Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[Wintermoot]

they already banned guns here a few decades ago but I,ll play.
Probably give them up. The thing is that my possible guns can be easily used against me. Or I,ll keep it as a display piece.

 

[Brainpaint]

I made this:

http://memegenerator.net/instance/33635076

 

[144_v1legacy]

Don't worry, Ickorus. I understand. Just ignore these people. It's true, though, your sentiment is a repeated one.

That's right, just stick your fingers in your ears, you're still a special little snow flake. Just like your mother tells you at night before tucking you in and turning the night light on.

That seems irrelevant. It seems to me that you've turned to ill-fitting condescending mocking as a substitute for arguing against me. You didn't have to start this argument, or reply, as the only thing that would warrant such a response would be your own over-defensiveness. And being over-defensive implies that you know your cause to be wrong. And you are wrong. You are very wrong. Not in your original frustration that the post you responded to was a repeat, but in your attempt to justify attacking someone trying to sympathize with someone who was really taking an undeserved amount of heat for an action that was not as unreasonable as it was made to sound, coming from someone who wasn't acting out of line in neither sentiment exaggeration nor grammatical illness nor trolling. Not to mention, your quip was really not as comedic as you probably thought it was, possibly because of its lack of necessity, but mostly because you probably aren't that witty and shouldn't be making short peanut-gallery flings. Especially not to make a point, and have it be at best tangential to the defendant's line of speech. Also, my mother doesn't tell me I'm a special snow flake, partially because I'm mature/smart enough to know that snowflake is one word, and partially because there'd be no point in saying anything at all if my fingers were stuck in my ears. I think we both know that you're struggling to find a reason to continue your poorly rationalized argument, but hopefully this paragraph will give you something else to respond to, and perhaps you can use the opportunity to practice your ability to create witty banter, or at the very least, clarity and common sense, such that when you want to state a case, you don't instead seem to be attempting to divert the conversation elsewhere. If nothing else, it'll give the other people that were mentioned in that array of quotations something to judge.

I recommend paragraphs, my friend. Grammar is a good thing. Also, all my statements are sitting there still, in the thread, waiting for you to read. Come back when you manage to summon up the maturity to actually read the thread.

I'm back. At first I was considering leaving you alone, as I can see that you have a lot of abuse you need to attend to. It seems I'm not the only person here who can see that you're just flailing for attention. That's probably why your posts are congealing into one huge ball of tangential nonsense and holed, flawed arguments. And everyone is calling you on your bullshit. The best you can do is ignore the points. My favorite so far is your decision that your opinion was proven earlier in the thread, a statement you've made on the assumption that late-comers won't go back to check, but I'm sure they have at least regarding you (and so if you want attention, well done). This of course resulted in everyone wondering why you would think something so ridiculous. You have yet to make a reasoned, calm argument and with good intentions designed to clarify earlier statements, again, replacing them with trite and nonsensical short quips. See above. It's unfortunate that you'd continue doing that, because the implication is that you didn't read the paragraph very carefully (again, because you also had to respond to everyone else's questioning of your statements' validity). I'm sure you'll claim you read every word, but I think we both know this isn't true, and that you've skimmed it at best. Or at least if you read it, the full sentences were a bit too time-consuming to rationalize and respond to. And speaking of calling people out on their bullshit, I noticed you ignored one (or all) of the items I responded too. Again, you don't know how because you don't know how to admit defeat, and verily, you can't, but it's too late now because you've become backed up into a corner after losing the chance to back down respectfully, perhaps with a post of humble disagreement that ends a string of threads while saving face. I don't need to worry about this, though, because I've fleshed out my thoughts thoroughly and my only opponent in the argument is you, and not a large community of disapproval. And the bullshit I was initially going to mention before I became distracted by all of your other forum faults was the one regarding snowflakes and ear-fingering. Specifically, I gave a pretty solid comeback on all fronts (it wasn't hard to do, your post was short and, like I said before, irrelevant and unnecessarily angry) and you've swept right by them. I think I discussed this, but oh well, perhaps you knew that you were fighting a losing battle. And it is a losing battle, because you don't have any way to respond against our posts other than misplaced condescension. If it feels like I'm repeating certain elements, it's because I want to say, in as many ways as possible, that you need to stop responding with those tiny quips and make some retorts that have a bit of actual depth. You show nothing in those. You also mentioned my grammar, which is absurd, because the only green line given to me by MS Word was a style-related sentence, statement-type fragment as used in speeches. Regarding paragraphs, I generally use those, but I figure a wall of text is more daunting, and drives home the point that maybe we don't want to read a lot to share opinions. You, naturally, don't have that luxury because it is contradictory to your initial cause (one that I imagine you forgot). You mentioned maturity, which, like the snowflake argument (see how I spelled that correctly once again?) was shot down. As lacktheknack so kindly pointed out, your only defense to the attacks on your statements of others being in the wrong, is that they are wrong, which is the equivalent to saying "because I said so" in a debate. You might notice that that doesn't actually provide the other party with new information and doesn't disprove anything they said, which, at best, makes you look like you don't pay attention, and at worst, like a ****. I imagine you fall somewhere between those two.

I'm going to put a summary here. You didn't defend yourself, you insult people in ways that are easy to rebuke, and if you're going to respond to lengthy paragraphs, you (and only you) have to read the whole thing, because that was what you said everyone else should do. Also, since you like irrelevant insults, I'll also say that you like to stick small animals up your ass, to keep your head company.

 

[HellbirdIV]

The second amendment acts like a shield for the other ones. Sure we can say we have the right to free speech, the right to peaceful assembly, the right from unreasonable search and seizure, but if the government goes Third Reich and ignores all that, us simply saying we have those rights would be useless. That's why we need to be well armed, because sometimes you need muscle to back up your words.

The idea that the most effective form of resisting government oppression is by force of arms is a ludicrous idea that has been debunked many times in this thread alone.

The government can take your rights away if they want to - and then what? You just keep doing what they say? Probably not. What are they going to do about the fact you refuse to obey them? Send in the military, perhaps.

And see, that's where things get problematic with the idea of violent resistance. Once the military comes to drag you off to the Gulag or disperse your protests, there are two possible outcomes;

A) You use your weapons to attack the military. The military then kills you and the government has successfully dealt with a civil uprising.

B) You refuse to act; You stay where you are, even under threat of death, even as police, soldiers or MPs begin beating you, hitting you with pepper spray and tear gas, or shooting you with tasers or rubber bullets... You don't yield, and you don't fight back.

At some point, someone in the government camp is going to realize that they have literally no reason - no excuse - to perpetuate this brutality any longer. If you fight them, they will follow their orders and defend themselves at the same time. If you don't, they have to choose between following orders and doing what they believe is right.

Ash-shab yurid isqat an-nizam!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Yemeni_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution

The will of the people brings down corrupt governments - not their weapons.

 

[adamsaccount]

If i was an american (and if i was id be one of those weirdos slowly amassing an arsenal from a cabin in the Colorado mountains) I would probably tell the gun inspectors that i didnt have any guns, no siree, no guns here.

 

[TornadoADV]

The second amendment acts like a shield for the other ones. Sure we can say we have the right to free speech, the right to peaceful assembly, the right from unreasonable search and seizure, but if the government goes Third Reich and ignores all that, us simply saying we have those rights would be useless. That's why we need to be well armed, because sometimes you need muscle to back up your words.

The idea that the most effective form of resisting government oppression is by force of arms is a ludicrous idea that has been debunked many times in this thread alone.

The government can take your rights away if they want to - and then what? You just keep doing what they say? Probably not. What are they going to do about the fact you refuse to obey them? Send in the military, perhaps.

And see, that's where things get problematic with the idea of violent resistance. Once the military comes to drag you off to the Gulag or disperse your protests, there are two possible outcomes;

A) You use your weapons to attack the military. The military then kills you and the government has successfully dealt with a civil uprising.

B) You refuse to act; You stay where you are, even under threat of death, even as police, soldiers or MPs begin beating you, hitting you with pepper spray and tear gas, or shooting you with tasers or rubber bullets... You don't yield, and you don't fight back.

At some point, someone in the government camp is going to realize that they have literally no reason - no excuse - to perpetuate this brutality any longer. If you fight them, they will follow their orders and defend themselves at the same time. If you don't, they have to choose between following orders and doing what they believe is right.

Ash-shab yurid isqat an-nizam!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Yemeni_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution

The will of the people brings down corrupt governments - not their weapons.

Because violence totally doesn't beget violence, huh? I'm not really sure you understand the global dynamic in the modern age. Tin pot dictators know that if they start shooting folks, that the US is going to get involved at some point and then their day is REALLY ruined. But you don't have that dynamic when it's the US doing it to it's own people, the people WILL have to fight back, nobody is going to ride to their rescue.

I await your response of for some reason the armed US populace getting a fatal case of stupid and attacking military units head on in pitched urban battles like some sort of groan inducing hollywood thrill flick.

 

[HalfTangible]

"As soon as your prove YOU can keep them safer than I can."

Who do you mean by "YOU"? Do you mean the government? What do you think they'd do with confiscated weapons? Just throw them in a dump somewhere?

That was basically a very childish way of saying "If a government can't keep track of guns they SET OUT WITH THE GOAL OF TRACKING why should I believe they can handle keeping my gun - which no one has even ATTEMPTED to steal, by the way - out of the wrong hands?" You ever heard of the Fast and Furious incident? Because it's just the most relevant example of the US government fucking up everything it tries to get it's hands in.

Besides, people owning guns isn't the issue. The issue is A) that you can walk into your local Wal-mart and buy a hand pistol over the counter and walk out within a few minutes. WHY?!

B) That when a person commits mass murder, they become a national sensation FOR BEING A TOTAL SCUMBAG. Seriously, what is wrong with the news media?! Handle the deaths of human beings with an ounce of good taste, that's all I ask...

 

[144_v1legacy]

"As soon as your prove YOU can keep them safer than I can."

Who do you mean by "YOU"? Do you mean the government? What do you think they'd do with confiscated weapons? Just throw them in a dump somewhere?

That was basically a very childish way of saying "If a government can't keep track of guns they SET OUT WITH THE GOAL OF TRACKING why should I believe they can handle keeping my gun - which no one has even ATTEMPTED to steal, by the way - out of the wrong hands?" You ever heard of the Fast and Furious incident? Because it's just the most relevant example of the US government fucking up everything it tries to get it's hands in.

Besides, people owning guns isn't the issue. The issue is A) that you can walk into your local Wal-mart and buy a hand pistol over the counter and walk out within a few minutes. WHY?!

B) That when a person commits mass murder, they become a national sensation FOR BEING A TOTAL SCUMBAG. Seriously, what is wrong with the news media?! Handle the deaths of human beings with an ounce of good taste, that's all I ask...

I get the feeling you are channeling your immense anger without a well-defined target. Caps lock makes you harder to take seriously, first of all. It helps reinforce the idea that those in favor of guns are irrational, loud, and reckless. You don't want to reinforce stereotypes, do you? Of course not. Now calm the fuck down, analyze the things you've said, and ask yourself questions like, "when I say the government, what do I mean exactly? If someone were to steal guns from 'the government', where would they go, geographically? Where would the government keep guns?" If I want to steal guns from you, I'd go to your house. That's a pain, though, because it's easier to get one legally from a shop, as you pointed out. Or illegally from the black market. It would probably be less inconvenient than stealing them from a government-owned facility as well.

To clarify my first, if snarky, post, I'm wondering why anyone thinks that this is happening because people think gun-owners get their guns stolen from them by insane individuals. I personally think it has to do with impulse, other people (professionals in that field, i.e. no one in this forum) probably have more light to shed on the subject. I could give the Cornell suicide example, but that will take longer and I don't think you'll give it a fair listen anyway, and would be predisposed to disagree with any analogy I'd make at this point.

Regarding the semi-hilarious fast and furious incident, I imagine whoever was in charge got hell for that. I also think it's the only example you gave, and that you need to at least give three before you start saying the government fucks everything up, and they have to all be relevant to the issue.

With regards to issue B, that's an argument you're having with other people. I neither brought up nor referred to the mass murder incident. Handle those arguments with an ounce of good taste. With someone else.

 

[144_v1legacy]

"As soon as your prove YOU can keep them safer than I can."

Who do you mean by "YOU"? Do you mean the government? What do you think they'd do with confiscated weapons? Just throw them in a dump somewhere?

That was basically a very childish way of saying "If a government can't keep track of guns they SET OUT WITH THE GOAL OF TRACKING why should I believe they can handle keeping my gun - which no one has even ATTEMPTED to steal, by the way - out of the wrong hands?" You ever heard of the Fast and Furious incident? Because it's just the most relevant example of the US government fucking up everything it tries to get it's hands in.

Besides, people owning guns isn't the issue. The issue is A) that you can walk into your local Wal-mart and buy a hand pistol over the counter and walk out within a few minutes. WHY?!

B) That when a person commits mass murder, they become a national sensation FOR BEING A TOTAL SCUMBAG. Seriously, what is wrong with the news media?! Handle the deaths of human beings with an ounce of good taste, that's all I ask...

I get the feeling you are channeling your immense anger without a well-defined target. Caps lock makes you harder to take seriously, first of all. It helps reinforce the idea that those in favor of guns are irrational, loud, and reckless. You don't want to reinforce stereotypes, do you? Of course not. Now calm the fuck down, analyze the things you've said, and ask yourself questions like, "when I say the government, what do I mean exactly?" If I want to steal guns from you, I'd go to your house. That's a pain, though, because it's easier to get one legally from a shop, as you pointed out. Or illegally from the black market. It would probably be less inconvenient than stealing them from a government-owned facility as well.

To clarify my first, if snarky, post, I'm wondering why anyone thinks that this is happening because people think gun-owners get their guns stolen from them by insane individuals. I personally think it has to do with impulse, other people (professionals in that field, i.e. no one in this forum) probably have more light to shed on the subject. I could give the Cornell suicide example, but that will take longer and I don't think you'll give it a fair listen anyway, and would be predisposed to disagree with any analogy I'd make at this point.

Regarding the semi-hilarious fast and furious incident, I imagine whoever was in charge got hell for that. I also think it's the only example you gave, and that you need to at least give three before you start saying the government fucks everything up, and they have to all be relevant to the issue.

With regards to issue B, that's an argument you're having with other people. I neither brought up nor referred to the mass murder incident. Handle those arguments with an ounce of good taste. With someone else.

 

[HalfTangible]

"As soon as your prove YOU can keep them safer than I can."

Who do you mean by "YOU"? Do you mean the government? What do you think they'd do with confiscated weapons? Just throw them in a dump somewhere?

That was basically a very childish way of saying "If a government can't keep track of guns they SET OUT WITH THE GOAL OF TRACKING why should I believe they can handle keeping my gun - which no one has even ATTEMPTED to steal, by the way - out of the wrong hands?" You ever heard of the Fast and Furious incident? Because it's just the most relevant example of the US government fucking up everything it tries to get it's hands in.

Besides, people owning guns isn't the issue. The issue is A) that you can walk into your local Wal-mart and buy a hand pistol over the counter and walk out within a few minutes. WHY?!

B) That when a person commits mass murder, they become a national sensation FOR BEING A TOTAL SCUMBAG. Seriously, what is wrong with the news media?! Handle the deaths of human beings with an ounce of good taste, that's all I ask...

I get the feeling you are channeling your immense anger without a well-defined target.

Story of my life, really.

Caps lock makes you harder to take seriously, first of all. It helps reinforce the idea that those in favor of guns are irrational, loud, and reckless. You don't want to reinforce stereotypes, do you? Of course not. Now calm the fuck down, analyze the things you've said, and ask yourself questions like, "when I say the government, what do I mean exactly? If someone were to steal guns from 'the government', where would they go, geographically? Where would the government keep guns?" If I want to steal guns from you, I'd go to your house. That's a pain, though, because it's easier to get one legally from a shop, as you pointed out. Or illegally from the black market. It would probably be less inconvenient than stealing them from a government-owned facility as well.

I use caps locks for emphasis. Ctrl+I brings up my bookmark menu (something i find head-scratching at best) and for some reason there's no italics button here. Call me crazy, but hitting one button to make this look like THIS is easier to do than three times to start and four times to end this.

I don't need to define everything I'm saying, this isn't a serious discussion on the issue of gun control. The question posed was what I would do if such a law were passed and someone came to my door for my guns. The answer: be a snarky dick and make fun of them.

(Also, I don't think caps locks makes someone look like an idiot until they start doing so with entire sentences and posts)

To clarify my first, if snarky, post, I'm wondering why anyone thinks that this is happening because people think gun-owners get their guns stolen from them by insane individuals. I personally think it has to do with impulse, other people (professionals in that field, i.e. no one in this forum) probably have more light to shed on the subject. I could give the Cornell suicide example, but that will take longer and I don't think you'll give it a fair listen anyway, and would be predisposed to disagree with any analogy I'd make at this point.

Total gun control implies that someone, somewhere thinks that guns should not be had by anybody, either because a high percentage of people with guns go on crazy rampages (unlikely - there's just too many people with guns for the percentage to ever be high) or because guns get stolen. It doesn't make any sense, but this is a hypothetical scenario that doesn't make sense anyway =p

Regarding the semi-hilarious fast and furious incident, I imagine whoever was in charge got hell for that. I also think it's the only example you gave, and that you need to at least give three before you start saying the government fucks everything up, and they have to all be relevant to the issue.

Considering I said 'everything' and didn't say 'everything related to gun control'... no, i really wouldn't. DMV, bridges to nowhere, tax laws. Done. =p

With regards to issue B, that's an argument you're having with other people. I neither brought up nor referred to the mass murder incident. Handle those arguments with an ounce of good taste. With someone else.

Fair enough. At that point I was just ranting.

 

[Ryotknife]

"that you can pretend makes you safe" compared to...what?

No need for comparison. The fact stands for itself. GunsmithKitten has been talking as though her gun prevents her from being assaulted. It does not.

A police force that wont be there (nor are required to be there) when you need it the most with its 10+ minute response time while you are dealing with a pyscho armed with a crowbar?

Hey, only 9 minutes and 30 seconds left to go while im tanking his crowbar with my face!

It is a stonecold and unfortunate fact that a gun will protect you better than the police.

I can't believe you just used "stonecold... fact" and "psycho armed with a crowbar" in the same argument. When, praytell, was the last time you encountered a "psycho armed with a crowbar"?

I'd even take good odds that you've never encountered a violent psychopath of any kind in your life.

never been shot at either (in NY or alabama), according to your argument guns are not a problem then. glad that we agree.

Yeah, that's such an absurd argument, frankly it embarrasses me that you thought it would fly. Let's just pretend that you were drunk when you wrote it so we can move forward in this conversation with a little dignity, shall we?

so, you making an absurd statement = totally okay

me making an equally absurd statement using your absurd statement = villianry

/slowclap

the hypocrisy is astounding. That you have the gall to try to claim the moral high ground while using deceitful tactics is disappointing. You focused on the psycho part, when it was the "the police cannot protect you" that was the important part of my statement. But of course you know this, and intentionally tried to deflect and spin the conversation anyway you can in what can only be called desperation by focusing on the LEAST important aspect of that statement. The fact that there are psychos in this world is not groundshattering information. that the police can not protect you or are required to is something that law enforcement, politicians, and even the courts have commented on. That is the crux of the issue involving home/self defense and gun ownership.

that i might be attacked by a psycho is not the problem. The problem is that i might be attacked by a psycho AND THE POLICE WONT BE ABLE TO HELP ME is the problem. Stop trying to spin this conversation in an attempt to prevent any intellectual dialogue.

 

[Ryotknife]

Removing a tool simply because it can not solve a problem by itself is folly.

Would you agree that removing a tool that is working not as intended and does significant damage to the mechanism it is applied to is a good thing?
if so, by your own definition you agree on restricting access to weapons.

You would have to prove that. Which would be difficult seeing how the tool is working as intended.

 

[alandavidson]

Considering that it's now a felony offense to enforce any kind of gun ban in the states of Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming (probably with more to follow), it would spark a civil war.

 

[Ryotknife]

Considering that it's now a felony offense to enforce any kind of gun ban in the states of Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming (probably with more to follow), it would spark a civil war.

meh arent those measures (technically) illegal/unconstitutional and they only use them to tie up the courts? While the courts are tied up the federal government can not enforce the law until a decision is made, or something like it?

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

Why do people wanna keep there guns?

It's just the novelty of it.

Think of it like a bunch of children complaining about their toys being taken away.

HNNNGNNGNGNGNGNGNGN oh god the ignorance of that statement...

Oh god the uselessness of that statement.


Okay, lets go through the reasons for gun ownership.

> Hunting - Unnecessary.
> Sports/recreation/shooting range/etc - Unnecessary.
> Hobbyists/collections - Unnecessary.
> "It's my constitutional right!" - Unnecessary.
> To intimidate the government - Laughable and unnecessary.
> Self-defence - Arguably unnecessary. Should be the job of qualified and trained law enforcement, not everyday civilians.

Given how guns are mostly unnecessary, and how you don't hear citizens of other first-world countries, with extremely strict gun control, complaining about how they're "missing out", then yes, it seems like just a bunch of childish people complaining about their toys being taken away.

So why not ban sports cars?, you don't need to go that fast on the road, why not ban large dogs, you don't NEED them and they could hurt people.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

What are they gonna do if i say i accidentally dropped all my guns in a lake?
Search my house? lol

I could hide them under the frickin lawn

 

[Vicarious Reality]

> Hunting - Unnecessary.

Hahahah, oh wow

 

[pearcinator]

So even though I am from Australia where guns are illegal (unless you have a license) then it wouldn't affect me. However, yanks love their guns (speaking stereo-typically here of course) so if they were banned in the USA then there would definitely be a lot of people angry and not willing to hand up their guns (even if they were generously compensated).

In Australia we had a show (got cancelled due to one skit stepping over the line) called The Chaser's War on Everything. They had this one guy who reported from America and the differences between our countries. One of those was on guns...it is pretty funny and from this video alone I can determine that a total firearm ban in the USA would be a big mistake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuGqWwUJ64Y[/youtube]

The only REAL way I can see this happening would be to gradually ban guns. Starting with banning fully/semi automatic machine guns and high caliber sniper rifles and working their way down to handguns years down the track.