ADVERTISEMENT

Biden gets one right.

Hmmm...... 300+ million people with guns vs maybe 3 million with military assets?

Who are they going to bomb? Who are they going to take out with a tank? You think the military can hold a city when the population is armed and willing to use small arms?

Did you learn nothing from Vietnam?
It would be urban warfare. Our military seems pretty good at that. If you were to hid in the hills, it'll end worse than Red Dawn.

I'm a lot less strident on the subject than you think I am. I've always been for sensible regulation that doesn't keep responsible people from owning guns.

But suing gun manufacturers for crime just doesn't make sense to me, in terms of curbing crime.
I think the threat of removing immunity brings the gun companies to the table. They're part of this, just like Phillip Morris had to be brought to heel.


I know you think we're crazy for thinking it, but the founding fathers knew human nature and knew governments always overstep their boundaries.
They knew their situation and the history to that point. And they'd just come off defeating the British. And many folks still hunted their food And protected themsevles from Indians.

None of that happens today. And contrary to seemingly everyone on the right's opinion, the Feds aren't banging down doors ever. Never. We fought a civil war in our history and survived it with little recidivism in the South (in that they didn't start another war). We aren't going to do it again.
 
It would be urban warfare. Our military seems pretty good at that. If you were to hid in the hills, it'll end worse than Red Dawn.


I think the threat of removing immunity brings the gun companies to the table. They're part of this, just like Phillip Morris had to be brought to heel.



They knew their situation and the history to that point. And they'd just come off defeating the British. And many folks still hunted their food And protected themsevles from Indians.

None of that happens today. And contrary to seemingly everyone on the right's opinion, the Feds aren't banging down doors ever. Never. We fought a civil war in our history and survived it with little recidivism in the South (in that they didn't start another war). We aren't going to do it again.
WOLVERINE!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: snarlcakes
WOLVERINE!!!
It was the beret that always did it for me.

FlFDxT_WIAINroI.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: snarlcakes and DANC
It would be urban warfare. Our military seems pretty good at that. If you were to hid in the hills, it'll end worse than Red Dawn.


I think the threat of removing immunity brings the gun companies to the table. They're part of this, just like Phillip Morris had to be brought to heel.



They knew their situation and the history to that point. And they'd just come off defeating the British. And many folks still hunted their food And protected themsevles from Indians.

None of that happens today. And contrary to seemingly everyone on the right's opinion, the Feds aren't banging down doors ever. Never. We fought a civil war in our history and survived it with little recidivism in the South (in that they didn't start another war). We aren't going to do it again.
No, military has any chance against an armed populace. There are too many people and too much land to occupy and control. It’s just a numbers game. Not to mention, where are you going to get your supplies when you’re trying to kill everyone? Also, not all of the military would side with Government. The military would end up occupying some major urban areas and strategic locations.

To be clear, no, I don’t think our government is coming to kill us.
 
No, military has any chance against an armed populace. There are too many people and too much land to occupy and control. It’s just a numbers game. Not to mention, where are you going to get your supplies when you’re trying to kill everyone? Also, not all of the military would side with Government. The military would end up occupying some major urban areas and strategic locations.

To be clear, no, I don’t think our government is coming to kill us.
Not to kill you - to control you.
 
No, military has any chance against an armed populace. There are too many people and too much land to occupy and control. It’s just a numbers game. Not to mention, where are you going to get your supplies when you’re trying to kill everyone? Also, not all of the military would side with Government. The military would end up occupying some major urban areas and strategic locations.

To be clear, no, I don’t think our government is coming to kill us.
I agree that it won’t ever happen for the most obvious of reasons. Just like the feds won’t becoming for anyone’s guns or butter.
 
Refuse to protect me with the forced abducted tax dollars and then refuse me the right to protect myself. But Dead people still vote democrat so it'll probably pass.
You will still have the right to protect yourself.
 
Not to kill you - to control you.
I agree with snarl that our military would struggle mightiliy and it would become a civil war. There's wayyy too many gun owners. Which won't happen b/c we already tried it and it didn't work for the secessionistas.

I guess that's also why no other world military would even think to actually rock up on the shores of the USA expecting to just waltz right in.
 
The government just locked us all up in our homes for a year based on faulty information they knowingly lied to us about.
But the govt didn’t do that. I live in Illinois. We were never locked up in our homes. That kind of thing did happen, though, in China.

I think the last hundred years of history disprove your underlying sentiment. I’m not sure the people in Europe have lesser democracies or more military rule of their nations than we do. So those quotes you provided, I think, have proven outdated and false in their conclusions on the importance of bearing arms. Ditto recent Australian history.

Also, Illinois and other states had more restrictive gun laws throughout most of my life. I don’t think they had less vibrant democracies during that time than Texas, for example, at the state, municipal, or federal level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
No gun manufacturer would be liable for the actions of a nut. They are only liable for their own actions. That can include putting into the steam of commerce a product that has no social utility and Is ultra-hazardous. Or a dangerous product that is marketed and distributed in an irresponsible manner.
What is the social utility of Everclear? If we have a rash of deaths due to people committing crimes with it (forcibly holding people down and making them drink it until death), should the manufacturer of Everclear be held liable?
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: DANC and mcmurtry66
What is the social utility of Everclear? If we have a rash of deaths due to people committing crimes with it (forcibly holding people down and making them drink it until death), should the manufacturer of Everclear be held liable?
I see what you did there.
 
What is the social utility of Everclear? If we have a rash of deaths due to people committing crimes with it (forcibly holding people down and making them drink it until death), should the manufacturer of Everclear be held liable?
Oh my god you cannot be serious. I lost my virginity on purple passion. As did most of my friends. Everclear right on that beautiful purple label
 
What is the social utility of Everclear? If we have a rash of deaths due to people committing crimes with it (forcibly holding people down and making them drink it until death), should the manufacturer of Everclear be held liable?
No.

I don’t think somebody forcing everclear, or any poison, down a restrained person is the type of foreseeable event that triggers a claim and an analysis of the utility. .

This is to be contrasted with an AR 15 where given recent history indiscriminate use against human beings is foreseeable. My argument is then for the providers of these dangerous instruments to justify them. I’d like to see a discussion of that point, but I haven’t seen one. I don’t see why these weapons must be semi-auto. Why not just bolt or lever actions with smaller magazines?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rx7eric and larsIU
No.

I don’t think somebody forcing everclear, or any poison, down a restrained person is the type of foreseeable event that triggers a claim and an analysis of the utility. .

This is to be contrasted with an AR 15 where given recent history indiscriminate use against human beings is foreseeable. My argument is then for the providers of these dangerous instruments to justify them. I’d like to see a discussion of that point, but I haven’t seen one. I don’t see why these weapons must be semi-auto. Why not just bolt or lever actions with smaller magazines?
How many people are killed by AR 15s? Are there any viable alternatives if they are banned? What is the threshold for the government to try and legislate risk in society?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ty Webb iu
What is the threshold for the government to try and legislate risk in society?
Legislating risk has always been done pretty well by the market wouldn’t you say?

Sure, sometimes the government has to outright regulate something like air travel. But, quite often, safety standards and the CBA of taking on enormous risk (being sued for a gazillion dollars) flow directly from the balancing provided by civil action.

Water finds a level.
 
No.

I don’t think somebody forcing everclear, or any poison, down a restrained person is the type of foreseeable event that triggers a claim and an analysis of the utility. .

This is to be contrasted with an AR 15 where given recent history indiscriminate use against human beings is foreseeable. My argument is then for the providers of these dangerous instruments to justify them. I’d like to see a discussion of that point, but I haven’t seen one. I don’t see why these weapons must be semi-auto. Why not just bolt or lever actions with smaller magazines?
You sidestepped my hypothetical. If the AR-15 rationale is based on recent history of people using it in crimes (making it foreseeable), then if we have a crimes using Everclear, what's the difference?

Why must Everclear be 190 proof? Why not just make it 90? It kills faster and more often at 190 than 90 so it must be inherently dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
You sidestepped my hypothetical. If the AR-15 rationale is based on recent history of people using it in crimes (making it foreseeable), then if we have a crimes using Everclear, what's the difference?

Why must Everclear be 190 proof? Why not just make it 90? It kills faster and more often at 190 than 90 so it must be inherently dangerous.

Are you trying to argue the case?

Or argue the topic of the thread?

The makers of Everclear don't have any civil immunity codified by Federal law. Why don't you stay on topic?
 
How many people are killed by AR 15s? Are there any viable alternatives if they are banned? What is the threshold for the government to try and legislate risk in society?

These were. And I can guarantee that if Lanza was only operating with a pistol some of these faces would still be here.

But you need to be ready to take on the "guvernmint'

171213180354-sandy-hook-victims-graphic.jpg
 
There is a lot of evidence, pictures, etc of what a high velocity round does to a human. Show that to the jury and explain how often an AR 15 is used in mass and school shootings. Then you can explain why that weapon in consumer stream of commerce is not an issue. Then the jury decides.
I'm well aware of the ballistics of the .223. Not sure why you're hung up on high velocity when any velocity can kill just as dead.

It will never stop with just the AR15. You take those then it will be on to the next. I don't trust gun grabbers to ever be satisfied.
 
Hmmm...... 300+ million people with guns vs maybe 3 million with military assets?

Who are they going to bomb? Who are they going to take out with a tank? You think the military can hold a city when the population is armed and willing to use small arms?

Did you learn nothing from Vietnam?
Who would produce the militarys' food, fuel, medical supplies, ammunition, and all the other things an effective combat soldier needs? Who will repair the bridges and other infrastructure that gets destroyed.

Who will replace the trained soldiers and NCOs that decide to leave the military? You know, the non combat people that are necessary to support front line troops, and the core of small units. The Navy would be irrelevant.

They seem to think it will only be white people they have to go after. Where do all those Green Berets, Army Rangers, and SEALs go after they leave the military, you know the guys trained in developing counter insurgencies. I guarantee you most of those guys aren't siding with the government.

Not only Vietnam but the first 8 months of Korea was a disaster for the US military.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
But the govt didn’t do that. I live in Illinois. We were never locked up in our homes. That kind of thing did happen, though, in China.

I think the last hundred years of history disprove your underlying sentiment. I’m not sure the people in Europe have lesser democracies or more military rule of their nations than we do. So those quotes you provided, I think, have proven outdated and false in their conclusions on the importance of bearing arms. Ditto recent Australian history.

Also, Illinois and other states had more restrictive gun laws throughout most of my life. I don’t think they had less vibrant democracies during that time than Texas, for example, at the state, municipal, or federal level.
I can go pull videos of how much freedom Australians had during COVID when their government decided they should no longer have it. Australia was one of the most restrictive governments on the planet. They had internment camps for Pete's sake.



We weren't put under as strict restrictions because they couldn't. They lied about it. They exerted immense social pressure. They shut down schools. They closed up businesses. They did everything they could to lock people up but they couldn't go as far as Australia. Why?



Because even Gravy SEALS are a threat when they have guns. Particularly high powered ones.

An unarmed populace is only as free as their government decides they can be on that day. Democracy did nothing for the Australians in that internment camp when a 2 vote majority decided to lock them up. As the officer said, "You just have to do what you are told."

My house isn't on fire, guess I don't need insurance. I have never lived in one that burnt to the ground. I have seen others, but not me. I haven't had a car wreck in years, guess I don't need collision insurance. There are doctors around who can take care of me so what is the point of exercise and eating healthy? No one has ever robbed me, why lock the doors? Most people are good.

I am not saying the government is coming to get anyone at the moment and I am not advocating armed rebellion against this government. I am saying that I want an insurance policy should this government decide to, I don't know, arbitrarily lock up people of Japanese descent in concentration camps because of a conflict with their country of origin. That could never happen in a good place like this, we have a trustworthy government.
 
These were. And I can guarantee that if Lanza was only operating with a pistol some of these faces would still be here.

But you need to be ready to take on the "guvernmint'

171213180354-sandy-hook-victims-graphic.jpg

If these folks could have a good time without the booze, these people would still be here...but you gotta have your beer/whiskey/vodka/etc. to have a good time.

What happened to those kids was terrible. Unfortunately having to deal with some people's bad decisions is a byproduct of living in "freedom". Free people don't always make good decisions. I can think of all sorts of freedoms we can yank back if we want to help save children. Alcohol would be near the top of that list. Drinking it has no social utility and it wrecks families and lives. But that's different right.
 

If these folks could have a good time without the booze, these people would still be here...but you gotta have your beer/whiskey/vodka/etc. to have a good time.

What happened to those kids was terrible. Unfortunately having to deal with some people's bad decisions is a byproduct of living in "freedom". Free people don't always make good decisions. I can think of all sorts of freedoms we can yank back if we want to help save children. Alcohol would be near the top of that list. Drinking it has no social utility and it wrecks families and lives. But that's different right.

No social utility for booze? How many kids are here walking the earth because mom and dad had a few too many? I've got one!
 
This would be a great thing if the other side wasn’t bought and paid for by the the killing machine industry.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT