welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The gun violence thread.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1194
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
An armed civilian populace could stand up to the government when they had muskets and the government had muskets. Now the civilians have rifles and handguns and the government has tanks. Oh, and drones. Oh, and railgun armed stealth destroyers. Oh, and strategic bombers. You get my point.


You're over in the UK so you may not have heard about it, but there was recently a bit of a standoff between armed civilians and various law enforcement personnel regarding a rancher in Nevada and ultimately the government decided it wouldn't be in their best interests to mow armed protesters over with tanks or drone strike them.

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


Yes and im sure that's the last we'll hear of the situation too. Rolling Eyes

To quote Nevada senator Harry Reid: "Well, itís not over. We canít have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So itís not over". I have no doubt sooner or later Bundy will get what is coming to him - sooner or later his supporters will desert when they realize the person they are supporting is a fucking moron.

Also, with regards to the "Government has tanks/drones/stealth bombers/etc" argument... if the US government deployed those weapons in strength against it's own populace, they'd be universally condemned by a lot of the civilized world, and probably would have to start worrying about army desertion as well.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3333

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fritterdonut wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
An armed civilian populace could stand up to the government when they had muskets and the government had muskets. Now the civilians have rifles and handguns and the government has tanks. Oh, and drones. Oh, and railgun armed stealth destroyers. Oh, and strategic bombers. You get my point.


You're over in the UK so you may not have heard about it, but there was recently a bit of a standoff between armed civilians and various law enforcement personnel regarding a rancher in Nevada and ultimately the government decided it wouldn't be in their best interests to mow armed protesters over with tanks or drone strike them.

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


Yes and im sure that's the last we'll hear of the situation too. Rolling Eyes

To quote Nevada senator Harry Reid: "Well, itís not over. We canít have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So itís not over". I have no doubt sooner or later Bundy will get what is coming to him - sooner or later his supporters will desert when they realize the person they are supporting is a fucking moron.

Also, with regards to the "Government has tanks/drones/stealth bombers/etc" argument... if the US government deployed those weapons in strength against it's own populace, they'd be universally condemned by a lot of the civilized world, and probably would have to start worrying about army desertion as well.


I'd say that would entirely depend on who started it. Do you really think even a significant portion of the country would be moved much past armchair concern if those bundy supporters had shot the blm employees and the government wafflestomped them with superior forces?

I kind of doubt it.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 370

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fritterdonut wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
An armed civilian populace could stand up to the government when they had muskets and the government had muskets. Now the civilians have rifles and handguns and the government has tanks. Oh, and drones. Oh, and railgun armed stealth destroyers. Oh, and strategic bombers. You get my point.


You're over in the UK so you may not have heard about it, but there was recently a bit of a standoff between armed civilians and various law enforcement personnel regarding a rancher in Nevada and ultimately the government decided it wouldn't be in their best interests to mow armed protesters over with tanks or drone strike them.

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


Yes and im sure that's the last we'll hear of the situation too. Rolling Eyes

To quote Nevada senator Harry Reid: "Well, itís not over. We canít have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So itís not over". I have no doubt sooner or later Bundy will get what is coming to him - sooner or later his supporters will desert when they realize the person they are supporting is a fucking moron.

Also, with regards to the "Government has tanks/drones/stealth bombers/etc" argument... if the US government deployed those weapons in strength against it's own populace, they'd be universally condemned by a lot of the civilized world, and probably would have to start worrying about army desertion as well.


That may be, but at that point it would probably be things like regular army units versus national guard units, or something similar.

In either case, the average citizen with his 9mm pistol would be doing exactly fuck all. The modern army battle armor can sustain multiple light firearm hits, and their APCs and tanks wouldn't even give a flying fuck that you were shooting at them. In fact, they'd appreciate the notice of your exact location.

I mean seriously.

So the whole discussion about guns being a defence against the government is done. It's over. Anyone who legitimately thinks their assault rifle is going to do anything in a confrontation directly with the government is either stupid or crazy.


This is what a tank canister round would do to your house. A canister round is essentially a tank's version of a shotgun cartridge.

That's if their nice enough to even drive a tank over to your house. They could just put a missile through your front door, and trust me, if there was an actual civil insurrection in this country, all those drones we have now would be used on Americans.

Some people here must not be familiar with the Milgram experiment. Most people will obey the authority of their commanding officers and fire. In any situation where this might arise, you can expect that the government will have done a pretty good job creating the necessary psychological reinforcement of "us vs them" and that will only make it easier. You couple the sort of results seen in Milgram with the institutionalisation of the military against the "enemy" and then put it together with a drone so that the person isn't even in the same area code when he pulls the trigger and I guarantee people will drop the bomb.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1893
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
An armed civilian populace could stand up to the government when they had muskets and the government had muskets. Now the civilians have rifles and handguns and the government has tanks. Oh, and drones. Oh, and railgun armed stealth destroyers. Oh, and strategic bombers. You get my point.


You're over in the UK so you may not have heard about it, but there was recently a bit of a standoff between armed civilians and various law enforcement personnel regarding a rancher in Nevada and ultimately the government decided it wouldn't be in their best interests to mow armed protesters over with tanks or drone strike them.

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


Yes and im sure that's the last we'll hear of the situation too. Rolling Eyes


Probably not, but the fact remains that the government didn't feel like going all Tienanmen Square on them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10897
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure what your point is. Because the government chose not to use military weapons in this one instance they never will under any circumstance? Or what?
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1893
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's likelier that the BLM would have used force against the protesters had they not been armed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arc Tempest



Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 4924
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
I think it's likelier that the BLM would have used force against the protesters had they not been armed.


I think you are overestimating the amount of force at the BLMs disposal.
_________________
The older I get, the more certain I become of one thing. True and abiding cynicism is simply a form of cowardice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3333

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again. If those people had shot the blm employees, does anyone really think the country as a whole would give a crap about the government stomping them flat with overwhelming force?

Because realistically that's what you're looking at in any of these "laws get passed requiring registration and a chunk of the populace doesn't comply" scenarios.

The instant one of these wackjobs takes "pry it from my cold dead hands" to heart and shoots a cop, blm employee, postal worker, taxman, etc, they're going to cease to be real murican patriots and be Timothy McVeigh. At that point the country at large will applaud them getting steamrolled.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jinx



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3648
Location: America, fuck yeah!

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
We won't see any significant advancement on gun regulation in America until there's a tragedy so unbelievable that it demands it.

Unfortunately, 20 or so dead kids aren't going to do it. Someone's going to have to do a proper job, as my brit buddies would say. I'm talking about 100 plus or more fatalities, like machine gunning down a children's festival or something with one of those slidefire equipped rifles.


no. what will work is someone gunning down some congressmen's families.



Shooting Gabby Giffords and the people at her rally didn't seem to move the needle.
_________________
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
- Charles Darwin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khan



Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Again. If those people had shot the blm employees, does anyone really think the country as a whole would give a crap about the government stomping them flat with overwhelming force?

Because realistically that's what you're looking at in any of these "laws get passed requiring registration and a chunk of the populace doesn't comply" scenarios.

The instant one of these wackjobs takes "pry it from my cold dead hands" to heart and shoots a cop, blm employee, postal worker, taxman, etc, they're going to cease to be real murican patriots and be Timothy McVeigh. At that point the country at large will applaud them getting steamrolled.


http://www.somethingawful.com/news/joe-plumber-shootings/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9585

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bundy unintentionally makes a great argument for disarming the populace
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17420
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jinx wrote:
mouse wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
We won't see any significant advancement on gun regulation in America until there's a tragedy so unbelievable that it demands it.

Unfortunately, 20 or so dead kids aren't going to do it. Someone's going to have to do a proper job, as my brit buddies would say. I'm talking about 100 plus or more fatalities, like machine gunning down a children's festival or something with one of those slidefire equipped rifles.


no. what will work is someone gunning down some congressmen's families.



Shooting Gabby Giffords and the people at her rally didn't seem to move the needle.


true, but neither did newtown.

honestly, i don't know what, at this point, will get some action - but it seems logical to me that the best place to start is to get politicians to realize that there are things the NRA's political support doesn't make up for. losing your own children is so much more immediate than someone else losing theirs.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6115
Location: California

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fantasizing about the exact circumstances of the perfect storm horrible mass murder of innocent children made possible by the insane accessibility of firearms in this country that is necessary to finally substantially change public opinion on guns and break the NRA's hold on the government is kind of creepy so i'm just not gonna do it okay thanks but no

on the other hand, i'm relatively surprised that the likes of al-Qaeda have not yet taken advantage of how easy it is to get lots and lots of guns here. and Americans have been happy to throw away the rest of their rights in service of "fighting terrorism," so i'm not sure why guns would be exempt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3601
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:
fantasizing about the exact circumstances of the perfect storm horrible mass murder of innocent children made possible by the insane accessibility of firearms in this country that is necessary to finally substantially change public opinion on guns and break the NRA's hold on the government is kind of creepy so i'm just not gonna do it okay thanks but no

on the other hand, i'm relatively surprised that the likes of al-Qaeda have not yet taken advantage of how easy it is to get lots and lots of guns here. and Americans have been happy to throw away the rest of their rights in service of "fighting terrorism," so i'm not sure why guns would be exempt.


Hey shad, remember when it was specifically prohibited for Jews to hold, manufacture, or deal in firearms or ammunition in Nazi germany?

Kinda sounds like your creepy perfect storm that you guys keep talking about.


Oh I'm aware that the US works a little differently nowadays, but hey, go ahead and keep trusting a government that spies on you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 370

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thy Brilliance wrote:
ShadowCell wrote:
fantasizing about the exact circumstances of the perfect storm horrible mass murder of innocent children made possible by the insane accessibility of firearms in this country that is necessary to finally substantially change public opinion on guns and break the NRA's hold on the government is kind of creepy so i'm just not gonna do it okay thanks but no

on the other hand, i'm relatively surprised that the likes of al-Qaeda have not yet taken advantage of how easy it is to get lots and lots of guns here. and Americans have been happy to throw away the rest of their rights in service of "fighting terrorism," so i'm not sure why guns would be exempt.


Hey shad, remember when it was specifically prohibited for Jews to hold, manufacture, or deal in firearms or ammunition in Nazi germany?

Kinda sounds like your creepy perfect storm that you guys keep talking about.


Oh I'm aware that the US works a little differently nowadays, but hey, go ahead and keep trusting a government that spies on you.


Myth.

The gun ban in Germany for jews thing is just a rightie nutjob myth.

Do your research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 11 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group