If nothing can be done to prevent larger and larger mass killings in the US (because Americans are inherently more evil), then what is the point of "more restictions" on bump stocks? If the guy didnt use that he would have used something else because he would have found a way to one up previous evil with more evil because Americans are more evil and need to prove it.
Sure but people want the illusion of something being done to make them more safe. That's the best way to do that without stripping the people of their civil rights.
Don't you think that drones could wipe us all out, even if we could amass an arsenal of firearms in each household in America? I think if the government turns on us we're pretty much ****ed, regardless of the 2nd amendment. Time for some good gun legislation that could make a difference and help counter the body count.
And here you are complaining about liberals complaining about issues that they care about. Go watch Hannity tonight and tell me how many of his lead stories aren’t some version of a piece designed to b**** about liberals. Go show me coverage of Obama and Hillary on the right and show me how they NEVER complained about a damn thing. No conspiracies at all... nothing crazy like running with a conspiracy that the first black president wasn’t actually born here. NEVER. Cut me a break dude. Everyone b****es nonstop which is annoying but nobody on the right has any room to talk about complaining and excuses.
Drones would only be one part of it. First, they can cut off power and water. Put that together with Drones, and tanks, air strikes etc. Having 25 AR 15s aren't going to stop that. There are some folks that would survive that, but not enough to really hold out for too long or make a difference against government forces.
Which was never really debated by me. You're losing sight of what my initial comment was in response to.
I'm of the opinion that the bulk of our armed forces, with few exceptions, would refuse to fire on their own people at the whim of a dictator. This isn't a third world country, or a country like Venezuela, where the Junta (in my opinion, that government now deserves the title) have co-opted enough of the armed forces that they can still cling to power through violence. I have more faith in our people, faith that transcends political party. Not as much in some of the top brass, or the politicians with their finger in the money pot of the military-industrial complex that have so much influence here, but the average volunteer in the Army, Navy, and Marines. I just don't see it.
I agree with you, but don't get me wrong here FranchiseBlade, that's a scary thing when you think about it. It's not likely to happen in our lifetime though. I do think we need to do a better job at protecting the innocent lives and I will support any measures to get it done. I'm a libertarian but I don't feel like having 100 round magazines, bump stock, sliders, hair triggers, should be available to the public. These types of mods need to be banned, and we need more restrictions on hand guns.
I can get behind banning the things you mentioned, but not necessarily hair triggers. The triggers on my revolvers have had some work done on them, I would hope they wouldn't be considered hair triggers, but when legislators have no clue about what they are legislating there is unintended consequences for guns that they had no intention of limiting. I think a lot of gun owners who follow every regulation, jump through hoop after hoop, and play by all the rules get understandably frustrated when an idiot does something bad like Vegas and there ends up being more hoops for them to jump through. I'm in favor of increased regulation, and I do understand that no regulations will make it 100%. But I would like for the regulations to be as effective as possible. I think it would be a good for all gun owners to have effective gun control because the fewer episodes that happen, the fewer regulations that will come down. Now, we know that a lot of gun owners are okay with some regulations but if they could be more proactive in pushing sensible regulations instead of saying no to the regulations coming through it might help get something worthwhile passed.
Yet, we've already seen government forces firebomb a whole block in Philadelphia back in 1985. I wouldn't have thought so either except that it happened.
Nothing is ever 100% in real life. What I can safely say though is that if anyone you know or love gets killed by some ******* like this, it will change your whole perspective on things. O'Reilly said "This is the cost of freedom". I wonder what he would say if his son or daughter got killed in this attack....
I think an armed public would have a chance, but there's no question that it would be bloody. As to the last part, what do you consider "good gun legislation that could make a difference"?
I don't think it's that laughable. With the amount of guns this country has it's too unpredictable what would occur. Although as time goes on it would be less and less likely. There is too much technology that is being devolved and improved upon. Eventually the government would be able to do almost anything in say 20-30 years I would assume.
I think banning anything that makes it easier to run up body count is a good starting point. You have to ask yourself what's easier to fix, crazy people or guns. If you could come up with a solution to fix crazy people then I would be all ears because I certainly don't blame any gun for killing another person, I blame the person using the gun. This isn't an emotional argument but one of common sense. Common sense suggests we have a better chance at curbing these events if we can ensure that crazy people don't have access to methods of mass destruction.
Random gun-toting civilians without training having a chance vs a trained army with high-tech weapons, jets, tanks, rockets, bombs etc? Oh boi.
It's a sad thing to admit because I think the true intent of the 2nd amendment was that the people could keep their government in check by arming themselves. What the founders did not see though is that we would ultimately live in a country where the people used those armaments on each other as opposed to a hypothetical tyrannical government.
That's my main gripe, guys like bobby somehow can't comprehend that this thing was created 200+ years ago and isn't anyhow fit for our modern society and technology. Plus, it's a darn amendment, change is in the word itself. Their reasoning isn't anyhow smarter than religious fanatics saying their holy book is god given and eternal.
