Elementary school shooting in CT, 20 kids & more dead

YouTube · by **JaoSming** on Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:38 pm

Reply timed out and Ben beat me

NovU wrote: Gun rights are also privilege that should not be abused. There are too many with too much, who actually have no needs for them.

'Murica bitch.

So what though, that argument is the same as saying no one should have luxury cars, big screen TVs in each room, or in the most comparable example, over a dozen rock band guitars. Limiting someone for the sake of limiting due to a lack of need is something our culture just does not, and will not, support or do.

If all those plastic guitars were assault rifles, would you be scared because someone could somehow carry all of them GTA style? Or that they would get a dozen of their buddies together and do something? What if there was a limitation of 1 assault rifle per person, would you be just as scared of those dozen friends with their own guns instead of someone elses? Do you see how a limitation of need does not affect anything?

To continue the rant, and give you something to respond to, it really is just a matter of guns being cool despite these tragedies. You can blame TV, movies, the news, video games, hell you can blame war veterans if you want. The power of using a gun is sexified in nearly any aspect of our society. It can change, just like gay/women/race rights, but it takes a change in societal views, definitely nothing that can happen overnight, even if it was started as a law.

by **NovU** on Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:49 pm

Guns = hertage, culture, thus a right. That's where entire issue stems from. First step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one.

JaoSming wrote::( Reply timed out and Ben beat me

NovU wrote: Gun rights are also privilege that should not be abused. There are too many with too much, who actually have no needs for them.

'Murica bitch.

So what though, that argument is the same as saying no one should have luxury cars, big screen TVs in each room, or in the most comparable example, over a dozen rock band guitars. Limiting someone for the sake of limiting due to a lack of need is something our culture just does not, and will not, support or do.

If all those plastic guitars were assault rifles, would you be scared because someone could somehow carry all of them GTA style? Or that they would get a dozen of their buddies together and do something? What if there was a limitation of 1 assault rifle per person, would you be just as scared of those dozen friends with their own guns instead of someone elses? Do you see how a limitation of need does not affect anything?

To continue the rant, and give you something to respond to, it really is just a matter of guns being cool despite these tragedies. You can blame TV, movies, the news, video games, hell you can blame war veterans if you want. The power of using a gun is sexified in nearly any aspect of our society. It can change, just like gay/women/race rights, but it takes a change in societal views, definitely nothing that can happen overnight, even if it was started as a law.

You really want to put guns in the same context with luxury cars and children toys? Why not cocaine, dopes, and prostitutes?

And I am sure everyone realizes this is more than an issue of simple gun control law due to circustamces in america. Which is why it's a hot issue.

by **benji** on Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:58 pm

NovU wrote:Guns = hertage, culture, thus a right.

I already explained it up above, I'll highlight the key part you want to ignore:

This is about the right to self defense. And since I own myself, I inherently have the right to defend myself by whatever means I wish to. That brilliant piece of paper recognizes and uses the law to protect that right. The fact it was written during a period when you were not only allowed to own military arms, you were expected to and expected to be well-trained with them (no standing army) does not change the fact that humans have that right even if the document is changed or ignored to use the law to violate their rights. (And the fact that other states violate the rights of their citizens is quite frankly irrelevant. If all of Europe jumped off a bridge...)

There is no justification for returning the state of self-defense to that of feudal society where the lords held all the arms and the serfs were defenseless and weak. I have no qualms about saying modern society with more powerful individuals and greater class osmosis is far superior.

I want to allow citizens to maintain their rights.

You want to use guns to suppress and violate their rights.

And you're lucky I recognize the existence of natural rights or else you'd be up shit creek for posting anything from The Newsroom, let alone that tired and embarrassing clap-trap that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion or any other that's ever existed.

JaoSming wrote:To continue the rant, and give you something to respond to, it really is just a matter of guns being cool despite these tragedies. You can blame TV, movies, the news, video games, hell you can blame war veterans if you want. The power of using a gun is sexified in nearly any aspect of our society. It can change, just like gay/women/race rights, but it takes a change in societal views, definitely nothing that can happen overnight, even if it was started as a law.

Worse than that, that use is not just glorified but made necessary when your chosen form of free trade is being violently suppressed by morally stunted men with guns (that NovU wants to be the only ones with guns). As they are denied a moderated and fairly peaceful form of conflict resolution the rest of us are allowed they gravitate towards and thus uphold a much more violent one.

by **NovU** on Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:26 pm

Bah. This discussion always boils down to 'rights' vs. 'civilians w/ guns doing more bad than good'. I'm not entirely against owning guns as I said but neither for every individual needing it for protection argument. That's that.

by **benji** on Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:33 pm

No, you're for using violent force (namely guns) to restrict the rights of citizens.

The only reason you're happy when that's done regarding guns is because you don't like guns. If I was in charge and using that power to roast the children of Heat fans alive with flashbangs while beating in Dwyane Wade's skull with Atlas Shrugged you'd be whining about your "precious rights" despite my objective facts about civilians* who support the Miami Heat doing more bad than good.

*And really go fuck yourself for that "civilians" bullshit.

by **bowdown** on Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:25 pm

Yeah a couple carrying a concealed gun would have been 100% the best thing to do for themselves. End of story. Nobody should bother fuck with someone who is minding their own business. If you try to attack somebody then you have got something in your face waiting for you.

A law abiding citizen should not have anything to worry about in public. Carry a concealed gun, go to a restaurant, watch a movie, mingle with your lady friend, take the bus back home together. Nobody fucked with you which means you didnt even have to use your gun. It was a good day.

by **NovU** on Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:45 am

benji wrote:No, you're for using violent force (namely guns) to restrict the rights of citizens.

The only reason you're happy when that's done regarding guns is because you don't like guns. If I was in charge and using that power to roast the children of Heat fans alive with flashbangs while beating in Dwyane Wade's skull with Atlas Shrugged you'd be whining about your "precious rights" despite my objective facts about civilians* who support the Miami Heat doing more bad than good.

Not true. Quit putting words in my mouth. Only thing you are discontent about this entire issue is that there are voice raised for needs of changes and concern to reduce gun crimes that centers around the topic of 'guns'.

benji wrote:*And really go fuck yourself for that "civilians" bullshit.

Well. U too buddy, with your 'self defense' bullshit against criminals who gets the first shot anyways and your own 'tyranny' government.

by **benji** on Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:24 am

NovU wrote:Not true. Quit putting words in my mouth.

I have not put any words in your mouth. Not once.

Are you or are you not advocating for the state to take away and prevent people from possessing whatever arms they want? Then you are LIT-ERALLY arguing in favor of using violent force (LIKELY GUNS) to restrict the rights of citizens.

Only thing you are discontent about this entire issue is that there are voice raised for needs of changes and concern to reduce gun crimes that centers around the topic of 'guns'.

What I am discontent about is the fact that some people want to use violence to restrict the rights of others. And I'm still somewhat discontent about "never let a crisis go to waste" although I expect it.

Well. U too buddy, with your 'self defense' bullshit against criminals who gets the first shot anyways and your own 'tyranny' government.

Self defense rights are not bullshit. It's the very core essence of possessing natural rights.

But separating us into "civilians" who have no rights and whatever the fuck you want to call the lords and knights you want to be the only ones to possess rights IS bullshit. Feudalistic bullshit.

And if you don't want to be considered a tyrant, I suggest you stop advocating for using violent force in suppressing the rights of your fellow man. (Especially considering they have done absolutely nothing to harm anyone and yet you still want to stomp their faces in.)