-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Gun enthusiasts pack shows to buy assault weapons they fear will soon be outlawed
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
Mammoth Jones
Member
You could flip it around to mean that if you're more concerned with using a mass killing as a springboard for why all guns are bad regardless of who possesses them. But consider this: That madman had minutes with no one to stop him. Do you honestly believe he would have had any different result if he used a shotgun or a pistol? The problem in that case wasn't that semi-automatic rifles exist. The problem one the mom didn't lock up her firearms and kept them in a house where she knew someone had serious mental problems. Also, the VT shooter used two pistols with 10 round magazines. ANY firearm in the hands of a deranged maniac is a bad thing. But the solution is NOT to take them away from the citizens. We don't live in a utopia and taking guns away from normal citizens en mass won't make it so.
He's saying it's the most efficient for *his* needs. That's a personal choice what's most efficient.
It's ok if it's alien to you. Your culture is completely alien to me. But that's ok. I completely support and respect the right of the British people to self determinate.
Why should they be banned? Because they're scary? Because of magazine size? That won't stop criminality. It didn't during the first AWB. And regardless of the availability of firearms to law-abiding citizens crime is at an 40 year low.
I only ignored the ones not worth responding to.
In many states, if a criminal breaks onto your property, you have a right to remove that threat to your property.
Well the government breaking into your home to steal your property that you legally purchased is violating your rights. Making them criminals. Can you not see why people wouldn't defend themselves from that the same way they would any other thug?
A stunning rebuttal, your endorsement of murder suddenly makes sense.
Oh no wait it's still nuttier than squirrel shit.
Am I the only one who sees how crazy this is?
Mammoth Jones help me out here, does this argument make sense to you?
You endorse violating people's rights, I endorse defending one's home and property.
I would've endorsed violating the rights of slave owners too, you're acting like "rights" aren't fluid and are some God-given absolute.
Byakuya769
Member
Fisticuffs
Member
It's not just the idea of committing murder over your right to carry guns, but the fact that you'll forfeit your life over it as well. Your life must seriously suck.
metalslimer
Member
If you really would shoot a government officials for coming to take some stupid gun away from you I don't know what to say. Like I said, gun culture confuses the shit out of me.
Synth_floyd
Banned
Merry Christmas you paranoid nuts!
Hopefully the new year will bring you a better relationship with reality.
LOL I live about a mile away from this place. Never been inside though.
Link
The Autumn Wind
The fact that someone that owns guns thinks this way is the main case for gun control.
If a criminal breaks into your home to steal your property you wouldn't defend it? I'm safe because I don't own guns, but if someone broke into my home I'd still have to find a way to defend myself.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
There is some kind of problem there (with being free to stockpile weapons), it's just a matter of question which weapons. Even in the US, you are not free to stockpile or even own something like a rocket launcher, grenades, and automatic weapons are very regulated. Even if you don't want to use those to hurt anyone you still can't own them, and I think those kinds of heavy regulations should extend further to other types of guns.
Wel said.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Regardless of the possibility that's the point of the Second Amendment. To at the very least give The People the possibility to resist. I know, I know...tanks...nukes....jets. But that was the point. Considering Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq I wouldn't be so quick to insist it wouldn't be possible. But I guess when horrible things like that don't happen at home it's hard to imagine it could ever happen.
I think it's easy and dismissive to label someone that you just can't comprehend as "crazy". It's ok to just plain ole not agree. That's going to happen but I see no reason to insist people are delusional to not trust Government to provide protection. Courts have already ruled police have no obligation to protect.
I own guns are a variety of reasons. And since I have no intentions to harm any innocent people I don't see it as an issue.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Wish I was in the market earlier. Market is going to suck for awhile for buyers.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
But the government defines what is criminal. If you reject that then you are making your own definitions of criminal behavior. And killing someone for something you believe is wrong but is not supported by the law is pretty well defined as "murder"
Fisticuffs
Member
Are you against an officer with a warrant searching the home of a drug dealer and "stealing" his drugs, if he should find them?
By that logic the government can do whatever it wants. But the thing is, it can't.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Why would I risk my life to defend 'property'? I'll call police, and if they're late, insurance will cover it, and even if it doesn't, I don't care for some stupid TV vs. risking my life.
Now, yes, there's a chance that some mentally unstable maniac could break into with the sole reason of killing you and your family, but the chances of that are so ridiculously slim, that if you have fear of something so unlikely, then you probably should never even consider driving a car or being in one - because the chances of dying in a car crash must be far higher.
Mammoth Jones
Member
So because we restrict rocket launchers more strictly than semi-autos we should restrict semi-auto's?
The overwhelming majority of gun crime is done with pistols. So you'd have to start there to even make logical sense. But it's a common error when the imperative is "Ban the scary looking" things. And please don't use this school shooting as an example. Like I said VT was done with pistols w/ 10rd magazines.
If they're not out shooting innocent people this point is completely moot.
The first have isn't and has never been a per-requisite to the Second half. If you disagree that's fine and dandy but the matter has been settled. Pretty much not up for debate with the court rulings. If it gets back into court and gets changed then it'll be what it'll be.
But until then, you're incorrect.
metalslimer
Member
But they wouldn't be criminals and they wouldn't be breaking into your home. And please don't try and make this out to be as fighting for freedom or something.
And you know what no banning assault rifles isn't going to do anything, but a comprehensive gun control plan that includes much tough background checks and get rid of that stupid gun show loophole along with it is a good start to curbing gun violence.
GoldenEye 007
Member
I don't get it. Is your position that guns are allowed only for militias? Because that's not what it means.
They are if they're attempting to steal property that you legally purchased.
They would if the gun owner doesn't just let them in.
Okay let's cut to the chase.
In the hypothetical case of the government passing a confiscatory assault weapons ban, what would you do when the feds showed up at your house?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Waco!
Link
The Autumn Wind
The original purpose of the Amendment has long since become obsolete. I'm not saying to ban guns altogether, but I'm tired of seeing people bring up Second Amendment "rights" to object to any gun regulations at all.
metalslimer
Member
Well good luck to you if you really think you feelings entitle you to be the judge of whose life gets taken over a dumb gun.
That amendment is wholly outdated mainly because it assumes to apply an 18th century view of gun technology forever.
This video confuses me. This guy says he would carry an assault rifle all the time if he could. The only reason he doesn't do it is because he isn't allowed to. What? That is pretty extreme.
He must have some serious problems going on if he thinks carrying an assault rifle constantly is a reasonable stance.
Fisticuffs
Member
He would rather die than live without guns, apparently.
It's not about feelings, it's about rights.
I'm betting he doesn't answer this question because he doesn't want to admit that he's a homicidal maniac who owns a lot of guns, thereby making a strong case for such a ban.
And if the government legislated that right away? If you no longer had that right?
Battersea Power Station
Member
Interpretation of the Constitution is ALWAYS up for debate. That's what goes on in law school all the time, as an academic exercise, and that's what people are doing on this forum.
How is having a larger supply of weapons available for someone to steal a moot point?
First thing we need to do after stricter gun control is holding the owner of a stolen gun that's used in a crime as equally responsible for the crime. Want to own a gun, better damn well keep it secured or face the consequences.
Gemüsepizza
Member
I think it does affect people if someone goes on a rampage.
But this isn't what's happening. People get hurt. People get killed. Because there so many guns out there.
True. That's why the government has to ban posession of these weapons. And if someone disagrees he should face the whole power of the law.
metalslimer
Member
You do not have the right to own whatever kind of weapon you want already. There are already restrictions. Whether or not more restrictions come down is wholly up to the congress. And honestly no seem to think rights are infalliable. I'm sure you know you don't have unlimited right to free speech?
Mammoth Jones
Member
Yea, it's a pretty strange idea. Thankfully he's a law abiding citizen and since he's not allowed, he doesn't do so.
Also that most of the guns that are used to commit crimes in New York come from out of state and gun shows.
I don't need to answer that particular question when I don't own any guns to begin with.
Well, unfortunately, the Second Amendment right to bear arms DOES exist, and it doesn't just stop existing because you think it's obsolete.
Gemüsepizza
Member
There is a difference between doing something because you respect the law and doing something because you are afraid that someone will call a SWAT team to bring you down.
Sure you don't.
Well-regulated militia. It's not unthinkable that we might eventually get a Supreme Court that can read that part of it.
Byakuya769
Member
I can completely comprehend them. They are crazy.
Kite
Member
The AR 15 is just the civilian version of the M 16 as I understand it? I'm not a gun nut, but I am familiar with the latter due to me doing that whole Army thing. It is fun and easy to shoot; little recoil and pretty damn accurate, but I really don't see why civilians needs to be able to own one other than being able to rent one at a gun range.
Do they really think you can fight against the government with it? Don't make me laugh, I know for a fact that any halfway competent combat arms team would roflstomp the support unit I was in, and we do way more training and have better toys like 249s and 203s than the average Bubba the gun collector and NRA member. 11Bs have hacks like armor and air support >.>
- Status