Gun Control?

[black_wing_angel]

Divine_Malevolence

DisenchantedYoungAdult

Good for those countries. They most likely don't have the same history with firearms that America does. They most like don't have a gun culture centered around recreational shooting like America does. And they most likely don't have a Constitutional right guaranteeing them the right to own guns.

That is.... What?

Not an argument!?

Well damn.
Well, here's the thing.
History with a useless piece of crap doesn't mean anything. Greece has a history with Phalanx and you don't see them running around making a turtle out of shields every day.
.....
.
No matter how ******** amazing that would be.
'Cause you see, history is a thing that's always being made.
And when you change something, it sort of has a habit of... What is it?

Changing?
Oh, yeah, that is a thing.
We don't currently, sure.
You wanna know what the single most irrelevant argument one can make is?

Oh, but that's the way things are!.

It's perfectly okay to own people and America has a history with owning people. You can't do s**t about that!
[********]
No I could not find a picture of Lincoln with that.
And the funny thing about amendments is that they, also, are subject to change.
Whaaaaat?


But here are facts.
I only need two of them to demonstrate you're wrong.
One, when a country puts its mind to it, banning guns? Not only doable, but done. In multiple countries, in fact. It's not a fluke.

Yes, and tyrannical dictators have always made "banning arms from the public" their first move.

The only free people, are armed people.

Hitler's 3rd Reich and Holocausts would never have been so successful...or easily achieved, without complete disarmament of the private civilian.

Now, does that mean that ANY country that wants disarmament is a tyrannical dictatorship? Certainly not. But it's the first step for any that do. And given the US Government's track record for having less than wholesome interests in mind....I don't trust them with that kind of power. And neither should you or anyone else. Our founding fathers KNEW s**t like what Hitler did, was going to happen. They KNEW that it could, and would. That's why they gave us the UNALIENABLE right to fight back. So we WOULDN'T end up as England had (the reason they fled, in the first place), and Germany would.

Quote:

Two, when you change things, things change. Your argument is so horrible that I actually have to mention something so redundant. Like damn.

Also, another thing.
It's not ******** about you.

It is indeed about me. It's about my unalienable rights. That's as much "about me" as it can possibly get.

Quote:

It's not about you owning s**t.

How is it not? When you want to stop me from owning something, how is it somehow NOT about me owning something? Especially something I'm ENTITLED to owning?

Quote:

It's about people literally dying you selfish little ********]

People "literally die" every ******** day. Scores at a time, sometimes. That's called "life". It ends. In a MULTITUDE of ways.

If it's really about people "literally dying", then why aren't we banning cars? Cars kill FAR more people a year than guns ever have. But I'll bet my every last Gaia Gold (on both accounts) that you won't be willing to give up your keys, because you feel that your ability to move faster than your feet can take you, is a "necessity" for you. Amirite? Well, I feel my ability to be prepared against any reasonable threat to my home, family, and community, as a necessity, too.

Guess which one is protected by the US Constitution....Go on. Guess...

[Jeanetta]

Divine_Malevolence

DisenchantedYoungAdult

Good luck changing people who want to own and keep their guns.

That looks strangely familiar.
Lets step back in time a little and see who else used it.

DisenchantedYoungAdult

Good luck changing people who want to own and keep their slaves.

A gun can never emancipate itself, though.

[Divine_Malevolence]

black_wing_angel

Yes, and tyrannical dictators have always made "banning arms from the public" their first move.

Has never happened.

black_wing_angel

The only free people, are armed people.

Bullshit.

black_wing_angel

Hitler's 3rd Reich and Holocausts would never have been so successful...or easily achieved, without complete disarmament of the private civilian.

Wrong.

black_wing_angel

Now, does that mean that ANY country that wants disarmament is a tyrannical dictatorship?

Quite the opposite by appearances.

black_wing_angel

Certainly not. But it's the first step for any that do.

Again, bullshit.

black_wing_angel

And given the US Government's track record for having less than wholesome interests in mind....

The conservative side at least.

black_wing_angel

I don't trust them with that kind of power. And neither should you or anyone else.

Except for the whole balance of power thing. I mean, we need to get that s**t back in order, but it's currently strong enough to a point where there's really no danger of anything.

black_wing_angel

Our founding fathers KNEW s**t like what Hitler did, was going to happen.

An argument for the economy...?

black_wing_angel

They KNEW that it could, and would. That's why they gave us the UNALIENABLE right to fight back. So we WOULDN'T end up as England had (the reason they fled, in the first place), and Germany would.

Which they prevent with the separation of powers.

black_wing_angel

It is indeed about me. It's about my unalienable rights. That's as much "about me" as it can possibly get.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....?
Cool. You do realize that amendments can be rendered irrelevant, right?
And that the second amendment only says that the militia, now the national guard, cannot be disarmed.... Right?

black_wing_angel

How is it not? When you want to stop me from owning something, how is it somehow NOT about me owning something? Especially something I'm ENTITLED to owning?

Because people not dying pointlessly is more important that your misinterpretation of the second.

black_wing_angel

People "literally die" every ******** day. Scores at a time, sometimes. That's called "life". It ends. In a MULTITUDE of ways.

If it's really about people "literally dying", then why aren't we banning cars? Cars kill FAR more people a year than guns ever have. But I'll bet my every last Gaia Gold (on both accounts) that you won't be willing to give up your keys, because you feel that your ability to move faster than your feet can take you, is a "necessity" for you. Amirite? Well, I feel my ability to be prepared against any reasonable threat to my home, family, and community, as a necessity, too.

Guess which one is protected by the US Constitution....Go on. Guess...

Because, unlike guns, we're heavily regulating cars, and unlike guns, cars serve an actual purpose.

[DisenchantedYoungAdult]

Divine_Malevolence

First, no. Still not an argument. In any way shape or form.

DisenchantedYoungAdult

Good luck changing people who want to own and keep their guns.

That looks strangely familiar.
Lets step back in time a little and see who else used it.

DisenchantedYoungAdult

Good luck changing people who want to own and keep their slaves.

Bring it, b***h.

And, no, I'm not going to validate your bullshit because you're probably vastly overstating whatever "danger" you were in.

You can believe whatever you want about th danger I was in. The fact of the matter is, having a gun saved my life and that's all there is to it. Also, owning people is not equivalent to owning guns. You can cut that dumb s**t out.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Divine_Malevolence

black_wing_angel

Hitler's 3rd Reich and Holocausts would never have been so successful...or easily achieved, without complete disarmament of the private civilian.

Wrong.

Uh... it's not wrong if it's actually true. O.o

Jews and other groups were banned from owning guns, and soon after he started putting them in camps, where as the Nazis were put into the military and given guns, but only if these conditions were met. O.o

[Divine_Malevolence]

Suicidesoldier#1

Uh... it's not wrong if it's actually true. O.o

Jews and other groups were banned from owning guns, and soon after he started putting them in camps, where as the Nazis were put into the military and given guns, but only if these conditions were met. O.o

Actually, everyone other than the jews were given exemption from previous gun laws. Jews were also segregated before the eventual camps, and had they been allowed to have guns odds are the Nazis would've just gunned anyone trying to pull one out down with barely any danger to themselves.
Fact of the matter's the only thing the Nazi regime did with guns is make them more available.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Divine_Malevolence

Suicidesoldier#1

Uh... it's not wrong if it's actually true. O.o

Jews and other groups were banned from owning guns, and soon after he started putting them in camps, where as the Nazis were put into the military and given guns, but only if these conditions were met. O.o

Actually, everyone other than the jews were given exemption from previous gun laws. Jews were also segregated before the eventual camps, and had they been allowed to have guns odds are the Nazis would've just gunned anyone trying to pull one out down with barely any danger to themselves.
Fact of the matter's the only thing the Nazi regime did with guns is make them more available.

Except for banning Jews, Gays, Gypsies, communists etc. and so on and so forth from not having guns, as well as everyone not a registered member of the Nazi party, which was harder to do than you think, since it required proving your "Aryan" heritage or otherwise getting accepted by a higher official giving you special privileges.

I also doubt that the Nazis would have been able to kill everyone before they could even draw their guns, since they weren't the master race with lightning fast reflexes they claimed to be. In fact, many had less training than the regular army (they were essentially coddled) and since they were played up about how great they were probably over estimated their own abilities, which is why they were often defeated by most enemy forces.

The Nazis had special paramilitary units that saw firearms being made available to them, but you have to remember that Hitler's "Bodyguards" eventually were a million strong and invaded poland, so, keeping that in mind only essentially the standing army or Nazis were allowed firearms, they were basically kept from the general public. Granted this was 18.2 million people in the German army alone which was like, over 20% of the population but, it was still restricted largely to the military or the nazis.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

For what's it's worth, I just thought up a really cool acroynm.

Strategic Homeland IntEllIgence Department, or SHIELD.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Suicidesoldier#1

Except for banning Jews, Gays, Gypsies, communists etc. and so on and so forth from not having guns,

Which is the opposite of what they did.

You're not grasping this whole fact thing, are you.
Guns were banned in the twenties, and progressively they were lifting the ban, with the Nazi party lifting regulation on everyone except for the people they were specifically discriminating against.


You'd have a point if....
No, you still wouldn't have a point, but you wouldn't be outright wrong if the holocaust occurred back when Germany had an outright gun ban instead of after it, but.... Well, you're outright wrong.

I mean, unless you were looking for more 20-13000 massacres vastly in favor of the Nazi movement. Because that was totally successful and did something.
Oh, wait, no. It didn't.

Because Hitler didn't ban guns, he made them more available. And having guns wouldn't have done anything for the Jewish people who would've just gotten slaughtered in the streets if for any reason they happened to have any.
You don't have anything here.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Divine_Malevolence

Suicidesoldier#1

Except for banning Jews, Gays, Gypsies, communists etc. and so on and so forth from not having guns,

Which is the opposite of what they did.

You're not grasping this whole fact thing, are you.
Guns were banned in the twenties, and progressively they were lifting the ban, with the Nazi party lifting regulation on everyone except for the people they were specifically discriminating against.


You'd have a point if....
No, you still wouldn't have a point, but you wouldn't be outright wrong if the holocaust occurred back when Germany had an outright gun ban instead of after it, but.... Well, you're outright wrong.

I mean, unless you were looking for more 20-13000 massacres vastly in favor of the Nazi movement. Because that was totally successful and did something.
Oh, wait, no. It didn't.

Because Hitler didn't ban guns, he made them more available. And having guns wouldn't have done anything for the Jewish people who would've just gotten slaughtered in the streets if for any reason they happened to have any.
You don't have anything here.

You're obviously the one who doesn't have anything available or else you'd stop just repeating yourself. xp

The Jews and other people were very specifically made unable to get ahold of these weapons; members of the nazi party and the military were given special privileges and the number of soldiers expanded to include a large chunk of their population, 20-25% but, still your average person wasn't allowed to possess them.

While the Nazis targeted a specific group of people, a total gun ban would just be targeting everyone, which seems worse.


The Jews and other minorities DID have their gun rights removed right before they were taken away from camps, even if Germany expanded the rights to own guns for other citizens, like government officials and paramilitary mercenary bodyguards.

So that's pretty much fact. The Jews and other groups were moved to new areas, where people couldn't enter or leave without special permissions, meaning they didn't have access to gun stores, and were essentially cut off from the outside world. These gun laws were only made public after people had had their firearms confiscated, as well, to prevent people from hiding them or otherwise having knowledge before the Germans entered their homes.

Disarming Jews in germany.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Suicidesoldier#1

You're obviously the one who doesn't have anything available or else you'd stop just repeating yourself. xp

It's the natural response to you repeating yourself.

Which ya just did again.

So instead of mentioning how you're wrong again, I'm just going to go ahead and say you're wrong.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Divine_Malevolence

Suicidesoldier#1

You're obviously the one who doesn't have anything available or else you'd stop just repeating yourself. xp

It's the natural response to you repeating yourself.

Which ya just did again.

So instead of mentioning how you're wrong again, I'm just going to go ahead and say you're wrong.

I'm wrong that the Jews had their weapons confiscated and banned before they were put into camps? xp

Even though dozens of sources prove otherwise?

I c.

[Ryo Tarn]

black_wing_angel

It's one event that killed thousands. A single gun related event has only ever killed tens.

So when people talk about mass murders, they really do up-play things. Significantly.

See, right there's your problem. Context; you completely ignore it.
You're also wrong, lots of battles happened with guns that killed way more than 10 people.

black_wing_angel

Anyway, even if we did go by "annuals", cars are still more dangerous than guns. But the regulations on cars barely even qualify AS "regulations". They are honestly the minimum effort that can be given, aside from literally handing them out.

See, now you're just being either ignorant or purposefully misleading. Annuals do not make cars "far more dangerous than guns".
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
The rates are almost on par, and gun deaths are about to over take auto deaths.
You clearly don't know how regulated the industry is then.

black_wing_angel

It's not on me to do your homework for you. It's your claim, it's your responsibility to cite.

No, it's your responsibility to educate yourself or remain willfully ignorant. Judging by the fact you actually ignored the argument twice to specifically focus on one example you've chosen the latter. As for my responsibility; it's not to educate you, it's to say only the things I know I can.

black_wing_angel

MY a**! scream

I don't see a federal ban on certain kinds of cars. Regulations, sure. Like how you have to have a CDL to drive a Kenny. But there's no bans. Or proposed bans, for that matter.

Well you're ignorant again then. The industry is highly regulated. Cars can only be sold if they pass safety standards and pollution standards and you have to have your car checked out to make sure it meets standards. You also can't buy tank and drive them to work.

black_wing_angel

...If you can honestly call it that. That test is ridiculously easy. At least, in my state it is.

When you can take the test in ideal conditions, zero traffic, automatic transmission plus all the other modern gizmos that are meant to replace actual DRIVING ability....that's not exactly a "regulation", in my eyes. You're only required to know how to make it move, and make a few lights blink, in the right situations. That's not driving....

Give me a world where you are required to learn manual transmission and proper techniques for handling inclement weather, and then we'll talk about "driving tests" being a legitimate "regulation".

All tests are ridiculously easy; you think the weapons tests are any harder? Give me a break. You don't get to b***h about regulations existing and then claim that since regulations are weak they don't count.

black_wing_angel

,,,,They do not take your car away. Nobody but the bank can ever actually do that. And only if you owe them money on it. Or I suppose if the police impound it as evidence in some investigation, but then they have to give it back afterward. Otherwise, it is your property. Your inability to legally operate it, is inconsequential. I don't have a motorcycle license, which means I can't legally drive one. But nobody will stop me from buying one. And nobody will take it away if I'm caught driving it without proper credentials. They'll just make me park it.

Or they impound it because you lost your license and drove anyways, or you were driving under the influence; or it's improperly registered. And in the last case it can be quite difficult to get it back if you even can because you may need the person it's registered to.
And in fact here there's a minimum 45 impound on your vehicle if you're apprehended in it with a suspended license. So yeah; they take your car.

black_wing_angel

You know that document that Thomas Jefferson wrote, waaaaaaaaaaaaay back when? The "Bill of Rights" to the "United States Constitution"? You know the one I'm talking about, right?

The 2nd Amendment on it grants ALL people the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.




...Which amendment gives you an unalienable right to drive a car?

No, I don't know that one. I know the amendment that says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But that one specifically states it's in reference to a well regulated militia; and it doesn't state every citizen is allowed to own a gun but that the people in general can, in reference to a well regulated militia. And gun regulations don't infringe on that; you can still apply to join the National Guard which is just one of your militia's.
But no, I don't know the one that states all people have it an an unalienable right. Do you have the exact quote with those words? Because the second amendment when taken in context (there's that word again) doesn't say that.

black_wing_angel

Honestly, I'd trust a 10 year old who was raised as I was, over a 50 year old who wasn't.

I wouldn't; not one bit, not for a second. And not only because it's biological fact that your brain isn't fully developed.

black_wing_angel

You going to let the government regulate how you wipe your a**, too?

No, see I'm smart enough to know there should be a balance; unlike you.

black_wing_angel

Why shouldn't it be?

I explained why.

black_wing_angel

Hey, if you got the money, why shouldn't you? If you paid THAT kind of money for it, you're not about to waste it.

People waste money all the time; especially with people with money to waste, and especially dying people with money to waste. And since all it would take is one senile old rich dumbass to kill millions; we regulate nukes.

black_wing_angel

Hey, I can agree that some weapons might not necessarily be suitable for every single Johnny Come Lately. But they're DAMN sure not suitable for the Government, alone.

You're absolutely wrong on that last part. If all it takes is one button to kill millions; then government bureaucracy in the political spotlight is the only place that power belongs.

black_wing_angel

You might actually be surprised.

For 1, a 5 round magazine means frequent changing of magazines (don't ever call it a "clip" again... ). Meaning that a jam is far less likely to happen. And even if they do, the shooter was already fixing to change it, anyway. A 100 round magazine is not going to be exchanged nearly as frequently. So if it jams...well....won't this guy be surprised? Probably going to take some precious time trying to unjam it.

And reloads don't take nearly as long as you might think, if you give it enough practice. It's just muscle memory, honestly. Takes only seconds. Sometimes fractions. It's not going to make a reliable difference, unless the shooter is a complete novice.

Jams aren't likely to happen in the first place if you actually clean your weapon properly.
A 100 rounds on full auto is barely going to take any longer than a 5 round clip. We're talking a matter of seconds.
Yeah, and when you have a complete novice it makes all the difference. Regulated guns helps ensure people are novices unless they're properly checked out and trained.

black_wing_angel

Why? I'm of sound judgment, and am adequately trained in firearms safety. A COP is more dangerous to those students than I am.

No, he's not; because a cop isn't stupid enough to walk into a pre-school with a gun and certainly wouldn't carry an assault rifle. His ammo is also tracked. And "adequately trained" means nothing.

black_wing_angel

Yeah, because notice how well all those people in the movie theater spotted that guy with the AR-15 ( by the way, just for clarity, that's not an assault rifle)...

Exactly; you had to go to an incident in a country with terrible gun regulations and resorted to a dark theatre. You couldn't use an example from Canada or Australia after gun regulations were enhanced. There's a reason for that by the way; maybe you can figure it out.

black_wing_angel

You wish.

No, it simply is.

black_wing_angel

Not when it comes to age. Age has never been a decent gauge for these sorts of things. Because it's not about age. It's about MATURITY, and EDUCATION. Despite the myth, neither of these are actually dependent on age. And even if it did, people mature and learn at different rates. Even physically. There are people who've hit puberty around 10. There are people who've only BEGUN puberty around 17. Age is entirely arbitrary. For any purpose.

And again you're wrong. You're an idiot if you think 2 or 5 is mature when their brains have barely even begun developing and you're disingenuous if know they're not had still pretend like age doesn't matter. There's a reason we don't let 50 year olds ******** 3 year olds. Either you agree with that and thus agree age matters, or you don't and you're utterly worthless for me to talk to.

black_wing_angel

Do you have to be a certain age, to begin understanding engineering?

Yes; for instance more than 1 day old.

black_wing_angel

I was. I didn't hurt anyone. Except some squirrels, and rabbits...And more than a few aluminum cans...

Immaturity and recklessness exist at all ages in different people.

Oh yeah, hurting animals isn't a bad thing; way to not support your argument.

black_wing_angel

MATURE. Not age. An 18 year old who still chirps, "Make me! Nyah! razz " when asked to perform a task...vs an 8 year old who doesn't even have to be asked, in the first place. Both exist.

And neither have fully developed brains.
But do you let that 8 year old ******** the 18 year old? Or are you being completely disingenuous again?

black_wing_angel

Things people have done underage since those regulations have been put in place, completely consequence free. Subtract military service, and I stand as living proof.

And look at that; they haven't proven to be good.
No you don't, you think nukes should be available to the public; you're clearly ******** up somewhere if you honestly believe that. Hell, youève either been massively disingenuous on the age or you actually support 5 year olds with 50 year olds. If the latter then you're ******** up, if the former then you can stand as proof of anything.

black_wing_angel

That has nothing to do with "Guva'mint said "no"", and everything to do with "How in the hell am I ever going to afford that?" Government regulations have a piss-poor track record, in the US. There's never been a single one that actually worked...marijuana had been federally banned for the better of 100 years. You're still more hard pressed to find someone who's never touched it, than someone who regularly does. Hell, Washington and Colorado finally said "******** it". And the rest are bound to follow. Because it's pointless to try.

That's complete ******** bullshit. The terrorists over seas who can barely afford anything can afford them. The reason they're so much more expensive in the US is because of regulations; well wouldn't you look at that.
Wow, way to go to weed as an example. If guns grew like weeds (hey, wonder if that's where weed got its name from) then you might have had a point.
Hell, the U.S.'s biggest regulation problem is that you let the states regulate rather than national regulation on important s**t like guns. Makes regulation useless when the state next to you doesn't regulate.

black_wing_angel

No, we can thank PRICES for that.

You don't see many of us driving ******** Lambos, either, do ya? Have they been federally regulated? Hell no. We just can't ******** afford them...

Actually I've seen a few Lambos. Know that I haven't seen though? Dumbasses walking down the street with rocket launchers or rich idiots buying nukes. Clearly not a monetary issue for Bill Gates.

[black_wing_angel]

Divine_Malevolence

black_wing_angel

Yes, and tyrannical dictators have always made "banning arms from the public" their first move.

Has never happened.

Go ahead and convince yourself of that, if you must.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

The only free people, are armed people.

Bullshit.

So...you going to actually refute my arguments? Or are you just going to mindlessly deny them?

Either way is fine with me, because I'm still right.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Hitler's 3rd Reich and Holocausts would never have been so successful...or easily achieved, without complete disarmament of the private civilian.

Wrong.

Holy s**t, you got a link! From....salon.com? What would hair dressers know about history?

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Now, does that mean that ANY country that wants disarmament is a tyrannical dictatorship?

Quite the opposite by appearances.

You really are convoluted...It's sad, really...

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Certainly not. But it's the first step for any that do.

Again, bullshit.

Again, you're wrong.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

And given the US Government's track record for having less than wholesome interests in mind....

The conservative side at least.

ALL sides, in their own ways.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

I don't trust them with that kind of power. And neither should you or anyone else.

Except for the whole balance of power thing. I mean, we need to get that s**t back in order, but it's currently strong enough to a point where there's really no danger of anything.

You already forget about that Patriot Act thing? The fact that the IRS has been scanning through peoples' records, looking for political opponents to harass? The fact that Guantanimo Bay is still in full operation?

No danger? Maybe if you have your head up your a**....

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Our founding fathers KNEW s**t like what Hitler did, was going to happen.

An argument for the economy...?

black_wing_angel

They KNEW that it could, and would. That's why they gave us the UNALIENABLE right to fight back. So we WOULDN'T end up as England had (the reason they fled, in the first place), and Germany would.

Which they prevent with the separation of powers.

Yes. The separation of powers. And the people to ensure that they STAY separated.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

It is indeed about me. It's about my unalienable rights. That's as much "about me" as it can possibly get.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....?

You're entitled to life. And the right to defend it.
Liberty. And the right to defend it.
The pursuit of happiness. Not at the expense of another.

Quote:

Cool. You do realize that amendments can be rendered irrelevant, right?

Never. That's why they exist. We can "amend" them, yes. But amendments should ONLY be made to give people MORE rights. Never to take them away.

Quote:

And that the second amendment only says that the militia, now the national guard, cannot be disarmed.... Right?

Incorrect. It specifically says the right of the PEOPLE, shall not be infringed. Not the "militia's".

Quote:

black_wing_angel

How is it not? When you want to stop me from owning something, how is it somehow NOT about me owning something? Especially something I'm ENTITLED to owning?

Because people not dying pointlessly is more important that your misinterpretation of the second.

Right. And people die less often in places where more people are armed. Because the people who want to "pointlessly" kill you, typically don't want to risk their own life, for it. So when you have the ability to fight back, they think twice.

Think of it this way: A man walks into a bar. He's about 6'2, 195 lbs. Mostly muscle. He decides he wants to start a fight, for no reason other than just to knock someone the ******** out. He sees 2 potential victims. 1 is a scrawny, 5'9" kid, maybe 135 lbs soaking wet. The other is a mammoth 6'11 365 lber, every bit of which is pure muscle.

Who's he going after? And why?

Simple. He's going for the scrawny kid, because he knows that mammoth ******** will put his lights out.

Same concept. People don't typically ******** with people who are armed. And those that do, typically don't do it twice, for one reason or another.

That's why places with more strict gun laws, are actually more dangerous per capita, than places where basically anyone can be packing, at any time.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

People "literally die" every ******** day. Scores at a time, sometimes. That's called "life". It ends. In a MULTITUDE of ways.

If it's really about people "literally dying", then why aren't we banning cars? Cars kill FAR more people a year than guns ever have. But I'll bet my every last Gaia Gold (on both accounts) that you won't be willing to give up your keys, because you feel that your ability to move faster than your feet can take you, is a "necessity" for you. Amirite? Well, I feel my ability to be prepared against any reasonable threat to my home, family, and community, as a necessity, too.

Guess which one is protected by the US Constitution....Go on. Guess...

Because, unlike guns, we're heavily regulating cars, and unlike guns, cars serve an actual purpose.

If you think cars are "heavily regulated", then please excuse me while I laugh in your face. We license people, in what is the most ridiculously oversimplified test known to humanity. You don't even have to know what you're actually doing. You just have to (temporarily) memorize a few tricks, like what direction to turn the wheels when parking on a given slope, and make sure you actually use the parking brake (in most cases, being the only time you ever actually will). The rest is just common sense "gas to go, brake to stop".

You know why so many people die, every year, in car accidents? BECAUSE of how NOT regulated cars are. Companies pour millions if not billions per year into making their cars easier to survive a crash in, rather than just actually regulating the people allowed behind the wheel, with aggression equivalent to that which we try to regulate guns.

And yes, cars serve a purpose. But typically not one you couldn't survive, without. Or at least, without a private one, if nothing else. And even then, do you really need a 6 CD changer, A/C, remote starter, 8 cylinders, a needle that'll hit 130, and a sunroof? No. You'd survive just fine with an old Model T that won't hit 50 DOWNHILL.

So...you were saying?

[black_wing_angel]

I'm just going to go ahead and skip right to this one, because we can go around and around forever about what's written above, ad infinitum. But everything from here below, is at least worth addressing.

Ryo Tarn

black_wing_angel

,,,,They do not take your car away. Nobody but the bank can ever actually do that. And only if you owe them money on it. Or I suppose if the police impound it as evidence in some investigation, but then they have to give it back afterward. Otherwise, it is your property. Your inability to legally operate it, is inconsequential. I don't have a motorcycle license, which means I can't legally drive one. But nobody will stop me from buying one. And nobody will take it away if I'm caught driving it without proper credentials. They'll just make me park it.

Or they impound it because you lost your license and drove anyways, or you were driving under the influence; or it's improperly registered. And in the last case it can be quite difficult to get it back if you even can because you may need the person it's registered to.
And in fact here there's a minimum 45 impound on your vehicle if you're apprehended in it with a suspended license. So yeah; they take your car.

See...that's not what you said.

You said that you will lose your license and your car. As in, it is no longer your property. This is simply not the case, in most situations. I don't outright know what regulations there are on when an impounded car is allowed to be auctioned off, but I'm fairly positive it's rare. And you also implied that you would lose both, you license AND the property of your car, at the same time. Which, to my knowledge, is NEVER the case. Again, it's impounded, but it still belongs to you. The only people who have the legal ability to actually strip ownership from you, are those who represent the bank in which you are indebted, with the vehicle as collateral. Typically a loan for that very car, but any loan in which your car serves as collateral will hold. If you do not owe the bank for the car, or the car is not being used as collateral, even they can not strip you of ownership of the car.

So no. You do not lose your car. Just your ability to drive it.

black_wing_angel

You know that document that Thomas Jefferson wrote, waaaaaaaaaaaaay back when? The "Bill of Rights" to the "United States Constitution"? You know the one I'm talking about, right?

The 2nd Amendment on it grants ALL people the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.




...Which amendment gives you an unalienable right to drive a car?

No, I don't know that one. I know the amendment that says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But that one specifically states it's in reference to a well regulated militia;

But the right is of the PEOPLE. Not the militia, itself.

And why? Because the PEOPLE may someday have to fight AGAINST the militia.

Quote:

and it doesn't state every citizen is allowed to own a gun but that the people in general can, in reference to a well regulated militia.

The people are the people. Not the people "in the militia". It did not say s**t about "the rights of the people who represent the militia, shall not be infringed". It says people. As in, every ******** individual person.

Quote:

And gun regulations don't infringe on that; you can still apply to join the National Guard which is just one of your militia's.

Or, the government can finally piss the PEOPLE off enough that we turn our constitutionally protected arms AGAINST the National Guard that would be sent in to oppose our revolution.

Quote:

But no, I don't know the one that states all people have it an an unalienable right. Do you have the exact quote with those words?

"Shall not be infringed".

Quote:

Because the second amendment when taken in context (there's that word again) doesn't say that.

SHALL.

NOT.

BE.

********.

INFRINGED.

Context is pretty clear, here.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Honestly, I'd trust a 10 year old who was raised as I was, over a 50 year old who wasn't.

I wouldn't; not one bit, not for a second. And not only because it's biological fact that your brain isn't fully developed.

You don't need a fully developed brain, to understand safety protocols, and the difference between right and wrong. We develop these pretty early, actually.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

You going to let the government regulate how you wipe your a**, too?

No, see I'm smart enough to know there should be a balance; unlike you.

So...again....are you going to wipe your a** exactly as the government dictates? Or are there indeed some things we can handle on our own?

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Why shouldn't it be?

I explained why.

You tried to explain why. But you failed, miserably.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Hey, if you got the money, why shouldn't you? If you paid THAT kind of money for it, you're not about to waste it.

People waste money all the time;

Not tens of millions at a time.

Quote:

especially with people with money to waste, and especially dying people with money to waste. And since all it would take is one senile old rich dumbass to kill millions; we regulate nukes.

...To be controlled by the people least qualified to control them, no less...

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Hey, I can agree that some weapons might not necessarily be suitable for every single Johnny Come Lately. But they're DAMN sure not suitable for the Government, alone.

You're absolutely wrong on that last part. If all it takes is one button to kill millions; then government bureaucracy in the political spotlight is the only place that power belongs.

Ideally. But when the entire system is easily corrupted...well...I'll take my chances on the senile rich guy.

See, he's wasting HIS money, when he pushes the button. The government beurocrat is wasting OURS, when he does. Not his own. If Michelle Obama is any indication, it's a walk in the literal park to spend money that isn't yours...

Quote:

black_wing_angel

You might actually be surprised.

For 1, a 5 round magazine means frequent changing of magazines (don't ever call it a "clip" again... ). Meaning that a jam is far less likely to happen. And even if they do, the shooter was already fixing to change it, anyway. A 100 round magazine is not going to be exchanged nearly as frequently. So if it jams...well....won't this guy be surprised? Probably going to take some precious time trying to unjam it.

And reloads don't take nearly as long as you might think, if you give it enough practice. It's just muscle memory, honestly. Takes only seconds. Sometimes fractions. It's not going to make a reliable difference, unless the shooter is a complete novice.

Jams aren't likely to happen in the first place if you actually clean your weapon properly.

Depends on the gun, itself. Vietnam era US infantry arms were notorious for it. To the point that soldiers would pilfer AKs from their dead targets, and use those, as long as they could get away with it, because the AK was a far superior weapon.

Quote:

A 100 rounds on full auto is barely going to take any longer than a 5 round clip.

You're an idiot....

If you ran through 100 rounds THAT fast, you'd melt the barrel into mush...

That's exactly why miniguns...the only weapon I know of that can be held in the hands that even CAN run through 100 rounds in the same time as 5 of another weapon, has revolving barrels. To allow them each an opportunity to cool between shots.

That's also why field arms have "burst fire", which only allows up to 3 rounds per pull, working to prevent overheating the barrel.

Fully auto and semi-auto can discharge rounds at the exact same rate, for the given weapon configuration. The only difference made, is the need to frantically move your finger.

And this is why I love anti-gunners. So convinced they know everything about a topic they REFUSE to know anything about...

Quote:

We're talking a matter of seconds.
Yeah, and when you have a complete novice it makes all the difference. Regulated guns helps ensure people are novices unless they're properly checked out and trained.

Like who? Cops? Who are consistently prone to abuses of power?

No thank you. I'll take my chances with Joe Blow Civilian.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Why? I'm of sound judgment, and am adequately trained in firearms safety. A COP is more dangerous to those students than I am.

No, he's not; because a cop isn't stupid enough to walk into a pre-school with a gun

First off, don't ever say that cop would never be "so stupid". They absolutely can be. See...they're humans, like you and I. Meaning that they're fully capable of being unintelligent. As we have more and more evidence of, every day.

And they do it all the time. They don't remove their side arms, when walking into a school. They have no reason to.

Quote:

and certainly wouldn't carry an assault rifle.

Says who?

Quote:

His ammo is also tracked. And "adequately trained" means nothing.

Exactly right on the last part. So why do you trust a cop so much, then? You know what the functional difference is between a cop, and myself? A hunk of metal that says "Police" pinned to his shirt. That's it. Nothing else.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Yeah, because notice how well all those people in the movie theater spotted that guy with the AR-15 ( by the way, just for clarity, that's not an assault rifle)...

Exactly; you had to go to an incident in a country with terrible gun regulations and resorted to a dark theatre.

You said it would make him easy to spot. Nobody spotted him on his way to the door. So where was this magical beacon, there?

Quote:

You couldn't use an example from Canada or Australia after gun regulations were enhanced. There's a reason for that by the way; maybe you can figure it out.

Actually I could. But I don't care to. I'm interested in the US, nowhere else.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Not when it comes to age. Age has never been a decent gauge for these sorts of things. Because it's not about age. It's about MATURITY, and EDUCATION. Despite the myth, neither of these are actually dependent on age. And even if it did, people mature and learn at different rates. Even physically. There are people who've hit puberty around 10. There are people who've only BEGUN puberty around 17. Age is entirely arbitrary. For any purpose.

And again you're wrong. You're an idiot if you think 2 or 5 is mature when their brains have barely even begun developing

I've met people in their 30s that aren't any more mature...

Again, age is but a number. Nothing more. There is no behavioral traits exclusive to an 18 year old, that can not possibly be found equally well in someone as young as 10.

Quote:

and you're disingenuous if know they're not had still pretend like age doesn't matter. There's a reason we don't let 50 year olds ******** 3 year olds.

Sure. Because 3 year olds are not physically capable of safely having sex. They've not yet hit puberty. However, puberty can hit as early as 10. Or as late as 17. At this point, it really is just a number.

And that's exactly why you're resorting to such an extreme example. The age of 3. Because after that, s**t starts to get a little fuzzy.

Quote:

Either you agree with that and thus agree age matters, or you don't and you're utterly worthless for me to talk to.

I'm not saying there aren't ages where maturity is typically non-existent. I'm saying that age differences are BROAD. And maturity, with it. It should never be directly about AGE. It should be about MATURITY.

If you're mature enough at 11 to handle a firearm, then I say bloody hell! Let the kid have it. I would still recommend adult supervision, of course. But that's for all things, really.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Do you have to be a certain age, to begin understanding engineering?

Yes; for instance more than 1 day old.

Well...that's a rather extreme example, don't you think?

Quote:

black_wing_angel

I was. I didn't hurt anyone. Except some squirrels, and rabbits...And more than a few aluminum cans...

Immaturity and recklessness exist at all ages in different people.

Oh yeah, hurting animals isn't a bad thing; way to not support your argument.

It's not when you're doing it for dinner. That's called "hunting". Something humans have practiced since the dawn of time as we know it.

What? Are you a vegan?

Quote:

black_wing_angel

MATURE. Not age. An 18 year old who still chirps, "Make me! Nyah! razz " when asked to perform a task...vs an 8 year old who doesn't even have to be asked, in the first place. Both exist.

And neither have fully developed brains.

The brain doesn't have to be "fully" developed to do most things. You know that, right?

16 year olds don't have "fully developed" brains, either. We let them drive cars...

Just let that soak in, for a second...

Quote:

But do you let that 8 year old ******** the 18 year old? Or are you being completely disingenuous again?

Because apparently there isn't a massive difference between sex and guns?

Who's being disingenuous, here?

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Things people have done underage since those regulations have been put in place, completely consequence free. Subtract military service, and I stand as living proof.

And look at that; they haven't proven to be good.

They haven't proven to be universally bad, either. They're pretty much inconsequential, for the most part.

Quote:

No you don't, you think nukes should be available to the public; you're clearly ******** up somewhere if you honestly believe that.

Ah, because I have a different perspective then you, I clearly have mental problems. And that's certainly not indicative of a mental problem of your own....

Quote:

Hell, youève either been massively disingenuous on the age or you actually support 5 year olds with 50 year olds.

What exactly is your fixation on *****? You seem to associate anything regarding age with it. Including things that have absolutely not a goddamn thing to do with it...

...I really don't know that I'm comfortable talking to you, anymore... neutral

Quote:

If the latter then you're ******** up, if the former then you can stand as proof of anything.

Well, I certainly can stand as proof of a lot of things...I have my life experiences. 28 years' worth of them.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

That has nothing to do with "Guva'mint said "no"", and everything to do with "How in the hell am I ever going to afford that?" Government regulations have a piss-poor track record, in the US. There's never been a single one that actually worked...marijuana had been federally banned for the better of 100 years. You're still more hard pressed to find someone who's never touched it, than someone who regularly does. Hell, Washington and Colorado finally said "******** it". And the rest are bound to follow. Because it's pointless to try.

That's complete ******** bullshit. The terrorists over seas who can barely afford anything can afford them.

Yeah. Overseas. In a place where a loaf of bread costs maybe 3 cents, American. And where BMW's aren't actually overpriced.

Quote:

The reason they're so much more expensive in the US is because of regulations; well wouldn't you look at that.

Not so much regulations, as import costs, which includes shipping fees. Also, there's a difference in foreign exchange rate, and the unit value of currency.

Quote:

Wow, way to go to weed as an example.

It's a very popular example.

I can go with heroin, cocaine, meth, PCP, LSD, or prescription pills, if you'd like.

Quote:

If guns grew like weeds (hey, wonder if that's where weed got its name from) then you might have had a point.

They can be manufactured. Relatively easily, actually.

And Vicodin doesn't grow on plants. So what you got, there?

Quote:

Hell, the U.S.'s biggest regulation problem is that you let the states regulate rather than national regulation on important s**t like guns.

That's because we are a massively diverse people. There aren't many things you can regulate on the national level, without massive resistance from the state level.

Hell, Missouri, among a few other states, outright told the feds to ******** themselves, by signing our own little bit of legislature that specifically nullifies any and all FEDERAL regulations that the state itself does not agree with. Basically, "Yeah? Make me." And considering the fact that we have the guns...well...yeah. Make me.

Quote:

Quote:

Makes regulation useless when the state next to you doesn't regulate.

So why try? If you know you can't win, what's the value in even trying?

Quote:

black_wing_angel

No, we can thank PRICES for that.

You don't see many of us driving ******** Lambos, either, do ya? Have they been federally regulated? Hell no. We just can't ******** afford them...

Actually I've seen a few Lambos. Know that I haven't seen though? Dumbasses walking down the street with rocket launchers or rich idiots buying nukes. Clearly not a monetary issue for Bill Gates.

Billy just doesn't want one. It's not that he can't get one. Hell...he could probably MAKE one. In fact...I wouldn't be surprised if he HAS helped make them.

Although, now that I think of it, I'm not sure I'd trust a nuke that runs Windows...