-
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
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Haha, that shit just can't be any better. Responsible gun owners unite!
I hate to say it but allot of this stems from scared white people. There's a cartoon that was shown in bowling for columbine that demonstrates this.
The 2nd amandement was put in place because it was needed at the time. It also implanted for our protection in the future should the government get out of control.
But today people take arms not for protection from the government, but rather self protection and hunting. Personally, I think hunting is a cowards sport. Now, you should have the right to protect yourself, but you don't need an assault rifle to do so. These are mass murder weapons and have no place in hunting, nor self defense against say an intruder.
Let me ask you gun nuts a question. Tell me why I can't buy c4 explosives, hand grenades, Rpgs, and biological weapons?
You say no? How dare you infringe in my 2nd amendment rights you damn dirty liberal!!!!!
The 2nd amandement was put in place because it was needed at the time. It also implanted for our protection in the future should the government get out of control.
But today people take arms not for protection from the government, but rather self protection and hunting. Personally, I think hunting is a cowards sport. Now, you should have the right to protect yourself, but you don't need an assault rifle to do so. These are mass murder weapons and have no place in hunting, nor self defense against say an intruder.
Let me ask you gun nuts a question. Tell me why I can't buy c4 explosives, hand grenades, Rpgs, and biological weapons?
You say no? How dare you infringe in my 2nd amendment rights you damn dirty liberal!!!!!
Messypandas
Member
Yeah but a hand-gun in the care of a well-adjusted law abiding citizen is less dangerous than a nuclear bomb in the hands of a genocidal maniac
Onion_Relish
Member
Note: I didn't say, NO access, I said ready access. The difference is that you have to pass a background check, have the weapon registered, and do many other things that your average American gun nut not only knows they don't have to do, but is most likely actively discouraged from doing as well. Also, these are mostly IMPORTS, I wonder where we might import them from?
It would be naive to think that there are no automatic weapons in Canada, once again, this is not a claim I made. Without getting any watchdogs on me, I have certain "friends" who might have just by happenstance and sheer misfortune have come in contact with some Hell's Angels in the past. You best believe those guys are strapped up six ways from Sunday. But once again, this is to be expected from a criminal organization. And this isn't even to say that there aren't some individuals who are in illegal civilian possession of the kinds of weaponry you described, once again, it would be naive to think otherwise. But this is the lunatic fringe, these are not the gun shows in America where 6/10 people admit they can't pass a criminal background check and the gun seller simply shrugs his shoulders and passes him a weapon capable of killing 27 people.
Perhaps I could have articulated my orignal post a bit more succinctly to address these concerns, but the fact remains that violent shootings are exceedingly rare everywhere in the world regardless of firearm possession rates or availabilty other than the united states, and its time for the people to hold their elected representatives accountable if they want change.
A good amount of the guns I linked to are not made in America nor imported from America. Famae is chilean for example. Type 88 is Chinese.
Im not arguing there should be laws, I love our licensing system in Canada. The problem is the arbitrary rules we setup on how I can own certain things but not others. It makes no sense.
stevematic
Member
Are you serious?
Also, barely anyone has an assault rifle to protect themselves, most people that own them are collectors rather than using them for sport or self-defense.
The projection on the end does nothing to refute his argument. You could ignore it and what he's saying would be exactly the same. And who cares about including suicides? Should we just forget about that aspect of guns? Guns make it easier to commit suicide. I've seen studies that show that higher gun owner rates are correlated to higher suicide rates.
stevematic
Member
How is banning semi-auto firearms going to stop people from committing suicide with a firearm?
Yea, until a crazy nut gets ahold of one his mom has and shoots at schools.
Ban assault rifles. Also, you avoided my question. An Assault rifle was designed as mass murder weapon. One day when assault rifles are banned, someone will ask the same question I have about why can't I have an assault rifle, and the response will be
" Are you serious?"
No one said that.
stevematic
Member
Please define an assault rifle for me and tell me how they're restricted to citizens. No Googling.
This applies to me as well. There's probably 100 guns within a couple blocks and I've never been afraid of being harmed by gun violence.
That said I'm in favor of phasing out gun shows and whatever else is needed to ensure owned guns are backed by paperwork.
Wait, now are yiu serious? A semi automatic weapon that is capable of bursting dozens of rounds before reload SHOULD be restricted. Why the hell would you need this? You say they buy it for a collectors piece? Is that these gun nuts are saying why they buy them? Oh, in that case it perfectly fine.
stevematic
Member
We're not talking about semi automatic weapons, we're talking about assault rifles.
This is why nothing gets solved. You threw a bunch of crud combined with ignorance on the subject.
Onion_Relish
Member
Once again, its early and I'm not on top of things lol. I pretty much implied through syntax that they were all coming from America, didn't I? Quite unintended to be sure.
The regulatory situation in canada is a fucking mess, don't need to tell me about that haha. Like I said, living in a gun owning family, I'm well aware of just how much of a hassle it was for my stepdad to get the guns, let alone transport them to saskatchewn when he goes hunting. But that's another matter entirely. If anything I would say how retarded the Canadian gun regulatory system is reflects our general malaise towards weapons in general, of course there is nothing substantiating such a claim, but if very few people are buying these guns, and even fewer are subverting the process so as to committ horrendous crimes, there is very little impetus to change them.
I'm pretty sure those things you've listed don't really constitute "arms" as described in the 2nd amendment.
If it has a high volume magazine, then it should and will be banned. I don't care what it's called. And you can thank people like me when it is banned.
yup.
The Ar15s we have are for range only use.
Handguns are a home/personal defense thing moreso.
We also have .22s for "plinking" which is just shooting cans and random junk objects out in the field.
stevematic
Member
I hope you're a troll.
Someone like Scalia would (and has) said that something like an RPG, as long as it can be hand carried would be covered.
The amendment itself is pretty vague on what constitutes an arm. The only clue there is if you're insanely literal like Scalia and read it to mean that you have to hand carry it. Other than that, I suppose the only clue would be possibly whatever a militia would use.
If you want a sample on how weird our laws are here heres a post on it. Nothing should change in our laws besides consistency. Thats the problem I have with our laws.
We are the militia. The Second Amendment is a right reserved to the people, not the state. The entire point is that people ought not be disarmed by the government, as that opens the path to tyranny. An armed citizenry is a check on the power of the government -- if it begins overstepping its bounds, the people have the means to defend themselves against oppression.
That's not the way I read the amendment at all. The entire point was that the federal government should not be armed, as that opens the path to tyranny (in the mind of anti-federalists), and the best defense of a free state (from outside sources or even from revolts) was to, instead, arm militias (i.e. state entities). It was there to appease the anti-federalists. So, the purpose of not disarming the citizenry wasn't to check the power of the government, really. It was to defend the country against attacks and revolts. If you look at the previous wording and the history of the amendment you can see overwhelmingly that it was talking about military service in particular, thus protection of the state rather than protection from the state.
Well, now that reasoning is completely dissolved, because we do have a federal standing army that we've now decided is the best way to secure our free state.
And what comprised any organized militia? Armed citizens. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as those people were the militia. Remember that standing armies in time of peace were detested in this era. Armed citizens could defend themselves and the free state, and stand guard against potential government oppression.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Hmmm. While having a gun will help you defend yourself in limited engagements, fighting against an actual army requires coordination and logistics. The first and only credible form of coordination would come from state governments. Logistics comes from support of other people outside the state funneling goods to you for a price.
You're fantasizing too much that you can become a real life Wolverine from "Red Dawn".
The checks we have against tyranny is a mixture of our economy and judicial system.
Onion_Relish
Member
I'd say that the amendment itself is half the problem, but then I realise that approximately 50% of the American population takes advice from a document 8 times older than it. Once again, cultural issues at the forefront. It would seem to make sense that allowing for arms that were around back in the day would be an ok compromise especially if their modern day counterparts closely resemble the old ones (shotguns wouldn't have to be muskets and rifles wouldn't have to be lever auctioned or powder tamped though). Something tells me the founding fathers of America didn't really envision giving weapons to civilians that they could use to level an orphanage.
Hmmm, too bad my .22 isn't drum fed. Kidding of course. I hate guns with a passion, especially after having fired so many. They do have a utility of course, but not worth the risk IMO. I have fun in much less destructive ways, although I have been bungie jumping twice and skydiving once.
UberTag
Member
It's so nice to know that more automatic rifles will find their way into the homes of Americans and into the hands of children after last week's tragedy.
Now more kids will die. Good on you America! Good on you!
And look what terrible things we produce when we do without these things while loaded on Tim Horton's coffee.
Bagged Milk.
Justin Bieber.
My Little Pony.
That's a triple threat of terrible if ever there was one.
Now more kids will die. Good on you America! Good on you!
Canada has no guns. Canada has no hockey.
And look what terrible things we produce when we do without these things while loaded on Tim Horton's coffee.
Bagged Milk.
Justin Bieber.
My Little Pony.
That's a triple threat of terrible if ever there was one.
I'm telling you that you're adding context where I see none with this last point. Yes, the people comprised the organized militia. And so yes they didn't want our right to bear arms infringed, but that was, again, because they said the militia was the best way to secure our state. I was simply pointing out that half the amendment, the part explaining the entire amendment has been thrown out and yet we don't reassess the 2nd part. I'm not saying we shouldn't have the right to bear arms, really. I'm just saying the founding fathers were saying to themselves "How do we secure this here state we're making?" and their answer was "Well, if people have the right to keep and bear arms, then the state militia will be best, because we don't want a standing federal military." And now we have decided against that completely. Nowhere in that context do I find anything about standing guard against potential government oppression, except with the fact that they didn't arm the federal government at all. That was their protection against government oppression, not the militias that this right gave rise to. And, again, we've gone against that and now have an armed federal government.
I think you can buy and own a RPG. But it's expensive as hell and you have to go on what is essentially a voluntary watch list. Not to mention all the checks and approval you have to go through, via the feds and state. But if you demonstrate that you're not a dangerous psycho or a domestic threat, they will allow you to buy things like grenades and bazookas and there are places you can go to even set that stuff off, legally.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
...I live in the weirdest country in the first world.
Guns like AR-15s are not automatic weapons and the sale of automatic weapons is heavily regulated. It is difficult to be legally permitted to purchase an automatic weapon.
I'm not surprised people are buying the types of weapons they're talking about banning, I would if I felt I needed this type of weapon for my own protection. I'm also not sure what the best way to go about things is really in America and its problems with gun violence, given how ingrained gun ownership is in that society any major added restrictions on this constitutional right are obviously going to be met with fierce resistance.
That said, I don't really buy the argument of protection against tyranny. Tyranny doesn't seem like an urgent concern in modern Western democracies, and even if it were, I can't really see how private gun ownership would prevent it. After all, tyranny rarely arises without popular support, presumably including that of a portion of these gun owners.
That said, I don't really buy the argument of protection against tyranny. Tyranny doesn't seem like an urgent concern in modern Western democracies, and even if it were, I can't really see how private gun ownership would prevent it. After all, tyranny rarely arises without popular support, presumably including that of a portion of these gun owners.
Sirpopopop
Member
I would argue that the United States is on a path towards no longer being a modern western democracy.
See: The plans to gerrymander electoral votes in Wisconsin/Pennsylvania/Michigan.
With that said, the gun nuts are going to be the people who are going to be pro-gerrymandering in those states. A tyranny is ok so long as they allow us to keep our guns and have an 'R' by their name.
See: The plans to gerrymander electoral votes in Wisconsin/Pennsylvania/Michigan.
With that said, the gun nuts are going to be the people who are going to be pro-gerrymandering in those states. A tyranny is ok so long as they allow us to keep our guns and have an 'R' by their name.
Yep.
For example, the automatic setting on the M4s used by the military is meant to lay down cover fire. It's not really meant for combat. In the Army you are trained to be efficient -- one squeeze of the trigger, one kill.
America was able to push these huge restrictions onto automatic weapons and destructive devices (extensive background checks and watch lists). The problem is noone will budge in expanding those regulations further. Quite frankly I dont know how they would even do that as its going to be absolute hell.
Kite
Member
This has also puzzled me as well, "well regulated" in my mind means someone who has been through Basic Combat Training or whatever the other services call their version and have some sort of chain of command. So Active Duty, Reserve, National Guard and Inactive Ready Reserve (prior service). I remember in my bct some of the worst trainees were hunters, just because you shoot deer doesn't mean they knew how to be a soldier. The drill sergeants had to break them of their many bad habits.
If you are afraid of the federal government becoming oppressive, that is what the National Guard is for. They are under the control of the state governors, unlike the Reserve and Active Duty which fall under the president. And they have their own toys which would let them maybe put up a reasonable fight. Personally I find the idea of random hunters fancying themselves as trained militia a little insulting, and the idea of them trying to fight the government laughable and kinda frightening. Just trying to imagine fresh trainees at BCT trying to fight off an actual fighting unit with nothing but civilian equivalent of M-16s and M9s is leaving red marks on my forehead from facepalming so hard. Red Dawn was just a (terrible) movie.. both of them.
empty vessel
Member
The well-regulated militias referred to in the constitution are the National Guard: http://www.nationalguard.com/about
As long as those militias are not disarmed by the federal government, the Second Amendment is complied with in terms of its original intent. Of course, the Amendment's purpose--to prevent the rise and reliance on a professional federal military--has been wholly eviscerated for a long time now.
The federal constitution itself speaks to these militias that became the National Guard: "The Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ..."
Those passages come right after these passages giving the Congress power to raise an army:
"The Congress shall have power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
It was hoped the federal government's ability to call up the militia in its defense would mean it would not have to create or rely on a professional army. The Second Amendment was an additional buttress added to appease opposition to the constitution.
unrenowned
Member
I'd like to know what makes so many (relatively) Americans think that they are safer in a country where everybody has a gun as opposed to a country where nobody has one.
because teh criminals will still have them. And they will kill you. Because most criminals are lawless savages out for blood.
way more
Member
I don't see this view as making sense anymore. It just sounds like a bizarre fantasy people have concocted to view themselves as the champions of freedom fighting valiantly against the state.
How does the second amendment protect us from government overreach like the Patriot Act? The US is not some failed state where the people with more guns make the rules. Owning a gun does nothing to strengthen your civil rights in regards to the state.
It comes down to a weird worldview difference, and perhaps a different view on humanity.
They see things as a division between "good people" and "bad people." In their mind these "bad people" will do whatever it takes to get to their goals (i.e. killing people). If we ban guns, these "bad people" will get them anyway, or will do something equally destructive somehow, simply because that is their goal. By taking away guns we're only affecting the "good people' and their defensive capabilities.
They don't see it as humans just breaking down or lashing out in whatever way is most available or easily accessible to them.
- Status