The USA is a sick society. (live, military, dangerous)

[Montguy]

Originally Posted by tom77falcons

Nothing will be done. Nothing. We have a mass of people in the US South that will block any meaningful reforms.

And we also have masses of citizens (and politicians) outside of the U.S. South who will undoubtedly oppose anything that you (and presumably many, if not most people in your region of the country) would consider to be a "meaningful reform."

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I do believe that you were touting the merits of an all-out handgun ban on a thread over at the P&OC forum (which would accompany a ban on "assault" rifles, no doubt). If your idea of "meaningful reform" is the total criminilization of a gun-owner's personal property, then my hope is that your assumption is absolutely correct.

[Senno]

Originally Posted by TheTourist

The main point for citizens to be able to carry guns is to be able keep its own government in check when it's hijacked by rogue interests like corporatists and international banksters, exactly what's happening in the USA now. Once citizens disarmed government can bend over citizens as they please..

Can the government not do that now should the citizens actually try to "go to war" with the government. I'm trying to pictures armed citizens fighting troops in M-1A3 tanks , M-2 APC's, MLRS and other artillery firing, and air cover.

Global Firepower - 2012 World Military Strength Ranking

Our military is number 1 by a very huge margin. There's no question that our 700 billion buys a lot of destructive power.

If any such war actually occured you'd best pin your hopes on the troops disobeying orders to attack their fellow citizens.

I don't hear anyone calling for an amendment repealing the 2nd amendment though. You'd still be able to charge out with your hunting rifles, shotguns and revolvers and semi-automatic handguns and take on the government if you wished should the unthinkable happen.

That's why hired elites push for banning guns (Bloomberg, Obama etc.)

I would have thought it was to try to limit gun related crimes.

....and Americans are buying guns and ammo in record numbers now...

Might it be also that gun dealers are heavily pushing people with hysteria that all guns will be banned outright?

Gangs and sick people will always have access to guns....

I tend to agree, in the same way that prohibiting alcohol in the '20's didn't stop people from importing alcohol from Canada (pushers, lol) or manufacturing it.

Hopefully with reasonable gun control, felons and sick people would find it much harder to find weapons. Plugging the gun show no background check loophole should help that.

The only difference from banning guns will be: 1) you won't have right to protect yourself and your home from armed criminals and psychos (of course, criminals will always have guns);

Umm, not seeing why you couldn't take a baseball bat, knife, tire iron and have at it. Repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldnt repeal laws such as Texas or Florida's Stand Your Ground Laws.

And that's giving your argument full merit.

I don't see anyone calling for an repeal of the 2nd Amendment, however.

How about the recent wanna be burglar caught by the Texas homeowner? That criminal didn't have a gun.

2) government, if hijacked and corrupt, won't have any fear of its citizens and go absolute ape **** realizing its power

See above. If government was hijacked and corrupt I'd say they could kill us easily enough. A simple review of the military weaponry available to the US military ensures that. The biggie is if the soldiers would actually obey the orders.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but it seems strange to me to give your argument weight and refute it by pointing out the absolute superiority our military has in the world but there ya go.

So guns for citizens is a part of checks and balances systems to ensure tyranny won't easily happen.

The weaponry available to the citizenry seems woefully underpowered if your argument is taken seriously. Should you not be demanding access to heavy weaponry to protect yourself? You are very outgunned...

That's VERY important.

You would still have your guns if reasonable gun control laws pass.

I don't know what's with the OP for calling the US as a whole a sick society, but it appears Canada has it's own advocates for guns. Nothing like learning how to convert a semi-automatic AK47 to fully automatic, courtesy of the internet.

In one of his books Solzhenitsyn expressed great regret people couldn't resist government operatives when they were coming for citizens at night, otherwise things could've been very different for that country.

They communists completely outlawed guns, right? Don't see that happening in the US short of a constitutional amendment repealing the 2nd amendment.

By the way, Connecticut is one of the 4 states with the toughest gun laws in the US

And is a generally safe state to live in compared to other states.

I tend to think that criminals will be criminals though.

and that school was in a gun free zone,

Perhaps we should have an armed security guard on all campuses. Might impact your local taxes though.

Or is this an argument that the school janitor should be armed?

so obviously fewer people could try to stop the massacre there.If it was happening in Texas, it could have been less victims. On the other hand, it probably could not happen in Texas at all.

Ever heard of Luby's massacre? A Texan killed 23 and wounded 20 others before killing himself. The deadliest shooting in America until Virginia Tech.

The response to that massacre was that Texas liberalized their concealed carry permit law. One was already in force, but the concealed carry permit could have been denied.

The full list or rampage killers shows several incidents in Texas, as well.

At present Illinois is the only state that doesn't issue concealed carry permits. In a much watched case, the legislature has been given 180 days to come up with a concealed carry law. The Attorney General in Illinois is reviewing the order to determine if they will appeal.

Illinois Attorney General reviewing concealed carry ruling | abc7chicago.com

In short, I think that reasonable gun control is required. The argument that it's a slippery slope leading to the banning of all guns doesn't hold water in light of recent court decisions (District of Columbia v Heller) and the fact that we have a 2nd Amendment granting the right to keep and bear arms.

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by TheTourist

It doesn't necessarily mean that there's tyranny now in the countries that don't allow guns for citizens. It only means that if government turns tyrannical (somthing that repeats throughout history over and over), it will be much harder for it to suppress citizens. As I said, it's a part of checks and balances mechanism and a protective measure.

So if a country's leadership in the opinion of the people were to turn tyranical and as an example strive to turn a democratic country into a Communist Muslim Caliphate then the citizenery would be well within its rights to openly bear arms against said government and to bring about said governments downfall?

[Annuvin]

Originally Posted by canadian citizen

I spent 30 years in the CF, in the military Police, so I was armed every day that I was on duty. BUT I have no need for a gun at home, and I can't see why any one needs one in Canada, except perhaps for hunters.

Are you thinking about not travelling to the USA ? I am.

Guns don't kill people - people kill people.

Marc Lapine wasn't American, nor was Anders Behring Breivik. Both of them managed to obtain firearms and commit acts of mass murder: the former right here in Canada and the latter in Norway (which has the 10th lowest murder rate in the world). The crimes did not happen because of the existance of legal firearms here, in Norway or in America. They happened because some mentally deranged psycho decided to murder a bunch of people. In fact, the worst act of mass murder in America's history was planned and committed by Saudi Arabian nationals who murdered nearly 3000 people in a single day by flying jetliners directly into Manhattan skyscrapers.

Blaming guns for the Newtown massacre is the same thing as blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.

[Jayess1]

Originally Posted by BruSan

Sorry but this is false, as the reports I read stated he was armed with a 10MM and a 9MM semi-auto pistols but used only the Bushmaster .223 semi-auto RIFLE to perform his evil mission, with all of his victims being shot multiple times. He also had a pump shotgun in reserve in his mother's car he used to drive to the school.

The only time he used one of the pistols was to commit his suicide when he heard first responders arrive.

Hmm. The WaPo/Reuters sources now claim that the rifle was recovered in the vehicle...

What an absolute lie

Do you have another source?

[youthinkso]

Originally Posted by Bludy-L

Please note that Canada recently changed their own gun control laws making them less stringent and closer to the USA's.

Hardly, the LGR covered only single shot rifles. Most weapons are still strictly controled.

[Bludy-L]

Originally Posted by youthinkso

Hardly, the LGR covered only single shot rifles. Most weapons are still strictly controled.

Yes, but as I said the law was made less stringent.

[Bludy-L]

In the recent Oregon mall shooting spree, an armed 20 year old citizen with a concealed carry permit ended it.

The national news doesn't mention that....you have to find a local news source to find out that fact due to the media's biased agenda.

[tom77falcons]

Originally Posted by Montguy

And we also have masses of citizens (and politicians) outside of the U.S. South who will undoubtedly oppose anything that you (and presumably many, if not most people in your region of the country) would consider to be a "meaningful reform."

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I do believe that you were touting the merits of an all-out handgun ban on a thread over at the P&OC forum (which would accompany a ban on "assault" rifles, no doubt). If your idea of "meaningful reform" is the total criminilization of a gun-owner's personal property, then my hope is that your assumption is absolutely correct.

No, I want a ban on military style assault weaponry, that while not fully automatic, can certainly fire off multiple rounds rapidly. The assault rifle he used to riddle six year old bodies with bullets can fire up to six rounds per second. It was legally purchased and in a home. How can we be sure that anyone that owns this type of weapon is going to be eternally vigilant and keep it from getting into the hands of someone crazy? What if a totally normal person buys this type of weapon and then goes nuts one day?

Why don't you and the rest of your gun toting, govt fearing wackos in Montana tell me how you will 100% guarantee that these weapons in your homes will never, ever get into the hands of a deranged person?

No, I don't want an outright ban on handguns for self defense or hunting rifles. I want a total ban on offensive weapons meant to kill many people at a time.

I'm sick and tired of living in a country with people so bizarre and extreme and hateful of their own government that they need military style assault weapons in their homes just in case the govt some day turns tyrannical. What utter bs and nonsense.

[Bludy-L]

Originally Posted by tom77falcons

I'm sick and tired of living in a country with people so bizarre and extreme and hateful of their own government that they need military style assault weapons in their homes just in case the govt some day turns tyrannical. What utter bs and nonsense.

I'm a Veteran who hasn't touched a firearm of any type since my last day in Vietnam.

I can understand where you're coming from on a ban of assault weapons.

But on the other hand, I remember seeing citizens protecting their own property from looters and thieves after hurricanes Katrina and more recently Sandy, with AR-15s.

Then again, personally, there is no piece of my own personal property that I'd shoot someone over. Now, if my family's lives were threatened, I could easily waste the perp and not lose a minutes sleep over it.