zlacker

I say the same thing when people in oppressive regimes are silenced with no recourse because the government has no reason to fear it's own citizens. Sigh. I did not downvote your post, but frankly I'm angry that you just assume everyone who is pro-2nd amendment just isn't as enlightened as you are.

>>TallGu+(OP)
frankly I'm angry that you just assume everyone who is pro-2nd amendment just isn't as enlightened as you are.

Where exactly do I make that assumption? You'll notice that I didn't even call for a blanket ban on guns, just that, as a nation, we could actually sit down and have a serious talk about whether people should be able to own weapons like this one for private use:

[EDIT: I regret posting the link to the rifle, there's clearly plenty of debate about it that detracts from the main topic of discussion- and we don't know any details for definite.]

https://twitter.com/MarlowNYC/status/279655599585775616

>>untog+e
Fair point. I'd also like a serious discussion on whether most government have also lost the right to own them.

>>TallGu+(OP)
The weapons needed to resist a regime are not weapons we allow people to generally have in America at any rate.

If we really believed in the 2nd Amendment, people would be allowed to own serious weapons of war but not be allowed to own concealable personal firearms.

>>untog+e
There are many different types of .223 caliber rifles, many of which are bolt-action and don't fall into the "oooh scary looking para-military-like assault rifle category".

>>untog+e
Stop linking to FUD. It's been well reported that the shooter had two handguns, a Glock and a Sig Sauer.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-co...

>>untog+e
"He was wearing all black and was carrying two 9mm handguns" - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15907407-26-dead-...

>>untog+e
The .223 is common. The accessories make that gun look a lot more impressive. And you can't tell a gun's lethality just by looking at it -- the difference between semi-auto and full auto is just a cut-firing-pin apart on some guns, so there's no way to tell from outside the weapon.

>>pdeuch+71
AP News disagrees:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONNECTICUT_SCHOOL...

"A law enforcement official in Washington said the attacker was a 20-year-old man with ties to the school and that one of the guns was a .223-caliber rifle."

>>untog+e
What's so significant about that rifle? That it's black and scary looking?

Here's a semiauto rifle with the same calibre:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Min...

Would that one be more acceptable because it has a wood stock?

>>DannoH+U
The 2nd ammendment is not just about protecting yourself from foreign powers or your own government. You have a natural right to self defense from all threats.

>>untog+e
We've had that conversation several times, typically in the wake of tragic and isolated events like this one.

As a nation, we've decided that we don't want to restrict the rights of hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens merely because a few people misuse those rights. This is why politicians have generally decided not to push for more gun control - it's an election losing issue.

Incidentally, I'm confused by the point of that tweet. Here are some other .223 rifles:

http://s845.beta.photobucket.com/user/OldColdWarrior2009/med...

http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/9380/10373165_1.jpg?v=8C...

http://molot.biz/product-e/vepr223-super.jpg

For most calibers, you can find guns with many different form factors that accept bullets of that caliber. So what?

>>TallGu+(OP)
Oh, that is such a straw man. In America, the country in which I (and presumably you) live, what's the body count on the ol' oppressive regime-vs-AR15 wielding madman debate anyways? I'm thinking it's on the order of 0 to a couple hundred thousand. If everybody in North Korea owned a shotgun, yes, the world would be a better place. I don't understand why that means children should be murdered en masse, or that I should have to dodge bullets in my own neighborhood (yes, really), all so that you can sleep easier at night knowing that the far-off, nebulous specter of the 'oppressive regime' is held safely at bay by your Colt 45.

>>TallGu+(OP)
For all the rationale I ever heard about gun rights, the one you gave here might be the worst ever. If the government should fear it's citizens it's f* up already, you might as well have real diplomatic or military intervention, not let people die fighting in the street like happens right now in Syria [1].

The sad truth is, oppressive regimes exist in the first place because more powerful nations benefit from it. My own country lived for 17 years under an oppressive regime backed by the gun bearing, world's freedom and democracy flagship.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKsWGuLzsWk&list=PLC4FDC3...

>>DannoH+U
> You have a natural right to self defense from all threats.

Foreign and imaginary.

>>DannoH+U
From a legal POV, that's true in many places.

Getting legal access to high-performance rifles similar to military weapons is pretty trivial. Easily concealable weapons like pistols usually are more difficult to get a hold of legally.

The legal environment doesn't always translate into reality. I live in a small upstate NY city where we unfortunately have lots of shootings, mostly between poor high school kids. The local drug gangs make "community guns" available in public places like parks.

I would never want to own one, but for someone like me to own a handgun for target practice, there's an onerous process. I'd be required to get training, get background checked and go through a permit application process. After that's done, it's up to a county court judge's discretion, and in this county, the answer is usually "No."

>>untog+e
The AP article says only that it was a .223 rifle. This [1] is also a .223 rifle.

[1] http://i.imgur.com/1aCHK.jpg

>>DannoH+U
Most wars are still primarily men + logistics + intelligence + rifles, the rest is just details.

>>TallGu+(OP)
Yup, because here in Canada, we're a horribly oppressed people, and have no hope of ever gaining true freedom because we don't have guns. Please.

>>hyperb+62
Greatly in favor of the regime, with civilian casualties of the Iraq War.

>>dmm+J1
Exactly, if I'm going to get shot (which i'm generally against in principle) I'd hope it was a AR-15 and not an AK for instance. The round will fuck you up, but you might get to wake up in a hospital.

>>DannoH+U
Hardly. Just because the public doesn't have nuclear weapons doesn't mean that they are incapable of resisting an oppressive regime. Ordinary firearms are for more than sufficient for that purpose. A populace doesn't need to be able to defeat conventional armies on an open battlefield in order to resist oppression. What would be the likely result of, say, an American insurgency against an oppressive government? You wouldn't see militias fighting against tanks, that's just stupid. You would see widespread assassination. You'd see guerrilla attacks on police forces and so forth. You'd see guerrilla forces with ordinary firearms making targeted attacks to gain access to more powerful weaponry. You'd see the public at large making life more difficult for the forces of the regime while giving support to the forces of the insurgency.

A mass of civilians aren't going to be able to stand up to a column of tanks easily, but just a hundred civilians armed with AR-15s are going to be able to stand up even to massed police forces. And if an insurgency is supported by the public at large then life is not going to be easy for the police and the military. This is the way that all guerrilla wars go, and there are many examples of successful insurgencies when they have widespread popular support, even against very well armed government forces.

>>untog+e
This is a terrible, very sad event. My heart goes out to everyone affected by it.

However, the idiocy of the tweet, designed only to spread FUD, the mindless retweets and ignorant comments, really piss me off. A few people have pointed out that .223 is a calibur, or 'shell size', and one of the mindless retweeters said she thinks shell size is gun specific.

i mean WTF... such epic ignorance...

>>chill1+y2
I think today's news shows that the non-foreign threats are hardly imaginary (and I would argue much more relevant than foreign threats).

>>hyperb+62
>> I don't understand why that means children should be murdered en masse, or that I should have to dodge bullets in my own neighborhood (yes, really), all so that you can sleep easier at night knowing that the far-off, nebulous specter of the 'oppressive regime' is held safely at bay by your Colt 45.

Pardon me, but I grew up in a country where 'oppressive regime' was not far off at all, and where brutal murders happened in my neighborhood all the time. I knew my Dad didn't own a gun and it scared me to death. So how dare you belittle my beliefs in the need for armed civilians. Disagree with them, by all means, but do you really think I'm arguing children should be murdered en masse?

What you're proposing is, in my opinion, that same thing as arguing that the government should regulate or perhaps even ban internet access because of all the child pornography. Screw civil liberties, think of the children!

edit: Also, I would argue that confiscating laptops at airports will save as many lives as trying to ban guns in the US at this point.

>>Inclin+T3
This is precisely true. You need not look further than America's troubled middle east wars to see how devastating a small guerrilla force can be. Some of the insurgents are using Mosin-Nagant rifles, a Russian bolt-action rifle that dates back to 1891!

>>bcoate+X2
+ Apache gunships

>>TallGu+F4
And now you live in a country with enough societal and institutional safeguards against oppression that it isn't necessary for the citizenry to own automatic weapons. Congratulations.

>>hyperb+S5
First of all, the country I grew up in was South Africa, which history can tell you was almost destroyed by what people called "safeguards" at the time. The government was trying to rid the country of "terrorists" and it brought the country to the brink of civil war. So what is the relationship between these societal and intitutoional safeguards you refer to, and the warrantless electronic surveillance that was also on the front page of HN this morning with vocal opposition from the vast majority of this community?

edit: In case it wasn't clear, I don't actually believe the South African government was doing what it claimed - but believe when I tell you we had no idea just how bad the government was until after it was all over. My point was that safeguards aren't always what you think they are, and they they won't always be there. You can't decide to give citizens rights only when the government decides they need them.

>>jevins+X4
It's also worth pointing out that in Iraq, for example, the insurgents did not have very much popular support and yet still made things tough for the most powerful conventional army in history. In fact, it was the erosion of that small amount of popular support that turned things around, as much as it was the increased troop levels in the surge before the US finally completely pulled out.

>>jevins+X4
This argument is silly. The only reason why the US has trouble against small guerrilla forces is because the world is watching. The US has the military power to literally take over the world if it could get away with it (barring nukes). War is hard in modern times because of moral outrage, not because of some intrinsic power of a firearm against an oppressive government

>>hackin+7i
Why did the Soviets have so much trouble with Afghanistan then? Were they concerned with what the world thought of them?

>>jlgrec+Hk
They did not have the technology that we do now. Guerrilla warfare hasn't changed much, but the most advanced military technology has changed drastically. And yes, they probably were concerned to a lesser extent. Each side in a conflict has to attempt to maintain a moral high ground or they'll lose their power. Long gone are the times when entire cultures reveled in massacres for its own sake. Even Hitler had to dress up his wanton evil in the language of the oppressed fighting back.

>>hackin+8n
Right, even Hitler was worried about public opinion... but presumably the DoD fighting Americans would not? And this is before we even get into the issue of telling American soldiers to shoot at Americans who look, speak, act, and pray the same as they do.

I'm just not buying it. Even with their massively over-inflated budget and their guilt-elimination drones there is no way the DoD could maintain an armed occupation of America. They are having a hell of a time doing it in a country less than one-tenth the size with less than one-tenth the people, filled with people who have been thoroughly dehumanized by popular media, people with far fewer connections to the outside world, and people for whom the soldiers have no tribal connections.

Thinking they would do better occupying America than Afghanistan is a really strange form of patriotic hubris.

(Lest you get the wrong impression, I support gun control and think that worrying about the possibility of Americans having to fight the American army is incredibly silly.)

>>jlgrec+6p
I'm not sure we disagree on anything here

>>jevins+X4
And yet they were not able to use these weapons effectively against homegrown tyrants.

>>marknu+91
New reports say that other guns were found - some kid of rifle left in the car r something like that.