All NRA and GOA members need to acknowledge the following facts . . .

[Kirkrapine]

. . . before they open their mouths again:

1. Guns are politically useless. You cannot use them to fight the government with any hope of success at all. (If you are thinking of Cliven Bundy as a counterexample, remember that he is now in jail; the state can be effectively fought in court and nowhere else.)

2. No one but a collector really needs more than one or two firearms.

3. No civilian has any legitimate use whatsoever for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle; that is much more firepower than you will ever need for hunting or home defense.

4. The actual purpose of the Second Amendment was to facilitate a militia-based defense policy, which is completely dated and irrelevant now; nor was the militia ever conceived as a countervailing force against the state rather than an arm of the state.

5. Yes, guns do kill people, in the same sense that motor vehicles get into accidents and pollute the air.

 

[BotanyBoy]

1) not a fact.

2) not a fact.

3) not a fact.

4) kinda a fact, but not entirely.

5) fact.

Could give you 40%....but I'm thinking 30 is more appropriate.

 

[bellisarius]

1) not a fact.

2) not a fact.

3) not a fact.

4) kinda a fact, but not entirely.

5) fact.

Could give you 40%....but I'm thinking 30 is more appropriate.

What else would you expect from an idiot? Not you by the way.

 

[milehighcityman]

1.) I don't own my firearms for political purposes. And I don't really care about that Bundy guy.
2.) Disagree.
3.) Disagree.
4.) Disagree that it is dated and irrelevant now.
5.) Agree.

 

[Kirkrapine]

4.) Disagree that it is dated and irrelevant now.

Not since the Spanish-American War has the militia -- in the 18th-Century sense, a volunteer force of non-professionals, as opposed to a part-time professional National Guard -- played any role at all in any American conflict.

The FFs wanted a well-regulated (meaning well-armed) militia because were afraid of a large standing army as a potential instrument of domestic rule, which is how the kings of Europe used their armies -- but in our history, the U.S. Army has rarely been used for domestic rule, and, when so used (Reconstruction, Little Rock, etc.), never regrettably.

 

[Kirkrapine]

5. Yes, guns do kill people, in the same sense that motor vehicles get into accidents and pollute the air.

And that is not a trivial comparison. When you get behind the wheel of a car, you become a part, and not necessarily the most important part, of a new car-and-driver gestalt entity. That is why there are so many accidents -- that gestalt entity always wants to go fast, even in situations where you, considering the matter from anywhere else but behind the wheel, would not see the urgency.

Likewise, when you pick up a gun, the new gestalt entity of gun-and-handler wants to shoot something, even in situations, etc.

 

[IG_88]

. . . before they open their mouths again:

1. Guns are politically useless. You cannot use them to fight the government with any hope of success at all. (If you are thinking of Cliven Bundy as a counterexample, remember that he is now in jail; the state can be effectively fought in court and nowhere else.)

2. No one but a collector really needs more than one or two firearms.

3. No civilian has any legitimate use whatsoever for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle; that is much more firepower than you will ever need for hunting or home defense.

4. The actual purpose of the Second Amendment was to facilitate a militia-based defense policy, which is completely dated and irrelevant now; nor was the militia ever conceived as a countervailing force against the state rather than an arm of the state.

5. Yes, guns do kill people, in the same sense that motor vehicles get into accidents and pollute the air.

Dude. You're better than this. I assume anyway, I mean I have no freakin' clue if you really are but I like to stay optimistic.

 

[Liar]

. . . before they open their mouths again:

1. Guns are politically useless. You cannot use them to fight the government with any hope of success at all. (If you are thinking of Cliven Bundy as a counterexample, remember that he is now in jail; the state can be effectively fought in court and nowhere else.)

Didn't he get out?

Or maybe that was the Dildonian Bundy squatter in Oregon.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Didn't he get out?

Or maybe that was the Dildonian Bundy squatter in Oregon.

It was his son Ammon who was acquitted of occupying that bird sanctuary (what was the point of that, again?!); Cliven is still in the clink.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Dude. You're better than this. I assume anyway, I mean I have no freakin' clue if you really are but I like to stay optimistic.

What on Earth are you talking about? You might not agree with my assertions in the OP, but you cannot deny they raise fair and relevant questions.

 

[Kirkrapine]

1. Guns are politically useless. You cannot use them to fight the government with any hope of success at all. (If you are thinking of Cliven Bundy as a counterexample, remember that he is now in jail; the state can be effectively fought in court and nowhere else.)

Is that not obvious? Private ownership of AK-47s in Iraq was widespread before Hussein fell. It didn't matter. Even when the populace is armed, the state always wins by being better armed, and better organized. That might not have been true in the 18th Century, but it is true now and for the indefinite future. How are them Zapatistas doin'? Not, you may be sure, costing sleep to anyone in Mexico City.

2. No one but a collector really needs more than one or two firearms.

Really, what use is a third, whether for hunting or home defense?

3. No civilian has any legitimate use whatsoever for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle; that is much more firepower than you will ever need for hunting or home defense.

Again, obvious. If you are ever in a non-military situation you can't resolve with a one-shot-at-a-pull firearm, a higher rate of fire won't help.

Of course, automatic rifles are not really a significant factor in American gunshot deaths, most of which involve pistols; but they are, for obvious reasons, the weapon of choice for mass shooters, which for some reason we seem to have in greater abundance than any other country, including failed states.

4. The actual purpose of the Second Amendment was to facilitate a militia-based defense policy, which is completely dated and irrelevant now; nor was the militia ever conceived as a countervailing force against the state rather than an arm of the state.

This is historically true. That is why the Constitution empowers the president to command the militia.

5. Yes, guns do kill people, in the same sense that motor vehicles get into accidents and pollute the air.

I note that no one has yet really contradicted this. Nor can anyone deny that fewer guns floating around means fewer homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths and injuries. We'll always have knives and clubs and such, but taken in the aggregate they don't do nearly as much damage.

 

[IG_88]

What on Earth are you talking about? You might not agree with my assertions in the OP, but you cannot deny they raise fair and relevant questions.

They're old, rehashed, simplistic and somewhat naive points.

 

[Kirkrapine]

They're old, rehashed, simplistic and somewhat naive points.

Old, perhaps, but in no way simplistic or naive -- you have to look on the NRA/GOA side to find that kind of points. "Second Amendment remedies," for instance, is a hopelessly simplistic, naive, and ignorant notion.

 

[IG_88]

Old, perhaps, but in no way simplistic or naive -- you have to look on the NRA/GOA side to find that kind of points. "Second Amendment remedies," for instance, is a hopelessly simplistic, naive, and ignorant notion.

I've seen a few of your posts and threads. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are. Almost a left wing Vette but not quite that stupid.

 

[Kirkrapine]

I've seen a few of your posts and threads. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are. Almost a left wing Vette but not quite that stupid.

That in no way answers the arguments herein. Really, nobody in this thread yet has, not even Bot, who seems to be more prepared for this debate than any other pro-gun Litster.

 

[IG_88]

That in no way answers the arguments herein. Really, nobody in this thread yet has, not even Bot, who seems to be more prepared for this debate than any other pro-gun Litster.

Dude when you can't get a gun control thread going in this place then it's time to consider maybe it's you.
Wait for the next mass shooting. It's all in the timing.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Wait for the next mass shooting. It's all in the timing.

I wish I could call that advice meaningless.

 

[SissySalina]

Please provide your source for your supposed facts.

If you control the bullets then you control the gun, unless you use it like a baseball bat.

Don't forget airplanes also kill people.

 

[OldJourno]

. . . before they open their mouths again:

1. Guns are politically useless. You cannot use them to fight the government with any hope of success at all. (If you are thinking of Cliven Bundy as a counterexample, remember that he is now in jail; the state can be effectively fought in court and nowhere else.)

2. No one but a collector really needs more than one or two firearms.

3. No civilian has any legitimate use whatsoever for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle; that is much more firepower than you will ever need for hunting or home defense.

4. The actual purpose of the Second Amendment was to facilitate a militia-based defense policy, which is completely dated and irrelevant now; nor was the militia ever conceived as a countervailing force against the state rather than an arm of the state.

5. Yes, guns do kill people, in the same sense that motor vehicles get into accidents and pollute the air.

Oh boy, someone is making up facts. That's never happened here before.

 

[bellisarius]

Oh boy, someone is making up facts. That's never happened here before.

[sarcasm]Yet another Lit first.[/sarcasm]

 

[Kirkrapine]

Please provide your source for your supposed facts.

See post #11, and find fault with any point if and as you can.

If you control the bullets then you control the gun, unless you use it like a baseball bat.

No doubt. What is your point?

Don't forget airplanes also kill people.

No doubt. What is your point?

 

[phrodeau]

Anybody can have a third gun, if they have a third hand to put it in.

Or if they're Bayonetta.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/69/9d/05/699d0570dd91fbb3e34e400388746338.png

 

[Kirkrapine]

Anybody can have a third gun, if they have a third hand to put it in.

Or if they're Bayonetta.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/69/9d/05/699d0570dd91fbb3e34e400388746338.png

I'll see that and raise you Rose McGowan.

 

[Kirkrapine]

The fact is your saying these are facts does not make them facts.

Contradict them if and as you can.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Even when the populace is armed, the state always wins by being better armed, and better organized.

Iraqi, Afghani and Vietnamese militias/insurgents are all modern examples of that not being true....among many others.

Really, what use is a third, whether for hunting or home defense?

Depends on what kind, not that it really matters how many one has, 3 or 30.

Small pistol for concealed carry, large one for sport/tacticool.

Small cal rifle for varmints/small game...battle rifle for home defense/medium game and a heavy cal one hitter quitter for big game.

long bore shotty for bird hunting, pump action for a home defender and a semi auto for competition shooting

That's a bare minimum.

Again, obvious. If you are ever in a non-military situation you can't resolve with a one-shot-at-a-pull firearm,

That would be semi-automatic, like the AR-15.

Of course, automatic rifles are not really a significant factor in American gunshot deaths, most of which involve pistols; but they are, for obvious reasons, the weapon of choice for mass shooters, which for some reason we seem to have in greater abundance than any other country, including failed states.

Absolutely wrong, most mass shootings are done with semi-automatic pistols, there have only ever been a couple of mass shootings with full auto hardware.

This is historically true.

Not entirely, but mostly.

The militia could and should go against the state if the state is violating the Constitution.