Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.
  • Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.
Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: spartain ken 15
We have a right to arm ourselves in case we need to defend our freedoms from tyranny or an oppressive force.


It's not gonna happen bro.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:16 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:16 AM PDT

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Posted by: iRuN KFC
Posted by: Big Black Bear
The only legitimate reason I can see to own a firearm (other than one that is issued to you for your employment) is for hunting.


This.

I'd also like to say I have never seen any compelling arguments against gun control yet I have no doubt that nothing will change in the US with regards gun ownership despite the tragic events in Connecticut.


Here is the thing, that is not reason we have a right to guns in the constitution.

We have a right to arm ourselves in case we need to defend our freedoms from tyranny or an oppressive force.
And no other nation on earth has that need?

Besides... Tell me this: When is the last time the United States faced "tyranny or an oppressive force"?

  • 12.17.2012 8:17 AM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: spartain ken 15
We have a right to arm ourselves in case we need to defend our freedoms from tyranny or an oppressive force.


It's not gonna happen bro.


lol okay

I don't think you understand how it is a last resort and it gives the citizens more power and freedom by having weapons to defend their freedom if the time arises.

I almost want to say something like Homefront comes to mind.

  • 12.17.2012 8:17 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: capitonRender007
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: capitonRender007
Posted by: Garshne
If the law requires that your weapon be kept in a place that is safe from easy access by children and thieves,
and your weapon was not being kept in a place that is safe from easy access by children or thieves when it was stolen i.e. left out of its safe or locker, that is an act of negligence on your part and you should be held partially responsible for its eventual use. Your negligence has lead to the grave loss of life and you should be charged for it.


My home with locked doors should be sufficient enough to satisfy that.

I mean what constitutes this space? The level of protection? It can be insanely expensive to get a good safe, and that doesn't even guarantee it wont be broken into.

This is the last post, only more opinions, without an actual consideration to what would entail a process will continue.

Your logic is about the biggest case of dumb-blam!-y ive ever seen garshne, at least regarding this whole issue, you're pretty decent to say the least on most other things.

Congratulations.
That is the stance of the Australian government and my stance as well.

Every measure possible should be taken to prevent your weapon from being stolen. If you have not taken every measure that any reasonable person would regard as every measure possible, you have committed an act of negligence.
If a reasonable person can state that the measures you have taken to prevent your weapon from being stolen are every measure you could have possibly taken according to your income and any other contributing factor, you have not committed an act of negligence and are guilty of nothing.


Australian policy is one of the most ass backwards things ive ever seen, and it makes a lot of sense as to why you are posting what you are.
And yet there hasn't been a massacre in sixteen years. Education is highly ranked, our economy is still going strong, gun crime is unheard of, our cities are in the top ten of best cities to live in the world, and many other things.

What's on the news? We're doing our best to keep the economy going, Cyclone Evans is off the coast of Fiji, there was a massacre in Connecticut, and an amateur historian has broken that code he found on a dead pigeon in his chimney.


Funny how the world calls us backwards but we're doing such a great job of living here.

In fact, our most pressing problem is what to do with all the Middle Eastern and Asian people coming over by boat so that they can live here.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:21 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:17 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: spartain ken 15

Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: spartain ken 15
We have a right to arm ourselves in case we need to defend our freedoms from tyranny or an oppressive force.


It's not gonna happen bro.


lol okay

I don't think you understand how it is a last resort and it gives the citizens more power and freedom by having weapons to defend their freedom if the time arises.

I almost want to say something like Homefront comes to mind.


The chance of it happening doesn't make it worth it, this is common sense.

Games are not real life.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:20 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:19 AM PDT

Posted by: spartain ken 15
I almost want to say something like Homefront comes to mind.
Did you really just refer to the plot of a video game to support your argument?

  • 12.17.2012 8:19 AM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: spartain ken 15
Posted by: iRuN KFC
Posted by: Big Black Bear
The only legitimate reason I can see to own a firearm (other than one that is issued to you for your employment) is for hunting.


This.

I'd also like to say I have never seen any compelling arguments against gun control yet I have no doubt that nothing will change in the US with regards gun ownership despite the tragic events in Connecticut.


Here is the thing, that is not reason we have a right to guns in the constitution.

We have a right to arm ourselves in case we need to defend our freedoms from tyranny or an oppressive force.
And no other nation on earth has that need?

Besides... Tell me this: When is the last time the United States faced "tyranny or an oppressive force"?


It is actually for the citizens to defend themselves from their own government if they become too powerful.

Do you wonder why countries like china and North Korea have extremely strict gun laws? You wonder why and ho their military is able to prevent any protests and quickly squash any uprising for people wanting freedom.

  • 12.17.2012 8:20 AM PDT

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"
- Bill Hicks


Posted by: spartain ken 15
We have a right to arm ourselves in case we need to defend our freedoms from tyranny or an oppressive force.


I don't think that antiquated notion still applies to modern life in America TBH.

Lets be honest as well - if the US gov really wanted to set-up a totalitarian state no amount of people bearing guns they bought in S-Mart are going to be able to stop them.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:23 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:21 AM PDT

Why are you calling them assault rifles? Do they physically assault you all on their own? No, it's not the guns fault, it's the person who is holding it. Banning assault weapons serves no purpose, but to make the inoccent people less protected. Do you relaly think if a criminal wants a gun he's going to abide by a law? He's a criminal, he doesn't give a -blam!-. He will just stop buy the black market and pick one up. You act like laws completely stop people from doing bad things. Drugs are illegal, yet thousands of people still have them.

  • 12.17.2012 8:22 AM PDT

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: spartain ken 15
Posted by: iRuN KFC
Posted by: Big Black Bear
The only legitimate reason I can see to own a firearm (other than one that is issued to you for your employment) is for hunting.


This.

I'd also like to say I have never seen any compelling arguments against gun control yet I have no doubt that nothing will change in the US with regards gun ownership despite the tragic events in Connecticut.


Here is the thing, that is not reason we have a right to guns in the constitution.

We have a right to arm ourselves in case we need to defend our freedoms from tyranny or an oppressive force.
And no other nation on earth has that need?

Besides... Tell me this: When is the last time the United States faced "tyranny or an oppressive force"?


It is actually for the citizens to defend themselves from their own government if they become too powerful.

Do you wonder why countries like china and North Korea have extremely strict gun laws? You wonder why and ho their military is able to prevent any protests and quickly squash any uprising for people wanting freedom.
Ahhh... Yes. it's gun control that led to the situations in China and North Korea.

I suppose Canada is next, right? I mean, without guns in the hands of the public, there is absolutely no way to prevent a totalitarian regime in our modern democratic society.

  • 12.17.2012 8:23 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
Allowing certified teachers to concealed carry.
I could agree with this point, but unfortunately, it only solves the situations that happen at schools. While these seem to be the most frequent and surely the most tragic, there are enough other examples of this type of situation for it to remain a problem.
By other situations, you mean spree killings such as the Aurora theatre or that mall? Unfortunately, these were privately-designated gun free zones. Unless a federal law or Supreme Court decision was passed prohibiting people from declaring their property as being gun free zones, that will remain a problem.

  • 12.17.2012 8:23 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: spartain ken 15
It is actually for the citizens to defend themselves from their own government if they become too powerful.

Do you wonder why countries like china and North Korea have extremely strict gun laws? You wonder why and ho their military is able to prevent any protests and quickly squash any uprising for people wanting freedom.
They still have oppressive governments because the people are brainwashed and don't think they're being oppressed.

Learn history.

  • 12.17.2012 8:23 AM PDT

Anyone who thinks the gun laws in the U.S don't need a drastic chnage is a -blam!- idoit. Only bolt action rifles should be available for hunting and even at that you should have to go through an extensive background check and pass multiple tests before you are deemed fit to have one. Sure it's always the same old story in good old America, massacre after massacre and nothing ever gets done. Sure the people commiting these massacres aren't mentally stable, but preventing them from obtaining deadly weapons could prevent these disasters.

  • 12.17.2012 8:24 AM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: iRuN KFC

Posted by: spartain ken 15
We have a right to arm ourselves in case we need to defend our freedoms from tyranny or an oppressive force.


I don't think that antiquated notion still applies to modern life in America TBH.


You really think so? lol

The point of the second amendment is to give the citizens the power (if the need ever arises) to defend their freedom.

  • 12.17.2012 8:25 AM PDT

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
Allowing certified teachers to concealed carry.
I could agree with this point, but unfortunately, it only solves the situations that happen at schools. While these seem to be the most frequent and surely the most tragic, there are enough other examples of this type of situation for it to remain a problem.
By other situations, you mean spree killings such as the Aurora theatre or that mall? Unfortunately, these were privately-designated gun free zones. Unless a federal law or Supreme Court decision was passed prohibiting people from declaring their property as being gun free zones, that will remain a problem.
Or.... If no one had guns to begin with.

  • 12.17.2012 8:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Gaara444
The last "Mass Shooting" was six months before this one. You're over exaggerating. Also, I'd like to point out that not all shootings come from Military Grade Weapons, Virginia Tech was done with Civilian Firearms.

Posted by: Double A
And look where the people with those guns have gotten us, into terror because they're on some crazy rampage killing citizens each day.
The last mass shooting in my country was six years ago. Maybe he isn't over exaggerating.

I agree that access to firearms is only one piece of the problem, but it's part of the problem nonetheless. In Canada, the .223 Bushmaster he used is considered a restricted weapon, requiring an RPAL licence and a membership at an approved shooting range to purchase, limited to 5 round magazines. In Connecticut, the same rifle is considered a long gun requiring no licencing to purchase, and no limit on magazine size.

I'm not saying we don't have crazies up here, but if someone snapped and decided to shoot up a school, the amount of firepower he'd have access to is a hell of a lot lower.

  • 12.17.2012 8:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Posted by: iRuN KFC
Posted by: spartain ken 15
We have a right to arm ourselves in case we need to defend our freedoms from tyranny or an oppressive force.


I don't think that antiquated notion still applies to modern life in America TBH.


You really think so? lol

The point of the second amendment is to give the citizens the power (if the need ever arises) to defend their freedom.
At the cost of the lives of schoolchildren.

  • 12.17.2012 8:26 AM PDT


Posted by: spartain ken 15

Posted by: iRuN KFC

Posted by: spartain ken 15
We have a right to arm ourselves in case we need to defend our freedoms from tyranny or an oppressive force.


I don't think that antiquated notion still applies to modern life in America TBH.


You really think so? lol

The point of the second amendment is to give the citizens the power (if the need ever arises) to defend their freedom.


It's 2013 nearly the 2nd Amendment is retarded and so are you defending it.

  • 12.17.2012 8:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

t3hAvenger77 - XBL (BF3, ME3, Blops)
decla1mer104 - Origin (BF3)
Steam


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: spartain ken 15
It is actually for the citizens to defend themselves from their own government if they become too powerful.

Do you wonder why countries like china and North Korea have extremely strict gun laws? You wonder why and ho their military is able to prevent any protests and quickly squash any uprising for people wanting freedom.
They still have oppressive governments because the people are brainwashed and don't think they're being oppressed.

Learn history.
There are numerous nations with strict gun laws and a lot of them are significantly less oppressive than North Korea and China.

Seriously, why North Korea? Your entire freedoms are restricted there.

  • 12.17.2012 8:27 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Garland
That is literally the worst rebuttal I've ever seen.

First off, very few people are just going to sit around with a gun lying next to them on a table. But let's roll with that. If a criminal is watching you through the window and sees a gun next to you, he's either going to move on to another house, or he's just going to shoot you through the window (I've never heard of any example of the latter). In your example, he breaks the window, climbs inside, and then puts a gun to your head; but you already said you have your gun sitting out next to you. You could just shoot the moron as he's taking the time to break the window and crawl through the opening.

Your. attempt at a rebuttal demonstrates a complete ignorance of basic gun handling, criminal behaviour, and past instances of home defense.
OK, so let's amend the example.

my gun is in my holster strapped to my side.
the burglar doesn't see it and assumes i'm unarmed.
he find another entrance and walks in on me.
i'm startled and reach for my gun but since he has his already out the same thing happens as before.

again, i'd have to have been aware that the burglar was there prior to seeing him in order to have my gun ready.

there is no equal footing for both parties and only the application of force from one onto the other.

but what if i go out for a drink and see him first?
i have my gun ready and he is startled to see me, so, again, there is no equal footing, only the application of force.

the only way it'd work is if everyone was ready to be jumped by someone with a gun all the time which is, like i said impractical.
Examples of successful home defense:

One.

Two

Three.

  • 12.17.2012 8:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: CND AAA Beef
Posted by: Gaara444
The last "Mass Shooting" was six months before this one. You're over exaggerating. Also, I'd like to point out that not all shootings come from Military Grade Weapons, Virginia Tech was done with Civilian Firearms.

Posted by: Double A
And look where the people with those guns have gotten us, into terror because they're on some crazy rampage killing citizens each day.
The last mass shooting in my country was six years ago. Maybe he isn't over exaggerating.

I agree that access to firearms is only one piece of the problem, but it's part of the problem nonetheless. In Canada, the .223 Bushmaster he used is considered a restricted weapon, requiring an RPAL licence and a membership at an approved shooting range to purchase, limited to 5 round magazines. In Connecticut, the same rifle is considered a long gun requiring no licencing to purchase, and no limit on magazine size.

I'm not saying we don't have crazies up here, but if someone snapped and decided to shoot up a school, the amount of firepower he'd have access to is a hell of a lot lower.
According to Spartan Ken 15 the firepower of a weapon is irrelevant because a knife is just as, if not more, deadly.

  • 12.17.2012 8:28 AM PDT

Posted by: CND AAA Beef
I'm not saying we don't have crazies up here, but if someone snapped and decided to shoot up a school, the amount of firepower he'd have access to is a hell of a lot lower.
I'd like to quote this point, because it does a great job of summing up my own viewpoint as well.

  • 12.17.2012 8:28 AM PDT

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"
- Bill Hicks


Posted by: spartain ken 15
You really think so? lol

The point of the second amendment is to give the citizens the power (if the need ever arises) to defend their freedom.


Yes but read the other bit of my post:

Lets be honest as well - if the US gov really wanted to set-up a totalitarian state no amount of people bearing guns they bought in S-Mart are going to be able to stop them.

When the gov is coming at you with predator drones and armoured humvees I'm sure that the guns you carry will be a great help...


[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:30 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:29 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.


Posted by: TJ DRAGO145
Why are you calling them assault rifles? Do they physically assault you all on their own? No, it's not the guns fault, it's the person who is holding it. Banning assault weapons serves no purpose, but to make the inoccent people less protected. Do you relaly think if a criminal wants a gun he's going to abide by a law? He's a criminal, he doesn't give a -blam!-. He will just stop buy the black market and pick one up. You act like laws completely stop people from doing bad things. Drugs are illegal, yet thousands of people still have them.
anyone who pretends restricting guns will stop smart people getting them is an idiot.
if someone is in a deep depression over one thing or another and suddenly snaps, he'll pick up whatever weapon he finds first and kill some people with it.

if he doesn't have a gun, he can't shoot people.
guns kill more effectively than any other weapon and by restricting him from getting them you are also restricting the amount of harm he can do.
that is a good thing.

  • 12.17.2012 8:29 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

t3hAvenger77 - XBL (BF3, ME3, Blops)
decla1mer104 - Origin (BF3)
Steam

Need me to bring this up?

If he did not possess those weapons, he wouldn't have killed that many people. The L1A1 SLR (or FN FAL) is as military grade as it can get.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:31 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:30 AM PDT