lol. So, what does a situation in which I might need the rednecks to save me from the government look like?

Are there any cases of a hero using an assault weapon to take down a bad guy that was armed with an assault weapon? Most of these stories seem to involve the hero with a concealed handgun taking down the bad guy with an assault weapon. I fail to see why assault weapons need to be legal for society to be safer from the crazies.

Is BOOM HEADSHOT!!! too soon?

Fly isn't arguing that the armed people are responsible for opposing tyranny. It's you that is saying that. Fly's position is pretty clear in that he doesn't believe that an armed population can stop a tyrannical government. He's asking you why, if the people could have done so, didn't they stop tyranny before.

Lol. I'd answer your question but I know you are itching to ban me.

I only ban people who disagree with me when they hurl insults at people.

What responsibilities am I delegating?

Again, as far as I can tell, the only freedom that y'all are willing to start shooting people over is the right to own guns. Which is kinda circular, but also, so what? What does that do for two gay guys who can't get married? What does DBL's stockpile of PMags do for anyone who isn't a gunowning doomsday prepper getting reading for the **** to hit the fan?

What aspects of oppressive tyranny are gun owners preventing? During the most oppressive era of recent American history, Jim Crow, the group "gun wielding rural white dudes'" primary contribution to the Civil Rights movement was murdering Martin Luther King.

If that's true, why is that the case? Can't teach an old dog new tricks?

You don't get it. Historically, the white man used gun control to keep the minorities unarmed. Now with the party that celebrates slavery working night and day to placate the sharecroppers they don't need to worry about such things. All they need to worry about is how to get their next government pay day. Gun control laws are racist. They keep minorities, and the poor, from affording guns. Because we all know those two groups are the same.

/dbl/neblis

I suspect that black people support gun control because inner city high crime areas get to experience the joys of a heavily armed populace each and every day.

As well as being hilarious this is a pretty accurate problem for the pro gun guys. The lack of extreme violence in countries with gun bans is really terrible evidence America doesnt need gun control.

I mean to go back to one of the thread's better points - if America has a problem with people driving around doing drive bys then how is the solution to have more guns?

At least when posters like hendricks433 defend guns at least they are admitting gun bans work but America doesnt need a gun ban because something something freedom. The rights of the minority of assault rifle owners in the minority of gun owners who end up being the minority who use their legally acquired guns to go on a shooting spree are worth more than the lives of the victims they kill. I may not agree with that point but at least I can nod along and say, sure, that is a position that isnt self defeating and obviously wrong (in an empirical sense, not a moral one of course).

Fly, I find it sad that you feel the need to inject needling derogatory stereotypes so often into your posts.

Is the content of your arguments so weak that you have to beef them up with simple insults?

Maybe the side with the Constitution in their corner needs to start flinging the equivalent?

I'll try to inject terms such as "limp wristers", "granola eaters", and "dirty hippies" from now on.

One question that I struggle with as a gun-control advocate, and the reason I don't like to correlate America with places like China, is that there are just so many guns here already, and that it's not THAT hard to buy one illegally. It's just a product of 200+ years of gun culture in this country. For those advocating making firearms illegal, is there a plan for removing the currently available guns from society?

Some pretty sweet irony here that you missed Fly's argument completely, and it was a pretty good one.

Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own an assault weapon? Do you know what guns looked like when the bill of rights was written?

really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really big magnets.

Where in the Constitution does it say that posts on an internet messageboard are protected by free speech?

He didn't miss the point, he can't respond to it in a meaningful way.

Someone has to fill in for DBL.

And to get back to this, no. Someone demonstrating a true conspiracy between the NRA and gun manufacturers would be a conspiracy empiricist.

Allow a certain amount of time to turn them in (perhaps give a financial incentive if turned in early), and when the 6 months, or year turn-in period is over it becomes a felony to possess them. Obv the gov't wouldn't always know when people didn't turn in their guns, but they don't always know when you have heroin at home or in your car either, but if you're caught you're in trouble. Most law-abiding citizens don't want to risk becoming felons.

It doesn't, and if posting on message boards was shown to be harmful to society in the ways that assault rifles are, I would expect it to become illegal.

There are many countries that have more murders than the US, some of which have stricter gun control laws. Most of which have fewer guns than the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

That the NRA looks out for the financial interests of gun makers is a conspiracy the same way that it's a conspiracy that when I give some money to one a dude in one window at McDonalds I get a McRib from a completely different guy AT A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WINDOW.

The problem is that so many of the guns are undocumented. There would be very little incentive for someone with an undocumented gun to turn it in. And the criminals would certainly not turn them in. I strongly prefer a society where there are neither legal nor illegal guns in the hands of citizens, I just don't know how realistic that is in this country.

Ouch, swing and a miss.

Posts on an internet messageboard are not protected by free speech.