America's Gun Violence

Halifax2TheMax

The NRA knows the truth. Why else do the fight against funding to study the problem the helped create?

A new, huge review of gun research has bad news for the NRA - Vox https://apple.news/ARt8TMwDdSfCYIusJLkh3ow

october22

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

mrussel1

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military?  I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.

In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely.  It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion.  Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity.  Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.  

october22

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military?  I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.

In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely.  It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion.  Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity.  Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.  

I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we  disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but  I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.

Halifax2TheMax

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Says the poster who responded with “arrogant trash” to a well written article about the kids in Florida, presumably because you didn’t like the mainstream media’s leftist bias.

mrussel1

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military?  I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.

In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely.  It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion.  Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity.  Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.  

I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we  disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but  I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.

I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters,  and fully automatic military grade weapons,  none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you. 

october22

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Says the poster who responded with “arrogant trash” to a well written article about the kids in Florida, presumably because you didn’t like the mainstream media’s leftist bias.

Yes, I used that phrase in regards to the writer, not the poster, and then I provided my explanation. Again, never said I was perfect

october22

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military?  I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.

In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely.  It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion.  Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity.  Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.  

I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we  disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but  I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.

I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters,  and fully automatic military grade weapons,  none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you. 

I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.

mrussel1

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military?  I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.

In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely.  It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion.  Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity.  Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.  

I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we  disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but  I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.

I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters,  and fully automatic military grade weapons,  none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you. 

I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.

Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today.  I can think of none. 

rgambs

october22 said:

rgambs said:

@october22
Do you support gun restrictions/confiscation without due process?

Absolutely not! No one should on principal, regardless of where you stand on the larger debate. Additionally, that kind of talk from a president only bolsters my argument for gun ownership. I understand we're emotional after this tragedy, and we should be. But the left's pernicious attempt to disarm the law abiding citizen, especially during a presidency they fear, almost feels like a mental disorder or a complete disregard for human history. You can show me all the studies you want about guns and gun control and how they lead or don't lead to whatever you want (I'll point out things like suicide, isolated gang activity and plenty of things that the author's used to skew them for their agenda), but one thing is certain, a disarmed population is one step closer to tyrannical rule. There is no argument against that.

Ok, then I'd ask you to clarify this:
"Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to?"

Those are your words and I have seen this particular piece of contradiction all over the internet this past week.
How do you reconcile laying the blame on the government for not stopping Cruz when he committed no crimes?  I haven't seen any examples of direct threats or actions that were actionable under the law as it stands.  Until those are shown, the blame for Cruz not being stopped doesn't lie with the FBI, it lies with the hypocrite gun advocates who refuse to allow mental health to infringe on gun rights, and then use cries of "mental health" to distract and distort the issue after every tragedy.

october22

rgambs said:

october22 said:

rgambs said:

@october22
Do you support gun restrictions/confiscation without due process?

Absolutely not! No one should on principal, regardless of where you stand on the larger debate. Additionally, that kind of talk from a president only bolsters my argument for gun ownership. I understand we're emotional after this tragedy, and we should be. But the left's pernicious attempt to disarm the law abiding citizen, especially during a presidency they fear, almost feels like a mental disorder or a complete disregard for human history. You can show me all the studies you want about guns and gun control and how they lead or don't lead to whatever you want (I'll point out things like suicide, isolated gang activity and plenty of things that the author's used to skew them for their agenda), but one thing is certain, a disarmed population is one step closer to tyrannical rule. There is no argument against that.

Ok, then I'd ask you to clarify this:
"Are you asking me to agree to chip away at this and put more of my security in the hands of the government? The same government who went to the Parkland shooter's home 39 times? The same guy the FBI knew said he wanted to shoot up a school? The same guy whose public school didn't have him arrested when he made threats and brought knives to school? This is the government we should relinquish more of our security to?"

Those are your words and I have seen this particular piece of contradiction all over the internet this past week.
How do you reconcile laying the blame on the government for not stopping Cruz when he committed no crimes?  I haven't seen any examples of direct threats or actions that were actionable under the law as it stands.  Until those are shown, the blame for Cruz not being stopped doesn't lie with the FBI, it lies with the hypocrite gun advocates who refuse to allow mental health to infringe on gun rights, and then use cries of "mental health" to distract and distort the issue after every tragedy.

Second Amendment advocates do not support the mentally ill owning firearms. I also don't believe in punishing pre-crime, and I don't have to in this case, especially. Here's an article describing the direct threats and actions that were reported to the school and law enforcement since you seem to have missed them:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201887629.html

october22

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military?  I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.

In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely.  It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion.  Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity.  Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.  

I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we  disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but  I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.

I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters,  and fully automatic military grade weapons,  none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you. 

I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.

Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today.  I can think of none. 

I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-preserve-the-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/

Here is another one with regards to an "assault weapons" ban just for the hell of it:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.html 

october22

We're all angry, and we should be. But you'd be better served directing your anger elsewhere as the facts aren't on your side, and your ideas about guns won't solve any problems. Even the most liberal publications, when they're being honest with the numbers, agree with that fact. I wish we could focus this energy on improving security, law enforcement, background checks and screenings, mental health etc rather than the 2nd Amendment, which isn't the problem. Gun restriction might feel good, but there is no evidence that proves it's effective at reducing homicide in societies similar to the US. Our goal should be solving the problem rather than creating ineffective new laws. That's really my last word on it. We could keep arguing forever here, but I'd rather not.

mrussel1

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military?  I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.

In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely.  It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion.  Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity.  Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.  

I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we  disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but  I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.

I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters,  and fully automatic military grade weapons,  none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you. 

I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.

Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today.  I can think of none. 

I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-preserve-the-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/

Here is another one with regards to an "assault weapons" ban just for the hell of it:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.html 

I read French's article in the Nro when he published it. In fact I read the publication daily just so I can witness the mental contortions McCarthy goes through to attempt to de-legitimize Mueller, changing his argument each time. I rather enjoy it. 

But it's not compelling in the least because the"yawning" gap between civilian and military firepower is already so great that 1. the so called deterrent would be highly ineffective and 2. the likelihood of the situation to materialize is almost zero.  

It still comes down to a straight ahead risk analysis. The situation of mass slaughter exists today.  Time to mitigate the issue. 

Halifax2TheMax

october22 said:

We're all angry, and we should be. But you'd be better served directing your anger elsewhere as the facts aren't on your side, and your ideas about guns won't solve any problems. Even the most liberal publications, when they're being honest with the numbers, agree with that fact. I wish we could focus this energy on improving security, law enforcement, background checks and screenings, mental health etc rather than the 2nd Amendment, which isn't the problem. Gun restriction might feel good, but there is no evidence that proves it's effective at reducing homicide in societies similar to the US. Our goal should be solving the problem rather than creating ineffective new laws. That's really my last word on it. We could keep arguing forever here, but I'd rather not.

What societies are similar to the US?

october22

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military?  I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.

In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely.  It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion.  Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity.  Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.  

I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we  disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but  I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.

I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters,  and fully automatic military grade weapons,  none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you. 

I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.

Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today.  I can think of none. 

I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-preserve-the-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/

Here is another one with regards to an "assault weapons" ban just for the hell of it:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.html 

I read French's article in the Nro when he published it. In fact I read the publication daily just so I can witness the mental contortions McCarthy goes through to attempt to de-legitimize Mueller, changing his argument each time. I rather enjoy it. 

But it's not compelling in the least because the"yawning" gap between civilian and military firepower is already so great that 1. the so called deterrent would be highly ineffective and 2. the likelihood of the situation to materialize is almost zero.  

It still comes down to a straight ahead risk analysis. The situation of mass slaughter exists today.  Time to mitigate the issue. 

How do we mitigate it? Which guns should we ban?

mrussel1

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military?  I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.

In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely.  It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion.  Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity.  Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.  

I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we  disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but  I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.

I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters,  and fully automatic military grade weapons,  none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you. 

I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.

Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today.  I can think of none. 

I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-preserve-the-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/

Here is another one with regards to an "assault weapons" ban just for the hell of it:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.html 

I read French's article in the Nro when he published it. In fact I read the publication daily just so I can witness the mental contortions McCarthy goes through to attempt to de-legitimize Mueller, changing his argument each time. I rather enjoy it. 

But it's not compelling in the least because the"yawning" gap between civilian and military firepower is already so great that 1. the so called deterrent would be highly ineffective and 2. the likelihood of the situation to materialize is almost zero.  

It still comes down to a straight ahead risk analysis. The situation of mass slaughter exists today.  Time to mitigate the issue. 

How do we mitigate it? Which guns should we ban?

Semi automatic style rifles with high capacity magazines.  You know what I'm talking about so please don't split hairs.  

mrussel1

And I have not advocated confiscation,  but for Christ's sake,  let's stop the sales. 

Of course I also believe in additional new controls like gun show loophole,  universal background,  etc.

october22

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military?  I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.

In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely.  It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion.  Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity.  Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.  

I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we  disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but  I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.

I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters,  and fully automatic military grade weapons,  none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you. 

I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.

Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today.  I can think of none. 

I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-preserve-the-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/

Here is another one with regards to an "assault weapons" ban just for the hell of it:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.html 

I read French's article in the Nro when he published it. In fact I read the publication daily just so I can witness the mental contortions McCarthy goes through to attempt to de-legitimize Mueller, changing his argument each time. I rather enjoy it. 

But it's not compelling in the least because the"yawning" gap between civilian and military firepower is already so great that 1. the so called deterrent would be highly ineffective and 2. the likelihood of the situation to materialize is almost zero.  

It still comes down to a straight ahead risk analysis. The situation of mass slaughter exists today.  Time to mitigate the issue. 

How do we mitigate it? Which guns should we ban?

Semi automatic style rifles with high capacity magazines.  You know what I'm talking about so please don't split hairs.  

Ok, fair enough. I can see how that might have come off as me being a dick, but I was honestly just asking.

We disagree. I'm happy to leave it there.

mrussel1

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

october22 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

A sure sign of defeat is to declare a winner. Thank you.

Lol Well, I deeply apologize for my whining. Wasn't my intention. It's interesting how you lumped in anyone not on the left with "alt-righters". That shows a lack of understanding for the diversity of politics in America, but I won't waste time arguing this with you anymore.

If my side loses this debate, I hope we don't come to regret it in our time or in future generations. Keep voting, keep speaking up, and I'll do the same. We'll see where it leads

No, I said “the right.” The right has a platform to broadcast their views and others that might be alignment with their beliefs. You want to blame the liberal media for those kids speaking up, well and passionately and having an impact.

Based on your last paragraph and your previous treatise, your alluding to the tyrannical US government enslaving us all?

No, you wrote "alt-right" in your earlier comment. 

I was writing about the potential for any government to turn to tyranny, including the US, but not necessarily "enslaving us all." You're the type of person on here that's made me stay away from these boards for years. It's tough to find quality conversations here that don't turn into word twisting or juvenile accusations. I'm not perfect and I've gotten roped into that type of behavior myself, but I'd prefer to avoid it because it's a waste of time. I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of my opinion. You don't agree, and that's fine. I admit responsibility for dipping into other's conversations, but it's becoming tedious as it usually does.

Do you believe that if the government decided to become jack booted and invade Texas via Jade Helm, that an AR-15 or other type of assault weapon would be sufficient to stave off our fully armed military?  I'm open to all 2A arguments and am a gun owner myself, but the defense of semi ownership for militia is the weakest of all arguments.

In my world, I deal with risk management and likely vs unlikely.  It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever need to use a semi a- rifle to stave off government invasion.  Whereas there's a 100% probability that these weapons will be used in an offensive way, committing a mass atrocity.  Our inability to deal with the actual because of the unlikely is outrageous to me.  

I wrote a lengthy argument above outlining my position and how I arrived at it. Maybe you read it and found it unconvincing. I accept that we  disagree. I could have made several points about the need for gun ownership rights including "assault rifles", but my posts focused on the tyranny argument because it's not usually given and the most often carelessly dismissed. If I don't respond further, I mean no disrespect, but  I just wanted to dip in and give a different perspective, rather than get bogged down for days arguing on these boards.

I did.. mostly because unless you're arguing that you should be able to buy SAMs, bunker busters,  and fully automatic military grade weapons,  none of the weapons available are going to help you when a unit comes for you. 

I'm not arguing for those weapons to be legal, but I disagree with you about semi-auto rifles being able to successfully aid in a civil war or a fight against the government. There are countless scenarios in history and in war-games where we could absolutely defend ourselves successfully. I'm not a "tough guy" and it feels silly writing like this but empirical evidence and even current events suggest things wouldn't be as cut and dry as "they've got bigger and better stuff so automatically we lose." History has proven that is often not the case.

Please provide an example where a civilian force was not armed with military grade weapons and defeated a government with weapons substantially similar to our weapons today.  I can think of none. 

I wrote an exhaustive two-part post earlier on the subject. You can refer to that or the following article:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/assault-weapons-preserve-the-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/

Here is another one with regards to an "assault weapons" ban just for the hell of it:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.html 

I read French's article in the Nro when he published it. In fact I read the publication daily just so I can witness the mental contortions McCarthy goes through to attempt to de-legitimize Mueller, changing his argument each time. I rather enjoy it. 

But it's not compelling in the least because the"yawning" gap between civilian and military firepower is already so great that 1. the so called deterrent would be highly ineffective and 2. the likelihood of the situation to materialize is almost zero.  

It still comes down to a straight ahead risk analysis. The situation of mass slaughter exists today.  Time to mitigate the issue. 

How do we mitigate it? Which guns should we ban?

Semi automatic style rifles with high capacity magazines.  You know what I'm talking about so please don't split hairs.  

Ok, fair enough. I can see how that might have come off as me being a dick, but I was honestly just asking.

We disagree. I'm happy to leave it there.

No it wasn't you,  that was preemptive.  Lots of people split hairs on the AR15, even though they understand the argument. 

All good