DIYbanter - View Single Post - 'Like a Ferrari, you don't need it'

Rod Speed

wrote in message
news

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 07:43:59 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 6:36:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands
will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and
has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right
birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

Â What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a
large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training
and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans
too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most
murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't
complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show
one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?

I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but
could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000
murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our murders, at
least in the sense you are talking about.

You say that like it's a good thing. It mostly just shows that we
have an unacceptably high murder rate from guns period that lowers
the percent that are mass shootings.

In other words, we don't give a **** how many die,

Particularly when its gang goons, they are better
off dead so they can't shoot anyone else.

we only care about white kids.

We care about any flavor of kids shot in their schools.