ISIS Gunman strikes Marine Recruiters

Originally posted by psmith81992
That's ridiculous. So civilians are prohibited from carrying guns, giving all the guns to the government. Your suggestion has 'dystopian future' written all over it.

Maybe not. But at least we'd die free by fighting rather than to become slaves of the government.

Live Free or Die

See, I don't see how we're going to get that without something like mandatory gun training courses.

And I checked- Israel has mandatory licenses before you can own a gun. It's not considered a right there.

So yes, they have guns... but they also have gun restrictions left and right. It's not just responsible gun culture, but enforced responsible gun culture.

That also rather demonstrates gun regulation is not all-or-nothing, as much as some treat it like it is. Personally I believe putting in more requirements ensuring responsible ownership is probably the best way to prevent a general ban, but this 'no restrictions period' some have, leaves us stuck in the situation that produces these shooting incidents and leaves much of the country wondering if guns are worth it.

If the government decided to instill a "dystopian future" upon US citizens, no amount of small-arms on the planet could stop them.

Originally posted by psmith81992

Probably not but that's debatable. They'd either face a protracted war, or be responsible for swift genocide.

Doubt it, gun nuts are all talk really.

Only an idiot believes that shotguns and AR-15s will help you against tanks and drones and stealth fighters. This is probably what most confuses people outside of America about our gun culture--that our gun nuts are so deluded that they all think they're Rambo.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
If the government decided to instill a "dystopian future" upon US citizens, no amount of small-arms on the planet could stop them.

Gunnuts need to wake the **** up and realize that their guns are no guarantee against totalitarianism, so they need to drop that lame ass excuse. But then without that excuse there's really no good reason why civilians should have guns on a large scale.

Doubt it, gun nuts are all talk really.

Gunnuts need to wake the **** up and realize that their guns are no guarantee against totalitarianism, so they need to drop that lame ass excuse

Originally posted by psmith81992

And opponents need the wake the **** up and realize that guns vs. tanks is still better than nothing vs. tanks. If civilians don't have guns, there's no need for tanks and there's no protracted war. I'm not saying there's ever going to be a dystopian future but the opinion that civilians shouldn't have firearms is just silly.

If you have so little faith in our democracy that you think you might have to engage in guerrilla warfare you may as well start stockpiling RPGs and claymores now like all the other domestic terrorists.

Originally posted by psmith81992
So are those opposing firearms for civilians.

Yeah, but they are not hypocritical about it.

Yeah, but they are not hypocritical about it.

If you have so little faith in our democracy that you think you might have to engage in guerrilla warfare you may as well start stockpiling RPGs and claymores now like all the other domestic terrorists.

I think what people say is "civilians having firearms as some sort of fail safe against the government overstepping its bounds is stupid".

And additionally people think that guns and ammunition should be much more regulated than they are now in the US.

There would never be a war like that unless the people rose up against the government at which they would declare that treason and quell the rebellion.

That is not the goal though. The goal is complete take over and control without a shot fired. Which has been working.

While 60% of the nation keeps up with the kardashian twins and mindless entertainment, the power brokers are at work.

They will allow the recruiters to be armed now(or the marines or whatever) and also moving recruitment into armories or something. Heard this on the radio anyways.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b] So why don't you tell us what county you live in so we can look up some facts on its problems? [/B]

Every country has problems, maybe not the same problems, but they have problems. So I don't think any one country can look down at any one other country and say "yeah, we're doing everything correctly".

And additionally people think that guns and ammunition should be much more regulated than they are now in the US.

Originally posted by psmith81992
It has nothing to do with "little faith". It has to do with reducing the chance of that outcome, no matter how small it is. Like I said, simply saying "civilians shouldn't have firearms because firearms kill" is silly.

Originally posted by psmith81992
More regulated? Yes... Stoic is not saying that though. He's saying civilians should not have firearms. That's dumb.

If a person is a civilian and wants a firearm I'd at least like stricter testing for it. They just do a background check, but I'd also like maybe mandatory proper training and maybe even a psych evaluation.

But it doesn't reduce the chance. So we just end up with a bunch of unnecessary guns in possibly unstable hands and all the risk that goes with that.

I wouldn't say it's dumb, it's definitely better than the current system in the US.

Originally posted by psmith81992

Not really

Why do you think it's dumb?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Why do you assume government hands all of a sudden means "stable"?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Anyone see this, all over the news.