8 ms·

> Another man allegedly showed up in the nation's capital with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and told acquaintances that he wanted to sh

> Another man allegedly showed up in the nation's capital with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and told acquaintances that he wanted to shoot or run over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, prosecutors said. Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation...

pjc50 6y ago
Every time gun regulation is brought up, conservatives claim the 2nd amendment is quite clear that guns are for revolution and that armed insurrection is somehow constitutional. I think we're now seeing the logical conclusion of that. You may well be right; senior dems have been too friendly with republicans as individuals for too long. Nothing ends that friendship like discovering them cheering on the people calling for your execution.
- newacct583 6y ago
  I hate that this is downvoted, because it's so clearly true. There is a heavily armed, deeply mistrustful subculture in this country that has been TRAINED by its leaders (including most of the now-minority party) that it is going to need to overthrow the government someday. And they tried. Last Wednesday. What happens when they succeed? Now, to be fair: I don't think guns (as machines) are the core problem here. Removing the guns doesn't remove the domestic terrorists. But nonetheless gun culture is part and parcel of the right wing terror we just saw, and that needs to be fixed.
  - OminousWeapons 6y ago
    I think what you mean by "gun culture" is more "tacticool culture" which interests a sub set of firearms owners. I agree that this is a problematic culture, but it's not the dominant culture. A large number if not most gun owners including myself own firearms for lawful self defense, hunting, sport, or job related duties (eg ranching, security) and have no interest in running around in plate armor or joining a militia. While I acknowledge that my firearms could help me if a revolution were to break out, that is not why I bought them, it's not what I'm interested in, and I sincerely hope to never have to use them in that context. It is worth noting that by constantly demonizing all gun owners as bad people and spewing poorly researched nonsense, certain gun control advocates such as some in this very thread do a wonderful job of alienating all firearms owners and generating sympathy among the moderates who would otherwise support thoughtful regulation for members interested in these tacticool endeavors.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      I see the distinction you're making, but... I know a bunch of gun owners too, and the overlap is very substantial. It's all the same people, really. Obviously not every gun owner is a right wing terrorist, but they all subscribe to the same magazines and subreddits and all imagine the same euphemisms about freedom and protection and self-determinism. > constantly demonizing all gun owners as bad people And see... this sort of defensiveness is why we can't solve this. I know it doesn't seem like that to you, but by refusing to call these people out and instead hitting back with statements like that, you are circling the wagons with the terrorists. I don't know how to fix this if you won't meet the rest of us half way.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Obviously not every gun owner is a right wing terrorist, but they all subscribe to the same magazines and subreddits and all imagine the same euphemisms about freedom and protection and self-determinism. No, they don't. Maybe all the ones you know do, but any individuals circle of familiarity probably isn't representative.
        newacct583 6y ago
        And again, I cite the fact that you're getting defensive about attempts to call out this "tacticool"[1] subculture as dangerous instead of joining in the denunciation along with the rest of us as evidence that you associate more with their ideals than you may want to admit. If it's a problematic subculture it should be a problem, and not dismissed. I don't see that happening from anywhere on the right. [1] To pick the term above, which seems like a horrifying euphemism to my ears. But let's go with it.
      - OminousWeapons 6y ago
        How can I meet people half way when they have no interest in respecting me or meeting me half way? Many people view guns as inherently evil, view me as inherently evil for possessing them, and explicitly say they want to ban all firearms / there is no legitimate use case for firearms full stop. It's very difficult to take a moderate stance with such people when they are trying to shout me down and are demanding capitulation rather than moderation. > I know a bunch of gun owners too, and the overlap is very substantial. It's all the same people, really. Obviously not every gun owner is a right wing terrorist, but they all subscribe to the same magazines and subreddits and all imagine the same euphemisms about freedom and protection and self-determinism. QED, you make unfounded and sweeping generalizations and then are surprised when people get defensive. When you employ rhetoric such as this, opponents will fight you just to do it.
rtx 6y ago
You want to ban the most beautiful thing about America?
- Fnoord 6y ago
  > You want to ban the most beautiful thing about America? Assault rifles? What does a US citizen need an M16 for? An AK47? Makes no sense.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rtx 6y ago
    To stand your ground.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    For an armed rebellion?
  - uncledave 6y ago
    Shooting people. Which is bad. Edit: lots of potential murderers here?
    - pueblito 6y ago
      Sometimes it’s great.
  - GiorgioG 6y ago
    US citizens can’t have M16s or AK-47s as automatic rifles illegal. Sure you can buy a pre-ban (made before 1986) automatic rifle if you have $30,000 and go through a special/long ATF process.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
orange_tee 6y ago
They charged him with illegal possession of the guns though. It wouldn't make a difference in this case. He's not some kid in HS. He's a 70 year old man. He could easily obtain a hunting rifle (say in case you ban all other guns) and it would be just as effective for this purpose.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure I'd rather be shot by a hunting rifle than an assault rifle. Hunting rifles aren't designed to blow a deer's leg off.
  - orange_tee 6y ago
    Don't get confused by the terms. They are both 100% deadly. Both come in semi-automatic configuration as well. The only difference is that hunting rifles typically have low capacity magazines whereas assault rifles have high capacity magazines. EDIT: In case you are talking about types of ammunition, it's true that anti-human ammunition is more deadly. But I am not sure it makes that much of a difference because hunting ammunition is already deadly enough.
    - boringg 6y ago
      High capacity vs low capacity magazines is a real difference if you are in a fire fight.
      - dogma1138 6y ago
        Not really the biggest difference would be a detachable magazine vs a non detachable magazine.
        bitwize 6y ago
        And selective fire. If it comes only in semi-auto configuration, as all legal AR-15 type rifles do, it's not an assault rifle. U.S. legislators are fond of using the deliberately similar sounding and confusing term "assault weapon" to refer to any rifle with military-style features.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lmilcin 6y ago
The reality is, in almost every place on Earth a person that is intent on getting a gun will get a gun. If you want to do a crime with a gun, you definitely don't want a legal one. That's just stupid. And people intent on doing crimes most of the time don't really need guns for it, it is just suspicious to carry a gun around and if you are doing something shady you want to bring as little suspicion as possible. And adds charges for illegal gun possession in case you are caught with one. Gun regulation is mostly to stop stupid people act stupidly with a gun they already lawfully own, to stop people who for various reasons shouldn't own a gun from owning one legally and also to cool down the police so that it doesn't feel it has to shoot suspects on sight. (Notice stress on the word "feel") I am all for gun regulation, I just feel it is a bad example for regulation.
- rewq4321 6y ago
  > Gun regulation is mostly to stop stupid people act stupidly with a gun they already lawfully own If you make guns easier to get, you end up with more of these cases. You also end up making it easier for people to unlawfully get access to a gun. In Australia you have to be a reasonably "hard" criminal to get access to a gun illegally. There just aren't that many guns around since the Port Arthur massacre, and gun deaths have decreased as you'd naturally expect.
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    Let me explain. I live in Poland. Do you know how many guns I saw in my life that did not belong to a uniformed or undercover Police officer, soldier guarding an embassy or security guard guarding taking money to or from ATM? Exactly zero. And I am 38. Here in Poland it is quite difficult to get a gun. Basically, you need exceptional circumstances to be allowed to own one and even then you are not allowed to just carry it around. There are people who own a gun but most of them, from what I understand, will not take it anywhere. Do people get beaten or stabbed here like in US? Sure. There's just no guns involved even for the ones that do own gun legally, because they would prefer to get beaten than bring out a gun. Because of gun regulation, people learned to not consider guns to be a solution to their problems. Maybe if they fear their house might get robbed rather than buy a gun they will put bars on their windows and better security system. And I strongly feel that this also affects you if you own a gun, in that it causes you to think more critically rather than just whip out a gun when you think a little bit threatened.
jdanp 6y ago
This guy already broke every “sensible gun regulation” in the book: 1. Unregistered destructive devices per federal law 2. Unregistered assault rifle per federal law 3. Unregistered rifle per DC law 4. Carrying a handgun without a license per DC law If anything this seems like another case of criminals not following the law.
bbg24 6y ago
> Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation... I can't comprehend why an average civilian would need license to keep and/or carry a firearm. None of the arguments seem to stack up, at least, from my perspective.
- loceng 6y ago
  It's a failsafe to have a chance to fight in case the government and enough of its military and commanders become tyrannical. Different systems (democratic vs. tyrannical) have a different spread of when and how violence occurs. Gun violence, which can be lessened in America once adequate policy is in place to prevent dis-progression and heal mind-body-soul vs. genocide by CCP of specific population who didn't want to fall in line with CCP rule.
  - patagonia 6y ago
    I actually agree that the 2nd amendment exists for this purpose (protect against a tyrannical government) and think that is a good thing. An armed private citizen stands zero chance of effecting any defense against our military. None. Zero. It'd be a joke. Futile. Even the most practiced and prepared "militias" would fairly quickly be put down if the full might and focus of the US military where to be trained on them. The most a militia could hope for in such a scenario would be a guerilla warfare style protracted conflict combined with broadcasting a message that would win over the hearts and minds of the general public, that would then cause the US military to stop due to political, not military reasons. But such an outcome is unlikely in the scenario you're presenting, because the military would be controlled by a tyrant, not the public. One thing to note is that under current law you cannot stockpile weapons. And you cannot create bio weapons or cyber weapons. You have no access to massive bombs. The 2nd amendment, in my opinion, has become an excuse for individual to own weapons that are dangerous to private citizens and the safety of the public but of no consequence in a fight against a tyrannical government. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the "a well regulated Militia" and "a free State" Militia is capitalized. As is State. In politics (and generally internationally "State" has a very different meaning than is commonly used in the USA (in modern times, the founding fathers used it more in line with the way international law understands it to mean). To keep it short, the National Guard, again in my opinion, very effectively fulfills the purposed intended of this amendment. It is a well regulated militia that the State can direct to mount an effective defense against a tyrannical Federal government.
GiorgioG 6y ago
What is your definition of sensible gun regulation in your opinion? Chances are this man bought them legally. He broke the law by bringing guns into DC which I believe are more heavily regulated/restricted.
throw0101a 6y ago
> Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation... Different people have differing view on what "sensible" is: * https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html In the US, Massachusetts seems to have things that work pretty well without being (at least to some) too draconian: * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co... IMHO, the main problem is that (a) some people have poor impulse control, and (b) many others aren't aware enough of the basic safety rules: * https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ In Canada, the acronyms ACTS and PROVE are repeated over and over in the mandatory course(s), and if one follows them you reduce risk a lot: * http://www.firearmstraining.ca/actsprove.htm http://www.firearmstraining.ca/actsprove.htm But sometimes people get too lazy/complacent even with them.
mrbonner 6y ago
Sadly no, but to quote Dave Chappelle “let’s arm every legally eligible black people in this country with assault rifles, congress would change the 2nd over night”. I had a great laugh watching that episode.

pjc50 6y ago

Every time gun regulation is brought up, conservatives claim the 2nd amendment is quite clear that guns are for revolution and that armed insurrection is somehow constitutional. I think we're now seeing the logical conclusion of that. You may well be right; senior dems have been too friendly with republicans as individuals for too long. Nothing ends that friendship like discovering them cheering on the people calling for your execution.

newacct583 6y ago
I hate that this is downvoted, because it's so clearly true. There is a heavily armed, deeply mistrustful subculture in this country that has been TRAINED by its leaders (including most of the now-minority party) that it is going to need to overthrow the government someday. And they tried. Last Wednesday. What happens when they succeed? Now, to be fair: I don't think guns (as machines) are the core problem here. Removing the guns doesn't remove the domestic terrorists. But nonetheless gun culture is part and parcel of the right wing terror we just saw, and that needs to be fixed.
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  I think what you mean by "gun culture" is more "tacticool culture" which interests a sub set of firearms owners. I agree that this is a problematic culture, but it's not the dominant culture. A large number if not most gun owners including myself own firearms for lawful self defense, hunting, sport, or job related duties (eg ranching, security) and have no interest in running around in plate armor or joining a militia. While I acknowledge that my firearms could help me if a revolution were to break out, that is not why I bought them, it's not what I'm interested in, and I sincerely hope to never have to use them in that context. It is worth noting that by constantly demonizing all gun owners as bad people and spewing poorly researched nonsense, certain gun control advocates such as some in this very thread do a wonderful job of alienating all firearms owners and generating sympathy among the moderates who would otherwise support thoughtful regulation for members interested in these tacticool endeavors.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    I see the distinction you're making, but... I know a bunch of gun owners too, and the overlap is very substantial. It's all the same people, really. Obviously not every gun owner is a right wing terrorist, but they all subscribe to the same magazines and subreddits and all imagine the same euphemisms about freedom and protection and self-determinism. > constantly demonizing all gun owners as bad people And see... this sort of defensiveness is why we can't solve this. I know it doesn't seem like that to you, but by refusing to call these people out and instead hitting back with statements like that, you are circling the wagons with the terrorists. I don't know how to fix this if you won't meet the rest of us half way.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Obviously not every gun owner is a right wing terrorist, but they all subscribe to the same magazines and subreddits and all imagine the same euphemisms about freedom and protection and self-determinism. No, they don't. Maybe all the ones you know do, but any individuals circle of familiarity probably isn't representative.
      - newacct583 6y ago
        And again, I cite the fact that you're getting defensive about attempts to call out this "tacticool"[1] subculture as dangerous instead of joining in the denunciation along with the rest of us as evidence that you associate more with their ideals than you may want to admit. If it's a problematic subculture it should be a problem, and not dismissed. I don't see that happening from anywhere on the right. [1] To pick the term above, which seems like a horrifying euphemism to my ears. But let's go with it.
    - OminousWeapons 6y ago
      How can I meet people half way when they have no interest in respecting me or meeting me half way? Many people view guns as inherently evil, view me as inherently evil for possessing them, and explicitly say they want to ban all firearms / there is no legitimate use case for firearms full stop. It's very difficult to take a moderate stance with such people when they are trying to shout me down and are demanding capitulation rather than moderation. > I know a bunch of gun owners too, and the overlap is very substantial. It's all the same people, really. Obviously not every gun owner is a right wing terrorist, but they all subscribe to the same magazines and subreddits and all imagine the same euphemisms about freedom and protection and self-determinism. QED, you make unfounded and sweeping generalizations and then are surprised when people get defensive. When you employ rhetoric such as this, opponents will fight you just to do it.

rtx 6y ago

You want to ban the most beautiful thing about America?

Fnoord 6y ago
> You want to ban the most beautiful thing about America? Assault rifles? What does a US citizen need an M16 for? An AK47? Makes no sense.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rtx 6y ago
  To stand your ground.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  For an armed rebellion?
- uncledave 6y ago
  Shooting people. Which is bad. Edit: lots of potential murderers here?
  - pueblito 6y ago
    Sometimes it’s great.
- GiorgioG 6y ago
  US citizens can’t have M16s or AK-47s as automatic rifles illegal. Sure you can buy a pre-ban (made before 1986) automatic rifle if you have $30,000 and go through a special/long ATF process.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

orange_tee 6y ago

They charged him with illegal possession of the guns though. It wouldn't make a difference in this case. He's not some kid in HS. He's a 70 year old man. He could easily obtain a hunting rifle (say in case you ban all other guns) and it would be just as effective for this purpose.

bagacrap 6y ago
I'm pretty sure I'd rather be shot by a hunting rifle than an assault rifle. Hunting rifles aren't designed to blow a deer's leg off.
- orange_tee 6y ago
  Don't get confused by the terms. They are both 100% deadly. Both come in semi-automatic configuration as well. The only difference is that hunting rifles typically have low capacity magazines whereas assault rifles have high capacity magazines. EDIT: In case you are talking about types of ammunition, it's true that anti-human ammunition is more deadly. But I am not sure it makes that much of a difference because hunting ammunition is already deadly enough.
  - boringg 6y ago
    High capacity vs low capacity magazines is a real difference if you are in a fire fight.
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      Not really the biggest difference would be a detachable magazine vs a non detachable magazine.
      - bitwize 6y ago
        And selective fire. If it comes only in semi-auto configuration, as all legal AR-15 type rifles do, it's not an assault rifle. U.S. legislators are fond of using the deliberately similar sounding and confusing term "assault weapon" to refer to any rifle with military-style features.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lmilcin 6y ago

The reality is, in almost every place on Earth a person that is intent on getting a gun will get a gun. If you want to do a crime with a gun, you definitely don't want a legal one. That's just stupid. And people intent on doing crimes most of the time don't really need guns for it, it is just suspicious to carry a gun around and if you are doing something shady you want to bring as little suspicion as possible. And adds charges for illegal gun possession in case you are caught with one. Gun regulation is mostly to stop stupid people act stupidly with a gun they already lawfully own, to stop people who for various reasons shouldn't own a gun from owning one legally and also to cool down the police so that it doesn't feel it has to shoot suspects on sight. (Notice stress on the word "feel") I am all for gun regulation, I just feel it is a bad example for regulation.

rewq4321 6y ago
> Gun regulation is mostly to stop stupid people act stupidly with a gun they already lawfully own If you make guns easier to get, you end up with more of these cases. You also end up making it easier for people to unlawfully get access to a gun. In Australia you have to be a reasonably "hard" criminal to get access to a gun illegally. There just aren't that many guns around since the Port Arthur massacre, and gun deaths have decreased as you'd naturally expect.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  Let me explain. I live in Poland. Do you know how many guns I saw in my life that did not belong to a uniformed or undercover Police officer, soldier guarding an embassy or security guard guarding taking money to or from ATM? Exactly zero. And I am 38. Here in Poland it is quite difficult to get a gun. Basically, you need exceptional circumstances to be allowed to own one and even then you are not allowed to just carry it around. There are people who own a gun but most of them, from what I understand, will not take it anywhere. Do people get beaten or stabbed here like in US? Sure. There's just no guns involved even for the ones that do own gun legally, because they would prefer to get beaten than bring out a gun. Because of gun regulation, people learned to not consider guns to be a solution to their problems. Maybe if they fear their house might get robbed rather than buy a gun they will put bars on their windows and better security system. And I strongly feel that this also affects you if you own a gun, in that it causes you to think more critically rather than just whip out a gun when you think a little bit threatened.

jdanp 6y ago

This guy already broke every “sensible gun regulation” in the book: 1. Unregistered destructive devices per federal law 2. Unregistered assault rifle per federal law 3. Unregistered rifle per DC law 4. Carrying a handgun without a license per DC law If anything this seems like another case of criminals not following the law.

bbg24 6y ago

> Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation... I can't comprehend why an average civilian would need license to keep and/or carry a firearm. None of the arguments seem to stack up, at least, from my perspective.

loceng 6y ago
It's a failsafe to have a chance to fight in case the government and enough of its military and commanders become tyrannical. Different systems (democratic vs. tyrannical) have a different spread of when and how violence occurs. Gun violence, which can be lessened in America once adequate policy is in place to prevent dis-progression and heal mind-body-soul vs. genocide by CCP of specific population who didn't want to fall in line with CCP rule.
- patagonia 6y ago
  I actually agree that the 2nd amendment exists for this purpose (protect against a tyrannical government) and think that is a good thing. An armed private citizen stands zero chance of effecting any defense against our military. None. Zero. It'd be a joke. Futile. Even the most practiced and prepared "militias" would fairly quickly be put down if the full might and focus of the US military where to be trained on them. The most a militia could hope for in such a scenario would be a guerilla warfare style protracted conflict combined with broadcasting a message that would win over the hearts and minds of the general public, that would then cause the US military to stop due to political, not military reasons. But such an outcome is unlikely in the scenario you're presenting, because the military would be controlled by a tyrant, not the public. One thing to note is that under current law you cannot stockpile weapons. And you cannot create bio weapons or cyber weapons. You have no access to massive bombs. The 2nd amendment, in my opinion, has become an excuse for individual to own weapons that are dangerous to private citizens and the safety of the public but of no consequence in a fight against a tyrannical government. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the "a well regulated Militia" and "a free State" Militia is capitalized. As is State. In politics (and generally internationally "State" has a very different meaning than is commonly used in the USA (in modern times, the founding fathers used it more in line with the way international law understands it to mean). To keep it short, the National Guard, again in my opinion, very effectively fulfills the purposed intended of this amendment. It is a well regulated militia that the State can direct to mount an effective defense against a tyrannical Federal government.

GiorgioG 6y ago

What is your definition of sensible gun regulation in your opinion? Chances are this man bought them legally. He broke the law by bringing guns into DC which I believe are more heavily regulated/restricted.

throw0101a 6y ago

> Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation... Different people have differing view on what "sensible" is: * https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html In the US, Massachusetts seems to have things that work pretty well without being (at least to some) too draconian: * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co... IMHO, the main problem is that (a) some people have poor impulse control, and (b) many others aren't aware enough of the basic safety rules: * https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ In Canada, the acronyms ACTS and PROVE are repeated over and over in the mandatory course(s), and if one follows them you reduce risk a lot: * http://www.firearmstraining.ca/actsprove.htm http://www.firearmstraining.ca/actsprove.htm But sometimes people get too lazy/complacent even with them.

mrbonner 6y ago

Sadly no, but to quote Dave Chappelle “let’s arm every legally eligible black people in this country with assault rifles, congress would change the 2nd over night”. I had a great laugh watching that episode.