Assault Rifle Ban

napalm4sd's picture

Illinois town passes an assault weapons ban

The only slippery slopes I like, are the ones that are slippery because someone dumped a barrell of anal lube on em' and the end of the slope leads to a nice refreshing body of water. 

3.333335
Average: 3.3 (6 votes)

Comments

skeptoid's picture

Fines? Are these people fully aware of the nature of a very specific minority of assault rifle gun owners? I guess this place is confident they don't have any "cold dead hands" citizens in the area affected by the law. It would only take one major incident to ratchet the tension up on both sides. Then before we know it there's another Waco fiasco or similar tragedy.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
napalm4sd's picture

The judge said that civilian use of military weapons wasn't covered under the 2nd amendment. Yet he fails to realize that this same discrepancy was present during the ratification of said amendment, and yet no mention of military tech being reserved for said military is ever brought up in any of the founding documents. Its because the idea that civilians shouldn't be allowed to own military tech such as AR15's is bullshit. The minutemen had to use whatever they could to fight off the redcoats. 

 

That being said, AR15s aren't even scary.. What cracks me up is how nobody seems to realize that there are FAR scarier weapons out there that look NOTHING like a ar15. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

no argument from me, just always thought the arms used by the minutemen were provided by the military?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
napalm4sd's picture

They were mostly stolen actually. 

 

That is to say, the minutemen stole the firearms necessary from the british.

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

It depends on what year you want to talk about.  When hostilities arose around Boston and New York in 1774-1775 it was mostly ragtag groups of Americans using their own rifles and blades, which means they were mostly nuisances to the most advanced military might on the planet at the time. 

 

Starting from the end of 1776 forward the primary way American "volunteers" got their guns was from siezing them from the British (as you mentioned above) and through Franklin's military alliance with France.  It was *THEN* that the American forces started kicking ass and taking names...when they had military tech, disciplined soldiers, and an actual naval force to stare the over-stretched British and Hessian forces down. 

 

You don't hear of any of the Minutemen or American citizens bringing their own canons or heavy duty rifles.  It would be ludicrous for a citizen to own one...and yet their own small arms weren't enough to actually overthrow British forces.  When France agreed that they would fuck shit up it was their vital military supplies that helped win the Revolutionary War...not Billy Bob with a shotgun.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

appreciate the answers, thanks.

 

groth my understanding was that while the minutemen didn't win (finish) the war, the credit they're given is for staving off and wearing down the british, and supplementing the american forces just enough that they weren't defeated?

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

American colonists were indeed a drain on British military presence before the Declaration of Independence came into being.  Think of it as how the Taliban operated in Afghanistan throughout the 2000's: there'd be small skirmishes where the British would take losses but there was never a moment where the Taliban was going to overtake allied forces.  These minor attack and even battles very much irked King George III and he was determined to quell the uprising, which depleted his political captial and also threatened the prospect of other colonies uprising if the American colony defiance went unpunished.  

 

The pre-Revolutionary War fighters and early Continental Army were very successful in a few engagements without French support but they also were decimated early in the war as well.  There was a point where American rebel politicians of the time were literally calling for George Washington's head because it appeared the Continental Army was about to be crushed within a few months.  If you're interested in more of the history upon this I highly recommend Killing Britain by Bill O'Reilly (yes, "Papa Bear" himself") and Martin Dugard.  It's written in a narrative fashion where it's almost like reading a story and it has very well hand-drawn maps and you really get a feel for what the physical mindset of these legendary history-makers.  

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

I noticed you abandoned any argument from America's history in favor of an unsourced quote on a shiny image meme showcasing a black man in a suit holding a gun.  Did nobody say that quote?  It's not sourced to anyone having said it...it's like the guy in the image is just a straight up puppet without a name. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Abandoned is a strong word.  I just get mentally tired of hitting you over the head with facts and truth and logic only to have you ignore it all because you just can't seem to stop looking at the world through your warped Marxist lense and embrace the ideals of actual liberty.

About the photo.  I wasn't posting it as a response.  I just posting it to trigger everyone and wanted it as close to the top of the comments as possible.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Considering the image I have in my head of a meme-maker, both you and I know it was created by an overweight white guy in his 50's.

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

@ Skept.

 

 Do you see now why the slippery slope arguement applies?

 

 This started with bump stocks, Now it's assault weapons. There will be more.

 

 The only thing about this that surprises me is how fast this is escalating.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

If you are right and slippery slope applies here, then you'd agree the slope did not begin its decline with bump stocks. When did that decline begin in your view, and when did it go exponential? This looks like what it is - a local government trying to overrule federally-protected rights. If you want to make a slippery slope argument, you'd be better off pointing to California's blatant disregard for federal law with respect to illegal immigration. That's much more likely to have empowered this "bold" move than a call to ban bump stocks.

 

There will be constitutional challenges and all of that jazz, appeals, etc. Municipal governments and states pass laws that get overturned on constitutional grounds all the time. The only way confiscation will work is a repeal of the 2nd amendment. This looks to me like the regular push and shove of the gun control battle that's been waged for many decades now (a time during which guns and gun accessories have continued to multiply and evolve). That said, I see this as more of a symptom of a rapidly fracturing not so United States, with open talk among many about breaking away spreading much more rapidly than I would have thought possible. There is great instability in the US right now and this is a symptom of it I reckon.

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

i still don't. plenty of arms have been banned for a very long time and there's been no slippery slope effect causing bans to more guns as time goes on. for the slippery slope argument to apply, we'd have to be seeing a general trend in the reduction of firepower available to individuals, and we're not. there's been no gradual reduction in allowable mag sizes, barrel lengths, muzzle velocities, or even rates of fire. even with the bump stocks being banned, that isn't a recution, that rate of fire has not been allowed to increase, but it has not been decreased.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
InsertCoin's picture

Wow, fear mongering at it's peak.  Nice of her to put words into his mouth.  At least she's hot though. 

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

banning them is just silly. when a truck driver crashes we don't ban trucks.

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

@ Skept

 

The 2nd amendment arguements began in Kentucky in 1813 over the right to concealed carry. The Kentucky court ruled that the right to bear arms must remaine entire.

 

 The first gun bans That I know of were passed in 1934. The case citing the St Valentine's day massacre of 1929 as reason for prohibition of thompson sub machine guns and sawed off shotguns.

 

 Iv'e been against bans for years. Instead, I believe in regulation and certification that does not require being employed by the government as a qualification.

 

Also, there has been the occasional mass shooting throughout American history. But why so many in the last year in particular?

 

Yes, the nation is divided.

 

Have you ever looked up Agenda 21?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Forget Alex Jones for a second and stay on point. It can't be a slippery slope situation if the first gun laws were passed 80 years ago. Slippery slope applies to a situation where allowing one thing will quickly lead to ever more extreme of the same, rising exponentially until, in the case of guns, there is confiscation. So this would be the least metaphorically slippery slope in history. A blatant unconstitutional and forceful confiscation of legally owned firearms at the state level will inevitably produce a deadly stand-off of some kind  That's what the anchor was alluding to with her "questions". What I don't know is how the federal government reacts to something like this - do they care if states ban and confiscate firearms? Will they be forced to care by a court ruling of some kind? More information would be helpful, but my point was that the idea that calls to ban bump stocks are the reason this law was passed doesn't make sense.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

ok, but what laws have even been passed that reduced firepower once, let alone a sequential, gradual reduction?

 

for the slippery slope to be an actual thing there needs to be a slope. eg for cars various speed limits were reduced in the early 90's but they haven't been reduced any more since then.

 

if all 50 cals are banned, then allowable magazine sizes are reduced, then allowable barrel length is reduced then that's a slippery slope.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

If you don't give an inch it's impossible for anyone to take a mile.

 

Since 1929 "Inches" have been given in response to crises.

 

For many, It will never be enough until all the guns are gone from the hands of citizens.

 

This slippery slope took a long time to build momentum, yet incrementally it's gaining ground and picking up speed.

 

You can't take power, it can only be given to you.

 

If it does come to a standoff I hope the citizens do stand up for themselves.

 

 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I will accept "If you don't give an inch it's impossible for anyone to take a mile" because at least that's self-evident. But slippery slope makes no sense in a world where drones the size of insects and specifically designed to kill already exist. Shouldn't we all have access to lethal drones the size of insects designed to kill whoever you feel like targeting? Banning their use is a slippery slope because....

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

Wmd's would destroy the country. No need to worry about the government using that shit on it's own people. Too risky.

 

So yup, government can have them. Private citizens cannot.

 

Also, I have been saying drone weapons have been a bad idea from the beginning along with AI, nukes, viral weapons and every other thing that could potentially destroy us.

 

I think the real retards are the scientists and GOVERNMENT officials that developed this crap to begin with

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

You've ignored Skeptoid's main point, so I'm just going to bluntly ask:

 

Is it okay for my cousin Jebediah Philpott in Muskeet Township, Alabama, to own a grenade launcher?  Or are you in favor of infringing upon his right to "bear arms"?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Yes it is OK to own a grenade launcher.  Is it practical?  I don't think so but people do own them right now.  The problem with your argument is that you presume all grenades fired from the launcher are deadly and they are not.

 

So your question ought to be be, is it OK to own explosive grenades.  A launcher is nothing more than a 40mm shotgun.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

is it OK to own explosive grenades? together with a launcher?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Yep.  Use it in the commision of a crime and it's life in prison.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

is it legal in the lahaaand of the freeheeee to own these? Or fully automatic rifles? or handgrenades? or mustard gas?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Beseeched1's picture

Grenades are not deadly. Point taken. People should just stop acting all dead when hit with grenades. Such snowflakes.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

Is he a lawful citizen? No history of mental illness? No violent history? Over the age of 21?

 

The answer is yes.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

none of those conditions are in the 2nd amendment, yet we accept them as reasonable restrictions on rights given to "the people".

+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

The 2nd Amendment doesn't, but the 5th Amendment does.  No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

 

Those reasonable restrictions are reasonable because they occur on a case by case basis.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Since you're using "slippery slope" fallacies I am justified in responding with recriprocal logic, meaning that I assume that your slippery slope makes sense.  As Skeptoid asked earlier, where does the slope begin?  Does it begin in 1791, when the second amendment was ratified?  Well shouldn't you have access to the state of the art weaponry that was available at that time, such as canons and warships?  Why are you SLIPPERY SLOPING upwards by stating that you should have an AR-15, the likes of which would be considered magic in the year 1791? 

 

Your slippery slope argument doesn't work because I can simply use slippery slope argumentation in the reverse to argue against you.  It's circular, which is why it's a fallacy.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

You did have access to the state of the art weaponry at the time.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Then why did George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and most of the other Founding Fathers not provide their own cannons?  Why did Franklin have to sail across the Atlantic to make a military pact with France so we could get trained troops, cannons, and a naval force?  Shouldn't we have just used our own?

Or perhaps a bunch of yokels showing up with shovels and muskets wasn't enough to even make the British flinch.  Perhaps back during the Revolutionary War the citizens didn't have the appropriate firepower (i.e., military grade firepower) to take on the most dominant military might on the planet at the time.  This is what you are intentionally overlooking:  the Founding Fathers certainly didn't want The Negro carrying around guns like this and they didn't expect citizens to bring that to the Continental Army either.  You are applying a revisionist and fantastical historical lens to the Revolutionary War to make it fit into the absolutist interpretation of the second amendment and the seams are ripping apart.  America didn't start turning the Revolutionary War around until they acquired military grade firepower from France...it specifically DID NOT come from citizens in the Continental Army. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

This is what you are intentionally overlooking:  the Founding Fathers certainly didn't want The Negro carrying around guns like this
---
You are so fucking full of shit Mr. Fudd.  I swear to Christ, your claiming that he is applying a "revisionist" historical lense is POT calling the fucking KETTLE black.
---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Revolutionary_War
---
Prior to the revolution, many free African Americans supported the anti-British cause, most famously Crispus Attucks, believed to be the first person killed at the Boston Massacre. At the time of the American Revolution, some blacks had already enlisted as Minutemen. Both free and enslaved Africans had served in private militias, especially in the North, defending their villages against attacks by Native Americans. In March 1775, the Continental Congress assigned units of the Massachusetts militia as Minutemen. They were under orders to become activated if the British troops in Boston took the offensive. Peter Salem, who had been freed by his owner to join the Framingham militia, was one of the blacks in the military. He served for seven years. In the Revolutionary War, slave owners often let their slaves enlist in the war with promises of freedom, but many were put back into slavery after the conclusion of the war.

In April 1775, at Lexington and Concord, blacks responded to the call and fought with Patriot forces. Prince Estabrook was wounded some time during the fighting on 19 April, probably at Lexington.[8] The Battle of Bunker Hill also had African-American soldiers fighting along with white Patriots, such as Peter Salem; Salem Poor, Barzillai Lew, Blaney Grusha,[citation needed] Titus Coburn, Alexander Ames, Cato Howe, and Seymour Burr. Many African Americans, both enslaved and free, wanted to join with the Patriots. They believed that they would achieve freedom or expand their civil rights.[9] In addition to the role of soldier, blacks also served as guides, messengers, and spies.
---
Maybe you shouldn't depend on your Marxist history lessons so much and stop assuming every white person in America between it's founding and 1964 was a god damn foaming at the mouth racist.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Funny how a guy who spat on college education is avoiding my main point that the Continental Army wasn't very much in favor of arming blacks:

 

"These were freemen, however, freemen and slaves who were serving in place of their masters, fighting for freedom they would never see for themselves. (In many cases, their enlistment bonuses or even their pay went straight to their masters.) Washington still wasn't prepared to go as far as recruiting and freeing slaves, but many northerners had begun to question how they could call for freedom and enslave others. As that terrible winter at Valley Forge dragged on, the state of Rhode Island learned it needed to raise more troops than it could supply. State legislators not only promised to free all black, Indian and mulatto slaves who enlisted in the new 1st Rhode Island Regiment, but offered to compensate their owners. Desperate for manpower, Washington reluctantly agreed, and more than 140 black men signed up for what was better known as the "Black Regiment," according to Williams, and served until Gen. Lord Charles Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, Va., in 1781."

 

Source for the above quote:  https://www.army.mil/article/97705/black_soldiers_in_the_revolutionary_war

 

"Like most slave owners, Washington feared guns in the hands of blacks, particularly those enslaved, believing that armed slaves might foment a slave rebellion. At the start of the war he was opposed to bringing blacks into the army’s ranks and specifically prohibited it.  Slave owners also feared that by placing enslaved persons in the army, there would be an expectation that they would be freed based on their service. Yet serving by Washington’s side faithfully throughout the war was William Lee, his manservant, who accompanied Washington into battle. Upon his death in 1799, George Washington became the most prominent founder to free his enslaved African Americans. This decision was based on Washington’s evolution of thought regarding the institution of slavery’s place in a nation founded on the principle, “that all men are created equal.”

 

Source for the above quote:  https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/african-americans-and-war-indepe...

 

You also seem to forget that this was a time when some American soldiers literally had a 3-inch blade and their fists as their only weapons.  Do you really want to tell me that a white volunteer in 1775 went in to a battle without a rifle while the black guy didn't?  Let's not be foolish here, friend.  I'm awaiting you to claim that army.mil and civilwar.org and just Leftist revisionists.

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Perhaps back during the Revolutionary War the citizens didn't have the appropriate firepower (i.e., military grade firepower) to take on the most dominant military might on the planet at the time.

 

The colonial SUBJECTS may not have had the same number of muskets but they certainly had the same level of technology (or as you put it "military grade") as the British.

 

The Brown Bess Musket muzzle-loading smoothbore musket was one of the most commonly used weapons in the American Revolution. While this was a British weapon, it was used heavily by the American Colonists.

 

So in direct contradiction to your claim, the American Patriots did have "military grade firepower" when they decided to throw off the tyranny imposted by "the most dominant military might on the planet".

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

african-americans weren't considered to be part of "the people", hence why they couldn't vote, and the right to bear arms was only given to "the people".

 

also you're not wrong that many black people did fight against the british, but that is a separate issue from groth's claim that people didn't want african americans to have the right to bear arms. you've shown that they were happy for them to fight, but not that they were happy for them to keep their guns afterwards, which is what you need to do to disprove groth.

 

further you've argued against a claim groth didn;t make. he never said the american forces didn't have military grade weapons, he said that regular people didn;t have regular grade weapons, which you didn't counter. the militias famously stole british weapons because their own were too few.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

"Then why did George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and most of the other Founding Fathers not provide their own cannons?"

 

Because they were very expensive and had to be aqquired from European foundaries at the time.

 

But, there was no law against owning one at the time.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Expense wasn't an issue for any of the founding fathers, bro.  All of them lived in mansions and owned people.  All of them were the Donald Trumps of their era, don't fool yourself.  The reason they didn't have cannons is because there would be no point to just have one or two...you would need an...ARMY of them.  It's almost like civilian firepower was not equal to military firepower.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

You forgot something

 

"and had to be aqquired from European foundaries at the time."

------------------------

 

"The reason they didn't have cannons is because there would be no point to just have one or two...you would need an...ARMY of them."

 

I thought you were trying to convince us that the private citizen didn't own cannons because they weren't covered in the 2nd amendment. Which wasn't written yet.

 

"It's almost like civilian firepower was not equal to military firepower."

 

 How cute.

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

You simply making up the unsourced claim that cannons only came from European foundaries really isn't terribly impressive...it's also irrelevant because MOST EVERYTHING on the New Continent was shipped over from Europe.  But do you really believe there were no foundaries in the Colonies? 

 

What I'm drawing your attention to about how the Founding Fathers actually operated:  they didn't have their own cannons and military grade firepower because it was not only impractical to own that kind of firepower on a civilian level but they would also have to mass produce them for their own army, which they didn't do.  That is why the alliance with France was so crucial to the Colonies during the Revolutionary War.  I'm dispelling the notion that a bunch of yokels with can-do attitudes, muskets, and elbow grease took down the greatest military might of their time....that is a fantasy.  They defeated Britain by allying themselves with one of the world's super powers who then supplied their ARMY (not the wives on the farmsteads) with higher level firepower.

 

Long story, short:  Washington and the other Founding Fathers weren't interested in arming their *citizens* or *slaves* with military-grade firepower, they were interested in arming their *ARMY* with military-grade firepower.  This directly contradicts your assertion that civilians should own military-grade firepower in the present. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

I never claimed there were no foundaries. I am claiming they weren't making cannons. Expensive doesn't just mean money.

 

The citizens were not prohibited from owning them. They were given to the army at strategic points and battles where they would be most effective.

 

 I never said the colonists did it all by themselves. They had alot of help.

 

 You are advocating that cannons were prohibited.

 

 I am saying you are wrong.

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

"You are advocating that cannons were prohibited."

 

You will easily be able to quote me where I stated that or even implied that, right?  You won't be able to because I never made that assertion.  I stated that the Founding Fathers specifically did not have a storehouse of military-grade weapons available to them of their own volition.  This means they *CHOSE* not to have access to them because it would have been silly for a civilian to lug around a cannon.  

 

It is fairly clear that the Founding Fathers didn't operate under the believe that civilians or even they themselves should have been touting around military firepower.  But there are historical revisionists who really want people to believe that so they can underscore their flawed interpretation of the second amendment.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

"You will easily be able to quote me where I stated that or even implied that, right?  You won't be able to because I never made that assertion."

 

Don't you love being pumped full of your own medicine?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Nice dodge.  I notice your responses getting weaker and shorter.  It is time to abandon your silly views of the second amendment and recognize that the Founding Fathers were not in favor of civilians owning military grade weapons.  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

I would tell you what you should recognize, but I like you just the way you are. :)

 

in·fringe·ment
inˈfrinjmənt/
noun
noun: infringement; plural noun: infringements
  1. 1.
    the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
    "copyright infringement"
  2. 2.
    the action of limiting or undermining something.
    "the infringement of the right to privacy"
     
    Why am I ok with everything else,  but NOT wmd's given the right precautions and qualifications? Because people are volitile. A few nukes or a vial of ebola could diminish the country immensely.
     
    These things shouldn't even exist, but they do.
     
    If they HAVE to exist, they need gatekeepers.
     
    I am OK with our government having them because the likliehood of them being used on their own soil is very low.
     
    Not pleased with the government having them, but I can sleep at night.
     
    Why do I support everything else? Because it helps provides leverage against government takeover and reform.
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

but also if you don't give an inch people will get fed up with asking for that very reasonable concession and just take a foot without asking next time.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Except the "reasonable concession" is anything but "reasonable".  It is an unreasonable infringment, also known as a tyranny, on the rights of innocent people who did nothing to warrant the infringment in the first fucking place.

 

And when those fed up with being told no decide they will just show up and use deadly force to take that foot in violation of the rights garunteed by the Constitution, someone is gonna die and then we can all have civil war to decide the issue of freedom or tyranny.

 

... [W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

fair point in that "reasonable" is very subjective. in my case a rate of fire more than semi-auto one pull one shot is unreasonable, because for target, hunting, or other sporting purposes anything more doesn;t add to the experience. in the same vein banning convicted felons from bearing arms is reasonable (imo) even though the 2nd amendment gives that right to "the people" without excluding felons.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

How do you take a foot if a ban law isn't signed?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

fair question, i wasn't clear. what i mean is if the gun lobby refuses to cooperate at all, they risk everyone else just having a debate without inviting them and ending up voting for even tighter restrictions. on the other hand, if they give an inch or even half an inch, they remain a valuable part of the consultation process.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

It would be far more healthy and productive to tackle the root causes of violence in society.

 

Mental illness, poverty, purposlessness, no standards or values, abuse etc.

 

Not many people really think about the suffering that pushed the killers to do what theyv'e done.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Oh boy.

 

People really should realise that local laws and knee jerk reactions do not help and are actually counter productive. The same goes for the term "assault weapon".

This actually will help those that fall for the "fullauto" argumentation of the issue.

 

Local banning of certain things does not make sense at all. Neither does creating "gun free" zones. 

The only thing that will help limiting (admittedly very slowly) guns getting into the hands of criminals or mass shooters is licensing and registration, add a training portion to the licensing and you make gun ownership safer too.

 

What is referred to as an "assault weapon" (and someone correct me if I am wrong) is a semi automatic rifle that has accessories put on it that makes it look like "army issue" (these are simply a penis extensions and do nothing for accuracy or make the weapon lethal). Propaganda language like this only shows the ignorance of the people using it.

 

BTW "arms" is not defined in the 2nd amendment. Enforcing the 2nd amendment would then have as a base the use of the "arms" that were available at the time, wouldn't it.

 

 

Considering the era this was created in I would think the arms would look like this:

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

If our technology existed back then. I doubt the amendment would be any different.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

I am not so sure about that. I think it would definitely specify what is meant with "arms". 

 

The nanny government already restricts certain arms to the public.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

BTW "arms" is not defined in the 2nd amendment. Enforcing the 2nd amendment would then have as a base the use of the "arms" that were available at the time, wouldn't it.

No, that makes no sense.  The 1st Amendment does not define "press" yet we do not enforce the 1st Amendment by assuming "press" means the sort of printing presses available at the time.

Of course the Founding Fathers understood that arms would evolve over time, to presume otherwise requires a level of willful stupidity.

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Well nobody had (or has) a crystal sphere to tell the future.

 

The comparison to the press is not valid.

 

To assume they would have foseen where technology led (leads) to requires a level of willful stupidity.

Regardless of what they thought nowadays a few "caviats" should be introduced (and there clearly are some already, the 2nd amendment does not talk about sanity, age or criminal convictions), don't you think.  

 

Of course you don't, silly question.

 

More seriously, though:

  1. Is my definition of an assault weapon correct? If so the whole issue is so beside the point it would be unreal...
  2. what would be your definition of the term "arms" used in the 2nd amendment?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Lambus's picture

The news reporter is really beautiful!

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
phanto's picture

How did they define an "assault weapon"?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

It's all bullshit. I think normal people, mentally ill people, and just everyone should have access to assault rifles, miniguns, grenade launchers, recoilless rifles, anti-tank missiles, and artillery to say nothing of tanks, bombers, nuclear weapons, etc. It says arms in the Constitution and doesn't limit anyone so just give everyone everything. Gun grabbers are the real problem.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Image result for cathy newman so you're saying GIF

+1
-3
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

Get new material. That pic is used up. You never do that and always have new shit.

 

I'm saying I want nuclear weapons. I'm a responsible person and the Constitution says I have the right to bear arms which can be interpreted to mean nuclear weapons, or anything else. I might lose it at some point and kill a few million people but it's my right. I demand to be allowed to possess them as it is written in the Constitution along with a few other items for my protection like attack helicopters, fuel-air explosives, JDAMs, and some other arms. Any argument against my rights is un-American.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Literally the argument two jokers above gave me is that if you're a responsible civilian you should be allowed to have a grenade launcher.  If that logic holds true for a grenade launcher (which it doesn't) then they should essentially state that you and I should have nukies.  We need our government to fear us, or somesuch.

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

Grothesk: "Literally the argument two jokers above gave me is that if you're a responsible civilian you should be allowed to have a grenade launcher.  If that logic holds true for a grenade launcher (which it doesn't) then they should essentially state that you and I should have nukies.  We need our government to fear us, or somesuch."

 

 

Me: "Wmd's would destroy the country. No need to worry about the government using that shit on it's own people. Too risky.

 

So yup, government can have them. Private citizens cannot."

 

Clearly I said citizens should have nuclear weapons. Plain as day here.

 

 

 

+1
-3
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Your logic falls apart when it's an extreme example, which shows it's simply an issue of degrees.  Also, a single nuclear warhead won't "destroy the country".  Shall not be infringed, from my cold dead hands, give me 40 grenades and a nuke or give me death.

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I'm telling both you dudes that the killer insect drones are the real menace. For the sake of deterrence, everyone should have at least one hive in their home.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

I'm in. I'll take two hives.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
theblackswordsman's picture

"Also, a single nuclear warhead won't "destroy the country".

 

Of course it won't.

 

But if everyone is allowed to have one, more than one will be going off.

 

If The U.S. government sets one off and people arn't detterred, then what? More nukes? = annialating your own country so there is nothing left to take.

 

Also, if it were up to me all of the nukes, drones, and bioweapons on the planet would be destroyed. But that is not the discussion we are having.

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Eh do you understand what the "So You're Saying" meme is used for? Or is your sarcasm dial stuck at 11? See mine above - it's set to 6. Turn yours down.

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

You are suffering from willfull stupidity again. USE DIFFERENT MATERIAL. It's like you posting the same bullshit over and over and over again. Mix it up. Don't just post the same stupid memes. I know what your pushing.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

LMAO - "...posting the same bullshit over and over again."

 

Now your irony meter is pinged at 11.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
napalm4sd's picture

Nukes are stritcly weapons of government/military because the amount of money required to enrich uranium is beyond the reach of even the wealthiest of billionaires. 

 

Grenades/and launchers can be hand made very easily. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

There are around 15,000 nuclear weapons worldwide. There are most likely a few that can be procured for relatively cheap money from people who want cash. I want one and should be allowed to have it. I pay my taxes.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
napalm4sd's picture

Good luck with that buddy. The maintenance costs alone will bankrupt you.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
eh's picture

Not if I light it off IMMEDIATELY.

 

"Weapons without maintenance become unreliable within a few years." Thus, weapons could be expected to last around 2-3 years without a complete overhaul; however, regular minor maintenance is probably undertaken much more often.

Sources: The Nuclear Express, and The Nuclear Weapon Archive

 

..or within a year or two.

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato's picture

yes but plenty of people could afford them, which is why it's necessary to have a law that they can't even if they could afford the maintenance.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
napalm4sd's picture

No they could absolutely not afford them...

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Surely a billionaire could own a squadron of F-18s, though, right?

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
napalm4sd's picture

No chance, maybe the temporary possession but the cost of maitenance and storage would put them under VERY quick. 

 

These "then I can have a tank and nukes!" arguments are so idiotic that I almost feel as if i'm being contaminated with stupid just by acknowledging them half assed.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

It seems to me you're very much overestimating how much a single F-18 or warplane costs.  While it is true that manufacturing them costs in the billions of dollars, a 2010 article states that a F-35 costs anywhere from a $60 million conservative price tag to about $100 million high end cost.  Similarly, most tanks clock in at under $10 million per 1, which is like 2.5x Lamborghini Veneno cars.  And "maintenance"...I mean, come on.  Do you really believe labor and parts are going to exceed more than 1M a year? 

 

It is completely viable for a billionaire to own multiple tanks and jet fighters so cost clearly isn't an issue.  So why can't and don't private citizens who want to keep the government in check own any?  Civilians at the present would certainly lose a war with the might of the United States government if they decided to start putting us all in death camps.  Are you really going to hope that FullAutoGal shows up with his AR-15 to take out a drone or an F-18?  

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
napalm4sd's picture

Trolling. 

 

And you clearly don't know how civil wars occur or operate... To think the entirety of the US military would willingly do what you described is laughable. Especially considering 99% of those enlisted are gun touting 2A supporting conservative folk you so decry. 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Andrew's picture

It's about group psychology and "the tipping of the scales" though. If the average troop knows the 2nd ammendment is in place he is more likely to remain true to The People. When the second ammendment is gone all hope is lost and they are more likely to comply with a tyranical government

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Andrew's picture

have we forgot about 3d printers? lol

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

excellent point, actually!

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down