It finally happened in my hometown

[Grand Mal]

Always knew it. I guess that's why I travel well. Only fools think the state can provide personal security.

Doesn't have to be the state. In some places the reasonable society makes you personally secure.

 

[Irredentist]

NIXON DID NOT SIGN THE GCA of 68. NIXON WAS NOT SWORN INTO OFFICE UNTIL 1969.

My mistake, it was signed by Johnson. Regardless, these laws were supported by Republicans and the NRA, so long as they targeted mostly black people.

 

[ecofarm]

Doesn't have to be the state. In some places the reasonable society makes you personally secure.

Yeah, bad things don't happen in good places. Sure.

 

[TurtleDude]

My mistake, it was signed by Johnson. Regardless, these laws were supported by Republicans and the NRA, so long as they targeted mostly black people.

You might do some research and see which party was the main supporter of the GCA of 68 and every other federal gun control law. I will give you a hint-it was NOT the GOP

 

[Irredentist]

You might do some research and see which party was the main supporter of the GCA of 68 and every other federal gun control law. I will give you a hint-it was NOT the GOP

Well let's take a look at the numbers. In the House, 157 Democrats in favor, 79 against. 147 Republicans in favor, 39 against. In the Senate, 39 Democrats in favor, 13 against. 31 Republicans in favor, 4 against. Looks like Republicans supported gun control, and pretty heavily at that.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Have you heard of the North Hollywood Shootout? These guys had a stock pile including AR 15s, and full body amor. They picked off the LAPD until SWAT arrived. If people want to do real damage, they can.

Yes I am well aware of the North Hollywood Shootout, they had multiple layers of body armor glued together and they were only stopped when a SWAT team arrived and when other officers appropriated rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. However, the North Hollywood Shootout was a rare and extreme case. Shootouts themselves are rare and extreme but even by shootout standards the North Hollywood Shootout was rare and extreme.

Some average joe with a gun, doesn't stand a chance.

Most criminals are very bad shots so the average joe will not be any worse. There are exceptions to that but by and large bad guys are bad shots. But I do agree with you that somebody who carries a defensive firearm should not be an average joe, they should be well trained and have good competence with the firearm they're carrying.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Yeah, the NRA fear mongered that Obama would take their guns. They were buying such much ammo, the country was running out. Fear sales, and gun ownership is based on fear. what's your point?

Obama wasn't all that bent on taking guns. Bill Clinton makes Obama look like a Saint and Hillary would've been even worse. My point is that you're right about things being different in terms of the number of guns privately owned in the USA now than it was 20 years ago, but it didn't really start to get to the level its at now until the Obama administration.

 

[DebateChallenge]

What use is it, if they run away like the Parkland guard?

What's the point of having police officers if they run away from criminals?

 

[DebateChallenge]

These grieving families and communities don't want gun control because they're power hungry, they want it because they're scared.

So they go running to mommy government because they're scared.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Turtle Dude, you are one of the exact people I am talking about. You argue that gun ownership will prevent tyranny and government overreach.

That was and is the purpose of the second amendment.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Face it, all progressives have to do to make their case is wait. Soon, another massacre will occur

So progressives look forward to massacres?

 

[DebateChallenge]

Anyone can be a danger, if they have the desire and the means.Since we cannot control a persons desires, the only realistic option is to control the means.

I have no desire to be a danger, therefore I shouldn't have my means restricted.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Is that an insult to sheep, or to Americans? There's nothing wrong with being a sheep. Sheep are tough and hardy, built to survive. That's why humans have valued them so highly throughout history. You mock those who sacrifice freedom for security. But a flock without it's shepherd will quickly be eaten by the wolves.

I prefer to be a sheepdog.

And its not just Americans, its society as a whole, throughout the entire world, that tend to be sheep.

 

[DebateChallenge]

I think it's pretty self explanatory that without access to guns a violent person is less dangerous.

Not necessarily. There was a case of an arsonist who killed more people in a blaze than any mass shooter in the USA. He didn't use any guns and he didn't have any guns, all he used was gasoline that you get at a gas station.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Front Sight has been around for more than twenty years, everybody's got guns there and its one of the safest places. In the twenty plus years they've been around there has been exactly zero murders.

Kind of doesn't help your argument when a "safe place in the USA" ends up not being a safe place. Where is safe in the US? Which places in the US are free from people going around shooting people up because they got angry?

 

[Frigidweirdo]

I wish there were people like Turtle teaching. Responsible people willing to protect themselves and our children. Responsible people who not only have a plan for a fire but teach our children what to do in many emergency situations including a gunman. It is sad all the children that end up hurt or killed because they are not taught to be aware and what to do. A lot of teachers were military trained and I would love for them to be armed and ready to protect our children not after 12 are dead but before it happens. Not letting the people willing and capable of protecting our children do so out of blind fear is what is ignorant.

I watch children play ball in the street right in front of my house when there is a grassy area 1 block over. Why are they in the street? They are in the street because their ignorant parents play with them in the street. I asked the parent why he doesn't take the children 100 yards over to a grassy field to play where their are no cars to damage and no cars driving down the road that can injure or kill the children. I am told to mind my own business and they have every right to be in the street. It is always so sad to later see those memorials everywhere to children killed by cars.

[/QUOTE]

Gotta love the right in the USA.

Sexually transmitted diseases are a major problem. Teenage pregnancies are a major problem.

"Oh, no. Can't teach kids about sex, especially gay sex. That would be bad."

But somehow teaching four year olds how to deal with a shooter coming into their school and trying to blast them all away, now this is something that should be normal.

Yes, God made people to have guns, not sex.

 

[DebateChallenge]

As for public safety, taking guns away from violent individuals offers only benefits.

There's a simple solution to that, put the violent people in prison.

 

[DebateChallenge]

In the most extreme cases, possibly. But restricting access is sufficient for many.

How would you intend to do that? Anybody whose 21 or over, addict or not, can buy beer or other alcoholic beverages. Buying alcohol does not involve any background check or anything.

 

[SheWolf]

I think it is a partial vaccine against such things but not a guarantee. I think a citizenship that has more armed individuals -40X that of the entire military-is a society that is less likely to be enslaved than one where only the elite or the government has legal firearms.

The problem with your notion is that you think average citizens can, could, and possibly should take on the power of the US Armed Forces.

That's just not realistic.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

You want to talk simple facts...then discuss who is committing the murders that cause that elevated murder rate, who are their victims, and what you would propose to resolve the problems in those communities.

MOST of the 1st world is fairly homogenized and doesnt deal with the problems that we face in our inner cities. However...in those first world countries where they have begun to see increases in minority communities, you are seeing crime, violence, and murder rates skyrocketing. England is a great example.

Now...lets see if you can think yourself out of the paper box you are in and identify the actual problems. But I'd bet money there are only two things that your brain can produce. Lets see.

Right, let's look at the problem of black people in society.

Once we're done with seeing that there's an issue with black people committing more crimes in society, then what?

What's your solution?

Better education? Better after school programs?
Better job opportunities?
Better social programs?
Better way of voting for politicians?
Better politicians?

What's your solution?

Or is this just a bit of a "black people suck balls man, yeah, let's go shoot some" kind of thing?

 

[DebateChallenge]

In many citizen revolts, the military turned and backed the people. This happened in the French Revolution - palace guards refused to fire on the citizens.

The fall of the USSR almost failed, but a tank battalion surrounded President Yeltsin defensively. To vastly over simplify, a combination of citizens, including unarmed and a far inferior but supporting Russian military forces was enough to cause the overwhelmingly more powerful military to decide not to fight. Simply, when the full force of the American military would fire upon a mass civilian resistance is never - as they would be firing upon their own families and friends - with internal fighting within the military, police etc growing.

In the past in the USA in early days, it was not uncommon for the local police and sheriff to stand with the people or union against federal forces. The question of could citizens defeat the military is actually a situation that would never exist. The military would instantly fragment over it with a sizable percentage either siding with civilians or otherwise refusing to participate.

If I was in the military and I was ordered to fire on American citizens who want to keep their guns, I would desert and defect to the citizens.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

No need to do that. Schools are gun free zones and protected by highly trained (and armed) government agents.

Which you are probably insinuating don't work.

So, back to the first question and this time a proper answer.

 

[TurtleDude]

The problem with your notion is that you think average citizens can, could, and possibly should take on the power of the US Armed Forces.

That's just not realistic.

I won't go into this any further but if it comes to that, lots of the military will side with the citizenry and tell me-is the military going to nuke a city that contains many of their own family members? A military fighting in its own homeland is severely limited in what it can do-especially if the opposition is interwoven with "friendlies"

 

[SheWolf]

So do I. But on a more localized and small scale. An example...

A few decades ago, the federal government was seizing farms at an increasing rate. The government had given huge loans to farmers beyond their credit and income worthiness, farmers not being exactly finance geniuses, and now the government was seizing farms like crazy, holding auctions for all their property and stuff.

The one day an old 4th generation farmer wired the end of the barrel of a shotgun to the back of the head of a government person - walking him into a bank. He was arrested of course, but it triggered resistance. Across the country, farmers started barricading their farms, having their deer rifles and most farmers are excellent shots. Body armor doesn't stop deer rifle rounds. The seizing of farms stopped.

Horrific as WACO was, the government was going off the deep end, having decided all hardcore religious cults and communes had to be broken, using trivial laws to do massive raids, seizing their children, arresting everyone. WACO and then Oklahoma City brought that to a stop as well.

The fact is once the public starts deciding they're not going to take it, there will be "crazies" with guns who will fight back - even if totally immorally and murderously. The government will shoot people. But government people get real nervous when people start shooting back. I know this is a strange theory, but it is crazies who protect us normal people when the government goes too crazy with power.

It is the nature of ALL governments to endlessly want more and more and more power, with less and less and less respect for individual rights and less and less tolerant of opposition and divergent life styles. There will always be a battle line between government and citizenry. The history is human and civil rights is the history of people fighting against the government obtaining human rights by force, not the government fighting against people to establish human rights.

In my opinion, the more able to defend themselves citizens are, the less likely the power and oppression inherent to government will grow to the point of a massive national revolution in which whether the government wins or the revolutionaries win, lots and lots and lots of people - millions - die. Then the outcome - either way - is horrific.

It isn't a question of whether citizens with rifles could defeat the combined military and police forces of the government. Rather, it is a question of how to prevent it ever reaching anything close to that. As far as murder and mass killing? That's been going on across the world for all of known recorded history - though the greatest mass murderers always has been by the government, not citizens.

WACO was stock piling weapons, and the people were brainwashed and ready to die. The US government feared another Jonestown, and initially wanted to protect to people from their false god, but the government was stupid with dealing with such people. Little kids were pointing AKs as agents. For as much of the government screwed up, it's often lost how messed up the WACO cult and it's leader actually was. In the end, their stock pile of weapons did not save them from the US Government. Their stock pile was in fact, the catalyst to the entire tragedy.

 

[VanceMack]

Right, let's look at the problem of black people in society.

Once we're done with seeing that there's an issue with black people committing more crimes in society, then what?

What's your solution?

Better education? Better after school programs?
Better job opportunities?
Better social programs?
Better way of voting for politicians?
Better politicians?

What's your solution?

Or is this just a bit of a "black people suck balls man, yeah, let's go shoot some" kind of thing?

Ive cited my solution numerous times. And you bet...it has far more to do with economic recovery and investment in impoverished communities than you can imagine. I would say that when it comes to spending for social programs Im probably a hell of a lot more 'liberal' than most socialists on this board. But its not about pissing money down the drain and that investment requires private and corporate investment as well as government.

But at least we now have you actually thinking about the real problems and not just regurgitating idiotic anti-gun diatribes.