News New security measures

[Matt_Black]

Mao stated it best, 'Power grows from the barrel of a gun'

Mao also thought that not bathing increased his virility.

 

[Matt_Black]

Both entities are government controlled.

No government controls bears. And regarding the "tyrannical government", that's why the three branches have checks and balances, so that one can never take control over the other two. Furthermore, the Constitution can be changed. Jefferson himself said that Constitutions are not fixed.

 

[unkadug]

I will not post in this thread.
I will not post in this thread.
I will not post in this thread.
I will not post in this thread.

 

[ford91exploder]

I'm no constitutional scholar but the founding fathers allowed for the second amendment not so much out of a self defense against crime but as a self defense against a tyrannical government, which I would argue is as just as important today as it was when the country was formed.

Probably a bit more so today.

 

[Andrew C]

I will not post in this thread.
I will not post in this thread.
I will not post in this thread.
I will not post in this thread.

I should have taken my own advice, but I didn't. Lol

At least everyone has been relately civil.

 

[ford91exploder]

No government controls bears. And regarding the "tyrannical government", that's why the three branches have checks and balances, so that one can never take control over the other two. Furthermore, the Constitution can be changed. Jefferson himself said that Constitutions are not fixed.

Really, The executive orders signed by Bush and Obama which went around the checks and balances, No the checks and balances against untrammeled executive power no longer exist except in obsolete civics books.

 

[ford91exploder]

Mao also thought that not bathing increased his virility.

Does not change the fact he caused several hundred million people to be killed or imprisoned during the 'Great Leap Forward' the true count will never be known.

 

[Jon81uk]

For protection. For sport. Because we have a constitution that allows i

I can understand that owning a handgun could be useful for self-defence.

But given that America (and most other western countries) now have a functioning military I really cannot understand why ANY citizens still need to own military grade weapons. Farmers etc can find shotguns and simple rifles useful to remove animals that a predator to their livestock. But an automatic weapon? If you want to use it for sport then it remains locked away at the gun range when not being used.

 

[flynnibus]

parts of london are far more dangerous than chicago in per capita violent crime but the lack of guns mean yay we solved the problen....

Hrmm... last I checked, their mass shooting count and frequency is no where near the US... where they are happening basically weekly now.

I don't think you are walking around with your ak-47 in chicago to prevent being mugged...

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

That argument does not hold weight. While I don't know about the Pulse nightclub, the venue where Christina Grimmie was murdered did not have any pat down or similar security measures in place. Many mass shootings happen in places where there are a wealth of responsible gun owners. Where are these "good men with a gun" types that are supposed to stop the bad ones?

Obviously not in those locations in Orlando. Unfortunately.

 

[flynnibus]

The issue is that Isis and their twisted ideology are so strong globally that they continue to inspire people to join their cause

Try to ban one tool and they will just find another. And so on and so on.

I'm not willing to cave to any terrorist group by restricting any of my liberties. Speech, religion, guns. That's exactly what they want.

no one thinks banning assault weapons will end terrorism.. but what it will do is prevent the ease of someone from harming so many people at once so efficiently. Far more people are killed by our fellow citizens who are angry or disturbed than foreign terrorists.

 

[flynnibus]

What about bombing a subway. Or an airport.

Terrorists always find a way.

Will your coworker go home and create a massive casuality bomb in 30mins after being fired from work? Or after his wife leaves him?

 

[flynnibus]

Yeah both semi and automatic weapons predate the second amendment....soooo puckle gun ect. sure different mechanism but same effect the founding fathers KNEW weapons capable of discharging lots of munitions in short order exsisted but would likely become more frequent.

they also weren't concerned with citizens claiming they needed canons for self-defense either...

 

[BrerJon]

ou don't have the right to own a nuclear weapon. Muskets, rifles, handguns, missles, nuclear weapons are all considered "arms". Congress determines which ones you can own, and they do so based on what the manufacturers tell them.

Is is really the case that individuals aren't allowed nuclear weapons? If that's the case I suspect gun advocates will be all over that soon enough, can't have guverment taking our nukes.

 

[flynnibus]

you know cars will kill more people today than this shooter right?

Is there some stack of reports of people using cars as battering rams as a form of inflicting mass casualities we aren't aware of? Cars have many uses that justify the balance of their risk vs gain in daily life. We all know moving at 55mph can be deadly... but we have enough regulation and training to ensure the positives outweigh the risks. Cars are also not very effective as a concealed weapon and generally... cars don't fight back.

 

[BrerJon]

No government controls bears. And regarding the "tyrannical government", that's why the three branches have checks and balances, so that one can never take control over the other two. Furthermore, the Constitution can be changed. Jefferson himself said that Constitutions are not fixed.

In some countries they have a thing called 'democracy' where if you don't like the government you can vote it out, instead of having to shoot them all.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Is is really the case that individuals aren't allowed nuclear weapons? If that's the case I suspect gun advocates will be all over that soon enough, can't have guverment taking our nukes.

And if law abiding citizens were legally able to own nukes they would use them legally. Why? Because law abiding citizens obey the law.

 

[flynnibus]

For protection. For sport. Because we have a constitution that allows it. Again, not willing to give up my liberties to make it harder for terrorist to get a gun. Mainly because it isn't going to prevent them from doing what they want.

So ban assault rifles?...then they either find a way to get their hands on one anyways or they use a different tool,...then what? What else do we ban? What else do we limit for ourselves?

So you think citizens should have RPGs, grenades, and field artilary too? I mean, why do we limit ourselves at fully automatic guns? Have civilian to civilan attacks been a problem since the government forbid those weapons from being in the hands of average citizens? I mean, did everyone 'find a way'?

You're glossing over the key principle its about ease+efficency that makes it a dangerous combination... not that people think removing all weapons is the answer.

 

[Andrew C]

So you think citizens should have RPGs, grenades, and field artilary too? I mean, why do we limit ourselves at fully automatic guns? Have civilian to civilan attacks been a problem since the government forbid those weapons from being in the hands of average citizens? I mean, did everyone 'find a way'?

You're glossing over the key principle its about ease+efficency that makes it a dangerous combination... not that people think removing all weapons is the answer.

Lol. How quickly we forget history.

 

[flynnibus]

People hide behind religious beliefs and assume that's an acceptable defense. If a "religion" supports the killing of innocent people they are not a religion. If a "religion" supports oppressing a particular group or gender, they are not a religion. At that point the "religion" should be classified as a cult.

That's a naive description and philosophy. What you should really say is... the idea of protecting a religious belief should not trump the freedoms of others to prosper if one aims to directly attack that.

Live and let live..