US Politics

[Mal]

"Fourteen people were killed and 17 wounded", "The Police Department’s SWAT team was training nearby and was suited, “ready to roll” and responded rapidly" so even with a SWAT team already tooled up around the corner, 14 still died... It's almost as if having *more* guns doesn't actually do fucking anything to lower the death toll.

Well the suspects went in with the intent to kill. Not much law enforcement can do if the first thing to happen is somebodies getting killed. Same thing would've occurred with Paris if their SWAT/special forces was training around the corner(s). Yay terror attack.

[Thursday Next]

That's sort of what I'm getting at. It would have been very similar even if all 14 victims (plus 17 wounded) were armed. Guns = death. More guns = still plenty of death. No guns = much much less death.

[Mal]

I was trying to not to go there but sure. Let's go with that argument.

[deanb]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/18/republican-voters-bomb-agrabah-disney-aladdin-donald-trump

 

1/3 of Republicans would support the bombing of Agrabah. The fictional home of Aladdin.

[deanb]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35225701

 

This is kind of insane. And yeah I think the official response from authorities would be pretty different if it was a bunch of 150 black guys or asian guys taking over.  Over a pretty pathetic reasoning too. But I guess if you've got guns don't need to go through proper legal process.

[TheMightyEthan]

This is exactly why I was pissed when they backed down and let this dude's dad off the hook last year.  I mean, how could they possibly have foreseen that giving into the demands of crazy militias when they initiate an armed standoff would lead to more armed standoffs?  Just... Jesus Fucking Christ...

 

If there's any situation that calls for this kind of response

 

 

this is it.

[deanb]

"Mummy why do those army units have 'Police' written on their gear?".

 

Would it count as civil war if only one or two stats descended into it? Cos you guys are totally prepped for one.

[TheMightyEthan]

I've never been clear on where you draw the line between a civil war and a rebellion. I guess it becomes a civil war when both sides are holding and actually governing territory?

[deanb]

Hmm. Ours was the Royals vs Parliament, but we have two "head of state"s as it were. I think given the US's "State" structure you could maybe have armed conflict within a state and it'd be a civil war, just not an American Civil War pt 2, but like Nevada Civil War or whatever, but if it was to spread to multiple states I'd say it'd be American Civil War even if it wasn't all of them involved (not like every country was involved in WWI n WWII).

 

As we'll find out later this year only need like 6 dudes duking out out to be considered a "civil war" (and 4 days in an "Age")

[Mal]

Well, if those guys want to be independent from the government then they are kind of free to do so. I see to recall several enclaves or whatever they are around the country where the people inside more or less hates the government so they lock themselves in their own little world. They don't really do anything so the government doesn't do anything about them since it isn't worth the trouble. They do their thing and the rest of the country does ours.

 

I'm with Ethan, we should pretty much throw the book at them. Though compared to Waco and the like, we got some pretty unmanned toys. I wonder how they will fare against unmanned vehicles watching and interacting with them. Since they are American citizens and this is a law enforcement spat, I recall tear gas and the like is fair game... of course it is easier to just let them sit in the refuge until they get bored and run out of snacks.

 

And yeah I think the official response from authorities would be pretty different if it was a bunch of 150 ... asian guys taking over. 

Very different context but the closest I can think of of that is the Korean American business owners protecting their properties during the 1992 LA Riots. They were largely left high and dry by the LAPD while the rioters had a bias of targeting Korean Americans and their properties. Left with little choice, some choose to arm themselves with some going up the roof and thus the term Roof Korean was born. They did get in trouble for their response.

[TheMightyEthan]

of course it is easier to just let them sit in the refuge until they get bored and run out of snacks.

That was actually my first thought, just beseige them so they can't resupply, but the problem with that approach is that they're in a wildlife refuge and once they run out of food I imagine these are the kind of people who would then start hunting the protected wildlife.

[Thursday Next]

Or... Roll in with the national guard proving once and for all that:

 

1. America is done with civilians carrying guns that they mostly use to shoot each other for no good reason, and

2. Having guns will not do shit if the government really decides it wants to oppress you so you might as well just save everyone the bother and not have guns lying around for your toddlers to shoot each other with.

[Thursday Next]

Here we goooo!  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35229294

[deanb]

Yeah I was surprised given in most media it's shown you need to wait for a gun that at gun shows you can kinda go in and as long as you have the money can easily pick up a gun. Don't even need the black market to get an unregistered gun.

 

 

Not really any point requiring a waiting period in gun shops if there's such an open gun purchase. Be like having a malaria net with a 1ft hole in it then being surprised when you die of malaria.

[Pojodin]

It's like they say, Oregonized crime doesn't pay...

[Thursday Next]

^Please relocate to bad jokes thread^

 

Then burn bad jokes thread to the ground.

 

Then commence armed occupation of bad jokes thread.

[Pojodin]

But all the good references/jokes were already taken... T_T

[Vecha]

Or... Roll in with the national guard proving once and for all that:

 

1. America is done with civilians carrying guns that they mostly use to shoot each other for no good reason, and

2. Having guns will not do shit if the government really decides it wants to oppress you so you might as well just save everyone the bother and not have guns lying around for your toddlers to shoot each other with.

Probably no point in arguing, as I'm sure we probably can't really persuade eachother to differ that much.

 

I'm all for stricter gun control. Stricter laws on sales where background checks aren't made. Nofly lists(but there needs to also be a way to appeal being on the Nofly list, even if it's a small chance to be put on there by mistake). Even willing to discuss other laws, like more indepth gun licence laws.

 

But I'm also for the second ammendment, even for the reasons some say of tyranny.

 

Could the average Joe take on the government? No, not really. But put enough people together, along with, say, national guard bases in certain states and chances improve. Because more people with guns employing guerilla warfare has shown to work.

 

BUT(and this is a size one zillion but) I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

Unless the USA ramps up nsa 1984 spying to 11, and we see people being "taken away" for merely making jokes. Then no, I don't see it happening ANYTIME soon.

 

We should be talking more about middleground approaches instead of gun bans(some Democrats will say, "we aren't saying that!" but I've heard and read, through many left leaning articles, the opinion to just ban guns...just as I've read\heard some democratic progressives argue for limiting free speech beyond crying fire in a movie theatre)

 

Anyways, long ramble. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conspiracy nut.

 

But I do think we need to have compromising discussions in politics...without the emotionally Hugh of, "Any law is taking away my freedom!" and "ban em all! We need to protect ourselves from ourselves....will someone think of the children."

 

 

I'm probably jumping the gun(ha) on my rant...as I do agree, this milita take over is silly(wouldn't call it terrorism per se, as I wouldn't call blm terrorism. While some articles\pundits are comparing for some asinine reason while saying people called blm terrorists, which I don't remember being the case, but could be true I guess)

 

 

Anyways, tl;Dr I wish the politicians and people in general would focus on compromised approaches on stricter gun laws.

 

Hate all this division.

 

Sorry for the rank and just to add I respect your opinion.

[deanb]

Democratic President Obama's push for a law enforcing background checks and license for sales seems pretty moderate to me (though as an EU citizen I'm pretty happy with the benefits of regulation and find Americas hard-on for deregulation pretty insane and self-harming behaviour).

 

Gun ownership is obviously as much of American tradition as us having beefeaters n parliamentary snuff so sure keep it around but it's pretty clear that something needs to be in place to at least tackle the abnormally high count of mass murders and gun deaths. The issue with the "good guys with guns" argument some make is thrown into the light when you've 150 armed guys shacked up in government buildings denying the public access to public land, causing the closure of local schools and pulling away law enforcement in order to make sure it doesn't go all crazy. Some folks would see them as "good guys" using guns against the "tyranny of government", and others would see them as "bad guys" being all "might is right" to abuse local public access land for personal game and subverting the will of the law.

 

And with 150 armed guys eager to "kill or be killed" and a bunch of law enforcement besieging them it's got a lot of wiggle room to go tits up (or "Waco"). Of course the government has access to Drones these days so the 150 guys with guns are naturally outnumbered should gov't really want them shifted.

 

Of course any gun discussion is: blah blah..bunch of kids got shot n America didn't give a shit. Likes of Thursday n I can say our pieces but end of day it's up to the national conscience of America to sort itself out n figure what it wants.

[Vecha]

 

I agree with that Obama's ideas seem moderate(he's honestly bush 2.0 in my eyes but that's for another day), but I lean Slightly left(I'm independent, but vote mostly demand, so far. Trump 2016!...kidding)...and I'm against their takeover of that building\land. It's ridiculous.

 

Which is also why it's frustrating seeing those who are advocates for the second amendment being lumped in with morons who are like, "woo-hoo! Take that guvment!"

 

I hate people. I hate politics. But I'd imagine many have that sentiment.

 

Here's to 2016 being more sane....

Edited January 6, 2016 by Vecha

[Mr. GOH!]

The Second Amendment is dumb and should be repealed. There's no good justification for a generalized universal right for citizens to bear machines meant solely to kill. In order for things to get so bad that a small-arms revolution would be necessary and have any chance of succeeding, legal restrictions of any sort would be meaningless anyway. As it is, the threat of small arms rebellion has very little effect on government policy and almost never would. If anything, a rebellion or revolution in the US would coalesce around already-armed groups, like states' national guard units rather than mobs of angry citizens with small arms. 

 

Obama's proposals are toothless, but that's because very little can be done by executive order when it comes to gun control. But it's better than nothing. Personally, I think all guns should be registered, rights to resale or gift should be severely restricted, and every gunowner should be required to purchase insurance to cover accidental and intentional injuries/deaths regardless of who shoots what with the gun. Possession of an unregistered or uninsured firearm should result in hefty criminal and civil penalties, including imprisonment if the gun is a handgun or automatic. Illegal transfer of weapons ought to carry mandatory jail time.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

Oh for goodness' sake. PETA are the worst. Shame the terrorists didn't enact their not afraid to kill or be killed for the jerky drop off.

 

[link]http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/peta-delivered-vegan-snacks-to-the-hungry-oregon-terrorists--ZyzsB7ELWhg[/link]

[deanb]

PETA are the worst.

 

Yup.

 

Absolutely retarded reasoning too.

[Thursday Next]

What Goh says. It's an "amendment" so clearly the constitution can be changed to move with the times. There's rule of law now, it's not the wild west, there's no threat of invasion and if there was it would not be repelled by locals with no military training and small arms and as for fighting off your own government a few handguns aren't going to do fuck all against tanks and drone strikes.

 

Fact is that gun bans have been proven to work in both the UK and Australia, countries that are broadly speaking culturally similar to the US (when compared to China, India, Japan etc). Not banning guns boils down to the fact that Americans like having guns. And Sandy Hook proved that they like having guns more than they like children being alive.

[deanb]

Also it's a lot harder for us to making you part of the Empire Commonwealth if you're all armed.