Who What Now posted:

Hey you remember that time that guy in China stabbed all those people on the exact same day as Sandy Hook? You remember how he stabbed a similar number of people? You remember how none of the stabbing victims died?

Ogmius815 posted:

Well, one of those rights involves being able to travel around the country as you please and to be secure from arbitrary police actions. The other involves toys. So you know, not really the same.

stealie72 posted:

Ironically, we're the ones with the means to protect their right to that belief.

Who What Now posted:

No you don't. All the AR-15s in the world won't protect you from a UAV, much less an AC-130.

stealie72 posted:

Next step: One of you says "lol, like people with guns can stand up to a modern military" while ignoring the US military's past 15 years of adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

stealie72 posted:

It's really weird how they are both in the same founding document, though.

Even weirder how few people support all 10.

stealie72 posted:

Trap sprung

Ddraig posted:

To be honest I think Al Qaeda, being literally a well-regulated militia with financial support and training are probably better equipped to deal with the US army.

I don't think Bubba with his years of experience shooting tin cans and technical knowledge of how to install truck nuts is going to have quite the same impact.

stealie72 posted:

You do realize that there are thousands of bubbas with guns who literally fought Al Queda among the gun owners you hate, right?

Ddraig posted:

Raoul Moat was just as effective as the IRA in bringing about a collective threat to the government of the United Kingdom. They both had guns, they were therefore the same.

Ddraig posted:

I might be ignorant of United States Army policy but I think when you leave the army you're required to give the keys to any tanks, drones or arms depots you have back.

stealie72 posted:

You do realize that there are thousands of bubbas with guns who literally fought Al Queda among the gun owners you hate, right?

Ozmiander posted:

Screw you guys, it's almost time for my 5pm Red Dawn JO session.

stealie72 posted:

Oh, poo poo, can I come over? I promise I won't look you in the eye. Unless you want me to.

stealie72 posted:

I'm not sure what your point is? That Americans with guns can't organize?

Right, so explain to my how the might of the United States Military is still involved in Afghanistan or Iraq? Because they have all that poo poo there, and are fighting against people who started out with about what we have laying around here, give or take a few special goodies that we or the soviets gave them over the years.

You are correct that if I am one person shooting at a modern military, I am likely hosed. However, if there are a few thousand/hundred thousand/million people doing it, poo poo is going to be very messy.

Ddraig posted:

If by messy you mean the collective entrails of thousands of people being strewn around by few drone strikes, I agree. Not even taking into account other air support.

Who What Now posted:

Hey you remember that time that guy in China stabbed all those people on the exact same day as Sandy Hook? You remember how he stabbed a similar number of people? You remember how none of the stabbing victims died?

punakone posted:

Sorry, many pages back. Suppressors dont require any of those here in Finland. Except if you are buying a suppressor but you do not have a license for a gun, then you need a license for it.

stealie72 posted:

Yeah, that has never happened in human history or anything, it's cool.

Next step: One of you says "lol, like people with guns can stand up to a modern military" while ignoring the US military's past 15 years of adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

stealie72 posted:

You're just adorable.

Explain to me again why we have troops in the middle east still?

stealie72 posted:

quote:

Because mainstream scholars argue that German gun laws were already strict prior to Hitler,[4][5][1][21] gun-control advocates may view the theory as a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum.[2] In a 2004 issue of the Fordham Law Review, legal scholar Bernard Harcourt said Halbrook "perhaps rightly" could say that he made the first scholarly analysis of his Nazi-gun-registration subject, but as a gun-rights litigator, not as a historian.[4]:669–670 Harcourt called on historians for more research and serious scholarship on Nazi gun laws. "Apparently," Harcourt wrote, "the historians have paid scant attention to the history of firearms regulation in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich."[4]:679–680 According to Harcourt, "Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide,"[4]:676 but the disarming and killing of Jews was unconnected with Nazi gun control policy, and it is "absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control." If he had to choose, Harcourt said, the Nazi regime was pro-gun compared with the Weimar Republic that preceded it.[4]:671,677 He says that gun rights advocates disagree about the relationship between Nazi gun control and the Holocaust, with many distancing themselves from the idea. Political scientist Robert Spitzer said (in the same law review as Harcourt, who stated the same thing) the quality of Halbrook's historical research is poor.[5] In reference to Halbrook's theory that gun control leads to authoritarian regimes, Spitzer says that "actual cases of nation-building and regime change, including but not limited to Germany, if anything support the opposite position."[21]:728

quote:

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[5]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[6]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[6]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers' Party, aka the Nazi party) members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revision that such permits would no longer be issued to Jews or any company part-owned by Jews. Jews were consequently forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[5]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

stealie72 posted:

You do realize that there are thousands of bubbas with guns who literally fought Al Queda among the gun owners you hate, right?

Tezzor posted:

Personally I'd rather live under a lot of tyrannies than live in a country being pummeled by the US military where the victory condition for freedom is the kind of people who own firearms become local warlords.

gohmak posted:

You remember when those guys detonated a couple of homeade explosives that killed 95 protesting Kurds in Turkey last week? Thank god mass murderers in the US select have to use such an ineffecient less efficient means as firearms because the means to create such explosives is so tightly regulated and monitored in the United States, thereby making it prohibitively difficult to construct them and forcing them to turn to the much more common source of guns.

Tezzor posted:

Theorycrafting the pretend revolution is pointless because it's all imaginary nonsense and gun otaku always come up with some calvinball bullshit, or say "well yeah but the military wouldn't really fight us anyway" so why do you loving need firearms to fight the government then

Tezzor posted:

So what you are saying is that they do require those things.

Tezzor posted:

Personally I'd rather live under a lot of tyrannies than live in a country being pummeled by the US military where the victory condition for freedom is the kind of people who own firearms become local warlords.

punakone posted:

Not if you own a gun, compare to the US where if you own a gun, you have to get licensing for the suppressor plus the 200 dollar tax stamp whatever that is.

stealie72 posted:

Hah, holy poo poo. The most D&D of opinions.

Whelp, this has been neat, but this thread has achieved perfection. Enjoy your weekend and suck my dick from the back.

Tezzor posted:

It's actually not an extreme opinion. Would you prefer to live in China or in Afghanistan?

Ddraig posted:

It's always fun when the "Government wouldn't shoot back" argument comes up because it displays a staggering ignorance of US history to think that in its history the US has not perpetuated such a series of atrocities before.

On its own citizens, no less.

All of those are worthy of an armed up rising to stop. Only one happened, and it's the one bitter gun nuts are still bitter about.

Who What Now posted:

Just a reminder that American's fighting against the Federal government have a 100% record of getting their poo poo just absolutely wrecked.

Tezzor posted:

But you do need to do all of that to get a gun.

Tezzor posted:

punakone I don't think you're actively stupid like the US gun advocates but what you're saying makes zero sense. "In Finland, you don't need to fill out any paperwork to get a suppressor. As long as you have a license to own a gun you can get one. To get the license to have a gun you have to fill out paperwork. However, if you don't have a license to have a gun then you do need to fill out paperwork to get a suppressor. And now you have a suppressor and no gun."

various cheeses posted:

I like how according to the posters here, the US military is chomping at the bit to wholesale slaughter the civilians it's sworn to protect. The second a drone strikes a group on US soil, the PR war is lost.

various cheeses posted:

Also consider that large portions of the military are pretty into guns, will also defect, and the military will be fighting itself as well.

various cheeses posted:

You're not going to be the leering nerd in the bully's good graces while he beats up some gun owners. It's going to be total loving chaos, and bad for pretty much everyone involved.