All of this. I suspect it'll only take a few months for all the neckbeards to get OC out of their system. I feel bad for all the 911 operators in TX during the first week of 2016....

 

why?

it should go like this:

911: 9-11 what's your emergancy?

caller: there's a guy in TX with a gun on the outside of the pants instead of the inside.

911: is he brandishing it?

caller: no he's peacefully minding his own business.

911: please call us after a crime has been commited so we can show up and shoot a dog later or attack some girls in bikinis.

 

This part is huge, bears repeating, and extends to the 911 call you make. The more media that you provide (911 call, video footage, transcript of your statement to police), the more likely that the story will get sensationalized, or that you will get portrayed as a trigger happy nutjob.

After a shooting, the police are there in an investigative capacity. They are not your friend, they are not your advocate. Be respectful, say as little as possible, get your lawyer ASAP.

 

You're right, it should go like that. But instead it will be:
"OMGWTFBBQ, there's a man in the mall with a gun!!! I have my child and he's walking around with a GUN! GUNGUNGGUNGUNGUNGNGUNGUNGUNGUGNUGNGUN!"

*cue SWAT team*

 

Bunch of cowboys, relying on the false sense of security that showing your dick, err, gun I mean, in public brings piece of mind to all of those in close proximity. It's laughable, frankly. When you glorify something so adamantly, you covet it; you lose the ability to think objectively about that very object or right, and that's dangerous for the collective world; you know, the world we all live in.

So the obvious argument here is that by showing you're armed, people feel safer. Well, guess what? YOU feel safer, not others. At this point in time, post Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Oikos, UC, Northern Illinois, etc, I highly ******* doubt that people feel safer when they see a gun on campus. Again, take a second to not be a selfish dummy, and realize that you feeling safer because STRAPPED, is wayyy different than other people feeling safe. It's a magnificent example of how sometimes collectivism needs to be considered over individualism. By all means, go home and pretend to be Yosemite Sam in your own home, but don't assume that everyone is on your level.

Here's who supports this nonsense with reckless abandon:

The same people who-

1) Foam at the mouth when they feel the 2nd Ammendment is being threatened, when in reality, a ******* 250 year old document doesn't quite apply as literally as it once did, now does it?

2) Think Big Brother is going to come to their homes, and seize their legally purchased firearms.

3) Feel that so long as they have 30 round mags and assault style rifles, that they can protect themselves from the "tyranny" of the Govt; A Govt who is equipped with so many advanced weapons, that it could wipe you out before you even knew they were coming. But yeah, your pea shooter will stop 'em dead...

4) Don't recognize the seemingly obvious fact that they themselves no longer comprise a "well regulated Militia", which is EXACTLY what the National Guard is today in 2015.

All of this from a gun owner, living in a generally anti-gun state. I own and shoot, but find the unapologetic obtusity of those involved in the pro-everything gun related debate, hilarious and scary all at once.

 

This argument is bad and you should feel bad.

 

Nobody is talking about open carry on campus. The law is concealed carry only.

 

#2....Right, cause gun confiscations have never happened in our history.
/sarcasm

 

The argument in general is fairly ridiculous, yet, what I said is one of the most commonly used justifications for those who are outwardly against things like the Safe Act: FIGHT'N TYRANNY.


Well, then that's far more reasonable, haha. So long as crazy ******** don't keep legally buying guns, solely because they lack a criminal record yet have manage to fly under the radar in regards to their psychological issues. Though, that's a health care issue for a different thread

 

Stay the **** in your blue state and enjoy your liberal paradise.

 

I don't take orders from the NWO.

I wanted to respond to this, but you're foaming from the mouth and it's hard to look at.

Katrina.




sounds like we need bigger guns.


You really need to stop foaming at the mouth when the most important document in Human history doesn't quite apply as literally as it once did.


All of this from a non-gun owner, living in a generally pro-gun state.

 

Have they happened on a mass scale? A scale that warrants such fear? Let me help: No, they haven't.

Sure, you could pick your favorite Libertarian or NRA sponsered"news" site, and piece together something that on the surface looks vaguely like unjustified gun confiscation.

 

And gun rights can totally be summed up by an illustration about sharing cake. Great job, much win.

I'm sorry you've been such a victim.

 

No, I'm saying your argument is bad.

If we're going to entertain the idea of a violent conflict between the US Government and the general population, then we should look at analogous conflicts around the world and in history.

And what do we find? Unless the military leaders are absolutely 100% committed to victory no matter the cost, including inflicting massive and wholesale carnage on the civilian population, then a determined civilian population with light arms can be a much bigger problem than expected. Even in rebellions and insurgencies where the military is willing to wipe out civilians, the battle is much tougher than expected. In the US, where you'd likely have a whole lot of soldiers who may question their orders to attack the general population?

The civilian side doesn't have to seek a traditional military victory, it only has to make itself enough of a nuisance to convince the military/government leaders that a more peaceable solution should be pursued.

 

Your white guilt isn't helping you.

 

Oh, absolutely. It's TOTALLY reasonable to think that you owning one, three, or five assault rifles allows you to defend yourself against arguably the most powerful military in the world.

A nuisance is exactly what you'd be, and dealt with as such.

More important than any of your points (some admittedly valid) is the fearfulness that this hypothetical disarmament is nearing, and it's threat warrants the actions and attitudes I touched on earlier. Let's be honest, it's about being "Pro-Me". There's an inherent air of selfishness to this side of the debate, and selfishness in a society where cooperation is paramount does nothing positive. That's where we're at.

This debate and this debate alone is the absolute worst in terms of each side delivering only cherry picked and self-serving, and generally anecdotal points. People search for only what already suits them, and again, there needs to be some objectivity here.

 

1775.....Massachusetts governor ordered the confiscation of firearms in an attempt to thwart a rebellion.

1861....pres Lincoln ordered federal troops to confiscate firearms from civilians (called the confiscation act).

1890... at the height of the American indian relocation, the Lakota people were disarmed. One of those decided he would not disarm. He was deaf. Anyways, most of the tribe were massacred so no big deal. Should have chosen their ethnicity better.

1941.....pres Roosevelt ordered the mass confiscation of firearms from Americans with a particular ethnicity. No big deal as they eventually put the same thousands in concentration camps. Its all good though, it was deemed a "perceived threat."

 

Holy **** you're a dumbass. It's not me with 5 rifles, it's several hundred thousand men with rifles who will fight rather than hand them over, and a government that gets to decide if it's really willing to engage in all out war with a homegrown insurgency.


EDIT: Just to be clear, that's directed at Aram.

 

Oh ****, I didn't see your post count. You're probably right.

 

That's a legitimate concern. Unfortunately, the ACLU fought hard and won to keep mental health care providers from referring dangerous individuals to NICS.

It's hard to say if it would have prevented any mass shootings, and it may have led to abuse by anti-gun physicians, but it's now basically a moot point.