patrick.net

Police don't typically know what you own, with regards to firearms, unless you are a concealed carry permit owner. Then I don't even think they know WHAT you are packing, just that you can conceal carry. They approach every car like its driver may shoot at them. Traffic stops and domestic violence are typically where cops see most danger against them. Make a cop fear for his/her life at the risk of your own. Pretty sane and simple to me.

The Taliban is not having US tanks, large munitions, or large force deployments against it. Your example doesn't work, because if they did, they would be ended. We are choosing to kill them with a scalpel and not a broadsword. Complete extermination is not the goal. Killing the leaders and the ideals is. If the US wanted to, much to our political detriment, we could wipe the majority of Taliban off the map. It would cost a lot more in our own lives, money, than is worth to us. This is not because the rifle they wield is effective against an army. They live off of hiding and being a parasite in fringe lands between nations. They have remote location and hard to reach area as a shield. They have no nation state. They have a gang.

Anyone trying to stop the US military with a rifle, and establish a nation of their own, against its will ... rifles alone ... it's not happening.

"I can use the rifle to get a ... a ... jet ... or a cruiser ... or a predator drone! yeah! That's it." This argument doesn't hold water. Freedom fighters don't know crap about modern technological warfare and are completely outclassed by modern professional armies. The rifle allows them to "be heard" ... but long term existence against the will of the US ... not a chance.

jazz music says

Taliban will fall, okay but they will be replaced by another group doing the same things, like ISIS, there will be others after ISIS too.

Because just like gang recruiting those without hope, or opportunity, are easy pray for radical ideas and a sense of belonging. Give them a cause to fight for, and they will relish in it. OBL knew this well.

Rew says

The freedoms and rights we have are all privileges extended by the society we live in. You can philosophically say they are unalienable human rights, but you can see many instances through the world where they are not extended.

What rights we have is based on our political will and fiat. However, do we want to live in a society of rights or a society of privileges. I vote for the former. Privileges can be arbitrarily given and taken away and are very susceptible to abuse. Whatever we call a right should have a greater resistance to the whims of police, judges, and politicians.

Rew says

All rights are interpreted in the court of law and evolve over time. So by that logic all rights must be privileges because in some instances we deem they do not apply?

The set of rights people have in a society does change with time. But privileges can be flipped-flopped much more quickly and on the individual level. If we abide by the 14th Amendment, we all have the exact same set of rights regardless of who we are, what connections we have, and what we have done.

There is still a very important distinction between rights and privileges.

Rew says

Police, yes by occupation, have more legal rights and protection under the law

Unfortunately, they do, but they should not. This is a defect in our society and one that violates the 14th Amendment. It is not a necessary or even desirable defect.

Rew says

"Stay away from this area. Move around." An officer issuing that verbal command has the legal right to control and influence my movement for his/her own safety.

Ah, but he should not. He should only enforce the law not decide what people can and cannot do. If there is a law stating you cannot be at place X, then any citizen should be able to make a citizen's arrest.

Rew says

"Arms" and under what conditions you can "bear" them are all interpreted.

Yes, and all such interpretations render the Second Amendment meaningless. If it is valid to interpret "arms" as "some arms but not other" then it is just as valid to say the only arms protected by the Second Amendment are herrings. Yes, you can club someone on the head with a herring, but you can't use any other weapons. See how allowing arbitrary "interpretation" can render a right meaningless?

It is better to make the laws clear and specific. If the laws need to be changed, then just change them in legislation. Don't make bogus interpretations to undermine a law.
Rew says

You can call them privileges if you want, because they are transient and regulated.

That's not my definition of a privilege. A right does not have to be permanent in society. However, will that right exists, by definition, it cannot be taken away. Furthermore, we should all have the exact same set of rights. These two principles are the basis of a fair and just society. Otherwise, we're no better than any country we ridicule.

Rew says

Oh further, I agree, gun possession is a privilege. Bearing arms is a right.

That's a contradiction as arms subsume guns. If you interpret the Second Amendment as only meaning the state must allow a person to possess at least one kind of weapon, then
1. Prisons still violate this interpretation
2. It renders the Second Amendment meaningless as a person's actual arms could be considered weapons. I know mine are registered weapons in several states.

Rew says

Your crypto example is wrong becuase that is an example of giving weapons to a foreign nation or power.

There's a big difference in using cryptography to secure your data when you travel abroad and giving the technology to foreign powers. You are allowed to take your guns out of the country.

In any case, domestic use of cryptography would be covered if the Second Amendment were in force and cryptography was considered a munition.

thunderlips11 says

Well, a militia armed with flintlock muskets that faces a modern military with M-16s is in big trouble, so it must mean modern military-equivalent personal weapons.

A militia armed with every assault rifle available, even illegal, stands no chance against a military with Abrams tank, Apache helicopter, bunker busters, and nuclear missiles.

Every state militia would have to have a military force equal to the federal governments for state militias to work. Very plausible in the 18th century. Completely ludicrous today.

State militaries don't get the economics of scale and funding that our single national military gets.
thunderlips11 says

If the presence of law abiding gun owners makes guns prevalent in our society, it does mean more criminals, terrorists, and crazies can get guns. That's why background checks don't work. The latest shooter passed all background checks as do most mass shooters.

The problem with the argument that "law-biding" citizens should be allowed guns is that it requires trust in something were the breach of trust is unacceptable. One could change the word "gun" to "nuke" and makes just as much sense. Should law-biding citizens be allowed to have nuclear bombs? Hell, we're not even allowed to have three ounces of liquids on planes. After all, all criminals and terrorists are born law-abiding citizens and remain so until they actually break the law.

Straw Man says

It's funny how Dan is threatening US gun owners with tanks and even ICBMs but can't explain why Taliban is still alive and kicking 15 years since the start of Afghan campaign...

www.Nepysk5rOf4

The Taliban has never been a threat to the people in our government. It is laughable to even suggest that the Taliban has any chance of toppling the U.S. government. If it did, the government would nuke any place the Taliban was regardless of the loss of innocent life and the political consequences. The government would do whatever it takes to preserve itself and it would have a "moral justification" for doing so.

The same goes if the American people ever revolted. They would be slaughtered. The ruling class would gladly kill 99.9% of the population and then import cheap labor to replace them rather than give up power.

If you don't think this is true, then you have learned nothing from history.

Goran_K says

Dan8267 says

I don't expect to change their minds anymore than I expect to change the mind of a racist or a jihadist.

These type of comments really weaken your position IMO.

How so? In all three cases people are set in their ways and motivated by emotion rather than rational reasoning. Convincing them to change their mind is near impossible. Preventing them from convincing future generations from following in their footsteps is very plausible and has been done to a great extent. Not only is racism far less today than before, but the number of gun owners is drastically down. True, there are more guns in America today, but they are owned by an increasingly smaller population.

NuttBoxer says

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 6 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Australia disarmed its citizens in 1996 and murdered no one. It was a resounding success.

Seriously, which country do you think America is more like, Nazi Germany or modern Australia? In fact, pretty much all of western Europe has far more gun control and fewer guns than the U.S. and their governments are far less likely to kill their citizens. Just look at the police shootings and death penalty and incarceration rates in the U.S. All higher than disarmed Europe.

And if the U.S. military did come to kill your family, how the fuck are you going to stop them with any gun legal or not? The idea of fighting the U.S. military, the most powerful military ever created and one with an incomprehensible technological advantage over you, is simply delusional. You are no more powerful than a cave man with a flint spear compared to them.

If you want to keep yourself safe from our government, the only effective way is to vote liberal every time. Liberals, not guns, are the things keeping the government from raping your wife and killing your family.

Hell, how could you even stop a SWATT team conducting a no-knock RAID on your house? Vote liberal and they won't be allowed to do this.

In fact, keeping our society armed increases your chance of being killed by the government and increases your chances of being killed by criminals. The militarization of the police is largely motivated by the firepower available to the public. Every mass shooting is an excuse to buy an armored vehicle and assault rifles for the local police.

jazz music says

The whole situation can be reversed by using civilian oversight. They will not accept civilian oversight having any authority over their employees, but the typically corrupt enforcement racket doesn't survive even token visibility by interested civilians.

Exactly why we need a national civilian ran court system for prosecuting judges, prosecutors, and the police, as well as 100% body cam coverage of police activity.

Straw Man says

jazz music says

Straw Man says

Yeah, they are out to get ya. Be afraid, be very afraid.

The whole situation can be reversed by using civilian oversight

You said "having guns at home gives them excuse to kill you". I countered with "they don't know what people have in most cases". For which you said "it doesn't matter whether you really have something because they will say you have it and kill you anyway". So, it looks like you agreed that having guns at home does not increase your chances of being killed by police. =))

Nonsense. The fact that the police don't know who is armed and who isn't makes them more trigger happy and willing to err on the side of their safety by shooting you and your entire family before you can even move. After all, there is absolutely no down side to them if they do, and they risk their lives if they don't. Remember that a cop shot a sleeping nine-year-old girl and then framed her grandmother for it, and he wasn't even brought to trial because the grand jury wouldn't indict him.

Rew says

"I can use the rifle to get a ... a ... jet ... or a cruiser ... or a predator drone! yeah! That's it." This argument doesn't hold water. Freedom fighters don't know crap about modern technological warfare and are completely outclassed by modern professional armies. The rifle allows them to "be heard" ... but long term existence against the will of the US ... not a chance.

Absolutely. The U.S. military has unlimited funding, standing bases, train constantly, advance weapons, and two centuries of experience. Joe Q. Public is a rank amateur. Even an ex-marine -- there is no such thing -- doesn't stand a snowball chance in hell against the military. Not even for an hour if they want him dead bad enough.

thunderlips11 says

ban POVs.

Do you mean SUVs?

I think he means "pretty old vampires", and yes, they suck.

zzyzzx says

There are cartoons, and then there are facts. Which is more important?

From Live Science, Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds

A new study, however, throws cold water on the idea that a well-armed populace deters criminals or prevents murders. Instead, higher ownership of guns in a state is linked to more firearm robberies, more firearm assaults and more homicide in general.

"We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite."

They found no evidence that states with more households with guns led to timid criminals. In fact, firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least. Firearm robbery increased with every increase in gun ownership except in the very highest quintile of gun-owning states (the difference in that cluster was not statistically significant). Firearm homicide was 2.8 times more common in states with the most guns versus states with the least.

The researchers were able to test whether criminals were simply trading out other weapons for guns, at least in the case of homicide. They weren't. Overall homicide rates were just over 2 times higher in the most gun-owning states, meaning that gun ownership correlated with higher rates of all homicides, not just homicide with a gun. The results will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

OK, so you wrongly thought that the availability of guns decreased crimes, but now that I presented evidence proving that the availability of guns INCREASES crimes, you'll do the rational thing and reverse your position, right? Oh, who am I kidding. You'll just ignore the evidence because the cartoon you posted was a bullshit excuse anyway. It's not safety you care about. It's feeling manly and playing with guns that's important to you. The fact that you are actually far less safe in a society with many guns doesn't mean shit to you.

NuttBoxer says

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 6 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

I love how the pro-gun side cherry picks examples. Every example above involves a tyrannical regime and tyrannical regimes kill their citizens regardless of whether or not those citizens are armed. But the pro-gun side uses such examples as why American citizens should not be disarmed because America is so very much like Nazi Germany and Lennon's Russia or like Cambodia or Uganda. At the very same time, the pro-gun side says any comparison to Australia or western Europe where gun control has worked incredibly well with no state slaughtering of civilians is utterly invalid because America is not Australia. Comparing America to modern Australia, a country with damn near identical history, politics, economics, and culture is invalid, but comparing America to Nazi Germany and third-world nations is perfectly valid.

When you choose which examples from history to use, not base on actual similarities to America, but based on what result you want to get, that's cherry picking, and it's a sign of a very weak position.

www.MiXJVLu-K4M

If you don't think people on the terrorist watch list should have guns, then vote Democrats. Because Republicans are more interested in the rights of terrorists then they are about your family's safety.

Funny how protecting Constitutional rights like due process and not being tortured weren't concerns of Republicans when they passed the USA Patriot Act. Maybe someone should have attached a rider to the Patriot Act repealing the Dickie Amendment. Then the Patriot Act would have never been passed.

Democrats should attached riders to repeal the Dickie Amendment to every fucking piece of conservative legislation for the rest of time.

4 gun bills dead.
Rep/Con/Teas,NRA,Gun manufacturers want American & immigrant terrorist to have easy access to semi-auto weapons
so they can kill in mass because the Amendment #2 is thirsty for blood.
Wonder if any of their loved one's will be maimed or killed?
No problem,just 2nd Amendment collateral damage.

I'm not really an ASSHOLE, just the Hypocrisy & Consequences Advocate.

Pro-gun is anti-family-values.

The Scary And Heartbreaking Reason This Mom Photographed Her 3-Year-Old