42 guns REALLY?

118 posts / 0 new
Last post
Flamenca's picture
@Mykcob, nicely done, sir.

@Mykcob, nicely done, sir. You reasonable US people should print stickers with the 2nd. Amendment. I'm shocked to find out what the exact words say and as most European citizens, I don't know anything about guns, so thanks for that lesson.

If you eliminate the last paragraph, or at least rephrase it, your post could fit an interesting "letter to the editor" in a newspaper.

HT Man's picture
Actually myckob, machine guns

Actually myckob, machine guns were banned in 1986- which means gun control didn't stop him. If you want to stop mass shootings, why not just ban murder instead of guns? Oh, yeah, that's right- it already is illegal, apparently murderers don't care that they are breaking the law.

In Switzerland machine guns are not only legal, they actually used to have a law REQUIRING you to own a machine gun. Yet, they have no mass shootings like we do, and they have one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

The second amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infinged- it isn't code for something else, it's plain English, and saying that you cannot own a gun because you might misuse it, is in violation not only of the second amendment, but Aldo the fifth, which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

mykcob4's picture
Wow, Stupid HT man (does that

Wow, Stupid HT man (does that stand for hitman)?
In Switzerland those that are required to have a machine gun (it's actually not it is a submachine gun very different) they have to be part of the militia. Oops, you left out that part! Dumbass! Also, Brainiac, the idea that the Swiss are required to own a gun, machine gun or any firearm is a MYTH!
Also, I posted the 2nd in its entirety but you omitted over half of it (intellectually dishonest). You left out the WELL REGULATED PART! Fucking inexcusable! I didn't read in any "code" fucknuts!
As for the 5th:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
There is nothing in the 5th that says you can have a gun. If you think that means property then you are delusional. You can't own a nuclear plant and that is property idiot!
I don't know what "Aldo" means maybe you meant "also". It's unclear. I wouldn't want to read in some sort of "code".
What a goddamned moron!

Discere's picture
I think one facet of the base

I think one facet of the base of the problem is that a great deal of the American populous (lawmakers and politions included) have their own special way of strawmanning the Constitution and its amendments.

And then, when you point out any mistake or missed information, you get "Lalalalala, ive read 'all' about that. I know more than you. Lalalala." Its idiotic, childish, and, as far as im concerned, a sitution that needent even be rising in the first place, if only most people gave a fuck about having their facts straight.

I've said it multiple times, and ill say it again:

Guns are to solving gun violence what a ripped condom is to safe sex.

Sky Pilot's picture


This is America and we have been solving relationship problems with violence since 1620. When someone pisses us off we don't have tea and cookies with them, we beat the crap out of them or blow their brains out. We have gotten damn good at it and are in no mood to change our ways. It doesn't matter if its our parents, children, siblings, neighbors, strangers, or people in other countries. It's gun smoke time.

Mass shootings always have an element of racism attached to them. Generally speaking the talking heads get more upset about mass shootings when the victims are whites and the shooter is white. They really start baying about the need for gun control in those cases. They don't get excited when the victims are minorities who were killed by minority killers. They might say a word or two but it's almost always negative.

Consider the situation in Chicago, http://heyjackass.com/, where 57 people were shot dead in September and 273 others were shot and wounded. Where's the outrage? There isn't any although the number of dead is only 2 fewer than in the Las Vegas incident.

"Chicago Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 499
Shot & Wounded: 2401
Total Shot: 2900
Total Homicides: 536"

HT Man's picture
It stood for Harry Truman, I

It stood for Harry Truman, I was originally going to put HT Sauce but that founded ridiculous.

As always you have blatantly misinterpreted the term 'well regulated militia,' let me read you a passage from a book written only 13 years before the constitution:

"A militia of any kind, it must be observed, however, which has served for several successful campaigns in the field, becomes in every respect a standing army. The soldiers are every day exercised in their use of arms, and, being constantly under the command of their officers, are habituated to the same prompt obedience which takes place in standing armies...
Should the warin America drag it through another campaign, the American militia may become in every respect a match for that standing army, of which the valour appeared, in the least not inferior to that of the hardiest veterans of France and Spain.
The distinction being well understood, the history of all ages, it will be found, bears testimony to the irresistible superiority which a well regulated standing army has over a militia."

I could write more, but that would take too long- and you get the point, a well regulated militia only meant one which knew how to fight and use arms.

Also, you can own a nuclear plant- but they are subject to regulations so you don't give everyone radiation poisoning. Either way, a gun is property, and you cannot give someone radiation poisoning simply by owning one- you could shoot them, but you have to intentionally kill them for the gun to be a part of anything.

mykcob4's picture
Ah, Are you the Harry Truman

Ah, Are you the Harry Truman that was banned?
You don't understand what a militia is do you!
A militia is a civilian fighting unit comprised of people that have their own arms. Well regulated means that that unit is governed by the Fed. The Fed oversees all operations of said unit to include the use maintenance and type of weaponry.
Anyway according to the second, no militia no gun! There is no justification for a gun.
The Constitution protects the rights of the individual that is its main purpose. So owning a gun is not prohibited by the Constitution, but also as with all property the Federal government has the right and the responsibility to regulate such property. To prohibit guns would take a law, but the second amendment does not prohibit such a law as there is no need indeed it is not necessary to the security of this free state. We have a department of defense that fills that role, we have law enforcement that fills that role. What was necessary at the time of the American revolution is far gone now. It is time to use common sense to address guns in America. Only law enforcement and the military need firearms. Just because a bunch of pseudo-macho assholes watch a bunch of blow 'em up movies and play videos or want to play cowboy isn't a reason to have a gun. Facts prove that owning a gun doesn't keep you safe, quite the opposite. Anyway, these jerks that think they know how to fight in a real firefight are delusional. They may or may not know how to use their weapon, but they sure don't know how to fight a firefight. They are a danger to everyone and themselves.
At the concert in Las Vegas, just how many people there do you think actually had a gun nearby or on their person at the time? It was a redneck country music concert so my guess is a good percentage of them. Yet, none reacted to take out the shooter. NONE! So don't hand me any bullshit that if someone there had a gun blah blah blah!

Discere's picture
I think this blunt and fiery

I think this blunt and fiery nature of yours may be the best method of getting a point across I've seen. I think you are the first person I've seen manage to be irritated in a reasonable, understandable manner.

Well written as usual.

LostLocke's picture
Only machine guns made after

Only machine guns made after 1986 were affected by that law. It is still perfectly legal to own a machine gun if it was made before 1986.

Sky Pilot's picture


People shoot machine guns all the time. This is from April 2016 = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wprSeJus7U4

The night shooting is really cool = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZH_9mhLAZ0


mykcob4's picture
Check this site out:

Check this site out:


It's plain to see that gun laws protect people and guns kill people.

HT Man's picture
Its from voxso you know its

Its from voxso you know its legit.

mykcob4's picture
Okay someone on this thread

Okay someone on this thread claimed that we don't need more gun laws, that more gun laws would not have prevented the mass murder in Las Vegas. That is debatable and probably not true.
So I propose just ONE FUCKING GUN LAW. ONE and ONLY ONE.
It would go something like this.
"Firearms are strictly prohibited for use sale or ownership unless specifically necessary for an occupation." The penalty would meet the standard of a class 1 felony for every weapon. Herein all ammunition is also banned and restricted under the same parameters as firearms."
There, not a bunch of new gun laws, just one and we can eliminate all the others completely. BTW a class 1 felony can meet the standard for execution.

Discere's picture
"BTW a class 1 felony can

"BTW a class 1 felony can meet the standard for execution."

A perfect punishment for one willing to risk causing what would likely be more than one unlawful execution(read: murder) on a mere whim.

mykcob4's picture
Also, I have read the 2nd

Also, I have read the 2nd Amendment probably a million times, and I have just NOW realized something.

"The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice the part "....being necessary to the security of a free state....." Well, gun ownership is NO LONGER NECESSARY for the security of the freedom of our nation. We have the Department of Defense and a plethora of law enforcement. That negates the need or the right to gun ownership.

Discere's picture
That makes a large amount of

That makes a large amount of sense. After all, the second amendment was written at a time when people were largely expected to defend themselves with no outside help. Nowadays, suggesting such a thing would be outlandish.

And yet, everyone thinks it's perfectly fine to go gun toting like you are a wild west outlaw.


algebe's picture
@mykcob4: "being necessary to

@mykcob4: "being necessary to the security of a free state"

As an outsider, I think that Americans' desire for gun ownership stems in part from distrust of many government agencies. Before you can build public acceptance for much tougher gun control, you'll need to improve oversight, governance, and transparency in government, especially three-letter agencies like the FBI, CIA, DHS, NSA, and IRD.

HT Man's picture
You are misinterpreting it-

You are misinterpreting it- the founding fathers not only believed the right to bear arms was necessary for the security of the nation, which it still is, they also believed you had the right to defend your property and, if necessary, overthrow the government. The entire country was founded on the premise that the people have a right to revolt if neccessary- if that were not the case, they would never have done the American Revolution. Now let me ask you a question, how can we have the right to overthrow the government if WE CANT BE ARMED.

You blab on about the constitution and the founding fathers but you really don't give a shit about any of that.

mykcob4's picture
@HT man

@HT man
I care deeply about the Constitution.
You think that you can overthrow the government? Ha how naive. Even if you have an AR-15 with a bump stock.
What are you? One of those fringe militia rightwing nuts?
I have posted the entire 2nd and 5th Amendments, and nowhere does it say that the government (the people) cannot impose regulations on guns.
Modern times are far different than the time of the revolution or haven't you heard?
I fought for this nation. I have been wounded for this nation. What have you done? Just sit on your ass and complain about the Fed?
You don't know a goddamn thing about the Constitution.
Here is a little history and Constitution lesson for you.
1) The Constitution does not provide for a standing Army. Therefore they provided for a volunteer militia. That is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. It isn't about overthrowing the government at all.
2) You are mixing up the language of the Declaration with the Constitution.

HT Man's picture
I didn't say I could, I said

I didn't say I could, I said the founding fathers intended for us to be able to if it should become necessary.

You do not care about the constitution, its just a buzz word to you.

Sky Pilot's picture


The Second Amendment was written to ensure that the slavers would have the necessary guns on hand to put down slave rebellions.

CyberLN's picture
I think that a focus on gun

I think that a focus on only gun ownership is a huge mistake.

mykcob4's picture
No one said to "focus" only

No one said to "focus" only on gun ownership, but overwhelmingly the statistics prove that lax gun laws cause unnecessary death and harm.

CyberLN's picture
Well, all I've read from you

Well, all I've read from you is a focus on gun ownership. Please let me know what other focus you propose. This is not meant as a challenge. I'm sincerely interested in what other focuses you might hold.

mykcob4's picture
Well, this nation has fallen

Well, this nation has fallen way short of treating the brain as an organ as you said before. Also, even though the conservative mantra has been "family values" they don't actually value the family. That has just been a way to impose oppressive laws that favor the rich and disparage the poor and having the middle class pay for it. So how about valuing the family for a change.
Mental health and family support would go a long way to ending needless killings, domestic violence. Instead of discarding people with mental issues on the street, let's treat them. They are no different than people that are terminally ill with cancer.
How about treating women fairly pay them a fair wage based on their job instead of their gender. How about beefing up education especially in financially challenged areas. Education instead of guns.
There are a whole host of things I can think of but the first thing we have to do is subtract the most destructive component from the equation....guns.
We also have to launch a massive education program that tells people the truth about guns (fighting the gun mentality). People live in a fantasy. they think that a gun protects them when the truth is it doesn't quite the opposite.
In Texas (Dallas) a person shot someone in an argument on the highway. The person died. The shooter was acquitted. He had a legal right to have a loaded gun and felt his life was in danger.
1) There was no need to get into an argument in the first place.
2) Because the person had a gun, I'm sure they had no problem escalating the situation.
3) The shooter shot from his driver side car window. Why not just drive off, go to a police station if you have to. Why "stand your ground" if you are going to kill someone?
In Texas "stand your ground" means shoot off your fucking mouth to anyone at anytime and if they confront you about it, shoot them.
If there had been no gun on the scene there might have been some dents in a car, some bruised egos and maybe an arrest or two for road rage, but not a fatality!

HT Man's picture
Unlike guns, the possession

Unlike guns, the possession and use of alcohal and drugs actually do make it more likely that a person will commit a crime. We tried the same paternalistic nonsense that you are advocating with those two things, and the result was not, as was promised, that 'prisons would turn into factories,' it was more crime, more drugs, and more alcohal.

You're peddling failed ideas- the maniac who committed the las Vegas shooting did so with firearms which are already banned, as did thoae who did the Paris shooting and the San Bernardino attack. The idea that more gun restrictions would have prevented that is nonsense.

Like I said before, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and if you treat everyone as if they were guilty merely on the slight possibility that they may commit a crime later on that is kind of contrary to that. Getting rid of the right to bear arms would also require a repeal of the 5th and 10th Amendment myckpb, and if you do that, you've completely nullified the entire constitution, and at that point, revolution is not only justified but necessary.

mykcob4's picture
@HT Man

@HT Man
you said: " the maniac who committed the Las Vegas shooting did so with firearms which are already banned,"
Nope, every weapon he had in every configuration they were modified for was by law LEGAL.
The 10th Amendment:
"Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What the fuck does that have to do with gun control? NOTHING!
Are you one of those "states rights" nuts still fighting the Civil War?

As for innocent until proven guilty goes, that is a non-starter. You have background checks everytime you apply for a loan or a job. You have a piss test for almost every job. The SCOTUS has deemed them constitutional even though there is no probable cause that someone is on drugs and every crime is supposed to be a separate issue to be considered a separate issue.

HT Man's picture
He didn't use a fully

He didn't use a fully automatic weapon then.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Not all fully automatic

It is possible to configure a weapon to preform similar to a fully automatic, without it being illegal.

Sky Pilot's picture


The problem with focusing on gun ownership is that it deprives people of a Constitutional right. So how can you have a Constitutional right if it's restricted by laws that deprive you from exercising that right? All gun laws should be struck down as unconstitutional. The anti-freedom gang has been trying to deprive people of gun rights since 1815.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.