Most people go to police station and have them run a NCIS background check on buyer. It's only smart business too - you wont get robbed at a police station. I don't know about gun shows, never been to one. Internet to local FFL FTW.

 

[spidey07]

Who runs a background check? They do on the spot background checks in the parking lot at gun shows? And what good is an affidavit if the person who bought your gun lied to you about who they were?

Facepalm

The seller/dealer runs the check. Just call the number and run it. Takes 30 seconds. The affidavit removes me from liability. Lying about being a felon and purchasing or owning a firearm is against the law with severe penalties.

Why dont we make more laws that make it illegal for felons to have guns? Maybe make it illegal or something like that?

 

[exdeath]

Who runs a background check? They do on the spot background checks in the parking lot at gun shows?

Yes. You cannot buy a gun at a gun show without a background check and filling out one of these http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf same as any gun store.

Quit getting your info off leftist TV about evil gun shows and "loopholes", it's pure horse shit.

 

[ElFenix]

A

I choose the term plinkers because that is the sound your guns will make against the steel of the tanks when they roll in to take care of your little revolution.

yes, because we've seen that the US army can steamroll people armed with nothing more than small arms and some makeshift explosives in iraq and afghanistan. those were really easy US victories and those guys running around with homemade rifles weren't able to put up any fight at all.

 

[JSt0rm]

yes, because we've seen that the US army can steamroll people armed with nothing more than small arms and some makeshift explosives in iraq and afghanistan. those were really easy US victories and those guys running around with homemade rifles weren't able to put up any fight at all.

As Zebo pointed out we have been pulling punches. If we went in there and slaughtered 40% of the population it would be a different story.

 

[exdeath]

As Zebo pointed out we have been pulling punches. If we went in there and slaughtered 40% of the population it would be a different story.

For some reason I'm thinking the US armed forces would not be willing to slaughter their friends and family on US soil. And don't forget each state has their own National Guard with tanks and planes too.