Shooting Amish People

[King Zarathu]

Sorry, I don't buy into paranoia about the government. I am far more afraid of the average armed Texan than I am of the government.

Here, here! They all own guns, and it just disgusts me.

"lolz, i liek 2 go shootin teh birds n stuf.. lol, i tihnk it makes me 1337--but omfg if ne1 evr cums up 2 me wnating 2 take mah $$money lol ima bust a cap in his ayass LOLOLLLOLOLOLLL!!!!111111111L1"

[TDurden]

fras you're out of your mind. this isn't like some facist society where the government is controlling every aspect of our lives and we need to defend our liberties. i agree that taking away the guns during katrina was against the law, but it also makes sense from a common sense standpoint. you don't need to be a genius to know that looting can turn riotus easily if guns are introduced. i agree with vashti 100% on this one. the angry poor person with a 9mm is far more frightening than the government.

i'm not saying civilians shouldn't be able to own guns. just that gun control should be taken seriously and the only firearms available to the public should be pistols and hunting rifles. no one needs a semi-automatic AK.

[Gigabitch]

i'm not saying civilians shouldn't be able to own guns. just that gun control should be taken seriously and the only firearms available to the public should be pistols and hunting rifles. no one needs a semi-automatic AK.

Yup. What he said.

[misombra]

i arm myself against the government and all the people they govern too.

[Gigabitch]

i arm myself against the government and all the people they govern too.

Are you armed?

[misombra]

and dangerous.

[Junket]

just that gun control should be taken seriously and the only firearms available to the public should be pistols and hunting rifles. no one needs a semi-automatic AK.

Admit it, I have a viable argument.

But now you're talking about semi automatic rifles which I never made any mention of.

However semi automatic handguns are far more dangerous because they're concealable. You'd need a trench and a strap to hide a rifle.

You keep refering to the now.

In terms of defense, you don't buy a gun when you need a gun. Because by that time you may not even legally get your hands on one.

You buy one as a precaution.

Same thing with disaster preparedness.

You don't scramble about during a disaster to get the proper supplies, you do so before hand.

And might I mention what you consider "common sense". Say all hell is breaking loose around you, but you have you and your family fairly prepared in terms of supplies. But you know there's a bunch of crackheads runnin' through the streets looting houses. Tell me how it makes sense for the National Guard to bust in your home and take your firearm away then march off.

Tell me Durden, does that make any sense?

[King Zarathu]

i agree with vashti 100% on this one.

No you don't, you agree with me. Nobody agrees with vashti. Vashti sucks.

[TDurden]

z, you're right, my bad. i agree with you.

fras, the people in new orleans were shooting being who were trying to help. they need to have their guns taken away. all these scenarios you're proposing are extreme and not realistic. and people don't shoot places up with handguns as often as rifles.

[Junket]

z, you're right, my bad. i agree with you.

fras, the people in new orleans were shooting being who were trying to help. they need to have their guns taken away. all these scenarios you're proposing are extreme and not realistic. and people don't shoot places up with handguns as often as rifles.

No, you're the one being unrealistic.

The guns are for extreme circumstances, and NOLA only proved that those situations are not beyond us. You seem to just be viewing guns as "gun=bad". I cannot believe you just referred to NOLA as "extreme and not realistic". I take that offensively. Seriously, because you are suggesting everbody who owned a gun shot at helicopters, police and rescue personel. Don't you think that accusation is extreme?

Not only that, but even I recognize that handguns are more dangerous in their concealability and ease of use. Take for instance a child getting their hands on a handgun in comparison to a long rifle.

[TDurden]

you're not getting it. of course not everyone who had a gun was overly violent with it, however there were enough that it was completely practical and reasonable to take them away. laws aren't a mandate from god. look at free speech, i personally feel it should be illegal for there to be public hate speeches but it isn't. the right to bear arms wasn't to into place by a bunch of all knowing omnipotent beings. they were regular people with flaws just like the law itself. you're trying to defend it as though bearing a firearm is crucial to our existence. it is not. the fire arms in new orleans helped nothing.

[Junket]

you're not getting it. of course not everyone who had a gun was overly violent with it, however there were enough that it was completely practical and reasonable to take them away. laws aren't a mandate from god. look at free speech, i personally feel it should be illegal for there to be public hate speeches but it isn't. the right to bear arms wasn't to into place by a bunch of all knowing omnipotent beings. they were regular people with flaws just like the law itself. you're trying to defend it as though bearing a firearm is crucial to our existence. it is not. the fire arms in new orleans helped nothing.

How many, Mr. Durden, were using them in an overtly violent way?

Tell me where the governor drew the line?

I can see you're apt to adopting strictly left wing ideology.

You like the government doing things for you.

You like the goverment to protect you from others as well as yourself, because you seem to trust the goverment as most fundamentalists trust their gods.

However you make the argument that the laws are flawed as are the people. So is it not hypocritical to become so dependent on such laws?

The gov't doesn't always set up a voting booth when a decision has to be made.

What are you going to do when the law cannot protect you?

What do you know about New Orleans that guns wouldn't help you?

Would you, Mr. Durden, this is a question I expect you to answer, if you and your family were put in a situation, such as that of the Gulf Coast, where a large portion of the peace keeping force was in shambles, phone lines, cell phones, internet were useless, and you were able to recognize the potential for looters to trespass on your property. Would you, or would you not want to have a firearm for personal protection? If you were to not have a firearm for protection, what would you use for personal protection.

Can you, Mr. Durden, answer the question. Straight up?

[King Zarathu]

I look better in a suit than both of you. That's right.

[Gigabitch]

I look better in a suit than both of you. That's right.

Watch it or you're going to get shot.

[King Zarathu]

Watch it or you're going to get shot.

With a semi-automatic or an automatic?