Ben Carson Gum is a Holocaust of flavor in my mouth!

Polygeekery

And you call me retarded.

Yes. We do.

Why is it anyone's business if I have guns in my home? Or if I have magazines for those weapons that are over X number of rounds? All of the bullshit gun control laws are laws that assume guilt. They assume that you will commit a crime, so you will be preemptively punished for them.

They don't make society any safer, they inconvenience law-abiding citizens and they make individuals less safe. Laws that do that, are retarded.

mott555

@tufty said:

Your paperwork has an address on it.

The paperwork stays with the gun dealer, not the government, and never gets seen again. It's literally useless paperwork, another case of over-regulation.

@tufty said:

You are member of a gun club, who presumably know your address.

Because 2,000 people who think just like me are going to willingly give that list out.

@tufty said:

You shout your stupid mouth off on the internet, browse gun-related sites, all under NSA observation.

So do 20 million (trigger warning, number came from my anus) other Americans. Imagine you are a cop. "Here's a list of 50 million people who once said something about guns on the Internet. I need you to kick down all their doors. Oh, and quite a few of them claim they'll shoot at you if you do so. Quite a few of them also claim to be millionaires with supermodel wives, 18-inch dicks, and enough guns to personally equip a small army."

@tufty said:

Hell, you don't even need a malicious government. Form yourself a little insurgent group, start standing up to the government, gun in hand. "We're not paying your taxes, the first fucker comes up here asking for them gets a cap in the ass." See how long it lasts.

A wild subject change to something totally different appears! It is ineffective!

@tufty said:

You seem to think that your little metal toys somehow give you some sort of protection from the big bad "man"

Maybe, maybe not, the point is entirely theoretical right now. Hopefully it stays that way. There's nothing wrong with having an insurance policy you never use.

@tufty said:

when in fact they're being used as a smokescreen to hide the fact that the man is / has already sold all your actual rights to nameless corporations

Not sure what this has to do with anything...what rights have I lost to nameless corporations? I expect a list.

@tufty said:

And you don't get any personal protection either

So if my delusional father with a criminal record finds out where I am and snaps and comes after me, being armed doesn't increase my chances at all? I should just let him do whatever he wants because some random dude on the Internet thinks I wouldn't succeed anyway?

@tufty said:

as n example, you've got almost exactly the same odds of being mugged (about 1 in 1000) in the US as you have in the UK, except that in the US, between 30 and 50 percent of the time it will be done at gunpoint.

Okay, then find a way to deal with the muggers who are illegally carrying firearms. If only there was a force of individuals who swore to uphold the law and could deal with these people. Then, if only we had some system for charging and punishing anyone who does not follow those laws. Then, if only we had some kind of building where we could safely store these people where they cannot harm others. Then, if only we would actually use this system as intended...

It was once said "God made man, but Sam Colt made man equal."

boomzilla

@tufty said:

Seriously. Internet hard guy stuff aside, if you find yourself with numbers of armed-to-the-teeth military kicking your door down and pointing big, loaded automatic weapons at you, are you going to :

Why do you think they wouldn't turn the guns the other way if they were ordered to do something like that? I'm sure plenty of them take their oath about enemies seriously.

ScholRLEA

@tufty said:

When there had been armed uprising in the ghettos pre-war, the ~~most likely~~ result ~~would have been~~was treating the jews as terrorists, at which they ~~would probably have~~ become "an interior problem that that funny little Herr Hitler is dealing with in an effective manner."

FTFY. As I've already said, there was armed resistance to the Nazis, especially early on, and while it was not extensive (basically at the level of street brawls and gang shoot-outs for the most part) and was mostly conducted by Communists and other political ideologues, the Nazis very expertly turned the blame on the Jews for it..

More to the point, even most of the Jews thought that Hitler was a good thing for Germany at the time. They just saw the increased mistreatment as 'same shit, different day', and even thought that the by institutionalizing things again that it would reduce the amount of harassment they got every day from individuals (I wish I were kidding about this part, I really do). Literally no one saw how bad things would get until it was too late, and by then no one not in the middle of it were willing to believe it (e.g., from 1938 to 1945, many of the Jewish leaders in the US tried to hush Jewish refugees from spreading 'wild rumors' about what was happening in Germany because they didn't want to have people thinking they were stirring the pot just to get attention). It got to the point that when Hitler stated flat out that any Jewish refugees sent back to Germany from the US and UK would be killed, not only wasn't it taken seriously, hardly anyone in the Jewish communities of those countries objected when said refugees were deported on the basis of immigration quotas.

fbmac

If the actual Iraq army couldn't even slow US government, why the gun crazies think their shitty pistols would make any difference if the us-gov decided it's time for some police-stating?

And they could change any of these laws before geting scary enough for an armed resistence to be formed.

mott555

@fbmac said:

If the actual Iraq army couldn't even slow US government, why the gun crazies think their shitty pistols would make any difference if the us-gov decided it's time for some police-stating?

Hey now, SIG Sauer is a top-notch brand!

@fbmac said:

And they could change any of these laws before geting scary enough for an armed resistence to be formed.

Thankfully, the NRA-ILA exists.

ScholRLEA

Two words: Milgram Experiment.

Polygeekery

@fbmac said:

If the actual Iraq army couldn't even slow US government, why the gun crazies think their shitty pistols would make any difference if the us-gov decided it's time for some police-stating?

Well, we are allowed to own more than just "shitty pistols". Currently a US citizen can own virtually any firearm with the exception of fully automatic weapons.

And, although the Iraq army did not stop us, a bunch of Vietnamese people armed with SKS's did. For a long time.

@fbmac said:

And they could change any of these laws before geting scary enough for an armed resistence to be formed.

Which is precisely why so many people are opposed to gun control...

Polygeekery

@ScholRLEA said:

Two words: Milgram Experiment.

Milgram experiment - Wikipedia

fbmac

@Polygeekery said:

And, although the Iraq army did not stop us, a bunch of Vietnamese people armed with SKS's did. For a long time.

That was before drones, bombs with GPS, and whatever they are using now.

@mott555 said:

Thankfully, the NRA-ILA exists.

Whatever they are doing, it doesn't work with police states.

@Polygeekery said:

Which is precisely why so many people are opposed to gun control...

How many people will put their lifes on risk to fight, if tomorrow the president declare there will be no more elections?

What if instead of this they just put a rigged electronic ballot? Will you fight the US army without being absolutely sure something terrible is going on?

tufty

@boomzilla said:

I'm sure plenty of them take their oath about enemies seriously.

I'm sure they do. Unfortunately, they will be convinced that you are the enemy.

Polygeekery

@fbmac said:

How many people will put their lifes on risk to fight, if tomorrow the president declare there will be no more elections?

A lot of them. Including the military.

What makes you think we would even listen to a President that did such a thing? There is a reason that we have the checks and balances that we do.

@fbmac said:

What if instead of this they just put a rigged electronic ballot?

Which is why so many people are opposed to electronic ballots. There is no capability for oversight. No capability for recount.

TwelveBaud

@mott555 said:

If only there was a force of individuals who swore to uphold the law and could deal with these people. Then, if only we had some system for charging and punishing anyone who does not follow those laws. Then, if only we had some kind of building where we could safely store these people where they cannot harm others. Then, if only we would actually use this system as intended...

I was with you until the very last sentence, at which point you completely lost me.

fbmac

@Polygeekery said:

A lot of them. Including the military.

You can't make a police state without buy-in from the military, so we have to assume they are in on it. At least the higher ups.

The military would most likely split. Whatever side gets a larger and better equped portion of the military will be the winner. My point is that common citizens will have very little weight on this.

Polygeekery

@fbmac said:

You can't make a police state without buy-in from the military, so we have to assume they are in on it. At least the higher ups.

The military would most likely split. Whatever side gets a larger and better equped portion of the military will be the winner. My point is that common citizens will have very little weight on this.

Such a thing is unlikely to occur, given the checks and balances that we do.

My argument against gun control hinges very little on the "if we find ourselves in a police state" argument. That is a component, yes. But the majority of my argument against gun control is "why is it any of your fucking business what I own or what I want?"

Why is it anyone else's business? I am a law-abiding citizen. I enjoy guns. I think they are beautiful. I admire the engineering. I admire the history. They are fun to shoot. As long as I am not endangering anyone else, why is it anyone else's business what I own?

ScholRLEA

@Polygeekery said:

What if instead of this they just put a rigged electronic ballot?

If?

What makes you think they ever counted the ballots in the first place?

sigh OK, I'm just being another stupid Fucker again. Permit me to extricate my johnson from this hronet's nest again, please.

Polygeekery

@Polygeekery said:

Currently a US citizen can own virtually any firearm with the exception of fully automatic weapons.

darkstar

M107A1® - Barrett Firearms

[vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” z_index=”” el_class=”section-title”][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row”...

.50BMG semi automatic rifle with a 10-round magazine that is accurate to well past 1,000 yards. Currently completely legal to own in the United States, provided you can cough up $16K to purchase one. Used by our military as an anti-materiel rifle.

Not exactly a:

@fbmac said:

shitty pistol

Rhywden

@Polygeekery said:

As long as I am not endangering anyone else, why is it anyone else's business what I own?

By that logic you wouldn't need to register cars.

fbmac

@Polygeekery said:

But the majority of my argument against gun control is "why is it any of your fucking business what I own or what I want?"

I don't have a definitive opinion on this issue, but the strongest argument against for me is traffic discussions turning into gun fights.

Currently I feel that more guns here could help, but it is because our law enforcement is failing miserably at its job.

Polygeekery

@Rhywden said:

By that logic you wouldn't need to register cars.

I don't need to, unless I want to drive them on public roads. What's your point?

Rhywden

@Polygeekery said:

@Rhywden said:
By that logic you wouldn't need to register cars.

I don't need to, unless I want to drive them on public roads. What's your point?

That wasn't your argument.

Polygeekery

@fbmac said:

but the strongest argument against for me is traffic discussions turning into gun fights.

Perhaps. But those are exceedingly rare. Even then, you have people who are breaking the law. Enforce that law, punish those who are guilty, and don't punish the entire population for something that might happen.

Polygeekery

@Rhywden said:

That wasn't your argument.

Please, enlighten me, what was my argument?

Rhywden

@Polygeekery said:

@Rhywden said:
That wasn't your argument.

Please, enlighten me, what was my argument?

You did not mention "public roads" anywhere. Plus, how exactly do you get your car from a dealer to your private grounds.

Magic?

Polygeekery

@Rhywden said:

You did not mention "public roads" anywhere.

So what?

@Rhywden said:

Plus, how exactly do you get your car from a dealer to your private grounds.

Shitloads of ways. The seller I purchase it from could drive it there. I could have it shipped. I could haul it on a trailer. I could disassemble it and move it piece by piece on a bicycle. I could build it in place by fabricating it myself. You still don't have a point.

Oh, and to blow your mind even further, if you manufacture a gun yourself here in the USA, it does not even need a serial number...

Rhywden

@Polygeekery said:

@Rhywden said:
You did not mention "public roads" anywhere.

So what?

@Rhywden said:
Plus, how exactly do you get your car from a dealer to your private grounds.

Shitloads of ways. The seller I purchase it from could drive it there. I could have it shipped. I could haul it on a trailer. I could disassemble it and move it piece by piece on a bicycle. I could build it in place by fabricating it myself. You still don't have a point.

Oh, and to blow your mind even further, if you manufacture a gun yourself here in the USA, it does not even need a serial number...

Doesn't really matter. You just had to specify a lot of exceptions. Thus your argument is not such a broad one as you make it out to be.

However, it's actually moot. You guys are once again acting as if you were an omniscient being. You act as if you could change just one variable and expect that variable to yield the results you'd like to have.

Reality doesn't work that way. Changing one thing requires a) for a metric shitton of other things to happen first and b) more importantly, also changes a metric shitton of other stuff.

Plus, if it were that easy then something like "Psychohistory" wouldn't be in the realm of science fiction.

Polygeekery

@Rhywden said:

You act as if you could change just one variable and expect that variable to yield the results you'd like to have.

Funny. Gun control proponents think the same thing.

Rhywden

@Polygeekery said:

@Rhywden said:
You act as if you could change just one variable and expect that variable to yield the results you'd like to have.

Funny. Gun control proponents think the same thing.

However, they lack this delusion of grandeur that they're the only thing standing between civilization and the downfall thereof.

Because if you actually have to use those guns of yours in such a case then you're already fucked anyway.

Plus, I don't see anyone arguing here that gun control would have stopped Hitler?

mott555

@Rhywden said:

However, they lack this delusion of grandeur that they're the only thing standing between civilization and the downfall thereof.

Funny. Gun control proponents seem to think they're the only thing standing between civilization and the downfall thereof.

TwelveBaud

rc4

Who belgium'd the title?

It's like a poorly-translated knockoff WWII video game ending

Rhywden

@mott555 said:

Funny. Gun control proponents seem to think they're the only thing standing between civilization and the downfall thereof.

\yawn

Again, it's not the gun control guys arguing right here in this thread that the Holocaust could have been prevented by moar gunz...

... which makes your "counter" quite boring.

boomzilla

@Rhywden said:

... which makes your "counter" quite boring.

Only because your point was completely wrong.

Rhywden

@boomzilla said:

Only because your point was completely wrong.

So, you argue that Psychohistory is a real thing?

boomzilla

@Rhywden said:

So, you argue that Psychohistory is a real thing?

I'm about to argue that you're the worst reader on the forum. I was just pointing out how you said (paraphrasing) that at least gun control people don't claim to be something that they always claim to be.

Rhywden

@boomzilla said:

I'm about to argue that you're the worst reader on the forum. I was just pointing out how you said (paraphrasing) that at least gun control people don't claim to be something that they always claim to be.

I'm not quite seeing gun control people on this forum arguing that they are the saviours of humanity. So, I'm about to argue that you're probably the guy with the biggest horse blinders on this forum.

boomzilla

@Rhywden said:

I'm not quite seeing gun control people on this forum arguing that they are the saviours of humanity.

They love to make snarky remarks about how all civilized countries have grabbed the guns away from their citizens.

@Rhywden said:

So, I'm about to argue that you're probably the guy with the biggest horse blinders on this forum.

As one of the few people here old enough to have remembered when they were useful, you're probably right!

Rhywden

@boomzilla said:

They love to make snarky remarks about how all civilized countries have grabbed the guns away from their citizens.

Ooooh! Snarky remarks! Yes, of course, that's absolutely equal to "We would have prevented the Holocaust!"

boomzilla

@Rhywden said:

@boomzilla said:
They love to make snarky remarks about how all civilized countries have grabbed the guns away from their citizens.

Ooooh! Snarky remarks! Yes, of course, that's absolutely equal to "We would have prevented the Holocaust!"

You are really pathological about .

fbmac

Thats me :-)

PleegWat

The generic 'Should private citizens own guns' argument is quite a strawman to put up in front of the 'privately owned guns can stop a police state/could have stopped the holocaust' argument though. Because while my stance on the former is 'I gently disagree', my stance on the latter is 'bullshit'.

Polygeekery

@PleegWat said:

Because while my stance on the former is 'I gently disagree'

Why do you think that private citizens should not be allowed to own firearms?

mott555

@PleegWat said:

Because while my stance on the former is 'I gently disagree'

See, now this is a reasonable opinion. Gentle disagreement is a sign of maturity. It's the "I believe you're wrong and if you don't change I'm going to ruin your life" types that drive me up the wall.