Believe me, any move to have the WBC recognised as a hate group would be putty in their hands. They're real life trolls who desperately crave attention and sympathy from people who feel their "freedom of expression" is being picked on and violated. The way to deal with trolls on the Internet is to expel them where possible, and ignore them where not possible. People should learn to do the same for WBC; ignore them.

 

Louis Theroux did a fantastic job of exposing the lunacy behind the WBC's beliefs, and it should be left there for people to make their own inevitable conclusions.

Believe me, any move to have the WBC recognised as a hate group would be putty in their hands. They're real life trolls who desperately crave attention and sympathy from people who feel their "freedom of expression" is being picked on and violated. The way to deal with trolls on the Internet is to expel them where possible, and ignore them where not possible. People should learn to do the same for WBC; ignore them.

 

Louis Theroux did a fantastic job of exposing the lunacy behind the WBC's beliefs, and it should be left there for people to make their own inevitable conclusions.

I actually kind of prefer option one, which in real life would be deportation. I'm also glad that the local news seems to be doing exactly what you suggest, which is ignoring them at least 99% of the time. In fact, if you guys stopped talking about them I could conceivably go back to forgetting they exist, and stop wondering why their houses haven't all inexplicably burned down yet :P

 

As for gun control laws, at least part of the problem would seem to be access. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I have yet to hear about a mass shooting that didn't involve someone who didn't have immediate access to guns (involving those too young buy them legally), or ready access to them (of age to buy them). It just seems...so easy.

Unfortunately, gun control laws don't seem to make it any harder to get them if you want them. I'm sure you're familiar with our gun laws here in Canada, yet Ottawa has had more gun related crimes this year than any two other years combined (well, almost). Fortunately (if there's any up side to gun crimes) they've mostly been robbery and shooting injuries (thanks to a minor gang turf war) than outright murders, but it's still a disturbing trend.

One thing to bear in mind when looking at Canada's situation is the effect our proximity to the US has on illegal weapons entering the country.

Thought I'd post this here so I don't forget.

 

 

http://www.theblaze....nt-want-to-see/

 

Rifles make up a very small percentage of murders in the U.S. (about 350 out of 13000). Banning "assault-styled weapons" won't have much effect (if any) in the number of homicides.

So why are they needed for self-defence, then, if there's little threat to human life from them? You're not honestly suggesting that citizens should have a right to bear assault rifles when they have no good reason to possess them, are you?

So why are they needed for self-defence, then, if there's little threat to human life from them? You're not honestly suggesting that citizens should have a right to bear assault rifles when they have no good reason to possess them, are you?

 

Seems a little overzealous to accuse him of that when his only point was that most gun related deaths are not from assault rifles.

I think that any American citizen should be able to fully realize their rights as defined by the Constitution. You may not have use for an "assault-styled" weapon or any desire to own one, but it doesn't mean those reasons don't exist.

 

I don't think that we should be arbitrarily limiting our freedoms because of a few unsavory acts by crazy individuals. It's the same reason I'm not calling for the silencing of hate speech for all because of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I think that any American citizen should be able to fully realize their rights as defined by the Constitution. You may not have use for an "assault-styled" weapon or any desire to own one, but it doesn't mean those reasons don't exist

 

John Nichols: No one has the right to tell me I can't have it. That is protected on our constitution.

Michael Moore: Where does it say a handgun is protected?

John Nichols: No, gun. We should...

Michael Moore: [interupting] It doesn't say gun. It says "arms".

John Nichols: Arms. What is "arms"?

Michael Moore: Could be a nuclear weapon.

John Nichols: It's not these - That's right. It could be a nuclear weapon.

Michael Moore: Do you think you should have the right to have weapons-grade plutonium here in the farm field?

John Nichols: We should be able to have anything...

Michael Moore: [interupting] Should you have weapons? Should you have weapons-grade plutonium?

John Nichols: I don't want it.

Michael Moore: But, should you have the right to have it if you did want it?

John Nichols: [thinking about it] That should be restricted.

Michael Moore: Oh. Oh, so you do beleive in some restrictions?

John Nichols: Well, there's wackos out there.

 

So, weapons grade plutonium, which, when spun correctly is a form of Arms. Which is clearly protected by the right to bear arms.

So, weapons grade plutonium, which, when spun correctly is a form of Arms. Which is clearly protected by the right to bear arms.

Can I just borrow those quotes as evidence for my "Michael Moore is a [bleep]ing idiot" campaign? That's not even close to being a logical or reasonable argument. Michael Bay deserves serious consideration more than Michael Moore does.

Regardless on your stance and opinion of Michael Moore, I feel the point to at least have some value. Many people call for the unrestricted access to arms that the amendment protects, even though at the time modern weapons weren't even conceived, let alone available. So if this amendment, somehow protects [my] right to an M16, why the hell doesn't it protect [my] rights to Nuclear Arms.

 

Mind you, as an outsider, I'm yet to see a decent, rational argument from either side in regards to gun control. Idiots run both sides of the fence, and it's delicious.

Sorry, that sorry excuse for a filmmaker is probably the one target I will not hesitate to attack :razz:

 

I think it all comes down to "why not?". You can very easily own a handgun without harming anyone, and most gun owners do - I imagine it's a lot like insurance in that you'll be happy if you never have to use it seriously, and just keep it for recreational shooting/collecting/so on. There's about as much need for it as there is a need for a nice TV, except that one is a bit more dangerous in the wrong hands. In fact, the argument as a whole is probably something like "keep them out of everyone's hands so that they won't end up in the wrong hands" versus "don't keep them out of the right hands because of a few idiots".

 

It's freedom versus safety, and the internet will blindly rush to the former's side in every matter except this one. :razz:

 

That's the thing, though. In the right hands, a gun is harmless (relatively speaking). The same can't be said for something like a nuclear weapon. I don't think anyone is calling for unrestricted access to any weapon on the planet, just some kinds of guns.

 

Of course, I'm not an expert by any means, so take this with a grain of salt.

Whilst I don't really want to take a stance on guns, I would have no problem if it were a Handgun only sort of thing, unless you had strict licensing and soforth in regards to other more powerful weapons (rifle/shotgun). We have very tight restrictions here on guns, who has them and why. Those who do own weapons are meant to keep them in a safe under lock and key, and it's mostly Hunters (god knows why) and Farmers who have rifles and shotguns (legally, that is). This sort of thing, I'm not concerned about, even though they also have the ability to be used for violence yadda yadda yadda. My concern is not a handgun, but more your semi- and fully-automatic assault rifles. Why the hell, honestly, would anyone need one for any other reason than to do damage.

There are much stricter limits on firearms in most of the developed world, and yet I don't see despots rising to power like it's the 1930s all over again. The fact they are developed countries means that democratically accountable government and a free market are quintessential and the free state no longer needs enforcing by something like the Second Amendment.

Some of the others might be a better source of information regarding semi/automatic weapons. I was under the impression that automatic weapons were already banned, and I believe someone put forward the point that semi-automatic weapons aren't as dangerous as everyone seems to think in the last tragedy/gun control thread. If a poster with more experience with this topic could fill us in...? :grin:

Some of the others might be a better source of information regarding semi/automatic weapons. I was under the impression that automatic weapons were already banned, and I believe someone put forward the point that semi-automatic weapons aren't as dangerous as everyone seems to think in the last tragedy/gun control thread. If a poster with more experience with this topic could fill us in...? :grin:

 

You can still buy and own an automatic weapon manufactured before 1986, but it requires a lot of paperwork and a $200 tax stamp, and the guns sell for over $10,000 because of how rare they are. IIRC some states outright ban them too.

 

I should add, assault weapon ≠ assault rifle. An assault rifle is a select fire rifle that shoots an intermediate round and has a detachable magazine. An 'assault weapon' is a semi-automatic rifle that looks scary.

 

EDIT: After a quick bit of research, it appears you can buy a MAC-10 for about $4,000.

I think that any American citizen should be able to fully realize their rights as defined by the Constitution. You may not have use for an "assault-styled" weapon or any desire to own one, but it doesn't mean those reasons don't exist

 

John Nichols: No one has the right to tell me I can't have it. That is protected on our constitution.

Michael Moore: Where does it say a handgun is protected?

John Nichols: No, gun. We should...

Michael Moore: [interupting] It doesn't say gun. It says "arms".

John Nichols: Arms. What is "arms"?

Michael Moore: Could be a nuclear weapon.

John Nichols: It's not these - That's right. It could be a nuclear weapon.

Michael Moore: Do you think you should have the right to have weapons-grade plutonium here in the farm field?

John Nichols: We should be able to have anything...

Michael Moore: [interupting] Should you have weapons? Should you have weapons-grade plutonium?

John Nichols: I don't want it.

Michael Moore: But, should you have the right to have it if you did want it?

John Nichols: [thinking about it] That should be restricted.

Michael Moore: Oh. Oh, so you do beleive in some restrictions?

John Nichols: Well, there's wackos out there.

 

So, weapons grade plutonium, which, when spun correctly is a form of Arms. Which is clearly protected by the right to bear arms.

 

I dont believe in banning any substance yes including weapon grade plutonium. Coincidentally the only people who could afford weapon grade plutonium are billionaires so I dont see it being a problem.

 

I dont believe in banning any substance yes including weapon grade plutonium. Coincidentally the only people who could afford weapon grade plutonium are billionaires so I dont see it being a problem.

If found on a terrorist in his house, car, or person...the police cannot stop him?

 

Banning nuclear material is common sense. Michael Moore cannot use that in an argument, but, nuclear material should be banned.

I think that any American citizen should be able to fully realize their rights as defined by the Constitution. You may not have use for an "assault-styled" weapon or any desire to own one, but it doesn't mean those reasons don't exist

 

John Nichols: No one has the right to tell me I can't have it. That is protected on our constitution.

Michael Moore: Where does it say a handgun is protected?

John Nichols: No, gun. We should...

Michael Moore: [interupting] It doesn't say gun. It says "arms".

John Nichols: Arms. What is "arms"?

Michael Moore: Could be a nuclear weapon.

John Nichols: It's not these - That's right. It could be a nuclear weapon.

Michael Moore: Do you think you should have the right to have weapons-grade plutonium here in the farm field?

John Nichols: We should be able to have anything...

Michael Moore: [interupting] Should you have weapons? Should you have weapons-grade plutonium?

John Nichols: I don't want it.

Michael Moore: But, should you have the right to have it if you did want it?

John Nichols: [thinking about it] That should be restricted.

Michael Moore: Oh. Oh, so you do beleive in some restrictions?

John Nichols: Well, there's wackos out there.

 

So, weapons grade plutonium, which, when spun correctly is a form of Arms. Which is clearly protected by the right to bear arms.

 

I dont believe in banning any substance yes including weapon grade plutonium. Coincidentally the only people who could afford weapon grade plutonium are billionaires so I dont see it being a problem.

 

The amount of plutonium that was in Fat Man would be worth about $25,000,000 today. Although that's an incredibly large some of money, someone who won the lottery would be able to afford it.

I agree that most substances shouldn't be banned, but nuclear weapons? Come on.

So, weapons grade plutonium, which, when spun correctly is a form of Arms. Which is clearly protected by the right to bear arms.

Can I just borrow those quotes as evidence for my "Michael Moore is a [bleep]ing idiot" campaign? That's not even close to being a logical or reasonable argument. Michael Bay deserves serious consideration more than Michael Moore does.

Careful, if Bay comes into it, there will be explosions as all response and actions, gunpowder will see a new time high. (geddit, because he shoves explosions in all his movies)

 

But I must say, seeing that quote which I assume is real, That's a huge ....eyegazer for humanity to see.

I think that any American citizen should be able to fully realize their rights as defined by the Constitution. You may not have use for an "assault-styled" weapon or any desire to own one, but it doesn't mean those reasons don't exist

 

John Nichols: No one has the right to tell me I can't have it. That is protected on our constitution.

Michael Moore: Where does it say a handgun is protected?

John Nichols: No, gun. We should...

Michael Moore: [interupting] It doesn't say gun. It says "arms".

John Nichols: Arms. What is "arms"?

Michael Moore: Could be a nuclear weapon.

John Nichols: It's not these - That's right. It could be a nuclear weapon.

Michael Moore: Do you think you should have the right to have weapons-grade plutonium here in the farm field?

John Nichols: We should be able to have anything...

Michael Moore: [interupting] Should you have weapons? Should you have weapons-grade plutonium?

John Nichols: I don't want it.

Michael Moore: But, should you have the right to have it if you did want it?

John Nichols: [thinking about it] That should be restricted.

Michael Moore: Oh. Oh, so you do beleive in some restrictions?

John Nichols: Well, there's wackos out there.

 

So, weapons grade plutonium, which, when spun correctly is a form of Arms. Which is clearly protected by the right to bear arms.

 

I dont believe in banning any substance yes including weapon grade plutonium. Coincidentally the only people who could afford weapon grade plutonium are billionaires so I dont see it being a problem.

 

The amount of plutonium that was in Fat Man would be worth about $25,000,000 today. Although that's an incredibly large some of money, someone who won the lottery would be able to afford it.

I agree that most substances shouldn't be banned, but nuclear weapons? Come on.

 

costs a few hundred million more to do anything with it. Its very hard to get a nuclear reaction going.

If your going to legalize everything, nuclear weapons probably aren't what you need to worry about. If someone wanted to take out maximum people for minimum effort, your looking at chemical warfare. Sarin would probably be your best bet in terms of lethality to difficulty. If your a real big shot, VX is probably the most dangerous thing we've ever invented that isn't a militarized virus or a larger nuclear warhead.

 

Legalizing everything is probably not a good idea when your average crack head has a decent shot at whipping up some nerve gas.

Im not familiar with chemical warfare. Whats stopping people from making a lethal nerve gas currently?

That'd be funny if this thread gradually evolved into a "how to make weapons" FAQ.

 

Actually that'd be terrifying

Honestly, I'm not sure.

 

I expect it's mostly the same reason people don't build fertilizer bombs (which always seemed pointless anyway seeing as tannerite is legal and reasonably effective), which coincidently is also an ingrdient in Sarin and VX (phosphorus). Fluoride is another one that is hard to stockpile I expect.

 

Most of the people who would use a nerve agent are (hopefully) under some level of surveillance. By the time it's not easier to just just a gun, you do need a fair amount of the stuff. Sarin at least is also super volitile. I think you have less than a day to use it once you turn it into actual Sarin (though I believe it can be stored as two easily mixed and stable binary compounds).

 

 

There is also something to be said for trying to take the moral high ground when using this kind of weapon. It's like how using a nuke to save a bunch of rainbow unicorns still automatically makes you the bad guy. You can't use a weapon that mass kills indiscriminately and often painfully and think your in the right unless your brain is seriously broken (by our standards at least). You'd probably have to be either crazy fanatical, or totally sociopathic to use this stuff.