Tactical Experts Destroy the NRA's Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

Khaos wrote: There are background checks for guns, a lot of cases in recent mass shootings have been people circumventing that through various means.

No, no one needs an assault rifle, but what if they want one? What about the right to freedom of choice, and expression?

Universal background checks are not fully in place, thus circumvention by various other means..sure, so the kid stole one of the 13 guns his mom had, but gun shows, private sales, etc....various other means which should be stopped, no? Terrorists on no-fly lists can easily purchase weapons this way. Again, I don't get the mentality of 'since it doesn't solve the entire issue' lets not implement it or attempt to make it more difficult for those who shouldn't be able to acquire weapons in the first place.

The right to freedom of choice and expression does not extend to RPGs and Tanks does it? It's rather extremely difficult to acquire these don't you think? Where does the line of common sense end or begin? Do I have a right in my freedom of speech to yell fire in a theatre or bomb at an airport? No I don't. Nobody does. Our rights of freedom of speech and expression end and begin with the safety of others. Period.

Lightstrider wrote: And those who will just emotionally react to these rare albeit tragic events

Rare? Please...in what world do you live in to which your definition of rare applies here?

Lightstrider wrote: No one's second ammendment rights have ever trumped your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and in actual fact it is because of this precious second ammendment that you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to mention freedom of speech and the rest.

I'll tell you what. Ask the surviving victims of Aurora and Planned Parenthood and San Bernardino and every other 'rare' shooting about how they feel going to the movies again? Going to work again? If you don't think their right to freedom of fear and their pursuit of happiness is not impeded you are sadly mistaken.

I'm sorry, but no, it's not because of the second amendment that the others exist. It's because of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that everyone has which has nothing to do with any of the amendments, unless you forgot the part that these are unalienable rights from the Declaration of Independence.
If it's so precious, why do you think the freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly are the FIRST amendment?
I'm saddened by this 'because of this precious amendment.' The second amendment has zero effect or outcome on the others. You take away the second amendment you'll still have a right to freely say F the government, the president is a tyrant, worship to whatever god of your choosing, and assemble in front of the White House. In actual fact it's not because of the 2nd Amendment...it's because of every soldier, veteran or otherwise, of the entirety of the United States Military Might.. that allows all of these to exist.

Lightstrider wrote: Well you're talking about getting rid of "assault rifles" which you must mean semiautomatic rifles with detachable magainzes, any weapon can be an assault weapon.

Let's start here. There is increasing speculation that the San Bernardino assailants could have been linked to international terrorists. But under U.S. gun laws, even ties to jihadists — sufficient to land an American on the FBI's terror watch list — do not prevent the purchase of guns, including military- and police- style assault rifles. Such as the Smith & Wesson rifle police say they recovered from the company's popular M&P line.

The San Bernardino authorities have revealed that the alleged assailants were killed in a police shootout in possession of two .223-caliber assault rifles. The assault weapons were purchased legally. But these tactical arms are only legal in the United States because of the efforts of the NRA — which cowed congress into watching the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expire under president George W. Bush.

Lightstrider wrote: I'm sorry your bubble was bursted by the recent event striking so very close to home

What bubble is that? My presumed bubble of naivete and safety? I'm sorry, have we met? How is it you know everything about me, again?

Lightstrider wrote: but, if you ban semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines (disarmament)

What part of still having guns and firearms is disarmament? What part of stopping those who shouldn't have them, disarmament? Not stopping every citizen, just those who shouldn't have them. Let's say you're allowed to have them, because you passed all background checks, laws, blah blah etc. What part of not allowing known criminals legal access is disarmament?

Lightstrider wrote: Why do I and others want military/police style weapons? They're more efficient, comfortable and easier to use whether just having fun at the range, hunting, or if in the rare yet possible defensive situation against criminals as an effective deterrent.

More efficient in hunting? Hmm..Interesting.

Lightstrider wrote: Are there some idiots out there who act stupid and maybe get this style of rifle for shady fantasy reasons? Of course but if they don't have an outstanding criminal history or have had some psychological issues then there's no reason why they shouldn't if they want it and don't have ill intentions.

I guess RPGs and Tanks should be allowed too if they pass all requisites, right? After all, they're so easy to acquire if one wants one. Perhaps maybe they have stricter requirements for acquiring one, don't you think?

Lightstrider wrote: I guess you don't understand why people are so worried about being disarmed and having their guns confiscated. Well for one there's many people in political positions who believe citizens should not own guns and so they slowly increase the gun control rhetoric, not because they actually care about violence but because it's a good way to get votes and support by appealing to the unthinking gullables and if only people didn't have guns they'd be able to push anything on them.

Sure, there are people in political positions who believe citizens shouldn't own guns...there are also people in political positions who think abortion should be illegal...but too bad it's the law. It's not going to get overturned and the 2nd amendment isn't going away. "Gun control rhetoric," because making it harder for those who shouldn't have them isn't common sense.

Lightstrider wrote: Also while the US government can't manage it's economy or take care of it's infrastructure and citizens, supplies millions of dollars in weapons to various terrorist organizations, does not fulfill the basics of border protection, and whose foreign policy opens the door and basically invites terrorist attacks I would say that people should have genuine concern about the need for potentially defending themselves against a government operating under it's own prerogative or those who come to hurt you because of your government. The government and police cannot always protect you and can actually hurt you.

1) Can't manage it's economy-- Uhm...ours is the strongest economy of every major country on the planet since the Great Recession. So, not sure what you mean there.
2) Take care of it's infrastructure- Wholeheartedly agree, a huge issue that needs to be resolved.
3)And Citizens-- how so? Hopefully the ACA is a first major step to single-payer, then we can take care of citizens
4) Supplies millions of dollars in weapons to various terrorist organizations-- Which terrorist organizations are you speaking of? We sure do have a history of doing it in the past (IRAN/CONTRA, etc), I'm curious which ones you're thinking of.
5) Basic Border protection- Yes, but no. A different subject for a different thread.
6) and whose foreign policy opens the door and basically invites terrorist attacks-- Yes, Iraq sure was a terrible idea. So are drones.
7) I would say that people should have genuine concern about the need for potentially defending themselves against a government operating under it's own prerogative -- So in your opinion an armed citizen militia would win vs United States Military? Gotcha.

Lightstrider wrote: You're infringing on your own rights by being scared of Mr. "Joe blow gun nut" as a guy open carrying isn't the guy you gotta worry about unless you're wanting to mess with him. But hey I understand having children around of course.

Everyone has a right not to be afraid to go to the mall, the movies, to work...freedom FROM fear IS part of the pursuit of happiness is it not?

Lightstrider wrote: You don't think that maybe if your rights to freedom of speech and what not were not backed up by the second ammendment that there would be no attempts to seriously restrict them will all the extremist Republicans and Democrats that would love to do such a thing? Armed citizens are what they are intended to be, a check to big instrusive government, and they definitely play a role in total overreaching powers that those in power would love to project.

Riiiiiggghhtt...tell me, what do you give the chances of armed citizens vs the United States Military? What do you suppose are the odds?

Lightstrider wrote: You'll need the police's guns to take away other's guns. You just believe only the government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous....) should have guns.

No, not true. The people do have a right to arm themselves in the 2nd Amendment. To what degree is the debate my friend, please don't presume what I believe.

Desolous wrote: I really appreciate you guys complete defeat in the face of a terrible problem. /s

'Oh, there's too many guns. We can't do it, its impossible. We'll just have to suck it up and get shot in herds randomly just about every day in random locations by random people.'

Khaos, I guess you are excused here. But to you who call yourself Jedi, I am disappointed in this viewpoint. Defeat. Acceptance of the terrible status quo.

Next, your precious second amendment rights do not trump my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Let's get that straight. These are terror attacks, emboldened and enabled by the above mentioned acquiescence, and premature defeat.

And You are partly culpable. Each and every time. Because you accept it. You allow it. You oppose serious change. And in the case of Fox quote unquote news junkies and the like spewing hate and falsehoods, even more so culpable, to the point of actual criminality.

There will be change. It is the only constant in life. And in the world I see, many decades from now, my grandkids will wonder at how we allowed just everyone to own a gun or at least get their hands on one, and then use it any way they wish. And I say this as a trained and decorated former soldier: most of you civilians are simply not qualified to own and or operate a firearm. In my professional opinion.

I want to be on the right side of history. I want to be for right, for justice. I want to act as a Jedi should. And allowing these things to continue is simply not it. And you have to ask yourself, each of us does, 'what would a Jedi do here'?

I was glad to read this, because it's evidence of military elitism that is rampant in American society.

As you know, military worship is pretty widespread. If you drew up a Venn diagram consisting of "pro-gun people" and "military worshipers," there would be tremendous overlap. A lot of freedom-loving Americans ignorantly put a lot of weight in patriotism and military worship. You can see it everywhere. Applauding soldiers who board planes. Military discounts. Bumper stickers. It's completely socially acceptable to say "f*** the police," but criticize the military, and a lot of people from all over the political spectrum are pissed, despite the fact that cops have saved my life before, while the military hasn't done anything useful for a long, long time.

I'm a member of the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation. All the mail and emails I get from them is slathered with starts, stripes, eagles, and whatnot. I would expect this from the NRA, but the 2AF is a more highbrow group. The military worship is strong in both of them.

So, all these patriotic simpletons, who are more often than not pro-gun, see you guys as gods. Granted, a lot of these simpletons are or have been in the military. Also, I recognize that the military is very diverse. But, then, there's a pretty large camp of elitists- those who are narcissistic, who thrive on being worshiped by civilians, who like to intimidate others, who feel empowered by being or having been in the military, much like how some insecure people feel empowered by owning a gun.

Believe me, you are not the first "service"man who I've heard claim that civilians are too incompetent to be trusted with guns. In some countries, this mentality is codified in law. For instance, a Belorussian can own no gun other than a shotgun unless they had been an NCO or higher.

And, as a side note, I'm not fooled nor intimidated by one's military experience. I've known plenty of Marines who were never in combat, who worked dull jobs, but felt like having passed boot camp gave them irrevocable badass status for life. I have more respect for a cop who spent his career in my crime-infested area than I do for a SEAL, because the cop faced real danger on a daily basis.

And by the way, there are a lot of US soldiers in the ground right now because of a bunch of gun-owning civilians-with no military training- armed with antiquated rifles. They come from a place that nobody has ever been able to conquer more than partially, and never for very long. It's called Afghanistan- the graveyard of empires.

you know how you could turn judo into boxing?

first you change the rules of competition to allow punches

then you change them to outlaw any kind of grappling whatsoever

america is not at all what it could be, but we have a country that is founded on what are essentially really good ideas

one sure way to ruin that is to go messing about with the constitution

its not unprecedented, but expanding the precedent is a huge "NO" imo - its a can of worms that we dont want to open, ever, at all, for any reason, because the long term results are not going to favor the common citizen

Again, I don't get the mentality of 'since it doesn't solve the entire issue' lets not implement it or attempt to make it more difficult for those who shouldn't be able to acquire weapons in the first place.

Again, no one has made this argument.

BionicPianoMan wrote: Rare? Please...in what world do you live in to which your definition of rare applies here?

I'm just saying that the media has claimed these things happen everyday, out of the 355 incidents that are claimed to happen only 21 could be categorized as mass murder with a firearm. Does this mean that it's ok?? Of course not.

BionicPianoMan wrote: how they feel going to the movies again? Going to work again? If you don't think their right to freedom of fear and their pursuit of happiness is not impeded you are sadly mistaken.

Scarred for life, no doubt.

BionicPianoMan wrote: If it's so precious, why do you think the freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly are the FIRST amendment? The second amendment has zero effect or outcome on the others. In actual fact it's not because of the 2nd Amendment...it's because of every soldier, veteran or otherwise, of the entirety of the United States Military Might.. that allows all of these to exist.

I didn't mean that they all exist ONLY because of the second, rather I meant that the second reinforces them all and without one, especially that one, I think it opens the floodgates to abuses to any of the others. If I don't have the 1st I can't even express the desire, purpose or need for the rest. If I don't have the 2nd I can't enforce my 1st or 4th or the rest. Maybe you're right and if you take away the 2nd you still have the rest, obviously in other countries they don't have the 2nd and are still speaking freely. But I still think it opens the doors for the others to be abused. As for the only reason of their continued existence being the military, sure in a way but also even without the military the peoples' desire to exercise these rights would still allow them to exist.

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature,” Samuel Adams wrote in 1772.

WW2, yes the military played the role, but American companies bankrolled Hitler's war machine and they even bankrolled the communists in Russia that we would later claim to be an imminent threat as an excuse for the military industrial complex to get a blank check to create weapons of mass and mutually assured destruction. Then send soldiers to Vietnam for a reason that both Def Sef McNamara and the North Vietnam commander at the time say never happened. Anyways what good came out of that war? Continue on and every war has been a lie and nothing we have fought against was a direct threat to our way of life and mostly instigated due to our great ideas of giving weapons away, overthrowing governments, sanctions, etc. Also we only oppose Assad so we can get a pipeline through there to the Medit... ridiculous!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8_tv7KTJi0

BionicPianoMan wrote: There is increasing speculation that the San Bernardino assailants could have been linked to international terrorists. But under U.S. gun laws, even ties to jihadists — sufficient to land an American on the FBI's terror watch list — do not prevent the purchase of guns, including military- and police- style assault rifles.

Yep, one rifle was reported to have even been purchased for police and it somehow ended up in their hands. Definitely a problem to not ban suspected terrorists from owning guns.

BionicPianoMan wrote: What bubble is that? My presumed bubble of naivete and safety? I'm sorry, have we met? How is it you know everything about me, again?

Yeah my mistakenly presumed bubble of naievte and safety. Nope we haven't met and I don't know anything about you other than that this recent event happened close to you and that you are a proponent for stricter gun laws.

BionicPianoMan wrote: What part of still having guns and firearms is disarmament? What part of stopping those who shouldn't have them, disarmament? Not stopping every citizen, just those who shouldn't have them. Let's say you're allowed to have them, because you passed all background checks, laws, blah blah etc. What part of not allowing known criminals legal access is disarmament?

You said ban assault rifles, no? The NYT just printed article calling for people to turn in these kinds of guns in for the safety of everyone else and rely on the state to protect them. There are lots of media outlets and politicians calling for some form of disarmament. If you are only talking about known criminals and the like, I totally agree with you.

BionicPianoMan wrote: More efficient in hunting? Hmm..Interesting.

Well efficient in everything if you think about it. A semiautomatic rifle is more efficient than a bolt action rifle, say I'm hunting boar or coyotes and need to take follow up shots, it's much faster. A pistol grip to me is more comfortable, as is a collapsing stock for different situations. I'm just saying an AR15 is a very practical firearm for all purposes compared to a shotgun or bolt action rifle. But in some states you can't hunt with an AR15/.223.

BionicPianoMan wrote: I guess RPGs and Tanks should be allowed too if they pass all requisites, right? After all, they're so easy to acquire if one wants one. Perhaps maybe they have stricter requirements for acquiring one, don't you think?

RPGs and tanks are not easy to acquire? Handguns and rifles are easy to acquire in a blackmarket scenario, especially in California.

BionicPianoMan wrote: 3)And Citizens-- how so? Hopefully the ACA is a first major step to single-payer, then we can take care of citizens.

That's debatable as many people's premiums skyrocketed, but I guess that's for the greater good? Lot of problems with the system before and now, but nothing can be perfect. I'm not racist but look at all the illegal immigrants and all the benefits they get while our vets and elderly get tossed in the trash. Look at all the money they send overseas for their wars as it compares to what they spend here.

BionicPianoMan wrote: 4) Supplies millions of dollars in weapons to various terrorist organizations-- Which terrorist organizations are you speaking of? We sure do have a history of doing it in the past (IRAN/CONTRA, etc), I'm curious which ones you're thinking of.

Operation Fast and Furious, the whole Benghazi thing, the Mujahadeen/Bin Laden types/"moderate rebels" and radical/corrupt regimes in the Middle East, Ukrainian coup forces... I think everyone of these acts have come to bite us in the ass. They'll give some extremists a rocket launcher that can take a airplane out of the sky but are worried about citizens owning an AR15.

BionicPianoMan wrote: 7) I would say that people should have genuine concern about the need for potentially defending themselves against a government operating under it's own prerogative -- So in your opinion an armed citizen militia would win vs United States Military? Gotcha.

It wouldn't be good for either side, nothing I want or fantasize about partaking in but you know our military has been defeated in nearly every modern conflict by people who have much less than what an armed citizen militia here would have. I don't think it would happen, I think there could be outbreaks in certain areas of the country that occur due to some crazy thing happening but in a real scenario where the government is in the wrong, the military would be on the side of the citizens.

BionicPianoMan wrote: Everyone has a right not to be afraid to go to the mall, the movies, to work...freedom FROM fear IS part of the pursuit of happiness is it not?

You're right. But living in an area where open carry is permitted, I think one would already be used to it. And I agree with Des that yeah some guys who come out the house armed can act like tough guy and bring about the sort of attention that could cause a shooting and collateral damage. That's why I'm not really into the open carry idea, it mostly attracts negative attention and to let a criminal know you are armed gives him the upper hand to surprise you.

BionicPianoMan wrote: Riiiiiggghhtt...tell me, what do you give the chances of armed citizens vs the United States Military? What do you suppose are the odds?

See above, I don't think it would happen and if it did I think the military would be confined to their green zones and run operations out into the areas of insurgency. But seeing as how they couldn't do much in Afghanistan or Iraq, well I think they'd be up against a much more clever and knowledgable insurgent. If such a scenario forced an armed citizen uprising I'm pretty sure the reasoning would be good enough for the military to join in.

Desolous wrote: Wow. You're response is...interesting.

I don't agree to disagree. I think you and your ilk are wrong. I agree to that.

This is my final comment on this thread. And further evidence for why I post so rarely in public forums. Have a good one, bro.

Well apparently I misunderstood your intention of what you wrote and maybe you also misunderstood some of what I'm saying and I'm sorry for being an ass about it and taking it too far.

Lightstrider wrote: You're infringing on your own rights by being scared of Mr. "Joe blow gun nut" as a guy open carrying isn't the guy you gotta worry about unless you're wanting to mess with him.

Cannot be proven. Invalid argument: one cannot distinguish between an open carry permitted gun owner and Joseph B. Gun-Nut. Suggesting that open carry people aren't the ones we ought to worry about implies an unreasonable amount of insight into a hypothetical person's life which could not be ascertained simply by walking past that person in grocery store.



This tired trope of the Gun Savior is just that, a trope with circular logic that does not follow. Stop arguing it. You (and I mean everyone who tries this) can do better or you should rethink your position. Nothing said here has done anything to dispel what has been said in the article. The conversation has only shifted away from the problem.

Jamie Stick wrote:

Lightstrider wrote: You're infringing on your own rights by being scared of Mr. "Joe blow gun nut" as a guy open carrying isn't the guy you gotta worry about unless you're wanting to mess with him.

Cannot be proven. Invalid argument: one cannot distinguish between an open carry permitted gun owner and Joseph B. Gun-Nut. Suggesting that open carry people aren't the ones we ought to worry about implies an unreasonable amount of insight into a hypothetical person's life which could not be ascertained simply by walking past that person in grocery store.

This tired trope of the Gun Savior is just that, a trope with circular logic that does not follow. Stop arguing it. You (and I mean everyone who tries this) can do better or you should rethink your position. Nothing said here has done anything to dispel what has been said in the article. The conversation has only shifted away from the problem.

You're right and that's why I'm not really for open carry. But in some states like Arizona, everyone open carries so in certain situations it's just a way of life and not necessarily something to fear. I'm pretty sure most of us agree with the article, and yes we've gone waaaay off topic because the the overall issue with guns, gun control, rights, self defense is complex and goes very far.

Lightstrider wrote: I'm pretty sure most of us agree with the article, and yes we've gone waaaay off topic because the the overall issue with guns, gun control, rights, self defense is complex and goes very far.

But that's how deflection and avoidance work. By avoiding a specific critique, one can dodge the entire reason why their position is flawed. I get that we're all pretty high-strung around the issue of guns in general (and I'm not immune, my motivation for reading this article was originally fueled by grief and frustration), but if we let that alone carry the weight of persuasion around here, then we've achieved nothing.

Jamie Stick wrote:

Lightstrider wrote: You're infringing on your own rights by being scared of Mr. "Joe blow gun nut" as a guy open carrying isn't the guy you gotta worry about unless you're wanting to mess with him.

Cannot be proven. Invalid argument: one cannot distinguish between an open carry permitted gun owner and Joseph B. Gun-Nut. Suggesting that open carry people aren't the ones we ought to worry about implies an unreasonable amount of insight into a hypothetical person's life which could not be ascertained simply by walking past that person in grocery store.

Attachment h91abb67.jpg not found

This tired trope of the Gun Savior is just that, a trope with circular logic that does not follow. Stop arguing it. You (and I mean everyone who tries this) can do better or you should rethink your position. Nothing said here has done anything to dispel what has been said in the article. The conversation has only shifted away from the problem.

Dude, you talk like HK-47 from the KOTOR series, sort of.

You must not understand how forums work. You start a thread, and then the rest is up to fate. Depending on the forum and situation, sometimes a moderator will reign it back in a certain direction, but the mods here aren't like that, at least not from what I've seen. Throwing a tantrum will get you nowhere.