TCPeppyTc Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 this thread may have run its course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 if you're going to have cops but aren't willing to trust them with unfettered authority, then the easiest way to deal with that is to not give them unfettered authority. in modern society, the Second Amendment has little to do with that, because the Second Amendment only gives you the right to own weapons; it doesn't give you the training and discipline to actually use them effectively, and using them on cops is kind of completely and utterly against the law anyways--and, funnily enough, nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right to shoot cops. so if you want to make sure your cops aren't the kind that don't play by the rules, then you have to have a system, a culture, a society, a training regimen, and an environment that dispose them towards playing by the rules. the Second Amendment has nothing to do with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 if you're going to have cops but aren't willing to trust them with unfettered authority, then the easiest way to deal with that is to not give them unfettered authority. in modern society, the Second Amendment has little to do with that, because the Second Amendment only gives you the right to own weapons; it doesn't give you the training and discipline to actually use them effectively, and using them on cops is kind of completely and utterly against the law anyways--and, funnily enough, nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right to shoot cops. so if you want to make sure your cops aren't the kind that don't play by the rules, then you have to have a system, a culture, a society, a training regimen, and an environment that dispose them towards playing by the rules. the Second Amendment has nothing to do with that. Actually you are allowed to train with the weapons, and you can learn to use them effectively. however you make a good point about not being able to shoot a cop. But there are limits on police actions and inless he is severely violating one of these you shouldn't need to shoot a cop. However in the event you due. murder is justifiable if the cause is just. In a case were a shooting isn't necessary but the police violate your rights just report him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 just 'cuz you are allowed to train with weapons and learn to use them effectively doesn't mean you will, which is the problem in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 just 'cuz you are allowed to train with weapons and learn to use them effectively doesn't mean you will, which is the problem in the first place. i am having a little trouble understanding this. well generally when you train to use a weapon effectively you are able to.....so what is the problem here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 That's all very well, but it still doesn't change the fact that a cop with a gun has one HELL of a range advantage against a criminal with a knife. A cop allowed to use a firearm against an assailant armed with a knife would generally have the advantage, but I don't believe they have the right to use a firearm against a knife wielding assailant as it may constitute as "excessive force." Saw a thing a while ago where a man with a knife attacked and wounded several cops, and none of them drew their sidearms. They did, however, pull out their mace and wrestle him to the ground. Unfortunately, the man had AIDS, and had cut himself with the knife as well and potentially infected the officers with it. Don't know if they did because at the time of the story, they were still awaiting the results, and I hadn't heard anything else about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarita Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 I'm a not feeling too well right now, so I'll tackle some of the stuff later, but I want to point something out before any discussion about this takes place. The crook in that video was a felon, which means he did not purchase that weapon in any gunstore, because you have to go through a waiting perioud while they perform a background check, and when it comes through that you are a felon, they will not sell you the gun. No way, no how. A convicted felon can not own any firearm. Ever. Not really relevant to the current discussion, just clarifying: I would like to point out to you that this isn't always true. Not all firearms dealers perform background checks, despite legal process. I am aware of cases where individuals without their right to bear arms were able to purchase and own guns. There are less than honest dealers out there, do remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 Well I'm talking ideally, where dealers play by the rules. There's no accounting for someone cheating the system. Hell, you can acquire a kit for an AK-47 to make it fully automatic, all it takes is someone bending a certain part (as you can't buy/sell the part readily at that angle, but can buy a part that can be easily made at that angle) to a certain degree (people tend to take it to people at machine shops and find someone willing to do it for them), put it into a legal, semi-automatic AK-47, and bam. Assault rifle time. Finding a shady dealer to sell you a weapon under the table is about the same as bringing one in from Tijuana/getting someone to bring one in from TJ. You're more or less buying black market at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arashikage Posted January 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 And that is also illegal I will point out. You can't sell any kind of illegal weapon or any weapon to a felon. You must go through the background check, otherwise that felon you just sold a gun to is on your head as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneUnder Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 And maybe you don't understand thinking! your assuming the cop gets to take advantage of his ranged weapon as if the knife wielder is blatantly attacking from 20 feet away but obviously a knife is concealed in till he is with in striking range. Your cop's range advantage is blown to hell! Ajc does make a good point here; while a criminal armed with a firearm is more likely to attack and range and possibly give the chance for officers to respond; [^ Speaking of which, the shooter in that video was sentenced a couple of months ago; I believe he received close to 70+ years] a criminal with a knife knows they have a short attack range and will most likely attempt to stab someone when they are very close. This can lead to surprise upon the officer's part and potential harm. That's actually a point I hadn't thought about, and a pretty good one. You don't understand how overjoyed I am to have matched your tenacity in debate with at least one point, Xort. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 i am having a little trouble understanding this. well generally when you train to use a weapon effectively you are able to.....so what is the problem here it's very easy. one is capability, the other is action. just because you're allowed to get that training doesn't mean you will--but you can still own firearms regardless of having the training or not. which brings us back to the point that the Second Amendment is not a bulwark against tyranny. in 1789, maybe, but it ain't 1789 anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 it's very easy. one is capability, the other is action. just because you're allowed to get that training doesn't mean you will--but you can still own firearms regardless of having the training or not. which brings us back to the point that the Second Amendment is not a bulwark against tyranny. in 1789, maybe, but it ain't 1789 anymore. listen, if the entire police department in my town goes rouge and starts killing and doing terrible stuff. I WILL pull out my gun to defend myself and shoot a cop. If he dies and i go on trail i should be found just in my killing. Weather i choose to shoot him or not is probably what your trying to say. I understand that some people could never kill another regardless of reason to do so, but there are plenty of others in fact most i believe would shoot a cop to defend them selves or they're family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 are you deliberately trying to misunderstand what i say? i made it inescapably clear and you're going off on an only tenuously related tangent. but either way if your police department did go nuts and start killing everyone in your town and you went to go stop them, chances are you would still die anyway without being able to stop them, because a) there's more of them than are of you and b) they probably know what they're doing better than you do. so no, the Second Amendment is not going to save you from government tyranny, because the government has more, better guns than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 are you deliberately trying to misunderstand what i say? i made it inescapably clear and you're going off on an only tenuously related tangent. but either way if your police department did go nuts and start killing everyone in your town and you went to go stop them, chances are you would still die anyway, because a) there's more of them than are of you and b) they probably know what they're doing better than you do. so no, the Second Amendment is not going to save you from government tyranny, because the government has more, better guns than you do. are you deliberately trying to misunderstand what i say? i made it inescapably clear and you're going off on an only tenuously related tangent. but either way if your police department did go nuts and start killing everyone in your town and you went to go stop them, chances are you would still die anyway, because a) there's more of them than are of you and b) they probably know what they're doing better than you do. so no, the Second Amendment is not going to save you from government tyranny, because the government has more, better guns than you do. your making your point terribly veag. anyways, Chances are if the police tried to occupy my city, they would all be dead by the crack of dawn. I live in the south. Every second person has a gun and years of hunting haven't made them any less lethal. not to mention we out number the cops 2000 to 1. secondly your assuming the military at this current point would willingly do the government's work of killing a populace....right.....No sorry the military would break into pieces. and most solders i imagine wouldn't shoot a fellow citizen and would actually support the citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 what in the hell is so va-- oh, i get it, you're doing this deliberately. surely you're not that dense. i mean, i only spelled it out for you explicitly three or four times. well anyways! it is very adorable of you to think that because you have a gun, you have the discipline and training and presence of mind to use it properly in a combat situation where you're actually being shot at and your life is actually at risk, in real life, where being shot doesn't mean you respawn back at the starting point. it's also very adorable that you think that everyone else is the same. it's adorable, if intellectually dishonest, how you sihfted the goalposts, from the police to the military, and thought that i wouldn't notice. and it's really adorable that, either way, you think the military would look at orders to put down an armed insurrection and reject them out of hand. some soldiers might! but all? even most? you don't even have to be armed for them to kill you, and you can go ask the Iraqi people about the willingness of the American soldier to ask questions before shooting. adorable, but terribly, terribly naive. because it turns out the American soldier is not some incorruptible pillar of moral righteousness, anymore than any other person is. because it turns out the American soldier is, in fact, a human being, like the rest of us. some are good people, some are bad people, you don't know which one you're getting when you look at one, and you don't know if the soldiers sent to put down a Hypothetical Armed Uprising are going to view their orders to put down said Hypothetical Armed Uprising as immoral or not. but regardless, if you tried to fight back against them, you would die. because you are merely capable of killing someone, but they are trained to kill someone, and if you don't get the difference between that, then perhaps you have no business being allowed to use a firearm. the really amazing thing, though, is that the police already occupy your city. because, see, that's how government tyranny works. it doesn't walk up to you and demand your submission. it gets your submission because you surrender it willingly--and you already have! it's genius. and guns have nothing to do with that. in fact, i take that back. that's not the most amazing thing at all. what's actually amazing is that the Second Amendment has actually become a tool of tyranny itself! it gives people like you the right to own firearms, so you can sit there stroking your gun and assuring yourself that you're like Master Chief but real or whatever and if the government ever got crazy, you could personally take it down in a hail of bullets and five o'clock shadow. and you're so assured of your own power and so distracted by flaunting it that you never realize that tyranny has grown up right under your nose. i mean, holy shit. that's diabolical genius. either way, you're pretty much turning into a caricature, AJC. so let's drop the pretenses. if the cops really did go nuts and start shooting everyone, maybe you could take a couple individuals with them, but you'd still die, because they have the training to actually make their shots count. so if anyone was going to stop the Hypothetical Cop Rampage, it would be the people who are even better at conducting combat operations and killing people than the cops--i.e. the military. so all this thought experiment really demonstrates is that the Second Amendment is not a bulwark against government tyranny. the civil war in Libya demonstrates this quite clearly. you can have all the guns you want, but you have to have the training and discipline of a soldier to actually turn your weapons into a threat to the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 And also I would think that the reason you weren't advised to carry a firearm with you in the wild was because in Canada they have stricter gun laws. Um. Yeah. Did you actually think for a moment as to why I brought that up? As for your bringing up flamethrowers, beanbag guns and rubber bullets, I'm not entirely sure why you brought them up at all. Still, civilians do not need this firepower but I don't see them fighting for it either. Flamethrowers do have lots of uses, granted professionals should still be the ones entrusted with them, in terms of swarms and controlled burns, and beanbag/rubber bullets are useful for animal control officers and riot police. The funny part is I wouldn't necessarily be against regular people being allowed to own "incapacitating" weapons like beanbag guns or rubber bullets if their argument is self-defence. Harlow basically summed it up: For recreation, only gun rental and use on a permitted place. For hunting, as long as you have your permits and licenses, fine by me. Anyways, AJC is becoming one of the quintessential examples of "people that should not be allowed to own guns". A gun does not make you Rambo or Gordon Freeman or whatever. It makes you a sixteen year old kid with a device that can quite easily put an end to someone's life. Now, for someone who's repeatedly brought up the crying hysterics that Star Fox Command inspired in him, I severely doubt you would be able to shoot someone, much less have the presence of mind long enough to even ready the weapon. And this basically applies to anyone else who defend gun use with their self-insert gary stu fantasies of shooting lots of bad guys and saving the day, that by no stretch of the imagination is actually a feasible scenerio for most regular folks like yourself. Police have bullet-proof vests. They have helicopters. The military has tanks, and planes, and bombs, and the training in all these deadly weapons that you lack, because you are not required to be trained in firearm handling, while they are. I might be able to stand on a pair of skiis without falling on my ass, that doesn't make me an Olympic skier, just like you might know the basics of a gun, that doesn't make you a viable opponant for a trained police officer or soldier. In fact, it makes you the equivalent of a kid who's just mastered the bunny hill racing for the world cup...down Mt. Everest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Krystal Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Guns are morally neutral. The freedom of citizens to carry a gun is a very good thing. Guns are an equalizing force. With one, even a wheel chair bound woman can defend herself against two or more muscular thugs. Even those people who are really crazy and just want to die and take a lot of people with them will be less likely to do so if they knew that their plans would likely be stopped short by an armed populous. However, the most important reason why gun freedom is important is that it makes it impossible for the people's own government to oppress them. Even if the government decides to go through with it and attempts to subjugate their people, an armed populous would deal serious damage to the soldiers of the misbehaving government before they were shot. There wouldn't be the hopeless tragedy of internment camps full of innocent victims. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 A gun does not make you Rambo or Gordon Freeman or whatever. It makes you a sixteen year old kid with a device that can quite easily put an end to someone's life. I agree with this. When my dad showed me his own gun he got for self-defense, I really didn't care and forgot about it the next day. I don't even know where the thing is. Not even the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesseboyd7 Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 I haven't got the chance to read everything on the topic guns good or evil. I did read most of the thread. I'm impressed this thread is probably going to be the next active and hot topic. Here is my short side input on guns. They are not evil nor good (hehe). But they are used for war, hunting, and other things. There should be less government regulation on gun control on the federal level. And it should be up to the local and state levels to decide on gun regulations. I myself like guns (possibly thinking of owning one). My family has some guns. That pretty much sums it up for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 I haven't got the chance to read everything on the topic guns good or evil. I did read most of the thread. I'm impressed this thread is probably going to be the next active and hot topic. Here is my short side input on guns. They are not evil nor good (hehe). But they are used for war, hunting, and other things. There should be less government regulation on gun control on the federal level. And it should be up to the local and state levels to decide on gun regulations. I myself like guns (possibly thinking of owning one). My family has some guns. That pretty much sums it up for me. Also, a bit off topic, but if you ever decide to purchase your own firearm, but are unsure which you want, feel free to come to me as I'd be more than happy to offer suggestions for your firearm of choice, whether it be for personal/home defense, hunting, recreational shooting, competitive shooting, or any combination of the prior. This also extends to everyone and anyone. Vy'drach's firearm helpline is here for you! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneUnder Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Here's yet another good article for this thread; it discusses the forty-two shootings that took place over Labor Day weekend here, within the New York City limits. http://www.nbcnewyor...-129268118.html NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, to the point where you aren't allowed to own an airsoft gun without a license. ____ And honestly, Ajc; you make the law-abiding gun owners look bad in a sense. The majority of enthusiasts and owners are not thinking of a North Korea styled hostile takeover by the government. Not to mention no matter how well you are armed you'd probably be dead within a few minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Vietnam demonstrates just the opsite, a country with a very poorly established militia was able to drive off american soilders. Do you think they had some massive amount of training? Want another example? Revolutionary war. The Americans had virtually NO training in many cases, less weapons, less organization, and worse weapons. yet drove off the mighty British machine. another example Somalia, specifically Mogadishu. They are nothing but civilians with guns yet managed to defeat and drive off the mighty delta force and several other special Ops teams. Another example? Afghanistan the Taliban, nothing more then payed Pakistani militia hammered the Soviets and expelled them back to Russia. There are countless other examples and undeniably history speaks for its self. Anyway mr.k stole what was left of my argument and said it in a much more clear and well stated manor. Revert to his paragraph ^ And crazy fool pm me what you mean by look bad, please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneUnder Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 And crazy fool pm me what you mean by look bad, please No need, I'm just saying that you seem to be generalizing nearly every firearm owner or enthusiast into someone who prepares for war against the government and believes they will be able to destroy a much larger organization. Not that I oppose expressing your viewpoint and "sticking to your guns" by continuing said argument. Carry on, :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 No need, I'm just saying that you seem to be generalizing nearly every firearm owner or enthusiast into someone who prepares for war against the government and believes they will be able to destroy a much larger organization. Not that I oppose expressing your viewpoint and "sticking to your guns" by continuing said argument. Carry on, No need, I'm just saying that you seem to be generalizing nearly every firearm owner or enthusiast into someone who prepares for war against the government and believes they will be able to destroy a much larger organization. Not that I oppose expressing your viewpoint and "sticking to your guns" by continuing said argument. Carry on, lol well i am not saying that but when ever you say ''guns'', ''police'', and ''rebellion'' people start to generalize you XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneUnder Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 lol well i am not saying that but when ever you say ''guns'', ''police'', and ''rebellion'' people start to generalize you XD In a way I'm inclined to agree, apologies if necessary, . Also, is there anything wrong with your quoting? You seem to be quoting every post twice in a row. O_o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts