kluang

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2448751.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcvY0...layer_embedded

CEO: Obama is wrong about gun owners we're responsible good natured people
Ill prove him wrong by threatening a mass death

There is absolutely NO FLAWS in his logic.

__________________

Mal

Yeah, that's totally not at all how the US government was intended to function.

Vengeance

Can't you get arrested for that?

__________________

Screenshot from Shingeki no Kyojin.

Check out this awesome manga called Magi.

jekyl_hyde

1. *Face palm*
2. *Shakes head*
3. If the gov't does manage to pass legislation banning the majority of guns, all chaos will break loose. There will be a civil war... but it will be the U.S. vs. various factions.

@veng
Not entirely sure how that law is now, but I know that it used to be that if you threatened a specific person, that was illegal, and action could be taken (unfortunately, it starts out with a restraining order and must work it's way up through the escalation process usually).

Vengeance

Dude publicly threatened to start killing people. If he actually goes through with it the government would look like incompetent jackasses since they clearly would have dropped the ball on that one. It's not even like you can say the dude was joking around as he was deadly serious.

At the very least that nut job SHOULD have his guns taken away.

Edit: Pack your bags part two http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...d-army?ref=fpa

Unless its necessary... really now I mean really...

Back peddling http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2460452.html

"If somebody comes to take my guns I will shoot them" LMAO

__________________

Screenshot from Shingeki no Kyojin.

Check out this awesome manga called Magi.

OG

if he can easily start killing people over this, he does not deserve the right to own a gun.

__________________

Numinous

Humm, no, it'd be a bunch of disorganized fools vs the US military and we all know who would win.

And those nincompoops should know by now that gun control isn't banning guns altogether, only those who shouldn't be in civil hands to begin with.

__________________

Vengeance

I'm all for the right to bare arms however there is a line between weapons used for self defense/hunting and weapons capable of mowing down highly populated areas in a manor of seconds.

__________________

Screenshot from Shingeki no Kyojin.

Check out this awesome manga called Magi.

kael03

You highly underestimate the idiocy of the people being fed crap from fox news. They seem to think the "gun control" crap is forcing all guns to be given up. The majority of my family is included in this (I seem to be the only democrat in my family and the only one to ignore republican propaganda).

Numinous

Now is my turn to say 'Murrica. And not only because of silly Republicans and Fox News, but for the fact Fox News didn't budge an inch from the the Petraeus hypothetical campaign funding scandal. Were this to happen this side of the Atlantic and, oh boy, the other news networks wouldn't rest until the goddamn channel was shut down if the highest court available wouldn't drop a cease and desist on the channel first.

But back on topic, I feel you for being the outcast in your family, kael. But to be honest, why the fuck can't some people think for a second that not all guns are banned, or else it'd be known hunting would be illegal? It's just common sense that yes, you can have your handgun for protection and perhaps an hunting rifle for a fun weekend, but why have (semi-)automatic firearms with bafflingly large magazines? What, that rabbit ain't dead after shooting 20 bullets at it in a couple of seconds?

__________________

jekyl_hyde

I agree whole-heartedly with your statement. I actually don't have a problem with certain assault rifles being owned (as long as people follow the proper protocols). I do think there should be some legislation and enforcement against high capacity magazines (any magazine/drum that can hold 50+ rounds is too much for a civilian).



If you want to know why the NRA is up in arms about this, all you have to do is go back to Bill Clinton and when his administration attemtped to have the strictest guns laws put in place (at that time). If you do your proper research, you will also hear that the NRA thinks there needs to be some gun laws, like the ones that are already in place. They just need to be enforced. If the laws that are in place were enforced, several of these public shootings may not have happened. Also, what has been proposed takes the authority out of the local and state governments and hands it over to the federal government. That is why there is a huge outcry. Ever heard the saying, give 'em an inch and they take a mile? Need we bring up the Patriot Act?

Just remember, criminals don't obey laws, hence why they are criminals.

@Numinous
Just so you know, the military supported Republican candidates 3:1 at the primary level. Many don't support Obama now that he has cut the defensive budget that pertains to the veterans themselves, not defensive weapons (i.e. anti-missile systems and what not).

Numinous

Absolute bullshit. Much like the Republicans were once the guys with a semblance of dignity and freed the slaves, there was a time when the NRA was for gun control but it isn't anymore for many years. If you do really proper research, you'd know the NRA is supporting various firearm producers and even said that the firearm industry struggle is the NRA struggle:


And like this piece of information, you'll find many more about the NRA being much more preoccupied with firearm profit rather than control, so it's preposterous and almost naive to say they just want the gun control laws to be enforced.

Then they're pussies. There have been so many issues that have been taken from state level to federal level: ban of slavery, women's rights, racial rights, legalization of homosexuality, etc. Gun control, in my humble opinion, should too be a federal issue.

What the flying fuck has the Patriot Act have to do with this? There's nothing on that Act that addresses shootings or gun control, unless you want to amend it so "domestic terrorism" includes single persons, which it does not at the moment.

But many wouldn't be criminals if effective gun control laws and enforcement were placed. Now that's what this whole issue is about.

Color me surprised that the US military can express their political inclinations, because the Portuguese military are strictly forbidden of doing so under the penalty of being sued or even expelled from the military forces they serve. That's because the military are to serve the Government and the people it represents, not their political preferences and I'm pretty sure the US military aren't immune to that duty.

So what if the military have a Republican inclination? If a Democratic government orders them to nullify a domestic terrorism cell (which is ironically what the "NRA army" would be considered under the Patriot Act), the military is obliged to do as told, because the "NRA army", if it were to happen, would threaten both the Government and the US citizens.

__________________

jekyl_hyde

I expected such coming from a self-proclaimed left-leaner.

Funny, how the NRA heads have been quoted by the Washington Post, NY Times, FoxNews, CNN, Headline News... on and on... as saying they are in favor of gun laws. Num, I respect you as a fiction writer, but get your head out of the liberal agenda and do some fucking research... that doesn't come from a source that has a liberal agenda.

It's the whole fucking reason why people don't want the fucking federal government to have authority over gun control. Many people supported the Patriot Act at the time it was created, because of the fear brought on by the 9/11 attacks (which we won't get into the conspiracy theories there, because good God, there are plenty to go around). The American people supported legislation, that in this very moment, many would not. Do you think the average American, especially those that own guns, legally mind you, are going to allow the federal government, that has basically fucked up everything it touches, have the authority over whether or not a civilian can defend him/herself. You're out of your fucking mind.

And coming from one of the resident supposed geniuses, I figured you would have been able to connect the dots, but damn. Do I have to connect the dots for you? Do you not see the parellels between the Patriot Act and the building points for this "new" legislation that Obama, Biden, and the Democrats are pushing for? Only difference, one was pushed by red, the other is being pushed by blue.

Seriously, you just proved how naive you are.

I thought you would know that, seeing how you know so damn much about the U.S. and it's government and policies. You're just a liberal tool, that is all you are. Hell, I know dozens of Democrats that I call friends that don't want the government touching this issue. Big difference between you and them, they are U.S. citizens. You're not.

kael03

Because I'm on my phone and don't feel like trying to erase most of the bullshit to get to what I wanted to quote, I'll say this. Jekyl, you claim that there are several news sources that quote BRA heads in favor of gun control. I have 2 simple words for you:

Prove it.

Numinous

A left-leaner that is very moderate by European standards, mind you.

O'rly? I didn't know we were still in an year prior to 1977.

Wasn't it Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the NRA who said that schools should go on an arming spree to protect the kids and that gun laws shouldn't be changed because of single madmen because it would harm lawful gun owners? In addition to that, the NRA gains members every time the government thinks of changing the gun laws to be stricter which wouldn't be a thing if they were in the same page as the government. Hell, it's even a known fact that the NRA is supported by various gun manufacturers.

Considering all that, it's pretty easy to say that, even if they said what you are stating, (to which I can't find a reliable source. I can't even find straightforward answers in the NRA site, buried under the tons of semantical dodges that make Cactuars look paralyzed), they clearly aren't doing what they're preaching.

While I do agree the Patriot Act is flawed as fuck and should be either heavily amended or simply tossed away to make way for a better act on terrorism, let's not commit the fallacy of equating the Patriot Act to gun control. The Patriot Act was pretty much spawned from the heat of a sporadic event (terrorism), while gun control laws have been advocated for years and reflect on a recurrent event, firearm violence. And, to be honest, why the fuck not hand over this kind of law to federal level? I mean, what's would be the use of a gun control law if it was enacted on specific states but you can just skip the state border and go bananas?

No, you're the one out of your mind considering the fallacies you committed:

• "especially those that own guns, legally mind you" reeks of No True Scotsman fallacy. You think that all gun-related felons acquired their guns illegally? No, many of them acquired their guns in the most legal of ways and that didn't stop them from committing said felonies. So you can't separate the felons from the law-abiding under that criteria.
• "the federal government, that has basically fucked up everything it touches" is just hilarious in so many ways. I don't whether to make a communist joke or an evil government allegory.
• Gun control isn't in any way, shape or form taking away the citizens' ability to defend themselves, it only wants to make sure said defending isn't with absurdly deadly weapons.

You're the naive one here. You seem to think all people who commit gun-related felonies are shady folks with connections to the black market who can just buy any gun any time. That's not the reality, not even by a long shot. Many times they're just people with perfectly legal guns and a fucked up reason to use them.

Let's face it, people are lazy and cheap when it comes to killing, that's why firearms compose 67% of homicides way above other methods of killing that would actually require some skill other than pull a trigger. If stricter gun laws would be in place, not only would they be forced to search for the black market for more potent guns, the black market itself would become more expensive since both circulation and manufacture of more potent guns would be very damaged, inflating the price. Not everyone who suddenly wants to kill their boss is willing to put up with that shit.

I know some stuff, I never claimed to know everything, so this quote is useless.

It's funny how American right-wingers toss "liberal" as derogatory when in Europe it is considered a complement by many. I'm not a "liberal tool", I'm only saying it as I see it. I see absolutely no logical reason to not implement a stricter gun control considering the ridiculous high gun violence in the US, now the issue is how it should be handled and that's what you guys in the US should be thinking about instead of covering your ears and go "la la la, I can't hear you, don't touch mah guns!"

It's funny how that works in my favor, because you're indirectly calling me neutral to the subject. And, as someone coming from a culture where guns are rare (8.5 per 100 people vs the 88.8 of the US) and gun deaths are little (1.4 deaths per 100k people vs 10.3 of the US) even when weapon traffic is piss easy because of the proximity with Morocco and strong ties with Latin America, I can say that the US really needs to go deep into this issue.

__________________