Ok, then for the sake of this thought experiment, the weapon causes no side effects, and optionally kills either 1 person or everyone within a 5 mile radius, but I never use it on innocent people. Should I be allowed to own it?
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Someone pls explain why Democrats don't want ICE contacted if illegal aliens attempt to buy guns
- Thread starter Hanafuda
- Start date
- Views 19,358
- Replies 286
- Likes 4
That is your opinion and I disagree with it.
Just because you say that doesn't mean it holds any merit.
What are you arguing? That guns would help you topple a world super power in the 21st century?
If it never happened, you'd have a point. If the mainstream outlets simply aren't reporting it because it's problematic for Democrats, that's a whole other discussion.
So, are you saying it didn't happen?
I answered this on the last page.
Last edited by Hanafuda,
You're arguing that it would be possible to topple the US government with the guns available to citizens. At least that's what I assume you were claiming. That statement isn't a matter of opinion, it's just factually objectively wrong. No citizens militia (regardless of the size and amount of rifles and shotguns) would stand a chance in a hypothetical revolt against the US government.
Last edited by granville,
I'm done with this. I said what I had to say and I am speaking for guns only.
It is your opinion that it wouldn't be possible. Stop. I have my freedom to use my gun to protect myself and if I had to face a tyrannical government knowing the odds are against me I would do it.
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2017
- Messages
- 1,469
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 32
- Location
- USA
- Website
- steamcommunity.com
- XP
- 3,887
- Country
So what you are saying. There is no point in trying because they would win? You do know that having arm citizens( and a lot of them) would give the government pause for such a thing? Like I'm not sure how you don't see this.
You're done because you have no retort and are afraid of having the logical fallacies of your beliefs pointed out. It's okay, feel free to mull it over for a bit. Personally, I don't believe anybody should own deadly devices with such violent capabilities as a gun, it is too easy to kill too many people when there are better, less lethal weapons for defense. If people are allowed to own something so violent and lethal as a weapon, they should then be allowed to own something like the theoretical weapon I described, since, as you said, it would only be used for defense, not on innocents, and is a person's right to defend themself.
Last edited by IncredulousP,
If you can get the members of the military to wage war on their own families, you're probably right ... civilians have no chance at an armed rebellion. I don't think the military stays on the government's side in that event though. Not for now, but in the future maybe that becomes moot. AI and robot vehicles/soldiers are another matter.
I don't think it's a realistic scenario anyway, i.e. total war. Armed resistance in the event of unacceptable changes is more likely, providing a popular catalyst for a coup type takeover, not a 'toppling' of the government. The people who dream of this shit are bigger problems than 99% of the people in the US who own firearms though. Regardless of whether it's Stormfront Neo-Nazi loonies or ANTIFA loonies, they're loonies. Their fantasies reveal their mental problems.
I'm done talking about it because I don't know enough about a non existing nuclear weapon to say if you should have it or not.
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2017
- Messages
- 1,469
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 32
- Location
- USA
- Website
- steamcommunity.com
- XP
- 3,887
- Country
I can attempt to answer this. So if I understand this right. This weapon can kill 1 or a bunch of people within a 5-mile radius at once? Then no you can't own it. After all how the hell can you insure that everyone within that 5-mile radius is guilty of whatever crime is fit for death?
Again I think that is the weapon you are talking about.
Again, I answered this on the last page. The 2nd Amendment covers the weapons and equipment of the typical soldier in the field in time of war. Why? Because the US Supreme Court said so, and so far hasn't reversed itself. So unless the US Army starts issuing every soldier your imaginary micro-nuke, this is a moot point.
what do you mean by adjudicated? as by the courts or by a medical professional cause what if by any chance the mentally ill person pissed off a alt right to the point the alt right person made a death threat? i'm not saying that happened to me (yet) but i know people if convicted enough to commit murder (look at some of these jewish,muslim (even middle eastern despite not being muslim at all) getting assaulted even killed here in the US I'm on edge sometimes about some nutcase trying to kill me
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,758
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,596
- Country
I'm all for greater scrutiny for anyone buying a gun in Florida, TBH. The irony here of Republicans pushing for stricter gun laws is palpable, but I guess we always knew the NRA doesn't care about your gun rights unless you're white.
Not my choice of words, that's what it says in US Code where it defines who is prohibited from purchasing and/or possessing firearms & ammo.
This was US House of Reps, not FL state legislature. It’s on a FL-based site because the (R) rep who introduced the amendment is from FL.
One thing I will agree with Lacius about ... this was an intentional poison pill. But it was poisonous to the Democrats. They want universal background checks, but specifically voted against law enforcement doing anything about it when a prohibited person tries to buy a gun. It's counter to common sense, but I do think the Republicans who proposed the amendment knew the Democrats would reject it.
The actual language of the amendment comes from another Democrat gun control bill btw, which the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee all claim to support lol. So they like the idea, so long as a Democrat is sponsoring it I guess.
Last edited by Hanafuda,
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2019
- Messages
- 342
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 36
- Location
- You have to die before you can wake.
- XP
- 499
- Country
what the hell kind of comparison is that?
i understand your logic, or the idea you was trying to express,
but having a mobile or semi mobile nuclear device that can kill 1000s or 100k of people at once, in the hands of "civilians" is in no way on the same level as having a gun. even one with 30 round mags.
if the argument is that we don't need ar-15s or ak-47s, only hunting rifles or handguns,
that defeats the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment:
the reason we have guns is to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government.
the government has tanks, full auto machine guns (not semi-auto like we have)
rockets, nukes, and 100k-1mill plus of brainwashed "soldiers" to jump by their command.
and what do we have? some toy weapons? semi auto 20-30-45? rounds?
woooooow. much defense, much victory over bad government.
we are already at a severe disadvantage, only our numbers can take them down at this point.
these random shootings that happen oh so conveniently spaced together, then broadcasted for a week or two on the news, followed by candle lit ceromony, followed by crying people, followed by.... really cant be helped or stopped. ban or no ban.
**straightens tin-foil hat after it almost fell**
there are about what 3 guns to every american? i know its probably 1:1,
there are 331 million people in the United states alone.
not counting undocumented persons, no matter what race.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,758
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,596
- Country
And you think full autos are going to do anything against tanks and drones? The whole purpose of the second amendment was defeated the moment we elected an authoritarian with the support and blessing of gun nuts.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,758
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,596
- Country
This is all over the place, I'm not even sure how to respond. My point was that we now have an authoritarian as president, and an oppressive government. The exact situation that the second amendment was meant to prevent. Not a single gun nut has the strength of their convictions, however, and as a result, there was never any chance of another revolution happening.
I'm very much aware of how the electoral college works, but your 'doom and gloom' philosophy fails to account for the fact that there's a push through state legislatures right now to end the electoral college. Also it's only recently that the EC has resulted in presidents that the majority didn't vote for.
