Armed March to DC on 4th July

snouts

I'm glad to see gun owners standing up for their rights.

Guns and America are inseparable.

But I do worry that if you bring every gun owner in the country together, that all hell could break loose.

On balance though, I believe the march should be facilitated and that constitutional rights outweigh the risk of nutjobs.

#OpenCarry130704
https://www.facebook.com/events/252728144871259/

ColeTrain

An armed march? Can't see what could possibly go wrong there.

errlloyd

Dear Lord,

I've never been a very religious man, in fact sometimes I've questioned your existence. But I do believe, and through that belief I have never asked for anything. But today Lord, please, for you, me and the rest of humanity, send something, anything. An Earthquake, small asteroid, you flooded half the world to help Noah. You don't have to kill all of them, just hit them enough so they know even god hates them.

Yours'

Rational Humanity

murraykil

Like people using their arms to march instead of their legs? That would be interesting. How long is this march? Not too far probably, a couple of blocks most likely. It's on the 4th of july too! There are great parties in the USA on this day! Anyone around for it?

donvito99

But if all the goodies with guns go to DC, who will protect the schools, cinemas, shopping malls, etc., from the baddies?

Overheal

They have every right... but look at most protests. Like the Dublin student protests a few years back. Takes one ****ing idiot to turn a demonstration into a riot. Im interested in this purely from a logistical standpoint, as of the moment.

donvito99

Overheal wrote: »

one ****ing idiot

I take issue with this, but that would be going off topic.

murraykil

NRA, one nation under the gun!

seantorious

I'd give a **** but these people are separated from us by an ocean, if they want to shoot up schools let them.

Amirani

seantorious wrote: »

I'd give a **** but these people are separated from us by an ocean, if they want to shoot up schools let them.

Good man yourself.

Manic Moran

My concern is that I'm actually not sure if it's legal. D.C. likely has some pretty restrictive laws on the books on this sort of thing, it's not the most gun-friendly town in the US.

onemorechance

Right to carry. almost every state.

MadsL

http://i.imgur.com/drOXEEz.jpg

Promac

This is a problem that's rapidly heading towards fixing itself. It'll be ****ing awesome too - like the world's biggest battle royale.

MadsL

Promac wrote: »

This is a problem that's rapidly heading towards fixing itself. It'll be ****ing awesome too - like the world's biggest battle royale.

Why are you under some kind of illusion that legally held guns are the ones that are doing the killing in America? The line between truth and parody is absurdly blurred in this thread - most people posting here have no clue about how American gunowners actually behave - but then it is easier to laugh than to think.

hatrickpatrick

The phrase "social darwinism" comes irresistibly to mind.
All this needs is a tiny spark to start a riot and the whole problem goes away on its own.

MadsL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The phrase "social darwinism" comes irresistibly to mind.
All this needs is a tiny spark to start a riot and the whole problem goes away on its own.

Yes, because American gunowners are deranged lunatics. :rolleyes:

Could you try thinking?

Simple really

The illusion of a right to carry a firearm as you want, instead of a responsibility to not f*ck around with it, encourages people to normalise/f*ck around with them.

Guns are not normal life things. They must never be normal life things.

hatrickpatrick

MadsL wrote: »

Why are you under some kind of illusion that legally held guns are the ones that are doing the killing in America? The line between truth and parody is absurdly blurred in this thread - most people posting here have no clue about how American gunowners actually behave - but then it is easier to laugh than to think.

James Holmes purchased weapons legally from three stores: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57477014/colo-shooter-purchased-guns-legally-from-3-different-stores/

Adam Lanza's mother legally purchased all the guns used by him: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/connecticut-shooter-guns_n_2306913.html

Cho Heung Sui legally purchased his VT massacre arsenal: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/

Want more...?

MadsL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

James Holmes purchased weapons legally from three stores: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57477014/colo-shooter-purchased-guns-legally-from-3-different-stores/

Adam Lanza's mother legally purchased all the guns used by him: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/connecticut-shooter-guns_n_2306913.html

Cho Heung Sui legally purchased his VT massacre arsenal: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/

Want more...?

Those incidents were the majority of the gun deaths in the US were they? Do tell me more...

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

Simple really

The illusion of a right to carry a firearm as you want, instead of a responsibility to not f*ck around with it, encourages people to normalise/f*ck around with them.

Guns are not normal life things. They must never be normal life things.

No, they must be hysterical scary scary things, instead of things that farmers use to kill vermin and protect themselves from intruders in rural locations.

Tools should not be 'normal' things, where would that end, people owning drills and the like.

Promac

MadsL wrote: »

Why are you under some kind of illusion that legally held guns are the ones that are doing the killing in America? The line between truth and parody is absurdly blurred in this thread - most people posting here have no clue about how American gunowners actually behave - but then it is easier to laugh than to think.

I said f*ck all about who might be killing who - you assumed that all by your self because the reality is it doesn't matter what I say: you already have your argument and you're just looking for someone to aim it at.

But on the subject of legally owned guns: It was a legally owned gun that killed a 2 year old the other day. The owner of the gun fired it. The owner being a 5 year old. This kid's death doesn't represent the majority of gun deaths in the US but it doesn't matter.

A 2 year old was shot and killed by her 5 year old brother who owned a gun legally. The fact that that is even possible is a tragedy and a mockery of civilisation.

JupiterKid

It's sad and sadly all too predictable the way the pro gun apologists hijack these threads with their tiresome array of so-called "arguments" that are peddled each and every time.

MadsL

Promac wrote: »

I said f*ck all about who might be killing who - you assumed that all by your self because the reality is it doesn't matter what I say: you already have your argument and you're just looking for someone to aim it at.

But on the subject of legally owned guns: It was a legally owned gun that killed a 2 year old the other day. The owner of the gun fired it. The owner being a 5 year old. This kid's death doesn't represent the majority of gun deaths in the US but it doesn't matter.

A 2 year old was shot and killed by her 5 year old brother who owned a gun legally. The fact that that is even possible is a tragedy and a mockery of civilisation.

What would you like to happen now? Personally I think the parents are morons. That has little to do wih the availability of firearms and more to do with the intelligence of the parents.

We could start talking about banning cars if you like based on the incidents of road deaths...we have had dangerous items in society for many years now.

MadsL

JupiterKid wrote: »

It's sad and sadly all too predictable the way the pro gun apologists hijack these threads with their tiresome array of so-called "arguments" that are peddled each and every time.

Because gun control solves the problem - not like any police are being shot in Ireland. Oh wait.

What was your argument again?

Promac

MadsL wrote: »

What would you like to happen now? Personally I think the parents are morons. That has little to do wih the availability of firearms and more to do with the intelligence of the parents.

We could start talking about banning cars if you like based on the incidents of road deaths...we have had dangerous items in society for many years now.

Civilised people keep the dangerous items away from 5 year olds - they don't train them to use them. For the same reason you don't let 5 year olds drive cars. Or apply for a license to drive cars. Cars are designed and trained for with ultimate safety in mind - guns are designed to kill things. These are not things that are similar.

And it doesn't matter how many crappy old tired arguments you drag out - the simple fact remains that the only reason you and people like you are arguing about guns is because you think guns are cool. You're not concerned with defending your home. You're most likely not out hunting every weekend (and probably not at all) and even if you were that much into hunting, you'd probably get more enjoyment and personal satisfaction out of doing it with a bow or a knife or a fishing rod.

Be a fcking man about it and just admit that you're only interested in guns because Rambo gave you a boner when you were 8.

MadsL

Promac wrote: »

Civilised people keep the dangerous items away from 5 year olds - they don't train them to use them. For the same reason you don't let 5 year olds drive cars. Or apply for a license to drive cars. Cars are designed and trained for with ultimate safety in mind - guns are designed to kill things. These are not things that are similar.

Did I argue with any of that? However, you have not made an argument for banning cars - nor guns.

And it doesn't matter how many crappy old tired arguments you drag out - the simple fact remains that the only reason you and people like you are arguing about guns is because you think guns are cool. You're not concerned with defending your home. You're most likely not out hunting every weekend (and probably not at all) and even if you were that much into hunting, you'd probably get more enjoyment and personal satisfaction out of doing it with a bow or a knife or a fishing rod.

Ah, assumptions, the last bastion of reasoned argument. Try not to let your prejudices show so much and you might be able to make a reasoned argument.

By the way, guns are legal in Ireland.

Also - feckin hard to hit a quail with a bow and arrow...

MadsL

Promac wrote: »

Be a fcking man about it and just admit that you're only interested in guns because Rambo gave you a boner when you were 8.

Mature.

GhostInTheRuins

Why do so many people seem to care about what americans do with their guns?

pabloh999

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Why do so many people seem to care about what americans do with their guns?

Cos America is like a huge, crazy, entertaining reality show?

GalwayGuy2

Civilised people keep the dangerous items away from 5 year olds - they don't train them to use them. For the same reason you don't let 5 year olds drive cars. Or apply for a license to drive cars. Cars are designed and trained for with ultimate safety in mind - guns are designed to kill things. These are not things that are similar.

Yes, like keeping a knife away from the dinner table...you know, because blades can't kill people.

pabloh999

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Yes, like keeping a knife away from the dinner table...you know, because blades can't kill people.

Are you really comparing a dinner knife to a gun?
You must be taking the p*ss?

Promac

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Yes, like keeping a knife away from the dinner table...you know, because blades can't kill people.

Do you keep your sharp knives away from your kids? I do. Common sense like. You know, that thing you're ignoring.

Promac

MadsL wrote: »

Did I argue with any of that? However, you have not made an argument for banning cars - nor guns.



Ah, assumptions, the last bastion of reasoned argument. Try not to let your prejudices show so much and you might be able to make a reasoned argument.

By the way, guns are legal in Ireland.

Also - feckin hard to hit a quail with a bow and arrow...

Your argument is that I'm making assumptions and talking about positions you haven't taken? Isn't that exactly what you did in your very first reply to me? Way to completely invalidate anything you say!

There is absolutely nothing reasonable about the gun debate. Having them widely available is fcking stupid for blindingly obvious reasons and the number of deaths per year in any given country goes down when they're made illegal. Guns are for killing people and animals. They aren't a toy and if you really need an AR-15 to protect your home then you're already f*cked and the gun won't help you.

And as for the quail - are you hunting for sport or for food? If for sport then surely you'd want to give the quail a sporting chance? It's just too easy otherwise. Guns do that - make killing easy. Which brings us back to why they're f*cking stupid.

hatrickpatrick

MadsL wrote: »

What would you like to happen now? Personally I think the parents are morons. That has little to do wih the availability of firearms and more to do with the intelligence of the parents.

We could start talking about banning cars if you like based on the incidents of road deaths...we have had dangerous items in society for many years now.

Cars have uses apart from killing people. Guns, with the exception of hunting weapons, do not.

leggo

Why do people argue with gun owners/apologists? There's no point, they reject the premise of the argument to begin with (that guns are instruments created only to cause harm and/or death) so will never listen to reason.

If they can't accept that basic fact, you're not going to be able to get through to them. And you can't even show them up for being idiots... because the fact that they think guns should be legally owned by regular citizens already ticks that box.

Suryavarman

Promac wrote: »

I said f*ck all about who might be killing who - you assumed that all by your self because the reality is it doesn't matter what I say: you already have your argument and you're just looking for someone to aim it at.

But on the subject of legally owned guns: It was a legally owned gun that killed a 2 year old the other day. The owner of the gun fired it. The owner being a 5 year old. This kid's death doesn't represent the majority of gun deaths in the US but it doesn't matter.

A 2 year old was shot and killed by her 5 year old brother who owned a gun legally. The fact that that is even possible is a tragedy and a mockery of civilisation.

A 5 year old was killed by a legally owned fireplace in Ireland recently. How could we possibly leave this happen? We are obviously not a civilised country if we allow such a thing to happen. I for one am in favour of fireplace control.

Promac wrote: »

Civilised people keep the dangerous items away from 5 year olds - they don't train them to use them. For the same reason you don't let 5 year olds drive cars. Or apply for a license to drive cars. Cars are designed and trained for with ultimate safety in mind - guns are designed to kill things. These are not things that are similar.

Despite that they kill far more people than guns do. American gun owners must be pretty sh*t at shooting if they can't kill more people than the oh so safe automobile.

And it doesn't matter how many crappy old tired arguments you drag out - the simple fact remains that the only reason you and people like you are arguing about guns is because you think guns are cool. You're not concerned with defending your home. You're most likely not out hunting every weekend (and probably not at all) and even if you were that much into hunting, you'd probably get more enjoyment and personal satisfaction out of doing it with a bow or a knife or a fishing rod.

Be a fcking man about it and just admit that you're only interested in guns because Rambo gave you a boner when you were 8.

To summarise those two paragraphs: can't reason; won't reason.

TeddyTedson

It's an interesting one that very liberal people are so anti guns. Freedom my back side though.
I don't think I'll see in my lifetime proper gun control in the states. There would be riots if they tried to take away their precious guns. Old dogs and new tricks I guess.

humanji

Suryavarman wrote: »

A 5 year old was killed by a legally owned fireplace in Ireland recently. How could we possibly leave this happen? We are obviously not a civilised country if we allow such a thing to happen. I for one am in favour of fireplace control.

Wow, I didn't know that 5 year old had been given the fireplace as a birthday present with no training as to how to use it. Crazy how amazingly similar those two stories are.

Suryavarman

humanji wrote: »

Wow, I didn't know that 5 year old had been given the fireplace as a birthday present with no training as to how to use it. Crazy how amazingly similar those two stories are.

Yes they very similar because they are the same thing: freak accidents that don't happen very often. That's why the shooting got so much news coverage, because things like that don't happen very often.

Rented Mule

errlloyd wrote: »

Dear Lord,

I've never been a very religious man, in fact sometimes I've questioned your existence. But I do believe, and through that belief I have never asked for anything. But today Lord, please, for you, me and the rest of humanity, send something, anything. An Earthquake, small asteroid, you flooded half the world to help Noah. You don't have to kill all of them, just hit them enough so they know even god hates them.

Yours'

Rational Humanity

Are you talking about 'gays' or 'guns' because that has a 'Westboro Baptist Church' vibe to it.

humanji

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yes they very similar because they are the same thing: freak accidents that don't happen very often. That's why the shooting got so much news coverage, because things like that don't happen very often.

Nope, in one case a child had been given a dangerous weapon and an accident occurred as a result of it. Whether you're for gun control or not, there is not a reason in the world to give a child a gun.

Dravokivich

humanji wrote: »

Wow, I didn't know that 5 year old had been given the fireplace as a birthday present with no training as to how to use it. Crazy how amazingly similar those two stories are.

I think he was more so making the point that there's some responsibility required of the parents. You can't just leave kids on their own around or with some things.

The issue regarding that kid who killed his sister is the parents not teaching responsible ownership. And not keeping it locked up when they aren't out to use it for target practise or something.

TeddyTedson

Rented Mule wrote: »

Are you talking about 'gays' or 'guns' because that has a 'Westboro Baptist Church' vibe to it.

Lol

Gay and Guns, now that's an interesting combination.
Can you imagine asking the US president how he feels about gays and guns
Republican answer "I feel they are too dangerous to humanity. And I loooove guns yeehaw."

Herb Powell

MadsL wrote: »

No, they must be hysterical scary scary things, instead of things that farmers use to kill vermin and protect themselves from intruders in rural locations.

Ah yes, that's why they need the legal right to carry guns openly in towns To fight all the big scary rats

Suryavarman

humanji wrote: »

Nope, in one case a child had been given a dangerous weapon and an accident occurred as a result of it. Whether you're for gun control or not, there is not a reason in the world to give a child a gun.

There are reasons to give a child a gun. Guns can be used in many recreational activities. And like anything else, if you want to get good at something it is a good idea to start young.

Leaving a child with a loaded gun unsupervised is an entirely different matter. It is a case against bad parenting not a case against kids using guns.

humanji

Leaving a child unsupervised with a gun is nothing like a child having a fireplace collapse on them. One is parental negligence and one is a badly built fireplace. One is an argument not to give children guns and to enforce proper training for gun use, and the other is an argument against cowboy builders.

Nichololas

donvito99 wrote: »

I take issue with this, but that would be going off topic.

I don't think discussing `****ing idiots' in a thread about an armed march for gun rights is off topic. Post away!

Awesomeness

"Stick your hand on the stove and see if it is hot" is the phrase that comes to mind.

The Hill Billy

Sure as heck, there's a foot-tappin' tabaccy-chewin' chart-toppin' country & western song just waiting to be written about this.



If it wasn't for the fact that these guys probably couldn't spell "Pennsylvania Avenue", or "Washington" or "DC".

laoch na mona

yet another gun debate circle jerk yay:D

lets be rational no one in their right mind can suggest that American gun laws don't need to be made stricter but guns don't need to be banned outright