Everyone Hates Feminists

Post Reply New Topic

You said the American people wouldn't stand a chance against the military and iam guessing you cant understand why people think guns will help them in a fight against the military.

That was my question, yes

Who exactly am I? I certainly don't have big bombs or guns, just a baseball bat and a hammer, but I don't see what do I have to do with this. Who is "you" in the quoted sentence, then? It *could* be the US Military but I do not identify with it in any way, so that sentence just didn't make sense to me. Plus they have bigger bombs and bigger guns anyway

Do guns 'help' in a fight against the military? Yes. But if you want to go up against the marines, you're going to need two things: 1)Most important, the support of the populace. 2)IEDs. Without both, you'll quickly end up like the Tsarnayev brothers.

Wrt. 'taking people's rights away' and 'keeping women and children from protecting themselves,' I've already posted links that show that, statistically, a woman is far more likely to be killed with a gun in the home than she is to be protected by it; same with kids. Guns are not good for women and children, statistically.
Even if your claim was true, however, (I don't know how many times I have to say this), I don't want to ban all guns. My family members have guns, and have used them defensively against large, predatory wild animals. What I want, for the umpteenth time, is this:

1)universal background checks
2)waiting periods for purchase
3)limitations on firepower.

Pobresitos. That will make it harder for you to go up against the US Marines in your insurrectionist fantasies.

I think what he's getting at is that for all of it's power, the US military is ill equipped to fight an insurgent campaign on US soil, where they wouldn't be able to employ all of their high tech toys because the excess destruction would be like shooting themselves in the foot. You can't really use drones and cruise missiles and fighter jets on American soil, and if you try and do individual raids you're likely to trigger a Blackhawk Down type situation, except with a more competent population shooting at you. His point was that in a domestic rebellion situation, all the bombs the military has wouldn't be of much use.

Why fight the Marines, they just follow orders? If the sh*t truly hit the fan, I don't think anyone would try and take on the military head on, I think it would be more like open season on the responsible politicians and the bureaucrats they put in charge of enforcing their plans, with the various police agencies taking some hits as well. They might get their way short term, but they'd spend the rest of their lives living in a gilded cage. There are over 80,000,000 gun owners in this country, even a small fraction deciding not to roll over could make life very difficult, not to mention short, for anyone trying to go after them.



Lies, damn lies, and statistics... Statistically, men are bad for women and children, and for other men too if we're just going by the numbers. Men are five times more likely than women to own guns, and I'd wager that the gap is even greater when it comes to carry; what you don't have is statistics for woman with carry permits and their rate of victimization vs women who don't carry, which would give you a more honest assessment of the utility of carrying a gun. There's also the lack of factoring for DGUs, which far outpace gun violence and offset many of these numbers, or would, if the people doing the studies were honest instead of ideologues.



You have all three in California already, actually you've got a lot more than that; has it helped? Your crime stats suggest not, and the actions of your unopposed state Democrats, cramming as much gun control as they can get away with through Sacramento, shows me the true intentions, maybe not yours, but that hardly matters. So, NO. I don't think they'd work, they're a substantial imposition without a rational basis, and the people pushing them are not acting in good faith, never have, and are actively deceiving people as to their intentions and the facts on the ground. Why should I compromise with people like that?

I know, right? Why would anyone ever think something crazy like that?

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_ob ... aire2.html -Obama answering yes to “Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-4jqZSEo0Q%E2%80%9D -“I continue to support a [federal] ban on concealed carry,” - Barack Obama

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... Nationally Obama cites Chicago, home of the unconstitutional handgun ban, as the "blueprint" for national gun laws.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... s/1837793/ -Obama calls for "assault weapons" ban.

Must be my gun nut paranoia, clearly Obama loves my guns and wants me to keep them.



Good thing that's not the argument I'm making then, my argument is more like "criminals, by definition, ignore laws, therefore gun laws have minimal impact on criminals and maximal impact on law abiding citizens". I don't go armed because I'm scared of criminals, I go armed because I like to, because I like to take responsibility for my own person, a motivation you don't seem able to comprehend. Also, violent criminals don't tool up in response to citizens doing it, they tend to find a different line of work, like property crime that doesn't involve confrontation.



Cite?



So, more argument by anecdote is it?



Explain to me again about the 30 something countries with much higher suicide rates than ours without the benefit of firearms? How does that fit into your theory? Or the fact that our non-firearms homicide rate is higher than the total homicide rate of many other countries? Information suggesting that, maybe, culture would be the place to start rather than guns?



Stupid like missing the fact that I acknowledged that in the quoted text?



Almost clever. Almost.

I am the expert here, and I'm not aware of any firearms attribute known as "killing power", let alone a quantifiable quality that you could assign that term to. Velocity? Projectile weight? Bullet design? Caliber? Energy? Really, what are you talking about?



Uh oh, someone's been talking out of an orifice not designed for that purpose again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California


Emphasis mine.

So, you don't even know your own state's gun laws, which are actually exactly what you claim to want, but want to inflict them on the rest of us despite their demonstrated ineffectiveness in California? Explain to me again why I should respect your opinions on guns?



I'm not talking about what the NRA will allow, I'm talking about what the Democrats would do if they could, and California provides an excellent example of exactly that.



Because you gave not wanting to let them win as a reason for pursuing gun control.



You think it's okay to deny people their rights based on a secret, error prone list not subject to any oversight or accountability? Without trial, or even the opportunity to challenge their inclusion on the list? Don't you claim to stand for due process? And this is your #1 reason...



Define "killing capacity". Also, "reasonable".



BS, they're still subject to product liability lawsuits like any other manufacturer, what they're shielded from is lawsuits over the misuse of their product by third parties. No one sues Ford or Miller when a drunk hits someone with his Taurus, why should it be any different for Glock or Smith and Wesson? Again, this sort of ignorance is not enhancing your credibility, and it should make you question the sources you're reading this crap in, which I'll get to in a moment.



What are you even talking about? Gun death stats are readily available, I use them all the time in my arguing.



A stupid idea being pushed by people who don't know any better. So what?



F*ck your condescension, considering the amount of errors and BS I've found in this post alone, you have no right to sneer at anyone. In this very post, you go on about how you want to ban guns you think are too scary, but then you turn around an mock people for worrying about people wanting to ban their guns? Do you not see the problem here?



Many states have been doing just that, for years, without incident.



You don't get to define reasonable, and that's their job besides.



You mean the ideals espoused by Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers?

Also, we don't need to take on the Marines, just the anti-gun people and their lackeys.



And you know this as an NRA member and a gun owner? And by "extreme" you mean "leaves most people alone"?


Emphasis mine.

I think I see the problem...

Do you also go to the KKK website to get information about African Americans and the NAACP? Not a single non-left wing source in the bunch, and several explicitly anti-gun sites to boot. Do you normally go to partisan hacks with an axe to grind when you're looking for reliable info? That would explain a lot...

But, wait, you just said,

So which is it? A police action in which the military won't bring out the big guns (and, as previously noted, the Tsarnayevs saw how well that worked; Boston was shut down, and the inhabitants uttered not a peep of protest), or a military action in which the powers-that-be are under siege, in which case all bets are off?
Also, not all of the military's best toys are things that go boom; silk shirts did a lot for the Mongols in their day.


You ask for proof, and when I provide it, you say, "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Women generally don't like guns because women generally are not into killing and blowing things up as much as men are. Whether this is cultural or hardwired is moot; the fact that women don't like guns, in general, is not a fault. The problem with this world is not that too few women are armed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/private-gun-sales-sandy-hook_n_2347420.html
quote
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... s/2925679/
quote:
California isn't in the top 10.
http://247wallst.com/special-report/201 ... -violence/
quote:

Annnd, yeaahh, how much has Obama done to actually take away your guns, in this term or the last? His big push was for universal background checks, and even that didn't go through. So, yeah: paranoia.

I stand corrected on the arms race thing, then, but even if that's not the argument you're making, it is the argument that most gun nuts make. 'I need a more powerful gun because criminals are armed, because criminals don't obey gun laws.' I see it all the time, and I'm sure that you do too - so forgive me for missing the subtlety of your argument. As for thinking that keeping a gun on your person is 'taking responsibility for your own person...' ! You have either a funny notion of responsibility, or a funny notion of self-defense, depending on how you meant 'responsibility' there.

'Good guys with guns' didn't do any good at Columbine. They didn't do any good for Gabby Giffords - that gunman was taken down when he paused to reload. They didn't do any good at the Navy Yard. They didn't do any good at Fort Hood. The 'good guy with a gun' who showed up at the Sikh temple massacre was lucky he was wearing a bulletproof vest, and he sure didn't stop the killer. All of those places had armed officers on scene, and the best those officers did was get shot.
And there's this:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/n ... index.html
If the trained cops even injure more civilians than bad guys, how is the average Joe Dilettante CC man going to do any better?

As opposed to your arguments, which usually go, 'I'm a resoponsible gun owner!' n=1, really useful.


Don't pretend to be more stupid than you are. If country A has an attempted suicide rate of 100/100K each year, and country B has an attempted suicide rate of 1/100K each year, country A is going to have a higher suicide rate even if there's not a single firearm within the borders. If they did have firearms, though, their success rate would be even worse. Culture has a lot to do with it, but the success rate has a lot to do with the weapon of choice.

Ignoring the insult, I've brought this up before. In arguments with you, even. Again, I would defer to you: how much firepower do you need to take down a mountain lion? How many bullets before you reload? My grandpa shot a bear with a single shot of a 30-6 hunting rifle; not sure what my great uncle used for the mountain lion that was going after his sheep. If you were going to be in the back yard with a mountain lion trying to kill you (or your livestock), what's the smallest piece of your arsenal that you could grab and be sure of success?
Wrt. Universal background checks: California has them, and my county, at least, does not enforce removal of guns from people who should not have them. The US as a whole does not even have the universal check law.

Thank the gods. There was some federal guy trying to force all of us commies to recognize other state's CC permits, and thankfully that went down in flames; we've seen who can get guns in half-assed places like Nevada or Alaska.

we were talking about whether or not it was legitimate to fear that the Dems, or Obama, were 'gonna take yer guns.' It doesn't matter what they want to do.

when?

It was the first one that popped into my head. 'Number one' would have more to do with the fact that they're a bunch of fear-mongering as*holes who schill for the billion-dollar gun industry. I don't think that the terrorist watch list is perfect, and I agree that people should be able to challenge their inclusion on it... but those are separate issues. If we think someone is too dangerous to fly, then we should also think that they're too dangerous to own a gun.
see above.
For a shortcut, how about we start with what the majority of actual NRA members want?
http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... t-america/
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org ... 6-12.shtml
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/0 ... apons-ban/
Even 50% of NRA members support a 5-day waiting period:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ing-shows/

they're immune from responsibility for the effects of their products when used for their intended purpose. When used for their intended purpose, they cause death. Why doesn't the car industry need a special law protecting them from liability 'when their product is used illegally'? Because cars, when used for their intended purpose, do not kill people.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/05 ... d-20130205

my phrasing was sloppy, based on my memory of an old article. This is what I'm referring to:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nra ... n_science/

so >70% of NRA members are stupid? See above.

Where did I say that I want to ban guns that are 'too scary'?
Where did I say that I want to ban all guns?

See the parts of this post above about 'good guys with guns' and civilians injured by police in a firefight with a bad guy. Again, that's when the very-well-trained good guys are doing the shooting. Also:
http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/arti ... s-be-armed
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... ently.html

Again, how about we start with what gun owners think is reasonable? See above. As for it being 'their job,' yes: that's part of why I don't like them.



Doesn't matter, in this case, what the founding fathers wanted (any more than it matters what the founding fathers thought about automobiles); for citizens to be able to take on the federal government in this day and age, it would take a lot more than a few guys with semiautomatic weapons. Do you really want American citizens to be armed to the level that they could reasonably expect to give the US military a run for its money?

Just the people who disagree with you, got it. And the politicians who agree with them. And the military that obeys the politicians... including the current Commander-in-Chief, whom you think is one of those anti-gun people.

Can you say, "ad hominem"?
I knew you could.


did you really just compare Salon et. all to the KKK?

Dude. Go home. Get some sleep, and come back. I'll start a new gun thread so that we can get this out of the feminism thread.

Gun fans should be mad at the Tea Party Gov Shutdown. It has caused gun permit approvals to greatly slow down.

Anyway: Feminazis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/books ... women.html

Militia hating bourgeoisie, you just earned the rank of "Person who could care less if our Government is taken over by insane Anarchists, let alone Insane Republicans". Have you no sense of freedom? You should have been born during the revolutionary war.
I love our country, but that sass will get George Washington to writhe in his grave!

Whether or not I think it would work has little to do with my emotional response to the issue.

Whether or not anyone tells you that when presented with fact, you completely deny all of it, and claim the other person is pretending to be dumber than he looks, I have no doubt you would just say more stuff that doesn't make any sense, just like half of your posts on this thread, and your last response to our point that bombs used in america by americans would be shooting america in the foot.

Your the Riddler of gun control.

Oh? What "facts" am I denying?

As far as "stuff that doesn't make sense," Dox at least understands me perfectly well no matter how vehemently he and i disagree on this topic. He is smarter than the average conservative, though.