Armed Woman Intervenes, Prevents Mass Murder

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
30,798
18,526
136
Now you're getting it. Unfortunately the sad reality is in the case of say the Uvalde shooting, that kid could have got away with the same result using a pistol.
If he had a psych evaluation would have never been granted a license

It takes a lot more training to kill 19 small targets that fast. Also if you limit rounds to six it increases time to kill.

In this case is may not have mattered because police took almost an hour to enter building.

Raising the age to 21 and a psych test would have stopped him and these are requirements we should already have.

What do we know? More guns and greater availability is the wrong thing to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lezunto
Jul 9, 2009
10,532
1,893
136
Really?

Which journal was your second link published in? Because SSRN isn’t a publisher.

About SSRN:

The SSRN, formerly known as Social Science Research Network, is a repository for preprints devoted to the rapid dissemination of scholarly research in the social sciences

What’s a preprint you ask?

In academic publishing, a preprint is a version of a scholarly or scientific paper that precedes formal peer review and publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly or scientific journal. The preprint may be available, often as a non-typeset version available free, before or after a paper is published in a journal.

Plus your first link is just a story about the paper in the second link. So “both“ of what were published? Nothing as far as I can tell.
You still aren't disagreeing that the consensus of biologists say that life begins at conception.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,199
4,424
136
Do you? No one is talking about banning rimfire. What schools got shot up with them?

Well, I don't lack knowledge in firearms, and find your input here pretty worthless, much like your example. People get injured and killed with .22s all the time, and you can get BX-25s (and others) for them as well so near standard AR mag capacity there. Yes there is difference in power/velocity, but that's really irrelevant in the context of a disturbed user bent on killing people. A person who shouldn't be able to buy an assault rifle for legitimate reasons shouldn't be able to buy a different rifle either, regardless of caliber or capacity.

Now I know some of the legislators in the past have lacked fluency in firearms, yes, but you seem more concerned with semantics than death tolls - I'd say that means you shouldn't be spouting off about what you consider solutions.

Wait, join date of right before the election, and then practically no posts since? Back for a gun control thread? Haha fuck off troll
The Virginia Tech shooter carried a Walther .22 in addition to another pistol.

Even tho .22s are relatively low powered, they are still deadly (despite what Biden says about them.)

I agree on limiting access for dangerous individuals and groups highly involved in school shootings (young males) I don't believe simply limiting access is the ultimate solution.

Killers will be creative, and we'll push the problem somewhere else. Bombings used to be a thing until Columbine. In fact, it was supposed to be a bombing, but bombs are unreliable, and pistols were the backup plan.

Now every violent, homicidal suicide is done with guns because they copycat what has proved effective in the past.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,199
4,424
136
You'd be wrong of course. The Guardian Program has existed in Texas for years. Unfortunately not by the Uvalde ISD.

Over 217 ISDs in Texas participate, no telling if it would have helped, but it certainly wouldn't have made anything worse.
How many actually carry in schools?

I still don't think this is a realistic solution, altho I don't GAF if Texas wants to do it.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,532
1,893
136
If he had a psych evaluation would have never been granted a license

It takes a lot more training to kill 19 small targets that fast. Also if you limit rounds to six it increases time to kill.

In this case is may not have mattered because police took almost an hour to enter building.

Raising the age to 21 and a psych test would have stopped him and these are requirements we should already have.

What do we know? More guns and greater availability is the wrong thing to do.
Wow, that idea about a psych evaluation before you get to exercise your 2nd Amendment Rights. Can we apply that to voting too? You know, just to see if voters have the sanity to vote responsibly? and how about doing it for anyone that gets any kind of government largess ? I bet that would be a great way to reduce costs. We can even give the test to homeless people! What a great idea Homer! If they can't pass a psych test we can put them in government facilities ! We can call them "reservations". As long as you're shitting all over the Constitution and then skiing down that slope, let's think of all the other good things we can do !
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
30,798
18,526
136
Wow, that idea about a psych evaluation before you get to exercise your 2nd Amendment Rights. Can we apply that to voting too? You know, just to see if voters have the sanity to vote responsibly? and how about doing it for anyone that gets any kind of government largess ? I bet that would be a great way to reduce costs. We can even give the test to homeless people! What a great idea Homer! If they can't pass a psych test we can put them in government facilities ! We can call them "reservations". As long as you're shitting all over the Constitution and then skiing down that slope, let's think of all the other good things we can do !
When a single vote can kill 60 people in 10 minutes I will agree with you

Meanwhile that evaluation would have stopped Uvalde

But why do anything just give all the crazy angry people all the guns and ammo that can store. We still have kids and people of color left to assassinate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lezunto

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
6,684
1,713
136
When a single vote can kill 60 people in 10 minutes I will agree with you

Meanwhile that evaluation would have stopped Uvalde

But why do anything just give all the crazy angry people all the guns and ammo that can store. We still have kids and people of color left to assassinate.
Had to tap show ignored post to see what you were replying to. Idiot troll both siding voting again. Right, it was comparing voting to abortions a month ago
 
  • Like
Reactions: esquared

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
15,611
10,525
146
You still aren't disagreeing that the consensus of biologists say that life begins at conception.
I disagree that the consensus of biologist say that life begins at conception.

Your linked paper is not persuasive. It appears to be unpublished and the data appears to be cherry picked. Similar to if Ronald McDonald determined the consensus of fast food cooks was that Big Macs were the best fast food burger by only surveying McDonalds cooks.

So maybe I’ll reconsider the mainstream science of conception when you provide something well supported and peer reviewed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lezunto

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,267
6,828
136
I disagree that the consensus of biologist say that life begins at conception.

Your linked paper is not persuasive. It appears to be unpublished and the data appears to be cherry picked. Similar to if Ronald McDonald determined the consensus of fast food cooks was that Big Macs were the best fast food burger by only surveying McDonalds cooks.

So maybe I’ll reconsider the mainstream science of conception when you provide something well supported and peer reviewed.
Both the sperm and egg are live cells before they combine at "conception". If we're going to be worried about "life", then we're going to need a lot more surveillance as to watch everyone and prevent the intentional destruction of life by men who masturbate. But let's say we're just going to ignore that, since it would only affect men and clearly wouldn't result in what "pro-lifers" actually want.

Fertilization of the egg doesn't result in a single stand of DNA from biological parents immediately - the formation of a diploid cell doesn't occur for 12 hours or so, so even 11 hours after "fertilization" or "conception", there are still two individual single strands of DNA. There is literally no unique individual human at "conception". That is the science, never mind some people's feelings.

And even when there is a diploid cell approximately 12 hours after fertilization, the zygote/embryo is just hanging out in the fallopian tubes for a couple of days after fertilization. If it implants there, it will not survive and it can possibly kill the mother. So, even a few days after fertilization, that "life" isn't guaranteed to proceed safely for anyone.

After a few days, that clump of cells might implant itself into the uterine lining. Might. It may not. Most likely, the woman wouldn't even know that the event almost occurred. To say that a human life just ended because the embryo failed to implant is hilariously stupid. There isn't one fucking human being mourning the millions of embryos that pass right on through womens' uteri without implantation. Why? Because no one fucking knows if and when it is happening. Full fucking stop on that one.

And even if the embryo implants, it could be miscarried for a thousand different reasons that don't include a human-induced abortion. Anyone who thinks that the woman should be held accountable for that is a ridiculous piece of shit. If a woman's immune system successfully fights the implanted embryo, even during the first two weeks there's a good chance that NO ONE EVENS KNOWS IT HAPPENED.

So, to be clear, anyone who thinks that there is a unique human at "fertilization" or "conception" is absolutely incorrect. Scientifically. You're fucking wrong.

And until the fetus becomes viable on it's own outside of the woman's body, it isn't a unique human being that should be protected by laws. If states want to pass laws protecting a fetus upon universally agreed upon viability, that's fine, but at that point the woman is still sovereign over her own body and if credibly endangered by a continued pregnancy, should have the absolute right to terminate.

Additionally, the STATE that passes a law protecting the fetus should pay for any and all expenses related to that fetus, which means paying 100% of everything involved in keeping the woman alive, whether it's rent, food, health care, etc. You break a woman's right to choose, you buy that woman whatever is remotely related to her remaining pregnant. If your law doesn't do that, then it isn't a law designed to protect a fetus, it's a law designed to control a woman and take away her basic human rights over her own body.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,199
4,424
136
When a single vote can kill 60 people in 10 minutes I will agree with you

Meanwhile that evaluation would have stopped Uvalde

But why do anything just give all the crazy angry people all the guns and ammo that can store. We still have kids and people of color left to assassinate.
Votes can absolutely kill lots and lots of people, depending on what/who is voted for.

That's why the founding fathers enshrined the god given right to self defense and defense of liberty into the 2A.

It's the last line of defense of your life and your freedoms, and all the other rights you hold.

Disarming citizens is always the first move by fascists and oppressors as they move to strip away freedom.

It's what the British colonizers did/tried to do to the American revolutionaries in the lead up to the war.

Sam Adams and John Hancock were the "gun nuts" of their day. I'm sure modern Bostonians would be appalled by them.

"Following the first shots of the American Revolution at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, on April 27, the military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay and commander-in-chief of all British forces in North America, General Thomas Gage, ordered all firearms owned by the Boston citizenry stored in Faneuil Hall. On April 27, “1778 fire arms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses” were received, properly labeled with the names of the owners, and sorted for storage at Faneuil Hall. Gage promised the weapons would be returned to their owners “at a suitable time”. Gage feared an attack on Boston was imminent and feared the civilian populace would join in the resistance, confronting him with an inner and outer enemy."
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/faneuil-hall

Government has no inherent, unbreakable goodness. Slaves were kept because they couldn't arm themselves with govt facilitation. Native Americans were genocided, Mormons massacred, Jim Crow, Japanese internment, etc etc etc.
Govt sponsored oppression backed by the ballot box.

Rise of dictatorships were often proceeded by mass disarmament and loss of rights. Reichstag fire, then the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State passed by Chancellor Hitler. List goes on and on.

It's easy to sit and safe suburbs, watch the news, forget history, and only react to the day, the failure of law enforcement, blame everything on guns, and just give away rights.

If Jan 6 was successful, what would have come next? Don't think it or worse can happen again? What in history teaches you that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
15,611
10,525
146
Votes can absolutely kill lots and lots of people, depending on what/who is voted for.

That's why the founding fathers enshrined the god given right to self defense and defense of liberty into the 2A.

It's the last line of defense of your life and your freedoms, and all the other rights you hold.

Disarming citizens is always the first move by fascists and oppressors as they move to strip away freedom.

It's what the British colonizers did/tried to do to the American revolutionaries in the lead up to the war.

Sam Adams and John Hancock were the "gun nuts" of their day. I'm sure modern Bostonians would be appalled by them.

"Following the first shots of the American Revolution at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, on April 27, the military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay and commander-in-chief of all British forces in North America, General Thomas Gage, ordered all firearms owned by the Boston citizenry stored in Faneuil Hall. On April 27, “1778 fire arms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses” were received, properly labeled with the names of the owners, and sorted for storage at Faneuil Hall. Gage promised the weapons would be returned to their owners “at a suitable time”. Gage feared an attack on Boston was imminent and feared the civilian populace would join in the resistance, confronting him with an inner and outer enemy."
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/faneuil-hall

Government has no inherent, unbreakable goodness. Slaves were kept because they couldn't arm themselves with govt facilitation. Native Americans were genocided, Mormons massacred, Jim Crow, Japanese internment, etc etc etc.
Govt sponsored oppression backed by the ballot box.

Rise of dictatorships were often proceeded by mass disarmament and loss of rights. Reichstag fire, then the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State passed by Chancellor Hitler. List goes on and on.

It's easy to sit and safe suburbs, watch the news, forget history, and only react to the day, the failure of law enforcement, blame everything on guns, and just give away rights.

If Jan 6 was successful, what would have come next? Don't think it or worse can happen again? What in history teaches you that?
Of course most of the ammosexuals out there will gladly give up their freedoms if they A) get to keep their guns, and B) get to use them on a minority population of their fellow countrymen, and C) are told that will protect them from losing their freedoms.
 

Leeea

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2020
1,908
2,521
106
Imagine living a world where civilians did not need to go around armed?

Where this woman would not need to have murdered another human being?

A world where children could go to school without fear. People could congregate without being slaughtered.


If the Australians could do it, we can to.
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,981
4,235
136
The Virginia Tech shooter carried a Walther .22 in addition to another pistol.

Even tho .22s are relatively low powered, they are still deadly (despite what Biden says about them.)

I agree on limiting access for dangerous individuals and groups highly involved in school shootings (young males) I don't believe simply limiting access is the ultimate solution.

Killers will be creative, and we'll push the problem somewhere else. Bombings used to be a thing until Columbine. In fact, it was supposed to be a bombing, but bombs are unreliable, and pistols were the backup plan.

Now every violent, homicidal suicide is done with guns because they copycat what has proved effective in the past.
No it wasn't. Guns were always part of the plan at Columbine. Their plan was to both bomb (they intended to outdo the OKC bombing) and shoot up the school. But since making bombs operate like that is actually pretty difficult, most of theirs didn't work. You're also wrong about the guns, one of them had a carbine (with 52, 32, and 28 round magazines), and they both had shotguns as well. And one had a semi-auto pistol (with 10 13-round magazines). Guns were not the backup plan, they were always integral. Bombs were supposed to do the majority of the damage though.

[Most people are completely wrong about Columbine and it shows America's unwillingness to learn a goddamn thing. It also perfectly exposes why this country has had the problems its had. The parents tried to get the kids help. They actually went to therapy even. So the mental health asswipes and "where are the parents" assholes can shut the fuck up. They were bullied but most of it was part of that bullshit systemic "boys being boys" hazing type of shit that right wingers constantly defend (and they also bullied others), so Eminem can shut the fuck up (since he's partaken in that shit himself). They weren't even part of the "Trench Coat Mafia". Christians tried to hijack it claiming they targeted religious persons (they didn't). They also had been investigated by police for some of their behavior in the year before, so they were on police radar already. They tried making bombs but they didn't know what they were doing so most of them failed. I'm skeptical that even if they had worked they'd have done the damage intended (blowing up the school, killing the almost 500 people there). Did you know Columbine had police? This was before right wingers and gun nuts started shrieking how we just need to put cops in the schools. It has always been an unmitigated failure for preventing school shootings. Did you know SWAT sat outside for an hour before going in? Sound familiar? Police had investigated them for their fucked up behavior as well. They even wanted to carry out a warrant to search one of the kid's homes because of it. They don't have absolute motive, but there was enough evidence that the one was a psychopath egged on by far right mentality (he wanted to outdo Timothy McVeigh and originally had planned the attack to be on Hitler's birthday) and the other was basically an incel. Sound familiar?]

And so you simply think nothing can (sure sounds a lot more like you're thinking should instead of can) be done? Why do you think those others things aren't done? I mean you literally just fucking said bombs aren't used any more after Columbine, but you claim if we restrict guns they'll just go back to bombs? After you just said bombs aren't used? Seriously can you gun nuts ever just notice the most basic of logic you try to use is just fucked? You actually are correct though that guns get used more because that's way easier. But the fact that you don't think that's a problem worth doing anything about is so stupid I simply cannot understand that you genuinely think you're making a valid argument.

Also, fuck your "but they'll just use bombs" bullshit argument. Guess what we fucking did after Oklahoma City? We restricted sale of the materials used to make that bomb, and started tracking people that buy significant quantities of it. That's one of the reasons bombs aren't really used much.

You know what, I'd be all for targeting the groups most likely to do mass shootings. Males, especially white, by far are the biggest source of major societal problems in America. From sexual assault to murder (especially of women), to mass shootings, to major financial crimes, corruption (especially political).

Throwing up your hands is straight chickenshit. Granted, you're trying to pretend to be rational now, yet just a few days before this situation you were flying off the handle calling people just simply asking you for a real world need for suppressors as "gun grabbers" and getting mad when people showed the flaws in your arguments because you don't fucking care, you want your guns and everything else be damned. Its why you're advocating for doing nothing. Oh, sorry, you're advocating for shutting some doors. Ok, Cameron Mitchell.


When we had preponderance of serial killers, you know what we did? We changed policing (made departments start talking to each other, database of crimes, criminals, and victims). When we had large amounts of car fatalities, you know what we did? We regulated cars to be safer. A few people get sick eating something and we force recalls of it. Isn't it interesting how when things happen, we've shown not only we actually have done things about it, those things actually work to prevent major catastrophic harm? But, nope, it can't work for guns.

Votes can absolutely kill lots and lots of people, depending on what/who is voted for.

That's why the founding fathers enshrined the god given right to self defense and defense of liberty into the 2A.

It's the last line of defense of your life and your freedoms, and all the other rights you hold.

Disarming citizens is always the first move by fascists and oppressors as they move to strip away freedom.

It's what the British colonizers did/tried to do to the American revolutionaries in the lead up to the war.

Sam Adams and John Hancock were the "gun nuts" of their day. I'm sure modern Bostonians would be appalled by them.

"Following the first shots of the American Revolution at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, on April 27, the military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay and commander-in-chief of all British forces in North America, General Thomas Gage, ordered all firearms owned by the Boston citizenry stored in Faneuil Hall. On April 27, “1778 fire arms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses” were received, properly labeled with the names of the owners, and sorted for storage at Faneuil Hall. Gage promised the weapons would be returned to their owners “at a suitable time”. Gage feared an attack on Boston was imminent and feared the civilian populace would join in the resistance, confronting him with an inner and outer enemy."
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/faneuil-hall

Government has no inherent, unbreakable goodness. Slaves were kept because they couldn't arm themselves with govt facilitation. Native Americans were genocided, Mormons massacred, Jim Crow, Japanese internment, etc etc etc.
Govt sponsored oppression backed by the ballot box.

Rise of dictatorships were often proceeded by mass disarmament and loss of rights. Reichstag fire, then the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State passed by Chancellor Hitler. List goes on and on.

It's easy to sit and safe suburbs, watch the news, forget history, and only react to the day, the failure of law enforcement, blame everything on guns, and just give away rights.

If Jan 6 was successful, what would have come next? Don't think it or worse can happen again? What in history teaches you that?
Absolutely, as evidenced by the blood on the hands of people like yourself that vote for Republicans that deliberately incite the rhetoric and hate that keeps perpetuating the cycle of violence and death, all so you can keep personally stroking your fake penises every chance you get.

And that was about letting the states have a properly trained armed force with comparable weaponry to a federal one should the federal one turn against its people. It was never about you personally owning a semi-auto rifle. So, perhaps you should know what the fuck that was about instead of trying to reframe it to fit your personally twisted view of reality?

Bullshit. The first thing fascists do is convince people like you to enable them at every turn. Which they've been successful at, as despite you clearly seeing how problematic right wingers are, you're glad to support them simply because of guns (and also fossil fuels in your case, but sure seems like guns alone would be enough for you). They are openly spouting calls for fascism and you're fine with it. You tacitly regurgitate their nonsense, you partake in the same intentional placation using lies and misinformation that they do, just for guns. You are the fascist and you're too blind to notice it.

Wanna bring up history then fucking know what you're talking about. For instance you know that there were Native tribes that fought against us in the American Revolutionary War, because they were kinda upset about the genocide stuff, right? Also the Brits used a lot of German mercenaries, and we would've gotten our asses kicked (even if we'd had every American soldier with a gun) were it not for the French and other European nations helping us. So fuck off with your attempt to reframe history as just some guns in the hands of Americans is what won our Independence. It shows that your knowledge of history is embarrassingly woeful. Which, I guess if that's what you're using to justify your beliefs it explains your pathetic arguments with regards to guns.

So, yeah, sure if you deliberately ignore the actual history, the actual intention behind the 2nd Amendment, all the history since (so I take it you'd advocated for a citizen's right to own a nuclear bomb, after all MAD is about the only way to prevent the US government from using the US military to roll into somewhere - not even chemical and biological weapons is enough, so clearly if we actually want to keep it in check, we all must have nuclear weapons, by the shit logic you just tried claiming is why you personally should always have access to guns, gun owners impinging on the right to liberty of others be damned), all the objective proof that guns make society and you personally less safe, and that regulating especially semi-automatic rifles drastically reduces mass shootings, then sure you might have a point that nothing can or should be done about school shootings. Other than closing the doors.

So I take it you and all the other gun nuts are going to give up your jobs to go be doormen? Granted, that does seem like it would be an improvement over our current situation of putting cops in schools since they don't do jack shit other than shit their pants, harass non-whites (sure they harass whites as well sometimes), and maybe kill people for no good reason. Well until you show exactly what everyone already knows that having power tripping assholes with guns is always a problem, and injecting more of them into schools is probably just going to increase the number of gun owners sexually assaulting underage girls.
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2004
21,981
4,235
136
When a single vote can kill 60 people in 10 minutes I will agree with you

Meanwhile that evaluation would have stopped Uvalde

But why do anything just give all the crazy angry people all the guns and ammo that can store. We still have kids and people of color left to assassinate.
Stop bothering responding to them. They've literally not posted a non-full of shit post in this forum in years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeymikec

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,069
3,793
136
Votes can absolutely kill lots and lots of people, depending on what/who is voted for.

That's why the founding fathers enshrined the god given right to self defense and defense of liberty into the 2A.

It's the last line of defense of your life and your freedoms, and all the other rights you hold.

Disarming citizens is always the first move by fascists and oppressors as they move to strip away freedom.

It's what the British colonizers did/tried to do to the American revolutionaries in the lead up to the war.

Sam Adams and John Hancock were the "gun nuts" of their day. I'm sure modern Bostonians would be appalled by them.

"Following the first shots of the American Revolution at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, on April 27, the military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay and commander-in-chief of all British forces in North America, General Thomas Gage, ordered all firearms owned by the Boston citizenry stored in Faneuil Hall. On April 27, “1778 fire arms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses” were received, properly labeled with the names of the owners, and sorted for storage at Faneuil Hall. Gage promised the weapons would be returned to their owners “at a suitable time”. Gage feared an attack on Boston was imminent and feared the civilian populace would join in the resistance, confronting him with an inner and outer enemy."
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/faneuil-hall

Government has no inherent, unbreakable goodness. Slaves were kept because they couldn't arm themselves with govt facilitation. Native Americans were genocided, Mormons massacred, Jim Crow, Japanese internment, etc etc etc.
Govt sponsored oppression backed by the ballot box.

Rise of dictatorships were often proceeded by mass disarmament and loss of rights. Reichstag fire, then the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State passed by Chancellor Hitler. List goes on and on.

It's easy to sit and safe suburbs, watch the news, forget history, and only react to the day, the failure of law enforcement, blame everything on guns, and just give away rights.

If Jan 6 was successful, what would have come next? Don't think it or worse can happen again? What in history teaches you that?
Help me understand the lack of freedom in the many many first world countries without a second amendment equivalent/ubiquitous firearms.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,532
1,893
136
Of course most of the ammosexuals out there will gladly give up their freedoms if they A) get to keep their guns, and B) get to use them on a minority population of their fellow countrymen, and C) are told that will protect them from losing their freedoms.
What a dipshit.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic
Jul 9, 2009
10,532
1,893
136
Help me understand the lack of freedom in the many many first world countries without a second amendment equivalent/ubiquitous firearms.
You saw a taste of it in the heavy handed regulation in some countries concerning Covid orders. The fact that your authoritarian ass agreed with them makes them no less totalitarian.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
22,671
16,417
136
You saw a taste of it in the heavy handed regulation in some countries concerning Covid orders. The fact that your authoritarian ass agreed with them makes them no less totalitarian.
Man who wants to kill people for crossing a border has the nerve to complain about any form of authoritarianism. Also claims to be pro life.


Shit you just expect from tajbot
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
30,798
18,526
136
Votes can absolutely kill lots and lots of people, depending on what/who is voted for.

That's why the founding fathers enshrined the god given right to self defense and defense of liberty into the 2A.

It's the last line of defense of your life and your freedoms, and all the other rights you hold.
That's not why 2A was founded.

It was to tamp down slave rebellions. In fact the first gun controls this country has know(1680) was because, you guessed it against black people
The Racist Origin of America’s Gun Control Laws - The New American
The Virginia slave code of 1680 made disarmament of all black people mandatory, ruling, “It shall not be lawfull for any negroe or other slave to carry or arme himselfe with any club, staffe, gunn, sword or any other weapon of defence or offence,” a prohibition repeated in the 1705 Virginia slave code, written in more modern language, requiring that “no slave go armed with gun, sword, club, staff, or other weapon.”
 
  • Love
Reactions: Lezunto

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,069
3,793
136
You saw a taste of it in the heavy handed regulation in some countries concerning Covid orders. The fact that your authoritarian ass agreed with them makes them no less totalitarian.
Examples? Was it more heavy handed regulation than the US had with its 400 million firearms?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lezunto

Lezunto

Senior member
Oct 24, 2020
543
342
96
HomerJS

I have been politely explaining to folks for years that the overriding motive of right to bear arms advocates was the fear facing constant Black Slave Uprisings.
 

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
596
266
136
Votes can absolutely kill lots and lots of people, depending on what/who is voted for.

That's why the founding fathers enshrined the god given right to self defense and defense of liberty into the 2A.

It's the last line of defense of your life and your freedoms, and all the other rights you hold.

Disarming citizens is always the first move by fascists and oppressors as they move to strip away freedom.

It's what the British colonizers did/tried to do to the American revolutionaries in the lead up to the war.

Sam Adams and John Hancock were the "gun nuts" of their day. I'm sure modern Bostonians would be appalled by them.

"Following the first shots of the American Revolution at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, on April 27, the military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay and commander-in-chief of all British forces in North America, General Thomas Gage, ordered all firearms owned by the Boston citizenry stored in Faneuil Hall. On April 27, “1778 fire arms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses” were received, properly labeled with the names of the owners, and sorted for storage at Faneuil Hall. Gage promised the weapons would be returned to their owners “at a suitable time”. Gage feared an attack on Boston was imminent and feared the civilian populace would join in the resistance, confronting him with an inner and outer enemy."
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/faneuil-hall

Government has no inherent, unbreakable goodness. Slaves were kept because they couldn't arm themselves with govt facilitation. Native Americans were genocided, Mormons massacred, Jim Crow, Japanese internment, etc etc etc.
Govt sponsored oppression backed by the ballot box.

Rise of dictatorships were often proceeded by mass disarmament and loss of rights. Reichstag fire, then the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State passed by Chancellor Hitler. List goes on and on.

It's easy to sit and safe suburbs, watch the news, forget history, and only react to the day, the failure of law enforcement, blame everything on guns, and just give away rights.

If Jan 6 was successful, what would have come next? Don't think it or worse can happen again? What in history teaches you that?
Your arguments are equivalent to those of an evangelical bible thumper. Or its modern day equivalent, a paid troll.

The cherry on top of it all is that you ignore the fact that the January 6 crowd is a subset of the 2A crowd.
 
Last edited:

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,199
4,424
136
Your arguments are equivalent to those of an evangelical bible thumper. Or its modern day equivalent, a paid troll.

The cherry on top of it all is that you ignore the fact that the January 6 crowd is a subset of the 2A crowd.
Brilliant retort.

Its a subset of a crowd, just as a subset of liberals have voluntarily disarmed themselves.

How do you think that will work out if SHTF?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlawleZ

ASK THE COMMUNITY