yet another school shooting....

[TFOGGuys]

Yes, the idea that armed citizens is solely responsible for keeping this government in check is an outdated idea. Thus the argument many use for owning guns under the second amendment is outdated and there fore invalid for the topic of the thread.

Or did you not see the tank video...

Or do you have something to shoot these out of the sky..
Predator Drone Attack

Do you really think if the Nazi's had this kind of tech they would have sent a single solider in to clear the polish people out. They leveled the place from the air first then went in because they didn't have any more targets. If they had nukes at the time we would be discussing how hey turn the place to glass. (in German) Are you also going to argue the buzz bomb attacks on England an attempt at this with the tech that they had?

I don't care what gun you think you want to own, it does nothing to deter this government if it decided that it didn't want you around any more.

The argument that an armed popuplace can keep a government in check with this kind of tech at it's disposal is suicidal.

The reason for having gun in this society is because we have should the freedom to do so responsibly. Nothing else.

Think about how the Mujaheddin gave the (technologically and numerically superior) Soviet army fits in Asscrackistan, or how the remnants of the Taliban continue to give the (technologically and numerically) superior forces of the US problems. We have been in A-stan for more than 10 years, and if we left tomorrow, it would revert to it's former status within months. Never discount the effectiveness of motivated guerrillas with moderately effective weapons. Technology and numbers only go so far, and in the case of the US, the numbers of armed citizens FAR outnumber the total number of members of the military. In addition, many in the military would decline to obey illegal orders attack US citizens on our own soil.

[Snowman]

Yes, the fallacy of thinking that technical superiority can overcome a numerically superior and highly motivated opponent. That mistake has been made over and over. And ask any military planner you like if conquest can be had without sending soldiers in. Tyrants desire to rule a population, not destroy it, lest they have nothing to rule. Some are content to be subjugated. Many are not.

Agreed but the methodology of taking up arms as the only means to overthrow an oppressive government is no longer the case.

We live in the 21st century now where every cell phone can record every event and instantly post it to the world for everyone to judge the truth. We can report, blog comment on every action we see in mass. Guns can not do this, they can only kill your enemy one at a time, not change the minds of everyone around them.

What is keeping our government in check is not the 2nd Amendment it's the 1st. The world has changed Dirk.

[asp_125]

Since you bring up A-stan. The only reason we haven't wiped them off the face of the earth is not their determined resistance with inferior weapons. It's world scrutiny that prevents us from nuking them into the stone age.

[Ezzzzy1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_...%E2%80%932011)

21 dead in school attacks in China over about a 3-year period from 2010-2012. There haven't been 2100 killed here in that time period. Over the same time period, the number in the US is 34, I believe.

I will have to dig on this one and get back to you. I may very well be wrong but was really wanting someone to show me the number.

Does having firearms make it easier to kill more people in a rampage? Sure it does. But your example of China and its ban on private ownership of firearms perfectly illustrates the argument that we supporters of private ownership are making: that a disarmed populace is neither free nor safe from the excesses of a totalitarian government, as the Tiananmen Square massacre clearly illustrated.

For what its worth, and I said it before.... NO one is saying to disarm anyone. I have never met you, but to me you have always come off as a smart guy. Im only saying that because assuming thats correct I am a little surprised the the round table approach isnt jiving with you. There HAS to be a conversation about what can/could/should be done with these guns. These cases are only going to grow in popularity. Anyone saying "dont limit the guns because they will use knives" is crazy if they would rather be in the next office that gets shot up and would openly say that they would rather the killer have a gun than knife. Seriously. Crazy.

Again, the simplistic, misguided, knee-jerk reaction after these events is to somehow think that the guns used are the problem. Time and time again, we see that most of these massacres are perpetrated by people with clear mental health issues that were telegraphed ahead of time and we had no way of dealing properly with them. Let's address the problem where it really lies because although it may reduce the number of deaths somewhat, banning or further restricting guns will not keep massacres from happening and people will continue to die.

Lets address the problem, I 100% agree. Thinking that the solution is purely in dealing with the mental health of society and thinking that will work is just as crazy as anyone saying we need to eliminate guns all together. The solution probably lies on both sides, some gun regulations and some preventive medical direction. Along with a more proactive community.

If a drunk runs through a crowd of people and kills dozens, we don't get up in arms about people having access to cars. But, gun control advocates say, cars have a useful purpose. What they fail to grasp, is that guns in the hands of citizens do as well. A purpose that, in addition to personal defense, saves orders of magnitude more lives than anything else enshrined in our laws: a deterrence against genocide by governments, which has killed millions more people than criminals. But, they say, that couldn't happen here. Only the naive and those ignorant of history have that sort of optimism. History tells a very different story.

I see your point but do not see a drunks involuntary actions being anything near similar to mass shootings.

Honestly I dont think it matters if you guys can prove 100% that the problem is the people and not the guns. At some point anyone looking at this with an open mind has to at least look at the gun side for part of the solution. They HAVE to, especially given that NO ONE on the pro-gun side has a solution on the mental health side.

There is a ground in between naive/ignorant and paranoid.

[Ezzzzy1]

care to say why im taking anything personal? you repeatedly have a problem with me. solution? block me. you need to relax newb. ive been here eight years. you think you have or are saying anything to me that hasnt been said before?

i will slow this down for you. i am not saying nothing can be done. im saying that we need to deal with the problem not the tool. now what i mean by that is dealing with the people who have these mental issues.

Townie, pullin seniority! Im thinking over half the board would say they have made general statements that you have gone off the deep end about because of your "personal" experiences. Its how you approach everything on here, from your shoes alone.

Now speed it back up for me and lets talk about what you think the S.O.L.U.T.I.O.N. is.

[dirkterrell]

Agreed but the methodology of taking up arms as the only means to overthrow an oppressive government is no longer the case.

I never said it was the only means. There are many other things that have to be tried before it comes to armed revolution. But, it if does get to that stage and you have no weapons, you're as good as dead. See the history of the Soviet Union, Turkey, China, Cambodia, Guatemala, Uganda, Rwanda, etc...

We live in the 21st century now where every cell phone can record every event and instantly post it to the world for everyone to judge the truth. We can report, blog comment on every action we see in mass.

Until the government shuts down the networks for "public safety". Then to restore them, you will have to take physical control of the communication centers.

What is keeping our government in check is not the 2nd Amendment it's the 1st. The world has changed Dirk.

Technology has changed. People and their motivations have not. You can convince someone to do something by reason or by force, and when the government resorts to the latter, blog posts aren't going to save your ass. I agree that these new tools are useful but they will not be the final arbiter of a dispute with a tyrant.

[dirkterrell]

There is a ground in between naive/ignorant and paranoid.

I assume the "paranoid" comment is directed at those of us who disagree that rifles like the AR-15 should be banned from public ownership. It is not paranoid to be mindful of steps that work to prevent situations that killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. In a free society we will never be able to fully eliminate massacres like we have seen but it is very clear that if these mentally ill people had been institutionalized, there would not have been nearly as many of them. Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people? I'm all for that. Trying to create a perfectly safe society at the risk of empowering tyranny that has historically led to the murders of millions? Not this guy.

[asp_125]

It will be interesting to hear what the NRA has to say on Friday.

[Ezzzzy1]

I assume the "paranoid" comment is directed at those of us who disagree that rifles like the AR-15 should be banned from public ownership. It is not paranoid to be mindful of steps that work to prevent situations that killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. In a free society we will never be able to fully eliminate massacres like we have seen but it is very clear that if these mentally ill people had been institutionalized, there would not have been nearly as many of them. Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people? I'm all for that. Trying to create a perfectly safe society at the risk of empowering tyranny that has historically led to the murders of millions? Not this guy.

Your assumption is wrong. I own 2 ARs and dont think they should be banned. I was just saying that there is an opposite to the feared "naive/ignorant" and its called "paranoid.

Honestly, and I dont know what you are working with but Naive/Ignorant to me is anyone that thinks that owning even 5 ar15s and 20,000 rounds is going to do shit when "it hits the fan". Aaand at that point, having that much "invintory", im pretty sure that millions of people would consider you paranoid.

[TFOGGuys]

It will be interesting to hear what the NRA has to say on Friday.

Well, at least the NRA had the decency to not come out and politicize this tragic crime before the bodies were even cool, unlike the White House, the Brady Campaign, the left wing media, and a number of Senators and Congressmen. I find it reprehensible that they chose to seize upon the circumstances to further their political agenda, while the NRA has chosen to express outrage, sorrow, and sympathy without injecting politics. I don't agree with a lot of things the NRA has chosen to do over the years, but in this case, it's clear they have chosen to take the high road. I only wish the gun control advocates had as much grace.

[Ghosty]

Full agree! The POTUS and congress can say things for the victims and families and NOT ADDRESS gun control, until the bodies are in the ground. The NRA did good this time, very glad to see that. I notice the pattern too, after all these shootings. Also glad to see the NRA trying to at least appear willing to listen to compromise on future gun-control, but keeping up the stance on mental health too.

[Snowman]

I never said it was the only means. There are many other things that have to be tried before it comes to armed revolution. But, it if does get to that stage and you have no weapons, you're as good as dead. See the history of the Soviet Union, Turkey, China, Cambodia, Guatemala, Uganda, Rwanda, etc...

And thus to my original point, do you think this government with access to Abrams Tanks, Predator Drones and every other current means to put down a insurrection in this country would be deterred by anything the 2nd Amendment guarantees?

No, they would not. If fact it makes their case to put down any armed insurrection in the name of public safety. Waco or Ruby Ridge come to mind. .

Until the government shuts down the networks for "public safety". Then to restore them, you will have to take physical control of the communication centers.

And just how fast you think the screams of every american will prevent this from ever happen in the first place? Ever try and get a 10 year old off her cell phone all the way up to the threat of lost revenue that sustains the Corporations. This country does not work that way anymore. We are not the Soviet Union, Turkey, China, Cambodia, Guatemala, Uganda, Rwanda, etc...

If this government even hinted in that general direction everyone from the top down would lose their job and they know it.

Technology has changed. People and their motivations have not. You can convince someone to do something by reason or by force, and when the government resorts to the latter, blog posts aren't going to save your ass. I agree that these new tools are useful but they will not be the final arbiter of a dispute with a tyrant.

I agree people have not changed and never will. We are all a bunch of selfish bastards. We all want what we want and will fight each other for it.

However there are more people than there is government and this government can not exist without its people. That is the point you are missing.

You think for one moment a discussion about over turning the Constitution by anyone in our government won't get out? Romney couldn't even talk to a closed room of conservatives party donors without it being plaster on YouTube the day after.

The only chance we have is exposing those who would change the way we wish to live in the country, not stockpiling weapons. We can't win a war against our own government by force of arms, because they have us way out gunned.

Thus the argument that the right to bear arms has anything to do with the protection of our rights is not a valid one anymore. I can do more with my cell phone to protect this country than you will ever with your gun.

[Ghosty]

Off-duty LEO/CCW stops another potential mass-shooter at SanAntonio theater:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-...th-one-bullet/

[dirkterrell]

The only chance we have is exposing those who would change the way we wish to live in the country, not stockpiling weapons. We can't win a war against our own government by force of arms, because they have us way out gunned.

Thus the argument that the right to bear arms has anything to do with the protection of our rights is not a valid one anymore. I can do more with my cell phone to protect this country than you will ever with your gun.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. History shows that armed resistance to tyranny is effective even against a militarily superior opponent. And I do not think we would be able to tweet our way out of the control of a tyrannical government should it arise.

[Snowman]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. History shows that armed resistance to tyranny is effective even against a militarily superior opponent. And I do not think we would be able to tweet our way out of the control of a tyrannical government should it arise.

And I would say given recent events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Sudan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Djiboutiand Western Sahara is showing that just because we did it that way in history doesn’t mean it’s the right way now. The old ideas are not necessarily the right ideas. And we shouldn't justify your wants on ideas when those ideas are out of date.

As a species if we are not learning we are dead.

[dirkterrell]

And I would say given recent events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Sudan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Djiboutiand Western Sahara is showing that just because we did it that way in history doesn’t mean it’s the right way now.

Well, let's just say that the jury is still out on those places...

[TFOGGuys]

Australia's example: How gun control works

http://youtu.be/p8RDWltHxRc

[CaptGoodvibes]

Off-duty LEO/CCW stops another potential mass-shooter at SanAntonio theater:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-...th-one-bullet/

Handgun illegally possessed.

[The Black Knight]

Ed Shultz is such a piece of shit:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-co...anti-second-am

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default...2012%20one.mp3

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default...2%20second.mp3

Who is this man to decide whether or not our Constitution and Bill of Rights apply and don't apply??? Apparently he has no probably using the application of the 1st Amendment to spew his bullshit, however thinks the 2nd Amendment is now obsolete and should be changed.

Everyday more and more, I get irritated with just how stupid people in this country really are...



P.S.

saw this comment and wanted to make a quick comment back:

We can't win a war against our own government by force of arms, because they have us way out gunned.

Tell that to Leonidas who took 300 men to fight an army of 1,000,000. Who for three days, with the help of other Greeks, valiantly held off the Persian army.

[Snowman]

Tell that to Leonidas who took 300 men to fight an army of 1,000,000. Who for three days, with the help of other Greeks, valiantly held off the Persian army.

Hmm 300 half dressed Spartans with shields and swords against a Squadron of full loaded Apache Longbows. You do the math...

[The Black Knight]

Hmm 300 half dressed Spartans with shields and swords against a Squadron of full loaded Apache Longbows. You do the math...

You're missing the underlying point and message behind the battle of Thermopylae. It wasn't about the numbers or weaponry. It was about men not willing to succumb to a foreign invader. Did they know they were out numbered and would face weaponry they didn't have?? Yes, absolutely. However, due to their devotion to their country, respect for their king and mindset of "if we won't stand against them, who will?" is what drove them forward.

It's about dying on your feet fighting for something, than living on your knees for nothing.

If you want to live on your knees and accept subjugation then by all means, live your life how you see fit.

As for myself, I'd rather die on my feet fighting for freedoms our nation's builders knew we needed to keep us free.

It's a defining moment Snowman. You either define the moment, or the moment defines you. No one ever said Freedom is free, it comes with a high price. The price is blood, the blood of those willing to bleed it, to keep this country as it should be. Free....



"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

[bulldog]

Hmm 300 half dressed Spartans with shields and swords against a Squadron of full loaded Apache Longbows. You do the math...

Yeah because smaller armies have never beat larger armies.....

Oh wait my Spanish ancestors did http://www.heritage-history.com/www/...ars_aztecs.php

Hernando Cortez, acting essentially on his own, with an army of only about 500 men overthrew the wealthiest, most sophisticated, and most powerful empire on the American continent. The Aztecs were not a passive, peace-loving people. They had enormous armies of experienced warriors and dominated the tribes and territories for hundreds of miles around.

[Ezzzzy1]

hey look the guy is speaking for others again. thats getting a little old. congrats you have now been deemed a child.

dont worry pumpkin we will have plenty of time to destroy other threads. this one isnt one of those. again good to see you showing the respect.

You are doing a great job of avoiding answering the question.... What is your solution? Do you even have one?

[Ezzzzy1]

Um....

Are you really saying nothing can be done about it so nothing should be? If that is so you are also then saying the problem isnt the guns its the people, correct? So if its the people, whats your solution to the problem? What do you have in that head of yours thats going to solve the problem of these people doing this shit?

Now speed it back up for me and lets talk about what you think the S.O.L.U.T.I.O.N. is.

You are doing a great job of avoiding answering the question.... What is your solution? Do you even have one?