- #36
Proton Soup
- 223
- 1
what ifs are great fun. but what really happens?
Our country was founded over 200 years ago, things that were necessary then are no longer needed in modern society, that would include the need to bear arms and be prepared to shoot indians and form a militia in case the king's army decides to attack.mugaliens said:Does this surprise anyone here in the U.S.? Do you not understand the basis upon which our country was founded?
One if by land, two if by sea. Got your horse ready? Come on mugs, who really thinks they need to carry guns and ammo to fight invaders in the street?We will always defend certain freedoms, by force if necessary. If that's not to your liking, it's time you find another country.
Evo said:form a militia in case the king's army decides to attack.
jarednjames said:Damn us Brits! The moment you get rid of it (and we get a king) we'll be coming for ya!
Evo said:The cops are better trained and aren't just firing out of fear. My preference would be that there were no guns in the first place.
Lets say you've got one crazy gunman and two bystanders with guns, bystander #1 whips out a gun and starts firing in response to crazy gunman, bystander #2 sees bystander #1 shooting, assumes he's in cahoots with crazy gunman and shoots bystander #1. Police show up, see bystander #2 shooting and they kill him. Crazy gunman gets away in the confusion.
Evo said:...things that were necessary then are no longer needed in modern society...
Thank you. My wife and I live about 20 minutes from the nearest law-enforcement response in the event of a 911 call, unless some county deputy or state trooper just happens to be driving by when the call comes in. I'm not going to negotiate with some creep on the other side of my front door, or someone who climbs in through a smashed window. That would be a dead person.mugaliens said:As for law enforcement, they're only minutes away when seconds count. Think on that for a moment.
Antiphon said:The problem is that the nutters aren't screened and locked away, not that we all have the right to carry machines to protect ourselves from them.
Rep. King should introduce a bill requiring psych evaluations for people who have had minor run-ins with elected officials. Invariably there are signs and smaller encounters that aren't investigated because it's an offense to one or another "civil liberties" group.
We need nets and rubber rooms for the unstable not legal fences that hold back the normal ones of us.
drankin said:I just don't see this as feasible. The resources required would be a nightmare. The problem is that anyone can snap. We all have the capacity to lose it. That's the human condition. No matter how nuts this guy was/is, he is totally responsible for his actions. It's noones fault but his. What if someone is screened, gets a pass, then does something. Whoever did the screening gets blamed for not catching it. As if it were their fault. This is insanity IMO.
Antiphon said:I strongly disagree. The point is to bring back the institution of the insane asylum. There was a time when the homeless and obviously disturbed got clinical attention. Now they're left alone to escalate among us.
And you're very wrong that any of us could snap and shoot innocent people. If you really believe that I'm sure a local counselor is available to talk you through it. And screen you for entry into the asylums that no longer exist.
Antiphon said:The problem is that the nutters aren't screened and locked away, not that we all have the right to carry machines to protect ourselves from them.
Rep. King should introduce a bill requiring psych evaluations for people who have had minor run-ins with elected officials. Invariably there are signs and smaller encounters that aren't investigated because it's an offense to one or another "civil liberties" group.
We need nets and rubber rooms for the unstable not legal fences that hold back the normal ones of us.
drankin said:I just don't see this as feasible. The resources required would be a nightmare. The problem is that anyone can snap. We all have the capacity to lose it. That's the human condition. No matter how nuts this guy was/is, he is totally responsible for his actions. It's noones fault but his. What if someone is screened, gets a pass, then does something. Whoever did the screening gets blamed for not catching it. As if it were their fault. This is insanity IMO.
The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possesses firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).
These categories include any person:
Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).
turbo-1 said:Thank you. My wife and I live about 20 minutes from the nearest law-enforcement response in the event of a 911 call, unless some county deputy or state trooper just happens to be driving by when the call comes in. I'm not going to negotiate with some creep on the other side of my front door, or someone who climbs in through a smashed window. That would be a dead person.
I never open-carry handguns, though I can. It's just not in my makeup. My youngest sister has a concealed-carry permit. She has worked at a home/school for troubled youth and moonlights as a bartender. She never knows if she is going to be targeted when she sets out on her pre-dawn walks. I don't think that she is capable of pulling that trigger when there is a human at the other end, but at least she has a deterrent.
drankin said:I just don't see this as feasible. The resources required would be a nightmare. The problem is that anyone can snap. We all have the capacity to lose it. That's the human condition. No matter how nuts this guy was/is, he is totally responsible for his actions. It's noones fault but his. What if someone is screened, gets a pass, then does something. Whoever did the screening gets blamed for not catching it. As if it were their fault. This is insanity IMO.
But by your own admissionmugaliens said:Bang, batta-boom, and bingo.
I am a law-abiding citizen, and I carry a firearm in accordance with our nation's Second Amendment. Hopefully, I'll never have to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. I nevertheless reserve my right to do so. Breath easy.
We never know, do we? No one can say they won't snap, and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.mugaliens said:On another note, decades ago I was assessed by a psychologist who used some sort of Q&A test to find me a "danger to society."
Evo said:But by your own admission...
drankin said:I carry a weapon just in case someone close to me snaps before I do. :)
Evo said:No one can say they won't snap...
...and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.
Evo said:The cops are better trained and aren't just firing out of fear. My preference would be that there were no guns in the first place.
Evo said:Our country was founded over 200 years ago, things that were necessary then are no longer needed in modern society, that would include the need to bear arms and be prepared to shoot indians and form a militia in case the king's army decides to attack.
Time to transition into the 21st century eh?
One if by land, two if by sea. Got your horse ready? Come on mugs, who really thinks they need to carry guns and ammo to fight invaders in the street?
If our country had been formed before the gun and it said we had the right to carry swords only, would you be toting a sword around?
If people want to own guns, fire them, keep them in the house, I'm ok with that. Pretending that they need them to fight invaders in the street that wish to overtake the country, nah.
Evo said:But by your own admission We never know, do we? No one can say they won't snap, and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.
I don't know that I won't snap, but I don't carry weapons.
mugaliens said:Good thinking, Drankin. Carry on. Let's get together for coffee some time. I know of a great place here in town that serves an awesome breakfast!
drankin said:I'm in the Seattle area, what part of the country are you?
Evo said:But by your own admission We never know, do we? No one can say they won't snap, and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.
I don't know that I won't snap, but I don't carry weapons.
DanP said:We can't ban ppl from driving cars...
mugaliens said:Given the fact unintentional motor vehicle accidents are about 28 times more likely to result in death than unintentional deaths due to firearms, I'm inclined to believe we need to do a far better job training our drivers!
mugaliens said:Yes, Evo, many of us can honestly say we won't snap. I'm sorry if you can't trust that, but there it is. I won't snap. If you can't trust this then I suggest you file this with your local law enforcement officer.
Crap, child. Our government entrusted us with nuclear weapons. We didn't fold then, why in the world would we fold now? (rolls eyes)
What happens if you're in your home and a criminal breaks in intent on killing you and your family?
What happens if a natural disaster occurs and the infrastructure and services break down completely, and you have to deal with roving bands of thieves and criminals?
What happens if you are walking on the street and see a group of thugs coming towards you?
Part of the reason for civilians having the right to bear arms is also to prevent a police state from ever forming as well.
If you think that couldn't happen, what if a major natural disaster occurs that sets the whole country into complete chaos? What if you then end up with a potential would-be dictator trying to take over? And let's say this dictator wannabe has a lot of potential followers and backers, because a lot of people are scared. The people being armed serves as a counter to these types of things.
1) Acquire a gun illegally, so that then when they go on a shooting spree, everyone else is un-armed
2) Use something different for a weapon.
DanP said:We can't ban the right to bear weapons, just for the case someone decides to shoot another person.
We can't ban ppl from driving cars, just because some drivers are irresponsible and sooner or later will cause a deadly accident.
jarednjames said:So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.
Ivan Seeking said:The armed public constitutes an army of perhaps 50-million, with 200-million weapons. That is a formidable army by any standard.
jarednjames said:So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.
jarednjames said:Capability to kill is not the same thing as designed to. A car is designed to transport people / things. A gun is designed to kill. If you carry a gun, with the intention of using it (whether in defence or otherwise) you are willing to kill. When driving a car, that isn't the intention at all. The argument doesn't hold up. Apples and oranges.
jarednjames said:I know, you'll all come down on me for invoking "it doesn't happen in Britain" etc. But, it's for a reason. You can argue how much you need a gun all you like, but at the end of the day, the biggest problem you have is that they have been a part of your culture for so long and embedded in society for hundreds of years, so you can't just ban them or get rid of them. They are everywhere and despite my views on it, I agree that under your circumstance you need them to counter the fact they are so prevalent.
Jared James, Out!
jarednjames said:So let's consider this. The government create a police state. The public start to fight back against the cops. What happens then? Hmm, do they roll over? Do they fight a war between public and cops? Or do they bring in the army? You can argue all you like, but the government has the means to do what they like. Legally or not (under the constitution) is another issue. If they really want to, they can invoke marshal law to bring the situation under control.