11 year shoots 8 year old dead!

The link deals with that very subject.

And "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me, too.

Yeah, "there's no hope of being able to defend yourself from a tyrannical government, so why not help that along by making sure you can't?" Baka.

Yeah, that's why in these debates you are unable to articulate yourself more beyond clicking the "dumb" button.

If it were so clear, we would not be having this debate and you would be able to effectively but forward counter arguments instead of hiding behind neg reps.

The who talks of things being "clear".

Tell me, are hand guns and assault rifles enough to defend yourself against the military might of of the United States government?

Whatever you say, you repwhining crybaby.

They'd sure help.

Oh come on. "They'd sure help"? Against drone attacks? An air force and navy? Against tanks, armed helicopters and armed jeeps? Precision missiles?

Come on, it's clearly a yes or no question. Are guns sufficient to overthrow the power of the United States government? Come on coward, yes or no?

Captain X, the WF poster most likely to go on a killing spree, calls my posts "dumb".

Hee hee.

Yes. In part because they could help those who wielded them acquire more deadly weapons. Considering the trouble the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan caused our military, and the added factor of being forced to kill their fellow countrymen, do you really consider it impossible. And even if it was impossible, so what? Would you rather lie down like a dog, or at least try to fight?

He posted, as he lovingly oiled his 1911 while watching the nursery school across the street.

And there you have it, folks. Gunforge believes America = Iraq.

Also, pretty eloquent proof of El Chup's assertion that there is a cultural issue at play here.

Going by the examples of the various brushfire wars and insurgencies we've fought against since WWII, yes they are. But here's the thing: the military is made of the people. And when you join the military, you swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not whatever pack of idiots happens to be in charge at the moment. Military members are instructed in the question of what constitutes a lawful order and what does not. Being ordered to violate the constitution would be an illegal order and theoretically the military would not obey it. In practice, of course . . .

Yep, i got three myself from him. Not quite sure how he can justify the original post/ thread topic dumb when there is no attempt to go round in the usual circles, but there you go.

Pundits like to divide the U.S. into This Camp vs That Camp, but I wonder if any of them are quite as divisive as guns?

Because the argument itself is stupid. It's the same argument that those who pushed through the Patriot Act used, and it's the same argument anyone who wants to sacrifice liberty for some false sense of security always uses, with "won't someone please think of the children!" thrown in for an added bonus.

But that isn't a yes at all. It's a no. Why is it a no? Because you're adding in additional variables. You're saying "the guns can defend us, provided half a dozen other factors also come into play". What if they didn't and it was a pure civil war? You wouldn't have a chance in hell. You want to quote situations like Iraq, well how long did Saddam and his military last? In how many first world nuclear power countries of the size and strength of the United States has there been a successful coup d'etat?

In effect, what you're saying is the highly unlikely scenario you describe is reason enough not to address the murder of innocents, including school children, or reflecting on cultural problems? It's reason enough to ignore the problem and come out with the same old soundbites after each event. Pathetic.

When you characterize yourself as living in the equivalent of Iraq? Decidedly.

Maybe you'd like to take a field trip to compare?

Well, at least half your countrymen believe that there needs to be a dialogue on guns and potentially preventative measures take in response to these shootings. So it would be foolish to assume that all those people had the same assessment of the constitution as you. In fact, do you know that for many years it has been the long standing view of the US Supreme Court that while the right shall be preserved, regulation is permitted, and this is of course, reflected in various laws already in place on a state and federal level. So I wouldn't assume for a second that they are instructed on a legal view that falls in line with your own, or that they have the same opinion as you.

At the very least it is clear that pro-gun people do not have a clear cut majority of opinion on their side, nor a universal agreement that the Second Amendment is regulated, cannot be amended and cannot be subject to regulation.

The argument that there is an increase in child (and general) gun deaths in the US, in significant contrast to the rest of the West, and that questions should be asked, is stupid?

Please explain to me what is stupid about "how can you prevent fewer people dying"?

What's stupid is people like you using children as a shield for your true political motivations.

Oh dear God. And you're the one that's calling others dumb??

What are my political motivations? I am a foreigner. As is the OP. There are no political motivations, rather there is incredulity on this side of the pond that cunts like you are more interested in arguing over your big boys toys rather than caring about the children and innocent people, children and innocent people who are dying en masse. It's not political at all. We simply don't have this argument over here.

Yet in this case there was a diagnosis. Mother and son had both been diagnosed with Asperger's. In the article I posted, she described him repeatedly banging his head against the wall when he was kid. But she thought it was perfectly all right to keep loaded guns (with extra magazines) around the house.

Hmm . . . lemme clarify. I don't view the 2nd as an absolute, but I recognize the slippery slope and can read history books. Governments and various do-gooders do NOT want people to own guns. Period, end of line. History amply demonstrates this. But in America we have a tradition of personal gun ownership that goes back to colonial times. It is ingrained in our culture. And as I've said, what the 2nd is actually about is self-defense, not stocking a gun cabinet with things that go bang. I defend the 2nd with great vigor because I know with metaphysical certainty that any opening to restrict, remove, and prohibit personal ownership of firearms will be exploited by the control freaks to the maximum extent. And like I've said repeatedly, once they get their way with the 2nd, all the other rights enshrined in the Constitution will follow in short order. There are forces in human society that seek control, control, control. We've repeatedly seen throughout our history this impulse by some to declare themselves a privileged elite and then use that self-appointed status to ruthlessly oppress everyone else. This is a fact of human history. This is the basis of the American revolution, in fact, that we didn't see eye-t0-eye with the Crown and so resolved to separate ourselves from its clutches. And this, ultimately, is why the framers included the Second Amendment in our Constitution.

Slavery was part of our culture but we changed it. I do not buy that lots of gun nuts love guns therefor nothing can be done argument.

Not to mention the 18th Amendment vs the 21st Amendment.

And while Asslight and Soma would love to repeal the 19th, sucks to be them.

Yes, this is of course demonstrated by how western countries like the UK Australia, Canada and New Zealand, to name but a handful, have descended into oppressive dictatorships.......

Your argument doesn't stack up unless you are saying that Americans are untrustworthy, uncivilised and predisposed to oppression and chaos if you don't have a cabinet with a shotgun in it. Is that what you're saying? That you're inferior to the rest of us and can't operate a democracy in any other way? That you're comparable to groups like ISIS? You're not children, you can surely operate a sense of self restraint and morality? Or perhaps you can't, and therein lies part of the cultural issue and might contribute to why so much of the rest of the world look upon Americans as a people who have yet to fully develop.

What's more, the majority of people calling for a debate in the US aren't asking for guns to be banned outright, but rather to discuss methods of regulation, which, as I have said, is already recognised as perfectly legal. It seems you and the others want to keep advancing this straw man that anyone with calls for regulation is, by default seeking to ban guns outright. But the facts and figures don't support that at all. I put it to you therefore that this is really about finding excuses to allow the status quo to continue and not having to face up to an obvious problem by avoiding discussion.

Well there you go, just goes to show how dumb you are. As i said in the OP, i generally stay out of the gun threads, as much as i get annoyed at the fingers in the ears brigade here when there are mass shootings.

My motivations for posting the thread were not at all political but based on the fact that i have a little girl of my own. I opened the bbc website and saw the story, and as a father, it upset me. Hence the fucking question - what does it take to get you to start thinking enough is enough? Does it have to be your children lieing there dead?

Now stop being a dumbass, read the fucking posts and stop hiding behind your own political bias. Essentially that is what you are doing, you are so blinded that you wont even entertain the topic and instead 'dumb' rep bomb everyone. Well done.

At least @Lanzman is arguing his view even if he has skipped the question at hand. Hopefully the posters i expect to be responsible gun owners @Forbin @Paladin @Man Afraid of his Shoes and numerous others might take it on.