Guns bad...case closed

[Jason]

Ah. But Tero, you made a fatal mistake in your apprehension of the situation. You see, the massacre took place in a "gun-free" zone - a facility where the mentally ill receive help - clearly the solution is to put guns in the hands of the insane and mentally ill.

[JimC]

San Bernardino terorists' guns and commando equipment was all legally purchased. Neither terrorist was classified as criminal or insane. No other solution: ban all guns.

Shit, Tero, you are moving to the left of Blind groper!

[Seth]

San Bernardino terorists' guns and commando equipment was all legally purchased. Neither terrorist was classified as criminal or insane. No other solution: ban all guns.

You can't ban all guns because the Constitution forbids it. And even if you could, it wouldn't prevent Islamic terrorists from getting guns...or building pipe bombs, it would only disarm people who need guns to defend against Islamic terrorists, which is something you are evidently entirely incapable of understanding.

Had one or more (preferably more) of the people at that event been lawfully armed, things might have gone much differently. But, as we know, all of California is essentially a "gun free zone" where the average citizen cannot carry a defensive firearm. You'll note that the killing was over before the police arrived, as I'm sure was planned by the terrorists, but when the police found them, they died very quickly in a hail of gunfire.

Now what you need to understand is that the hail of gunfire that killed them needed to occur within five seconds of the first round they fired, delivered by armed law-abiding citizens and volunteer armed citizen guards who must be vetted and granted licenses to attend ANY large gathering, in their full battle-rattle, to secure venues like this.

But the FIRST thing we need to do is impeach both Obama and Biden and replace them with the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, who will actually act to defend this nation against all its enemies, foreign and domestic, including those enemies and traitors who would seek to disarm the citizenry.

The simple fact demonstrated by this attack is that Islamic terrorism has come to the US and now it's (long past) time to go to a war footing and make sure there are MORE guns carried by MORE people, the law-abiding ones, in public.

[Jason]

If Gandalf had been present he'd have stopped those two gunmen at the bridge of Khazad-dûm.

[Seth]

It's a major fucking problem for every one of those 100 people who are murdered, not to mention the tens of thousands who are not murdered but who may be beaten up like this guy:

2EF525C700000578-0-image-m-30_1448978115085.jpg

Well damn. I'd rather live somewhere with a lot of guns in the hands of the people where they can police themselves with a minimum amount of government interference.. Like the DRC where if the local warlord likes you you have it made. Of course if he don't they just drag you into the bush - or maybe just drill a hole in your head in front of your wife and kids, maybe drill holes in their heads first before they do you. Yes sir. I don't want to end up like that guy.

The problem in the DRC and most other African shit-holes is not too many guns, it's too many guns in the hands of the government and not nearly enough guns in the hands of average, law-abiding citizens with which they can defend themselves from "local warlords."

Have either of you actually been to the DRC?
Africa even?

I somehow doubt it.

Don't have to go there to know what the problem is.

[Tero]

Where in the fucking Constitution? Oh you mean the well armed militias? Well that was the militia, and muskets and cannons. Until the supreme court decided to legislate from the bench.

[Jason]

It's a major fucking problem for every one of those 100 people who are murdered, not to mention the tens of thousands who are not murdered but who may be beaten up like this guy:

2EF525C700000578-0-image-m-30_1448978115085.jpg

Well damn. I'd rather live somewhere with a lot of guns in the hands of the people where they can police themselves with a minimum amount of government interference.. Like the DRC where if the local warlord likes you you have it made. Of course if he don't they just drag you into the bush - or maybe just drill a hole in your head in front of your wife and kids, maybe drill holes in their heads first before they do you. Yes sir. I don't want to end up like that guy.

The problem in the DRC and most other African shit-holes is not too many guns, it's too many guns in the hands of the government and not nearly enough guns in the hands of average, law-abiding citizens with which they can defend themselves from "local warlords."

Have either of you actually been to the DRC?
Africa even?

I somehow doubt it.

I'm passingly familiar with the history of violence there. I didn't mean to imply I know more about the problems than someone actually from there, or even living on the same continent.. but you hardly ever talk about yourself so..

[Seth]

Where in the fucking Constitution? Oh you mean the well armed militias? Well that was the militia, and muskets and cannons. Until the supreme court decided to legislate from the bench.

Whatever the Supreme Court did, it did it and that's the law. Moreover, you could wave your fairy wand and make all guns illegal tomorrow and there would still be 300 million guns in the US, the vast majority of which there is absolutely no way you are going to be able to succeed in seizing because neither you nor your minions would live long enough to make even a small dent in that population.

You see, people like you are exactly the reason that the Founders prohibited the government from infringing on our rights. We have the guns, you don't. If you want them, come and take them. I predict your longevity will be substantially reduced should you try.

[Blind groper]

Interesting that people should start talking about the DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo). For a start, they show their ignorance, since its proper name today is Zaire.

Second : it is a perfect case of the problems that arise when people opposing an oppressive government get guns. The evil president is Mobutu, and he was once the darling of the USA, during Reagan time, when he was their ally. But he treated his own people horribly.

There has been a series of armed uprisings against Mobutu since the 1970's. All they have achieved is to make the evil bastard even more determined to hang onto power (after all, if he lost power, he would be executed!). In the mean time, thousand of people die, and the economy collapses, and human misery multiplies.

Only an idiot would say that America needs guns so that they can oppose an oppressive government. Might as well issue suicide pills to ordinary people. It hurts less!

[Tero]

We have the document of the second amendment here:

[Seth]

There has been a series of armed uprisings against Mobutu since the 1970's. All they have achieved is to make the evil bastard even more determined to hang onto power (after all, if he lost power, he would be executed!). In the mean time, thousand of people die, and the economy collapses, and human misery multiplies.

Only an idiot would say that America needs guns so that they can oppose an oppressive government. Might as well issue suicide pills to ordinary people. It hurts less!

Um, only an idiot would fail to understand that the reason that the "series of armed uprisings against Mobutu" failed is because those attempting to rid themselves of this tyrant were not well-enough armed to overcome his loyal military forces.

The answer is, of course, for more citizens to be armed with effective military weapons so that they can overpower the military and put down the dictator.

It is by restricting the ability of the average law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms that tyrants like this seize and hold on to power.

Only a tyrant desires to disarm the populace because only a tyrant needs to fear an armed citizenry. And that is exactly the point of the 2nd Amendment, to put would-be tyrants in fear of their lives because 150 million armed citizens can, at need, overwhelm any standing army a tyrant might put up against them.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Your ignorance of recent history is abyssmal. So many nations have tried to overthrow oppression by armed uprising, and they make matters worse. Recent history also shows, as I have repeatedly pointed out, that peaceful opposition achieves far more at a far lower cost.

[Seth]

Seth

Your ignorance of recent history is abyssmal.

No it's not, but your notion that peaceful protest is always the best course of action is beyond idiotic, it is dangerously naive and gets people killed by the millions.

So many nations have tried to overthrow oppression by armed uprising, and they make matters worse.

No, matters are made worse by people like you who deny arms to those who seek to remove a tyrant, which routinely results in the rebellion failing and the tyrant becoming even more tyrannical and murderous as he attempts to hold on to power. The solution is, of course, for the entirety of the citizenry of every nation to always be armed, 100 percent of the time, with those arms suitable for military use for the purposes of overwhelming a tyrant and his minions at need.

Recent history also shows, as I have repeatedly pointed out, that peaceful opposition achieves far more at a far lower cost.

Unless it doesn't, as actual history proves repeatedly.

In any event, yours is a fallacious argument because the existence of an armed citizenry is an entirely different thing from an armed uprising by that armed citizenry to overthrow a tyrant. Your inability to distinguish between the two conditions indicates a paucity of rational thought and logical faculties. As if that's any sort of surprise.

Just because a citizenry is armed doesn't mean that they must or will use those arms as a first, or a second, or even a third resort when tyranny oppresses them. As the United States so perfectly proves, an armed citizenry facing unacceptable political actions by its government will first try all peaceable and democratic methods of reining in an out of control government by political means. Only when that repeatedly fails, as it did in 1776, will an armed citizenry resort to armed revolution to put down a despot by force of arms.

Force is, and should be a last resort, but at the same time it must be available as a last resort at all times because if and when tyranny takes over it is far too late to try to arm the populace so that they can exercise that last resort. Despots know this, which is why, in every single case throughout the history of despotism the first thing any despot does upon coming into power is to disarm the citizenry, because that is the only way that despots can maintain their control of the populace, who ALWAYS outnumber the despot and his minions and, if sufficiently armed, can prevent the despot from seizing power in the first place.

And because an armed populace is not an inherently violent populace who misuse their arms, there is no reason whatsoever to deny them the possession of those arms, other than as a prelude and facilitator to tyranny, which is, by way of example, exactly what Hitler did to the German people by convincing them (falsely) that their safety against crime would be guaranteed if only they surrendered their personal weapons and relied upon the state to protect them. You sound very much like Hitler right now.

That didn't work out any better for the Jews and other enemies of the Nazi regime than it has for any other disarmed population subjected to genocidal actions either before or after Hitler's day.

So, even if you make an argument against individual gun ownership based on your specious notions of crime, there is no rational argument to be made against an armed populace in the absence of attempts at tyranny. This is because, as I said above, the mere keeping and bearing of arms does not imply that those arms will be used inappropriately by the citizenry absent a strong rational and politically compelling need to do so agreed upon by the majority of the citizenry as being necessary to the security of a free people.

[Tero]

Where in the fucking Constitution? Oh you mean the well armed militias? Well that was the militia, and muskets and cannons. Until the supreme court decided to legislate from the bench.

Socialism!
Whatever the Supreme Court did, it did it and that's the law. .

[Tero]