Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > Off Topic
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-16-2013, 10:59 AM   #51
Lathum
Favored Bitch #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
the paranoia I can't wrap my brain around isn't over people being worried the government is going to take their assault rifles away, it is why they think they need them. The people who claim they need them to keep our government in check are so far gone from reality IMO.

Lathum is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:02 AM   #52
Easy Mac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathum View Post
the paranoia I can't wrap my brain around isn't over people being worried the government is going to take their assault rifles away, it is why they think they need them. The people who claim they need them to keep our government in check are so far gone from reality IMO.

They need their high powered assault rifles so the government doesn't take away their high powered assault rifles. Don't you see the logic? Once their high powered assault rifles are gone, how will they stop the government from taking away their high powered assault rifles.
Easy Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:07 AM   #53
Autumn
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bath, ME
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
Kinda hard to call it paranoia when the opposition is pretty open about their intentions.

It's the classifying of everyone as "opposition" that is the problem. Here are some people reacting one way to a set of events, here are some people reacting another way. They're not opponents, and if we tried to keep opens lines of communication instead of drawing lines in the sand, we could get somewhere.
Autumn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:09 AM   #54
Autumn
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bath, ME
They need them partly because they can hear that people are desperate to take them away. So Lathum has the right idea, but I would push it even farther. We have to stop and listen to what the gun owners have to say. For instance, nobody should be able to open their mouth on this issue until they've learned what "assault rifle" means. Those advocating more gun control are, pardon the pun, shooting themselves in the foot by not making enough effort to educate themselves about guns before they start talking. When gun owners here that they just double down on their stubbornness. Would you want someone who doesn't understand the Intertubes setting up the regulations on how it can be used?
Autumn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:10 AM   #55
kcchief19
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathum View Post
the paranoia I can't wrap my brain around isn't over people being worried the government is going to take their assault rifles away, it is why they think they need them. The people who claim they need them to keep our government in check are so far gone from reality IMO.
Joe Scarborough made the point I've held for years, which is that anyone who thinks they need an assault rifle to defend themselves in that manner is making plans to kill American soldiers.
kcchief19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:13 AM   #56
CraigSca
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Not Delaware - hurray!
I'm not a gun guy, but I am a conservative. That being said, I'm not pro-assault rifle, and I see no reason why someone would want one (but, as Autumn said, I one of those guys who knows next to nothing about them, so really can't make a clear judgment). I think the thinking however, is - you take assault rifles away, then 5 years down the line you'll take my shotgun away, then my pistol, etc. It's a line drawn in the sand.
__________________
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!
She loves you, yeah!
how do you know?
how do you know?

CraigSca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:16 AM   #57
JPhillips
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
That would carry more weight if we didn't have evidence of an assault ban with no slippery slope.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:22 AM   #58
molson
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
That would carry more weight if we didn't have evidence of an assault ban with no slippery slope.

So if we get the assault weapon ban back you (and others) are going to put up a mission accomplished banner and that'll be it for this debate? Sign me up!
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:23 AM   #59
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autumn View Post
It's the classifying of everyone as "opposition" that is the problem.

That's a much more genteel word than I have for those who have intentions of additional restrictions on the right to keep & bear arms.

Quote:
Here are some people reacting one way to a set of events, here are some people reacting another way.

Those who are reacting in that particular way are naive at best, damned fools most likely, and agenda-driven evil at the far end. Tolerance for all three is growing thin in some quarters.

Quote:
instead of drawing lines in the sand

Go after the guns, for a good many people the lines are drawn. {shrug}
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:23 AM   #60
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
That would carry more weight if we didn't have evidence of an assault ban with no slippery slope.

That ban itself was an abomination.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:30 AM   #61
JPhillips
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson View Post
So if we get the assault weapon ban back you (and others) are going to put up a mission accomplished banner and that'll be it for this debate? Sign me up!

I can't speak for others. Personally, I don't want to get rid of all guns. I think high capacity mags and perhaps some definition of assault rifles fit in the same category as machine guns and RPGs, which we already restrict. I also support increased background checks and better enforcement options, both in practice and in legislation.

This won't stop gun violence, but it will lower the odds a bit without harming hunters or sportsmen and more than not having an M-50.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:31 AM   #62
JPhillips
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
That ban itself was an abomination.

I can't remember, were those the Hitler years or the Stalin years?
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:33 AM   #63
JediKooter
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego
Like any and all 'trufers', all they have is coincidences and conjecture. Never one ounce of actual tangible evidence that proves anything. Then there's the pseudo trufers that pull the Glenn Beck..."I'm just asking questions". Both are just as bad in my opinion. Tell you what trufers, why don't you go to the cemeteries where those kids were buried, dig their bodies up, take some skin and hair samples and then compare their DNA with their 'parents' DNA and then tell me it's a hoax.

In summary, any "Sandy Hook Trufer" is a well qualified piece of shit.
__________________
I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me

Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4
JediKooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:37 AM   #64
Easy Mac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigSca View Post
I'm not a gun guy, but I am a conservative. That being said, I'm not pro-assault rifle, and I see no reason why someone would want one (but, as Autumn said, I one of those guys who knows next to nothing about them, so really can't make a clear judgment). I think the thinking however, is - you take assault rifles away, then 5 years down the line you'll take my shotgun away, then my pistol, etc. It's a line drawn in the sand.

But is that the right way? Isn't society just making a correction based on evidence? The line right now is assault weapons OK, automatic rifles/grenades bad. Society has made a calculus that there is a certain amount of danger we're willing to allow from assault weapons being possessed by certain individuals in order to feel protected.

Now society seems to be saying that the line should be moved, that the danger posed by these types of assault weapons and their owners now outweighs the protective benefit of them.
Easy Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:39 AM   #65
spleen1015
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
I had another conversation with my wife about this early this morning. She is firmly in the pro gun camp. It should be up the each individual to decide if they want to own an AK-47 or not. I think she thinks that the government wants to totally take guns away.

I think a lot of people think the government wants to totally take guns away and that's simply not true at all.

We'll see what Obama wants to do later today, but I don't think anyone wants to completely remove guns or even make any sort of gun illegal. I think they just want to put more controls in place, maybe make it a little harder to get these types of guns.

I am in the middle of the argument. I think we should be allowed to own guns, but isn't it worth the trouble to have more regulations and make it harder to get guns if it means the Sandy Hook tragedy doesn't happen? Hell, even if it means 2 people lose their lives instead of 27 it is a step in the right direction.

Is there really a need for an average every day citizen to be able to get a hold of an AK-47 that can shoot 60 bullets in 20 seconds? I don't think so. An Ak-47 to me serves no purpose other than to kill people. So, I don't have a problem with more regulations around this sort of thing.
__________________
Why choose failure when success is an option?

Last edited by spleen1015 : 01-16-2013 at 11:40 AM.
spleen1015 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:48 AM   #66
CraigSca
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Not Delaware - hurray!
Quote:
Originally Posted by spleen1015 View Post
I think a lot of people think the government wants to totally take guns away and that's simply not true at all.


I don't think we can really know that. I think the government is giving us what the market will bear. Perhaps the long term goal is to ban guns, but we're not ready for it yet. Introduce gay marriage 20 years ago - you think you'd have a political career? Now, support of gay marriage means you're on the "right" side - same thing may happen with guns.
__________________
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!
She loves you, yeah!
how do you know?
how do you know?

CraigSca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:50 AM   #67
spleen1015
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Guns are like tobacco, oil and fat people. There's too much money involved with keeping them so they're going to stay around no matter how unhealthy they are.
__________________
Why choose failure when success is an option?
spleen1015 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 11:55 AM   #68
molson
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigSca View Post
I don't think we can really know that. I think the government is giving us what the market will bear. Perhaps the long term goal is to ban guns, but we're not ready for it yet. Introduce gay marriage 20 years ago - you think you'd have a political career? Now, support of gay marriage means you're on the "right" side - same thing may happen with guns.

Ya, I don't think this is step one of some secret society agenda to ultimately ban guns, but I understand why both sides fight over what is really a small piece of real estate, it's all about future momentum. But I do get the sense the pro-control side is more about "more regulations" than "assault weapon ban". And I think they'll always be for "more regulations" regardless of where we are (though they're not always going to have success).

Last edited by molson : 01-16-2013 at 11:56 AM.
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:02 PM   #69
gstelmack
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
That would carry more weight if we didn't have evidence of an assault ban with no slippery slope.

New York's new legislation goes from 10 to 7 rounds per magazine.
__________________
-- Greg
-- Author of various FOF utilities
gstelmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:07 PM   #70
Drake
assmaster
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bloomington, IN
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcchief19 View Post
Joe Scarborough made the point I've held for years, which is that anyone who thinks they need an assault rifle to defend themselves in that manner is making plans to kill American soldiers.

Interestingly, the people I know who hold to this logic are almost always current and former American soldiers.
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:08 PM   #71
Lathum
Favored Bitch #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
I have still yet to hear a good answer as to why someone needs this sort of weapon.
Lathum is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:12 PM   #72
molson
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathum View Post
I have still yet to hear a good answer as to why someone needs this sort of weapon.

I don't know if "need" is the right standard to apply when analyzing the extent of a right. Does anyone really need to shoot as a hobby in the first place, or need to hunt, or really need to marry their gay partner?

Last edited by molson : 01-16-2013 at 12:12 PM.
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:25 PM   #73
Lathum
Favored Bitch #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson View Post
I don't know if "need" is the right standard to apply when analyzing the extent of a right. Does anyone really need to shoot as a hobby in the first place, or need to hunt, or really need to marry their gay partner?

In many cases yes. Someone may need to marry their gay partner for benefits or tax purposes. Someone may need to hunt to put food on the table. I will even say some can have a need for a handgun for home defense.

IMO no one needs an assault weapon unless they plan on using it for its purpose, which is to kill quickly and efficiently.
Lathum is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:27 PM   #74
GrantDawg
World Champion Mis-speller
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Covington, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spleen1015 View Post
Guns are like tobacco, oil and fat people. There's too much money involved with keeping them so they're going to stay around no matter how unhealthy they are.


This.
GrantDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:35 PM   #75
JPhillips
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy Mac View Post
But is that the right way? Isn't society just making a correction based on evidence? The line right now is assault weapons OK, automatic rifles/grenades bad. Society has made a calculus that there is a certain amount of danger we're willing to allow from assault weapons being possessed by certain individuals in order to feel protected.

Now society seems to be saying that the line should be moved, that the danger posed by these types of assault weapons and their owners now outweighs the protective benefit of them.

This. Almost everyone agrees on the basic premise that certain weapons are too dangerous for civilian use, this is just moving the line slightly.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:36 PM   #76
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathum View Post
IMO no one needs an assault weapon unless they plan on using it for its purpose, which is to kill quickly and efficiently.

On this we can agree.

Difference being (perhaps) there are quite a few scenarios I can come up with where there are multiple targets that need to be killed quickly & efficiently.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:41 PM   #77
molson
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathum View Post
In many cases yes. Someone may need to marry their gay partner for benefits or tax purposes. Someone may need to hunt to put food on the table. I will even say some can have a need for a handgun for home defense.

IMO no one needs an assault weapon unless they plan on using it for its purpose, which is to kill quickly and efficiently.

So then we could make a law that says guns are banned unless you qualify by income standards to utilize it as your food source. And "civil unions" can certainly cover the benefits/tax purposes stuff.

I'm just saying our rights are not limited by what we need to live. That's a very restrictive view of rights and is pretty contrary to where we've gone in any other area involving rights besides the 2nd amendment.
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 12:53 PM   #78
panerd
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
I can't speak for others. Personally, I don't want to get rid of all guns. I think high capacity mags and perhaps some definition of assault rifles fit in the same category as machine guns and RPGs, which we already restrict. I also support increased background checks and better enforcement options, both in practice and in legislation.

This won't stop gun violence, but it will lower the odds a bit without harming hunters or sportsmen and more than not having an M-50.

Is it too much for me to ask for background checks for "freedom fighters" in the middle East and South America and bans on the US government/CIA selling high capacity mags and assault rifles to different "insurgents" throughout the world. Or is this just more of "Do as I say but not not as I do"?
panerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:01 PM   #79
GrantDawg
World Champion Mis-speller
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Covington, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd View Post
Is it too much for me to ask for background checks for "freedom fighters" in the middle East and South America and bans on the US government/CIA selling high capacity mags and assault rifles to different "insurgents" throughout the world. Or is this just more of "Do as I say but not not as I do"?


No. That is definitely not too much to ask.
GrantDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:03 PM   #80
molson
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
And if the assault weapon ban is as far as the gun control movement wants to go, than that should put a lot more scrutiny on what the ban itself actually accomplishes. (i.e, what types of firearms it doesn't include, cosmetic work-arounds, the status of previously purchased assault weapons.)
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:03 PM   #81
panerd
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathum View Post
the paranoia I can't wrap my brain around isn't over people being worried the government is going to take their assault rifles away, it is why they think they need them. The people who claim they need them to keep our government in check are so far gone from reality IMO.

Like I said earlier in the thread Operation Northwoods is an actual declassfied document from our own government with insane ideas from our own military. I think someone who believes that our government can never turn oppressive is the one that needs a reality check.
panerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:05 PM   #82
Lathum
Favored Bitch #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd View Post
Like I said earlier in the thread Operation Northwoods is an actual declassfied document from our own government with insane ideas from our own military. I think someone who believes that our government can never turn oppressive is the one that needs a reality check.

and if they do is there any number of assault weapons help by private citizens to prevent it from happening?
Lathum is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:07 PM   #83
MJ4H
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd View Post
Like I said earlier in the thread Operation Northwoods is an actual declassfied document from our own government with insane ideas from our own military. I think someone who believes that our government can never turn oppressive is the one that needs a reality check.

Operation Northwoods is full of insane ideas that were discarded and not used because they were insane ideas. It's a good example of the government not being dumb enough to do that kind of thing, not the opposite.
MJ4H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:11 PM   #84
panerd
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ4H View Post
Operation Northwoods is full of insane ideas that were discarded and not used because they were insane ideas. It's a good example of the government not being dumb enough to do that kind of thing, not the opposite.

It was the Joint Chiefs of Staff not some random "panerd" on a message board. I guess I have a little harder time swallowing that pill that the highest levels of our military were considering killing innocent people and blowing up the space shuttle to accomplish a military goal.
panerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:12 PM   #85
Passacaglia
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
Speaking of insane...from the web site in the OP:

About - It seems unbelievable, because it is.

This guy is worth talking about?
Passacaglia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:15 PM   #86
panerd
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathum View Post
and if they do is there any number of assault weapons help by private citizens to prevent it from happening?

Sure. An important point people don't consider with the whole "How will a citizen with an assault rifle take on a military gunship helicopter?" argument...

A guy in the military who is "just following orders" may agree to round up unarmed citizens who are "Enemies of the State". When actually asked to kill those who resist I think a lot of them might rethink turning on their own neighbors. Just because the United States isn't oppressive in 2013 doesn't mean it won't be in 5 years, 10 years... What if the stock market went to zero tomorrow? Is everyone just going to drive to work like nothing happened?
panerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:16 PM   #87
tequila
n00b
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd View Post
Like I said earlier in the thread Operation Northwoods is an actual declassfied document from our own government with insane ideas from our own military. I think someone who believes that our government can never turn oppressive is the one that needs a reality check.

But ideas are not actions...
tequila is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:18 PM   #88
GrantDawg
World Champion Mis-speller
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Covington, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia View Post
Speaking of insane...from the web site in the OP:

About - It seems unbelievable, because it is.

This guy is worth talking about?


The problem is, he is not alone in this theory. This guy: Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! who some how gets on CNN and such is the main vehicle spreading complete crap. The OP is just an example of the people who believe it.
GrantDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:18 PM   #89
JPhillips
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd View Post
Is it too much for me to ask for background checks for "freedom fighters" in the middle East and South America and bans on the US government/CIA selling high capacity mags and assault rifles to different "insurgents" throughout the world. Or is this just more of "Do as I say but not not as I do"?

Not sure what that has to do with any of this, but sure.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers
JPhillips is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:22 PM   #90
panerd
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila View Post
But ideas are not actions...

No doubt. My main point is that when the highest ranking members of the US military have been shown one time on record (lord knows how many documents are shredded or what ideas weren't written down) to have ideas like blowing up the space shuttle and blaming it on the Russians or hijacking planes and crashing them then it is hard for me to completely laugh and blow off "conspriacy theorists" or people who think we might need guns to protect ourselves from our own government. I don't like making the easy internet leap to the Nazi's or Stalin's gulogs but I bet armed resistance to both would have made their objectives a lot harder to accomplish.
panerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:22 PM   #91
GrantDawg
World Champion Mis-speller
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Covington, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tequila View Post
But ideas are not actions...


No kidding. American generals wanted to nuke China during the Korean conflict, and wanted to nuke North Vietnam and Laos during that conflict. If you knew the ideas that float out in the upper echelon of the military...
GrantDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:23 PM   #92
panerd
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post
Not sure what that has to do with any of this, but sure.

It's just hypocracy from a federal government that you have way more trust in than I do. You ask me to believe they have panerd's best interests at heart with this assault weapons ban and I think they don't.
panerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:24 PM   #93
MJ4H
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd View Post
It was the Joint Chiefs of Staff not some random "panerd" on a message board. I guess I have a little harder time swallowing that pill that the highest levels of our military were considering killing innocent people and blowing up the space shuttle to accomplish a military goal.

I didn't imply otherwise. This document is evidence the system works to me.
MJ4H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:24 PM   #94
panerd
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: St. Louis
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrantDawg View Post
No kidding. American generals wanted to nuke China during the Korean conflict, and wanted to nuke North Vietnam and Laos during that conflict. If you knew the ideas that float out in the upper echelon of the military...

So maybe some of us believe the second amendment stops them from ever deciding to follow through with these insane ideas.
panerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:34 PM   #95
GrantDawg
World Champion Mis-speller
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Covington, Ga.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd View Post
So maybe some of us believe the second amendment stops them from ever deciding to follow through with these insane ideas.


Yeah, but I don't at all. How exactly is that assault rifle going to stop that unmanned drone? Seriously, I know a lot of people with some pretty impressive arsenals. Their ideas scare me more than the current governments.
GrantDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:40 PM   #96
Autumn
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bath, ME
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
On this we can agree.

Difference being (perhaps) there are quite a few scenarios I can come up with where there are multiple targets that need to be killed quickly & efficiently.

And do any of them involve anything but armed rebellion? Is there any other situation in which a crowd of armed individuals are going to attack your house?

It seems that one element of the 2nd amendment crowd wants us to support Jefferson's comments that any society needs a violent overthrow every once in a while. Or that it's the American way to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. But why should the government have to make it legal to have the means to violently overthrow them? If you want to be able to overthrow the government but don't have the balls to do it illegally, seems like you're not going to get far.
Autumn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:44 PM   #97
Autumn
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bath, ME
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson View Post
And if the assault weapon ban is as far as the gun control movement wants to go, than that should put a lot more scrutiny on what the ban itself actually accomplishes. (i.e, what types of firearms it doesn't include, cosmetic work-arounds, the status of previously purchased assault weapons.)

I think the straight facts are that for the most part hte gun control crowd, or rather the group of Americans now moved to speak out against guns, don't truly have some particular policy objective. One will come out and seems like it's already coming out, but it's a mistake to think that an "assault weapon ban" is what this is about. It's about people being scared and pissed off and fed up with gun violence. People tend to react by "doing something" and usually far too soon. But the problem is now people are arguing about an assault rifle ban, instead of the real deal. Which is that people are upset about gun violence, and other people are upset about gun control. Despite JimGA's claims, those aren't mutually exclusive. If everybody didn't jump to policy decisions within weeks of a disaster, we could be more productive. We don't need to jump out saying "No more assault rifles." We need to jump out saying, "What do we do about this?" And then listening to a lot of different answers, including those of the 2nd amendment crowd. But quick easy answers to argue about is what most people like to hold on to, because we're not taught to actually think about talk about things.
Autumn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:47 PM   #98
Subby
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: sans pants
This thread is a good example of why we can't ignore the mental health component in the Sandy Hook story.
__________________
Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!!

I do shit, I take pictures, I write about it: chrisshue.com
Subby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:50 PM   #99
molson
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrantDawg View Post
Yeah, but I don't at all. How exactly is that assault rifle going to stop that unmanned drone? Seriously, I know a lot of people with some pretty impressive arsenals. Their ideas scare me more than the current governments.

This argument always seems to me more like an argument that citizens should have access to more deadly weapons than they do.

A handgun isn't going to stop an unmanned drone either. So does that justify a handgun ban? If that's the standard, that a weapon is only justified if it's capable of taking down the government, we should probably ban handguns, but legalize private access of nuclear weapons.
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 01:57 PM   #100
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autumn View Post
Is there any other situation in which a crowd of armed individuals are going to attack your house?

They don't have home invasions where you live?
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:55 PM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.