Google+

142 comments

  • XD00175 - January 11, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    I just can't stand that the NRA, finally having realized that it will be targeted when shootings happen, tries to cover its ass by blaming games. What's even worse is that idiots actually listen to these people. I'm America, I appreciate rights and I know that the Constitution allows the right to bear arms and whatnot, but I can't see any justification for automatic weapons being purchasable by the general public. You don't hunt with those, and that's literally overkill when it comes to self defense. Oh, and does anyone actually understand what Alex Jones was trying to say? I'm still a bit confused on that.
  • ventanger - January 11, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    You do seem confused, as you can't seem to understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
  • BawlzxOfxGlory - January 11, 2013 5:08 p.m.

    Agree with Ventanger, and as someone who lives out in the country where these types of weapons are commonly owned by just about everyone, my brother and sister both got new ARs in fact, his being Smith & Wesson, and hers Bushmaster, we love our guns. For self defense, handguns are really inaccurate, as well as shotguns, it really isn't overkill, especially out here. Yeah, we don't hunt with them. But, a big reason is that they're fun as hell. My friends and family will have gun parties all the time. People bring their shotguns, handguns, old WW2 rifles, lever actions, ARs, revolvers, whatever they got, and we all have a blast shooting them. Just good fun. Nothing bad about that is there? So why should we have to give that up for some whacko who stole, keyword stole, the guns from his mother who he murdered. Also, I know I will probably get flak for this as a bullshit excuse but, if by chance America was invaded, with our general public armed like this, that country would have a hell of a time fighting civilians with more gun training and weapons than most their military. Well, that's my opinion, so take it or leave it.
  • kyle94 - January 11, 2013 7:12 p.m.

    We spend more money on defense than most of the rest of the world combined. No offense, but if a country invaded us, they'll have a hell of a time with our military alone that an armed civilian population will not make a difference. (Not to mention, who would want to invade us anyway? The biggest military threats to us are economically linked to us, and a war/invasion would be devastating to the world economy. Yay for global economics accidentally causing peace.)
  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    The issue here is a guard against totalitarianism, not some kind of a last line of defense (although the Imperial Japanese autocracy was well aware of the danger of committing troops to a nation with so many gun owners). In other words, the 2nd Amendment guarantees we will have the means to protect ourselves if the United States turns into a dictatorship. This was its original purpose. The usual response to this is "the military would crush you." Yes, if armed civilians would be forced into an even fight with our military, we would lose. But this ignores historical precedent and complicating factors such as: 1) evidence that fascist governments know the power of armed civilians with guns (Japan's thoughts on the US, Hitler's gun grabbing from the Jews) 2) the thoughts of the law enforcement and military elite on the matter (not only will the military splinter if ordered to disavow the Constitution, but the possibility of successful resistance is endorsed by many of the elite in our military) 3) historical success of, essentially, armed civilian insurgencies (mobilization of Afghans against the Soviets, FARC and other South American groups, our current fight against mujahedeen in Afghanistan)
  • kyle94 - January 12, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    The Imperial Japanese government was more worried about America's industrial strength. Several Japanese generals were afraid that the only way that America would surrender was to invade the mainland, and realized that the civilian population would make it very difficult, but the main strategy of the Japanese was a quick offensive to capture the Pacific, and then to fight on the defensive and bleed the Americans until they lost the will to continue the war, and allow the Japanese to keep the islands and influence they captured. Even without the armed populace, Japan was in no position to successfully invade the United States. I can understand the argument to protect against tyranny, and that is a good thing (other than when crazy people start thinking it's already a tyranny). However, the US is not in a position where a dictatorship is going to spring up overnight. The international community wouldn't allow it, and dictatorships aren't born overnight. Let's take Germany. Germany had lost a World War, had factories in the Rhineland occupied by foreign troops, lost a fair amount of territory and population, was dealing with street-fighting between different ideologies, had hyperinflation (in 1919, 1 US dollar = 47 German Marks. By the end of 1923, 1 US dollar = 4,200,000,000,000 German Marks), and Germany was being told that its warmongering was the cause of all of this. That's how a dictatorship in a modern, industrialized nation is born. The US is far from that. The fact that many members of the military and law enforcement would disobey orders can also serve as an argument that a well-equipped civilian populace isn't as necessary. And, finally, some of the most successful guerrilla wars (including several you mentioned) were an insurgency fighting against foreigners, who felt no connection to the land they were in, and who didn't know the territory as well as the locals. If a dictatorship and civil war arises, many people would be more familiar with the local surroundings than the military, but not to the same extent as Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. And the soldiers and police officers would be fighting for their country as well.
  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 9:43 p.m.

    1) Of course Japan feared our conventional military more than our civilian population. Who wouldn't? Keep in mind there's a reason the Japanese limited their attacks on the mainland to firestarter balloons. Keep in mind there's also a damned good reason why an invasion of mainland Japan was projected to be the bloodiest campaign of the entire war. Hint: armed civilians. 2) No one said a dictatorship was going to rise overnight. I wonder how you can look so far in the future so as to perceive we will be safe for the next 50 years. Did the people of France suspect the French revolution 50, or even 25 years before it happened? 3) Let's keep in mind both the Vietnam and Afghan wars were/are also fought with a force of enlisted indigenous on our side. 4) Really, so if the military splits, we're just going to count on the bigger chunk being the ones who value defending the Constiution against enemies domestic. Sure, it may turn out that way, but is that a bet you really want to take? Come on.
  • GoldenEagle1476 - January 11, 2013 7:29 p.m.

    The problem is, the basic purpose of a gun is to kill. That's what they were invented for, that's what they're used for. I know you mentioned that you like to use them for fun. That's not what everybody uses them for, though. And while guns aren't actually the reason for violence, they make it much easier for it to happen. Imagine if the Sandy Hook shooter had only used a pistol instead of an assault rifle or semi or whatever. While people still would have been killed, the death toll would have been much, much lower. I also don't think we'll have to worry too much on being invaded, considering how big our military is. I'm not saying ban all guns, I realize that hunting is a basic skill needed to survive. But there really is no reason, in this society, to have an assault rifle or semi auto. I'm sorry that this may spoil your gun parties, but it would make a lot of people feel safer, and would very likely cut down on these shootings.
  • Meleedragon27 - January 11, 2013 8:44 p.m.

    But would the death rate really be lower? The guy who committed the Virginia Tech shooting several years ago had only two small calibur handguns and he managed to kill significantly more people than Mr. Lanza. And just because banning such weapons would make people feel safer doesn't mean people actually would be safer; most gun-related crimes aren't even committed with rifles of any kind, much less military-style ones like the AR15. Banning such guns wouldn't stop crime (or even gun crime), and as Columbine proved, they wouldn't stop these massacres either.
  • ParagonT - January 12, 2013 9:23 p.m.

    Just because a gun's basic purposes are to defend, wound, or "Kill" doesn't mean that it's reason for existing can be a point for its downfall. Cars are not made to kill, but kills more people for example (not counting war again). You can't justify why they shouldn't be available just because of that. Just because a road is paved with good intentions doesn't mean it's better than a road paved with intentions that you may not agree with. That's confusing the real issue with people projecting their emotions. Besides, people are not trying to consider why these nobodies do what they do fundamentally (as I said in another post). They just want to blame something and run on their emotions on an issue that needs little thought. I'm perfectly open to tighter regulations, but that doesn't mean anything until they are proposed. The only problem is that most anti-gun fanatics will back pretty much any legislation on regulations, no matter the details and the subject regardless. Not to say that pro-gun individuals are not stubborn as well, but its much easier to chip away at your rights and freedoms than it is to get them back, and that's not okay with me. People want to "feel" safer, that doesn't relate to how things will be. See where I'm going? "Feeling" safer is different than actually being safer, which we can never know until it happens right? But then what if we're wrong? That's the problem, there is no "easy way to get your rights back" so I think we must do what we can until there are no options left before we start down this road.
  • ParagonT - January 11, 2013 5:12 p.m.

    I think it's less of justification and more about having your rights stripped away one by one. The next step is only to ban semi-auto's as well. We as humans don't really need automotives as well, and I'm quite sure car crashes kill more people than guns, of course not counting on war. All weapons have at least the use of defense, just as automotives have other uses as well, but if we can forsake a guns reason for the sake of "safety", then we can deal without a multitude of other things to that end as well. Where is the line drawn? We can play 'ban the tool of killing' all day, but to be frank, we will eventually run out of things to ban. I doubt these psycho's go into these establishments thinking "I have to kill and harm this many or it will be for naught.". Because this isn't a matter of numbers we could have prevented, no one can judge the worth of life by simple numbers. So if the Sandy guy had a semi-auto gun on him, it would have been just as tragic and still doesn't solve why these nobodies do what they do. Just to repeat, banning automatic guns does not solve the problem, it ignores it. If you ban all guns, you still ignore the problem and make the vast majority of those who use guns legally suffer. As a side note, when a person is coming after me or my family and friends with any weapon and shows act of killing intent, there is no "over-kill", they will get the whole clip in them. When we decide as a society to screw ourselves by giving up our own rights, then we have doomed this nation. Once you lose them, it's not a simple matter of "getting them back", so be sure before you pull the trigger.
  • ParagonT - January 11, 2013 5:20 p.m.

    Rewrite: "So if the Sandy guy had an auto gun on him..."
  • The_Tingler - January 12, 2013 2:27 a.m.

    Once again for the hard of hearing/reading: Cars are designed to get people from A to B as a mode of transport. Guns are designed to kill. A car crash is an accident. No one intentionally gets into a car crash where death is assured. Someone firing a gun at someone, the only purpose is to kill that person. Stop trying to claim that guns are tools. The Sandy Hook guy was mentally ill and had access to guns that were not needed for any other purpose than to have them, and only possible use would be to kill people. This is not a black-and-white situation. You will still get your guns, you will be able to defend your home, no one is asking to ban all guns. Just tighter regulations so that the mentally ill can't have access to far-too-deadly weapons. Stop being so defensive.
  • IronYoshi - January 12, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    Oh, so the intent of the device really matters after someone has been killed. Is that so? I'm sure the victims of Eric Red's rampage will be heartened to hear that (he killed several with his Jeep). They're still dead, of course, so it matters not, but perhaps their families will be comforted by your childish attempt at moral distinction. To drive home the point, whether one dies by small perforations or massive blunt trauma is of little consequence next to the simple fact they are dead. Speaking of weapons and the mentally ill, did you know that local law enforcement in the wake of the Giffords shooting realized that Loughner could have done even more damage had he simply drove an SUV into the crowd? Oh, but the intent matters so much. So very much.
  • ventanger - January 12, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    Except guns aren't just designed to kill, they're designed to protect, just ask any cop. Your premises are simply false, and I'd suggest that you learn more about the issue.
  • GoldenEagle1476 - January 12, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    They're designed to protect by killing people...
  • ParagonT - January 12, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    Or wound, or be used as intimidation. Bullets are not prejudice against race, height, gender, mass, and numbers. Guns prevents a group of people from walking into your residence and beating you and your family up by leveling the playing field.
  • ParagonT - January 12, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    You should really re-read my comment. When you do that, I'll personally show you your errors. Example: You: "Once again for the hard of hearing/reading: Cars are designed to get people from A to B as a mode of transport. " Me: "Just as automotives have other uses as well." You don't listen.
  • GoldenEagle1476 - January 12, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    Cars were not invented to kill. Guns were.
  • ParagonT - January 12, 2013 9:33 p.m.

    See other post.

Showing 101-120 of 142 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.