5 ms·

Every time I see this argument come up people always try to frame it like it will be ‘nutters’ shooting ‘some’ people. You are very wrong, and that is the attit

Every time I see this argument come up people always try to frame it like it will be ‘nutters’ shooting ‘some’ people. You are very wrong, and that is the attitude that will get a lot of innocent people killed. This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
You don't think trying to murder policemen because your country enacted gun controls to protect schoolchildren would be "nutters trying to shoot people"? "Oh but I need this 1000 round per minute gun for pest control in my apartment! I'll murder people to protect my right to have it."??
- purple-again 9y ago
  Why do you think I will be shooting policemen? That’s hilarious buddy, my best friend was an officer before becoming a fed and two of my uncles are officers. All three will be shooting the same direction as me and the rest of our families. Thank you for helping me to underline for you how little you understand the situation.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Did you read the start of the thread that I was responding to. The whole thread is reference to the parent saying people would rise up in armed revolt if the law was changed to tighten gun controls. Assuming the national guard weren't sent in then as I understand it regular police would be charged with arresting those who refused to follow the legislation. To me the meaning of that is clear - if the law is changed people will shoot (at) those who oppose them. In this hypothetical case that would be police attempting to arrest them for unlawfully keeping controlled firearms. You appear to be saying if tighter gun controls were enacted your family members who are policemen would leave their jobs in order to shoot anyone attempting to confiscate their controlled weapons? Do you think that's a reasonable position? Kill your own countrymen now in order to protect your right to more efficiently kill others in some intangible imaginary future scenario?
    - cgiles 9y ago
      I think the implication was that a very large fraction of police/national guard/US armed forces would at least refuse to enforce such a law, if not join the rebellion itself. Indeed, I've never met a more adamant group of 2nd amendment supporters than my military friends. But should such a dire scenario occur, I have always wondered how these small arms would fare against UAVs. The trouble is that we have precedent in this country that in a large-scale rebellion, it is taken out of law enforcement's hands and put into the military's hands.
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        >a very large fraction of police/national guard/US armed forces would at least refuse to enforce such a law // Anything to support this? It's very sad to imagine that not being allowed automatic weapons at home, say, would turn LEOs in to outlaws. Do they perceive an actual threat? Do they not care about all the school massacres? Are this large proportion of armed personnel in rebellion against the bump stock rulings that I understand were enacted recently?
        graedus 9y ago
        The original context of this thread (starting with user yequalsx's comment) isn't about "tighter gun controls", but rather the a complete ban of all guns ("I hope I am now seeing the beginning of the end of acceptance of gun ownership.") I think that is the scenario -- actual confiscation of all guns -- user purple-again was addressing ("This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed"). This is different from outlawing or more tightly controlling certain classes of weapons, which seems to be what you're talking about. I think not being able to easily purchase fully automatic weapons or crazier stuff like rocket propelled grenades, stingers, 20mm cannons, etc is something a minority of gun enthusiasts grumble about but pretty much everyone basically accepts. Nobody that I know of is revolting about that, cops/feds have no problem enforcing it, etc.
        pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  - Frondo 9y ago
    It isn't clear who you're threatening to shoot. All you've said is "There is an organized group of citizens ready to carry out extrajudicial killings if gun laws change." To the rest of us, that sounds like the violence threatened by a terrorist group--and maybe you shoot policemen, maybe you shoot your neighbors, I dunno, I'm not the one talking about keeping my guns around to be able to shoot my fellow citizens.
    - CompanionCuuube 9y ago
      No, you pawn it off on the police and military to do the dirty work for you.
- maltwhiskey 9y ago
  I'm not sure where you got 1000 rounds per minute from, even a fully automatic rifle generally cannot fire that quickly (it would probably need to be belt-fed or you would be changing magazines more than thirty times per minute). A semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 is unlikely to surpass 100 rounds per minute.
  - jclulow 9y ago
    Oh, well that sounds _much_ safer and more reasonable then.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    The 1000 rounds per minute was intended to show that the post was knowingly exaggerated, however in part it was inspired by a "girl fires minigun" post I saw on Reddit. I can't truly recall but I think it was an M134 and that it did maybe 3000 rounds per minute.
pjc50 9y ago
> well organized people who will kill before being disarmed. The collective noun for people who will kill rather than obey the law is "terrorists". One of the conditions for peace in Northern Ireland was that political groups had to disarm in order to enter politics, because you can't do politics with people who are threatening to murder you. That's not a democracy.
- latencyloser 9y ago
  One of the founding principles of the US was the right of its citizenry to protect itself from the overreach of the government, which was enabled partly through the right for citizens to own firearms and other weapons. They're a means of self defense, but more importantly as a way to keep the gov in check. No government can control millions of armed citizens--which is exactly the point. Killing in response to being disarmed is probably one of the most "American" things its citizens could do.
  - domevent 9y ago
    Where in the wording of the 2nd amendment does that exist?
- a_tractor 9y ago
  >The collective noun for people who will kill rather than obey the law is "terrorists". No. It isn't. Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. You understanding seems to have the subject inverted. It is unlawful for the US government to infringe on the rights of its citizens outlined in the constitution. Such an act by the government would immediately invalidate its authority and any attempt to assert that illegitimate authority would be immediately considered an act of war against the American people. So, from that point on any action taken against the illegitimate government by the American people would in fact be in pursuit of restoring the law. >One of the conditions for peace in Northern Ireland was that political groups had to disarm in order to enter politics, because you can't do politics with people who are threatening to murder you. That's not a democracy. Right, that was surrender. In America, the authority of the law is derived from the people, not the other way around. It is not just a democracy, it is a well defended one.
ashooner 9y ago
It would be nice if all these gun owners were interested in defending rights other than owning guns.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  Gun ownership is a right in the US.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

You don't think trying to murder policemen because your country enacted gun controls to protect schoolchildren would be "nutters trying to shoot people"? "Oh but I need this 1000 round per minute gun for pest control in my apartment! I'll murder people to protect my right to have it."??

purple-again 9y ago
Why do you think I will be shooting policemen? That’s hilarious buddy, my best friend was an officer before becoming a fed and two of my uncles are officers. All three will be shooting the same direction as me and the rest of our families. Thank you for helping me to underline for you how little you understand the situation.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Did you read the start of the thread that I was responding to. The whole thread is reference to the parent saying people would rise up in armed revolt if the law was changed to tighten gun controls. Assuming the national guard weren't sent in then as I understand it regular police would be charged with arresting those who refused to follow the legislation. To me the meaning of that is clear - if the law is changed people will shoot (at) those who oppose them. In this hypothetical case that would be police attempting to arrest them for unlawfully keeping controlled firearms. You appear to be saying if tighter gun controls were enacted your family members who are policemen would leave their jobs in order to shoot anyone attempting to confiscate their controlled weapons? Do you think that's a reasonable position? Kill your own countrymen now in order to protect your right to more efficiently kill others in some intangible imaginary future scenario?
  - cgiles 9y ago
    I think the implication was that a very large fraction of police/national guard/US armed forces would at least refuse to enforce such a law, if not join the rebellion itself. Indeed, I've never met a more adamant group of 2nd amendment supporters than my military friends. But should such a dire scenario occur, I have always wondered how these small arms would fare against UAVs. The trouble is that we have precedent in this country that in a large-scale rebellion, it is taken out of law enforcement's hands and put into the military's hands.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      >a very large fraction of police/national guard/US armed forces would at least refuse to enforce such a law // Anything to support this? It's very sad to imagine that not being allowed automatic weapons at home, say, would turn LEOs in to outlaws. Do they perceive an actual threat? Do they not care about all the school massacres? Are this large proportion of armed personnel in rebellion against the bump stock rulings that I understand were enacted recently?
      - graedus 9y ago
        The original context of this thread (starting with user yequalsx's comment) isn't about "tighter gun controls", but rather the a complete ban of all guns ("I hope I am now seeing the beginning of the end of acceptance of gun ownership.") I think that is the scenario -- actual confiscation of all guns -- user purple-again was addressing ("This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed"). This is different from outlawing or more tightly controlling certain classes of weapons, which seems to be what you're talking about. I think not being able to easily purchase fully automatic weapons or crazier stuff like rocket propelled grenades, stingers, 20mm cannons, etc is something a minority of gun enthusiasts grumble about but pretty much everyone basically accepts. Nobody that I know of is revolting about that, cops/feds have no problem enforcing it, etc.
        pbhjpbhj 9y ago
- Frondo 9y ago
  It isn't clear who you're threatening to shoot. All you've said is "There is an organized group of citizens ready to carry out extrajudicial killings if gun laws change." To the rest of us, that sounds like the violence threatened by a terrorist group--and maybe you shoot policemen, maybe you shoot your neighbors, I dunno, I'm not the one talking about keeping my guns around to be able to shoot my fellow citizens.
  - CompanionCuuube 9y ago
    No, you pawn it off on the police and military to do the dirty work for you.
maltwhiskey 9y ago
I'm not sure where you got 1000 rounds per minute from, even a fully automatic rifle generally cannot fire that quickly (it would probably need to be belt-fed or you would be changing magazines more than thirty times per minute). A semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 is unlikely to surpass 100 rounds per minute.
- jclulow 9y ago
  Oh, well that sounds _much_ safer and more reasonable then.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  The 1000 rounds per minute was intended to show that the post was knowingly exaggerated, however in part it was inspired by a "girl fires minigun" post I saw on Reddit. I can't truly recall but I think it was an M134 and that it did maybe 3000 rounds per minute.

pjc50 9y ago

> well organized people who will kill before being disarmed. The collective noun for people who will kill rather than obey the law is "terrorists". One of the conditions for peace in Northern Ireland was that political groups had to disarm in order to enter politics, because you can't do politics with people who are threatening to murder you. That's not a democracy.

latencyloser 9y ago
One of the founding principles of the US was the right of its citizenry to protect itself from the overreach of the government, which was enabled partly through the right for citizens to own firearms and other weapons. They're a means of self defense, but more importantly as a way to keep the gov in check. No government can control millions of armed citizens--which is exactly the point. Killing in response to being disarmed is probably one of the most "American" things its citizens could do.
- domevent 9y ago
  Where in the wording of the 2nd amendment does that exist?
a_tractor 9y ago
>The collective noun for people who will kill rather than obey the law is "terrorists". No. It isn't. Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. You understanding seems to have the subject inverted. It is unlawful for the US government to infringe on the rights of its citizens outlined in the constitution. Such an act by the government would immediately invalidate its authority and any attempt to assert that illegitimate authority would be immediately considered an act of war against the American people. So, from that point on any action taken against the illegitimate government by the American people would in fact be in pursuit of restoring the law. >One of the conditions for peace in Northern Ireland was that political groups had to disarm in order to enter politics, because you can't do politics with people who are threatening to murder you. That's not a democracy. Right, that was surrender. In America, the authority of the law is derived from the people, not the other way around. It is not just a democracy, it is a well defended one.

ashooner 9y ago

It would be nice if all these gun owners were interested in defending rights other than owning guns.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
Gun ownership is a right in the US.