Had an idea how to control firearms in america that would hold up in court.
Gun nuts usually talk about their god given right to bear arms, ignoring the fact the bill of right passage doesn't say anything like that.
Anyways to the point, could you in theory ban owning a firearm unless you were registered with a state milita?
No, the Supremes ruled on that in 08 and this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 290 (2008), ruled as follows:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home....The District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.
This was a landmark decision.[162][163][164][165] To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, said:[166]
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[167]
The majority opinion held that the amendment's prefatory clause (referencing the "militia") serves to clarify the operative clause (referencing "the people"), but does not limit the scope of the operative clause, because "the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'...."
-------------------------
So, basically, you have to read the 2nd amendment:
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.
like this:
[the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.] Because -> [A well regulated Militia, (is) necessary to the security of a free State,]
I like guns and have no desire to allow anyone to control my ownership of firearms.
I see it like you need state issued paperwork to drive your car.
Why not for firearms? Having an civilian authority issuing permits membership cards would be eaiser then having a federal database to check for felons or mentally ill. Would provide training and act as a balance incase the army wishes to take them away.
Quote from: Pēleus on July 30, 2010, 12:04:22 AM
I see it like you need state issued paperwork to drive your car.
Why not for firearms? Having an civilian authority issuing permits membership cards would be eaiser then having a federal database to check for felons or mentally ill. Would provide training and act as a balance incase the army wishes to take them away.
You ask why not. I ask why.
That's why lots of states (I think all) have some kind of gun ownership license.
Basically, the problem with any kind of dramatic legal sanction against needless gun ownership is that it will just drive gun people underground, creating (more of) a black market, and creating positions of power for organized crime.
Imposition of order, and all that.
Quote from: Pēleus on July 30, 2010, 12:04:22 AM
I see it like you need state issued paperwork to drive your car.
Why not for firearms? Having an civilian authority issuing permits membership cards would be eaiser then having a federal database to check for felons or mentally ill. Would provide training and act as a balance incase the army wishes to take them away.
Because I don't want to pay 400$ to be told I can't buy a 200$ gun because I don't have enough political connections (as per the New York licensing scheme).
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 30, 2010, 12:43:08 AM
That's why lots of states (I think all) have some kind of gun ownership license.
Basically, the problem with any kind of dramatic legal sanction against needless gun ownership is that it will just drive gun people underground, creating (more of) a black market, and creating positions of power for organized crime.
Imposition of order, and all that.
states have concealed carry licenses, those are different from actual gun licenses.
Hm.
CA requires a "Handgun Safety Certificate" in order to legally purchase a gun at all.
Quote from: Pēleus on July 29, 2010, 07:32:30 AM
Had an idea how to control firearms in america that would hold up in court.
Gun nuts usually talk about their god given right to bear arms, ignoring the fact the bill of right passage doesn't say anything like that.
Anyways to the point, could you in theory ban owning a firearm unless you were registered with a state milita?
Of course it says that, if you can parse a sentence.
And the answer, according to SCOTUS is no, there are no group rights, only individual ones.
And stay the fuck away from my rights.
Dok,
Gun nut.
Quote from: Pēleus on July 30, 2010, 12:04:22 AM
I see it like you need state issued paperwork to drive your car.
Why not for firearms? Having an civilian authority issuing permits membership cards would be eaiser then having a federal database to check for felons or mentally ill. Would provide training and act as a balance incase the army wishes to take them away.
I think we should take away your right to freely associate.
Unless you get a license for each friend.
isn't that the status quo if you look different
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 30, 2010, 02:51:40 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on July 29, 2010, 07:32:30 AM
Had an idea how to control firearms in america that would hold up in court.
Gun nuts usually talk about their god given right to bear arms, ignoring the fact the bill of right passage doesn't say anything like that.
Anyways to the point, could you in theory ban owning a firearm unless you were registered with a state milita?
Of course it says that, if you can parse a sentence.
And the answer, according to SCOTUS is no, there are no group rights, only individual ones.
And stay the fuck away from my rights.
Dok,
Gun nut.
I'm not a gun nut, though I like them just fine and can shoot so don't piss me off. However, it is my right to protect myself and my family
and since they will not legally sell me a grenade launcher, then a gun is my next option. Of course I could always go to the fucking hardware store and buy myself a fucking flamethrower. Would that be better???
I agree with Dok, stay the fuck away from my rights......
Because the hardware store is right down the damn street.
In that case, gun ownership should be ENFORCED. If it's a right, you should be properly educated in your rights. Every school should have a gun range, and every student should take gun safety classes.
If we're not going to reduce the amount of guns in the country, we need to increase the public's awareness and respect of guns, what they do, and how they do it. The right to own a gun does not mean you have right to be an ignorant sack of shit and accidentally shoot your daughter because you didn't know what the fuck you were doing.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 30, 2010, 03:07:43 PM
In that case, gun ownership should be ENFORCED. If it's a right, you should be properly educated in your rights. Every school should have a gun range, and every student should take gun safety classes.
If we're not going to reduce the amount of guns in the country, we need to increase the public's awareness and respect of guns, what they do, and how they do it. The right to own a gun does not mean you have right to be an ignorant sack of shit and accidentally shoot your daughter because you didn't know what the fuck you were doing.
Someone (serious pro-gun dude) said something to the effect of:
"Because of the gun laws here, there's a lot of people with permits to carry a concealed weapon, so you're statistically, much safer in this state. Criminals fear nothing else like an off duty cop with a gun!"
I said:
"Actually, it is a prevalence of skill, not the prevalence of firearms that contributes to safety. I know other people who really love their guns, but I wouldn't rely on them if 'shit went down' and they needed to shoot in a defensive situation because they don't
practice."
He said that there's been lots of shooting ranges closed down in this state. I felt that showed lack of interest on the part of gun owners who meet the minimal requirement to get a permit and then do nothing else. If there was a high demand for CT gun owners to be shooting regularly, someone would certainly emerge to profit from it.
Also with national guard who normal provide for the common defence are often deployed overseas with other armed services. Some countries have a draft, I'm merely suggesting a drivers ed course and some community service before you own a weapon.
Fuck it. Mandatory military service for every citizen. You want a right to bear arms? Fight for it.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 30, 2010, 03:07:43 PM
In that case, gun ownership should be ENFORCED. If it's a right, you should be properly educated in your rights. Every school should have a gun range, and every student should take gun safety classes.
If we're not going to reduce the amount of guns in the country, we need to increase the public's awareness and respect of guns, what they do, and how they do it. The right to own a gun does not mean you have right to be an ignorant sack of shit and accidentally shoot your daughter because you didn't know what the fuck you were doing.
Switzerland does this. Not a bad idea in my opinion.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 30, 2010, 03:07:43 PM
In that case, gun ownership should be ENFORCED. If it's a right, you should be properly educated in your rights. Every school should have a gun range, and every student should take gun safety classes.
If we're not going to reduce the amount of guns in the country, we need to increase the public's awareness and respect of guns, what they do, and how they do it. The right to own a gun does not mean you have right to be an ignorant sack of shit and accidentally shoot your daughter because you didn't know what the fuck you were doing.
I am sure you didn't expect me to agree with you did you?
Not on making people own guns. But I do agree, that classes should be available for people on how to shoot and care for firearms. When I was in school, that kind of thing was covered in FFA or ROTC. They don't do that anymore.
As for the second paragraph, I hope that wasn't personally directed.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 30, 2010, 08:19:54 PM
Fuck it. Mandatory military service for every citizen. You want a right to bear arms? Fight for it.
I am really glad you don't have a say in the
reality of gun ownership.
You talk like you are completely anti-gun. That surprises me, I thought you were a lot more open minded about these things.
I don't think ANYONE here is saying that we want criminals owning weapons, HOWEVER, I do believe that people who have
not lost the priviledge have the right to own a gun. Criminals are not buying guns legally. The crackdown needs to be on the criminals, not punishing your average law abiding citizen because the police, fbi, atf, cia and all the rest, can't catch or stop the criminals from getting guns.
I decided to go with polemics and hyperbole for a bit.
In honest, the country is too big to have one gun law that will be good for everyone.
In a week, I'm going to Montana. I'm gonna shoot a shitload of guns. I love it. It's a big, open place, it's a gun culture that respects firearms, I feel comfortable and safe, even though every one is armed.
However, I live in Boston, about four blocks away from one of the highest gun violence blocks in the city. Someone gets shot about once a day. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's accidental. In no way do I feel comfortable and safe around that many firearms.
So you tell me -- what one law can account for both of these situations?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 30, 2010, 03:07:43 PM
In that case, gun ownership should be ENFORCED. If it's a right, you should be properly educated in your rights. Every school should have a gun range, and every student should take gun safety classes.
If we're not going to reduce the amount of guns in the country, we need to increase the public's awareness and respect of guns, what they do, and how they do it. The right to own a gun does not mean you have right to be an ignorant sack of shit and accidentally shoot your daughter because you didn't know what the fuck you were doing.
Why do you hate Darwin?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 30, 2010, 08:39:25 PM
I decided to go with polemics and hyperbole for a bit.
In honest, the country is too big to have one gun law that will be good for everyone.
In a week, I'm going to Montana. I'm gonna shoot a shitload of guns. I love it. It's a big, open place, it's a gun culture that respects firearms, I feel comfortable and safe, even though every one is armed.
However, I live in Boston, about four blocks away from one of the highest gun violence blocks in the city. Someone gets shot about once a day. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's accidental. In no way do I feel comfortable and safe around that many firearms.
So you tell me -- what one law can account for both of these situations?
Totally unrestricted firearms ownership.
This shit isn't
supposed to be safe.
Quote from: Pēleus on July 30, 2010, 08:16:32 PM
Also with national guard who normal provide for the common defence are often deployed overseas with other armed services. Some countries have a draft, I'm merely suggesting a drivers ed course and some community service before you own a weapon.
I'm merely suggesting a drivers ed course and some community service before you can speak your mind.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 30, 2010, 08:39:25 PM
I decided to go with polemics and hyperbole for a bit.
In honest, the country is too big to have one gun law that will be good for everyone.
In a week, I'm going to Montana. I'm gonna shoot a shitload of guns. I love it. It's a big, open place, it's a gun culture that respects firearms, I feel comfortable and safe, even though every one is armed.
However, I live in Boston, about four blocks away from one of the highest gun violence blocks in the city. Someone gets shot about once a day. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's accidental. In no way do I feel comfortable and safe around that many firearms.
So you tell me -- what one law can account for both of these situations?
The problem is the gun laws are for citizens who retain the
priviledge of owning a gun. Anyone else should be punished.
You know I live in the highest crime rated city in the US, in the heart of ghetto hell. I don't feel safe anywhere here. But I'm not afraid of the people who have obtained their guns legally. I'm afraid of the gang bangers and the dealers and the crackheads. And I feel safe in saying that I doubt 1/8th of a percent of those people
purchased their guns at all, let alone legally. Right? In fact, 6 of them are toting my legally purchased by my father and inherited by me then stolen from me guns.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 30, 2010, 08:39:25 PM
I decided to go with polemics and hyperbole for a bit.
Shame, I thought it seemed like an interesting idea. Mandatory gun education and such.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 30, 2010, 09:24:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on July 30, 2010, 08:39:25 PM
I decided to go with polemics and hyperbole for a bit.
Shame, I thought it seemed like an interesting idea. Mandatory gun education and such.
I think it should be a required course in high school. Put the range in the basement.
You just want to see them get given guns before darwin gives them cars.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 31, 2010, 03:46:46 AM
You just want to see them get given guns before darwin gives them cars.
Both. Guns and cars.
And bathtub gin.
Fair enough, :lulz:
I am curious as to why so many are interested in restricting freedoms?
Freedom is scary. And not at all safe.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 04:48:33 AM
I am curious as to why so many are interested in restricting freedoms?
To make us all SAFE. So SAFE, you'll live to 100 wishing you were dead the whole fucking time.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 31, 2010, 05:01:32 AM
Freedom is scary. And not at all safe.
The second amendment is, in essence, a test that reveals two things:
1. Are you pro-freedom or pro-safety?
2. Can you diagram a simple damn sentence?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 31, 2010, 06:32:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 04:48:33 AM
I am curious as to why so many are interested in restricting freedoms?
To make us all SAFE. So SAFE, you'll live to 100 wishing you were dead the whole fucking time.
Frankly Dok, as we have discussed, I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Or Kill Me.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 31, 2010, 06:32:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 04:48:33 AM
I am curious as to why so many are interested in restricting freedoms?
To make us all SAFE. So SAFE, you'll live to 100 wishing you were dead the whole fucking time.
This is one of the greatest posts I've read in a while. :lulz:
A few of us still believe in freedom. Sadly, far too few.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 04:48:33 AM
I am curious as to why so many are interested in restricting freedoms?
WHY ARE YOU TRYIN' TO RESTRICT MY FREEDOM OF RIGHTS TO RESTRICT YOUR FREEDOM OF RIGHTS? DON'T MAKE NO SENSE.
\
:mullet:
/
IT IS MY
FREEDOM OF RIGHT OF WAY TO DELIVER ENTIRE RESTRICTICATION UPON YOUR UNSHITTED-IN AIR, UNSHITTED-IN WATER, AND 98% UNSHITTED-IN FOOD
OR GTFO OF AMERICA,
ECO
TERRORIST
SCUMHUMPER.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 30, 2010, 02:52:39 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on July 30, 2010, 12:04:22 AM
I see it like you need state issued paperwork to drive your car.
Why not for firearms? Having an civilian authority issuing permits membership cards would be eaiser then having a federal database to check for felons or mentally ill. Would provide training and act as a balance incase the army wishes to take them away.
I think we should take away your right to freely associate.
Unless you get a license for each friend.
I like this plan.
I live in the most heavily armed country in Europe, where there is roughly one gun for every three people owned by the civilian population and militia members are required by law to keep assault rifles in their homes, normally the SIG SG 550 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_SG_550). Violent crime here is virtually unheard of, and the most serious common crime seems to be pickpocketing, in tourist traps.
I think it's the combination of training and easily available firearms that produces the most sensible response. A conscript army means 2/3rds of the national population have professional military training with firearms. That means if you start waving a gun around like an idiot, the chances are someone nearby will have the training and means to coerce your standing down.
The problem comes in if you have lots of loudmouth idiots who think having a gun makes them invincible running around, since then their inclination to use it rises greatly.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 04:48:33 AM
I am curious as to why so many are interested in restricting freedoms?
guns are scary.
Or to put it another way, "WAAAAA I AM AFRAID I WILL BLOW MY FOOT OFF SO I DON'T OWN A GUN AND THAT BIG GUY WITH THE HUNTING RIFLE SCARES ME BECAUSE HE HAZ ONE AN ISN'T AFRAID OF SHOOTING HIS FOOT OFF. I ALSO THINK HUNTING IS BARBARIC, MEAT SHOULD COME FROM THE STORE IN NEAT PACKAGES!!!!!"
I spent half of my last deployment not allowed to carry more than a single knife on me. People get scared and act like children.
Am I the only person strongly in favor of gun freedoms who doesn't own one? (and has no intention of owning one, just to make it clear, it's not just because i am poor)
Quote from: aedh on July 31, 2010, 09:43:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 04:48:33 AM
I am curious as to why so many are interested in restricting freedoms?
guns are scary.
Or to put it another way, "WAAAAA I AM AFRAID I WILL BLOW MY FOOT OFF SO I DON'T OWN A GUN AND THAT BIG GUY WITH THE HUNTING RIFLE SCARES ME BECAUSE HE HAZ ONE AN ISN'T AFRAID OF SHOOTING HIS FOOT OFF. I ALSO THINK HUNTING IS BARBARIC, MEAT SHOULD COME FROM THE STORE IN NEAT PACKAGES!!!!!"
I spent half of my last deployment not allowed to carry more than a single knife on me. People get scared and act like children.
To each their own, just don't try to force your opinion on others.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 31, 2010, 09:46:57 PM
Am I the only person strongly in favor of gun freedoms who doesn't own one? (and has no intention of owning one, just to make it clear, it's not just because i am poor)
I'm in favor of gun rights and don't own one because of money and the fact that I live on a college campus, but intend to rectify that post-school.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 31, 2010, 09:46:57 PM
Am I the only person strongly in favor of gun freedoms who doesn't own one? (and has no intention of owning one, just to make it clear, it's not just because i am poor)
I don't own one at the moment, and I'm strongly pro gun. I will probably buy another one though.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 09:57:19 PM
Quote from: aedh on July 31, 2010, 09:43:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 04:48:33 AM
I am curious as to why so many are interested in restricting freedoms?
guns are scary.
Or to put it another way, "WAAAAA I AM AFRAID I WILL BLOW MY FOOT OFF SO I DON'T OWN A GUN AND THAT BIG GUY WITH THE HUNTING RIFLE SCARES ME BECAUSE HE HAZ ONE AN ISN'T AFRAID OF SHOOTING HIS FOOT OFF. I ALSO THINK HUNTING IS BARBARIC, MEAT SHOULD COME FROM THE STORE IN NEAT PACKAGES!!!!!"
I spent half of my last deployment not allowed to carry more than a single knife on me. People get scared and act like children.
To each their own, just don't try to force your opinion on others.
Methinks you misunderstood my post.
I think everyone who is not a criminal should be legally allowed to purchase and maintain such arms as they deem prudent and necessary for personal and home defense, as well as sport and subsistence. I believe that, like Dok Howl said, there should be a class offered in high school covering basic safety, marksmanship and weapons maintenance.
I think people who seek to restrict my freedoms because my freedoms scare them are good candidates for serfdom and should be rounded up and forced to the fields and factories for those that refuse to allow their freedoms taken.
Quote from: aedh on July 31, 2010, 10:04:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 09:57:19 PM
Quote from: aedh on July 31, 2010, 09:43:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 04:48:33 AM
I am curious as to why so many are interested in restricting freedoms?
guns are scary.
Or to put it another way, "WAAAAA I AM AFRAID I WILL BLOW MY FOOT OFF SO I DON'T OWN A GUN AND THAT BIG GUY WITH THE HUNTING RIFLE SCARES ME BECAUSE HE HAZ ONE AN ISN'T AFRAID OF SHOOTING HIS FOOT OFF. I ALSO THINK HUNTING IS BARBARIC, MEAT SHOULD COME FROM THE STORE IN NEAT PACKAGES!!!!!"
I spent half of my last deployment not allowed to carry more than a single knife on me. People get scared and act like children.
To each their own, just don't try to force your opinion on others.
Methinks you misunderstood my post.
I think everyone who is not a criminal should be legally allowed to purchase and maintain such arms as they deem prudent and necessary for personal and home defense, as well as sport and subsistence. I believe that, like Dok Howl said, there should be a class offered in high school covering basic safety, marksmanship and weapons maintenance.
I think people who seek to restrict my freedoms because my freedoms scare them are good candidates for serfdom and should be rounded up and forced to the fields and factories for those that refuse to allow their freedoms taken.
Ah, ok. :)
I personally do not like firearms. But I am trained in their use. I am comfortable around them. And I should be able to get one with a minimum of hassle should I feel I need one.
I think life could be boiled down to this "If I ain't shitting in your yard, don't tell me how to shit"
Please don't shit in my water supply either.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 31, 2010, 10:22:53 PM
Please don't shit in my water supply either.
Oddly enough, that was going to be my first choice for my statement.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on July 31, 2010, 10:22:53 PM
Please don't shit in my water supply either.
It was in self-defense.
(Why do you want to restrict my freedom?)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 31, 2010, 09:46:57 PM
Am I the only person strongly in favor of gun freedoms who doesn't own one? (and has no intention of owning one, just to make it clear, it's not just because i am poor)
No, you're not. I don't own any, but it's only because I haven't gotten around to getting any yet. I'd like to take a gun safety / maintenance course first.
Quote from: aedh on July 31, 2010, 10:04:39 PM
I think everyone who is not a criminal should be legally allowed to purchase and maintain such arms as they deem prudent and necessary for personal and home defense, as well as sport and subsistence. I believe that, like Dok Howl said, there should be a class offered in high school covering basic safety, marksmanship and weapons maintenance.
I think people who seek to restrict my freedoms because my freedoms scare them are good candidates for serfdom and should be rounded up and forced to the fields and factories for those that refuse to allow their freedoms taken.
I can tell that I spend way too much time on facebook, because I searched in vain for a "Like" button after reading this post.
I think it's messed up that my freedom to own fully automatic weapons, RPGs, and small missiles is RESTRICTED!
FACKIN'
BALLSHAT!
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on July 31, 2010, 11:31:13 PM
I think it's messed up that my freedom to own fully automatic weapons, RPGs, and small missiles is RESTRICTED!
FACKIN'
BALLSHAT!
Build your own, and stop crying?
Quote from: aedh on July 31, 2010, 11:32:06 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on July 31, 2010, 11:31:13 PM
I think it's messed up that my freedom to own fully automatic weapons, RPGs, and small missiles is RESTRICTED!
FACKIN'
BALLSHAT!
Build your own, and stop crying?
Shouldn't you be playing WoW in your Mom's basement right now?
Or are you too busy fucking a sock while gazing at your "complete human" reflection?
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on July 31, 2010, 11:53:29 PM
Shouldn't you be playing WoW in your Mom's basement right now?
Or are you too busy fucking a sock while gazing at your "complete human" reflection?
Is this where I pretend to be a macho guy and say "I live in your mom's basement and fuck her"?
Or is this where I point out that whining about not being allowed to posses things that you could with a modicum of technical skill you could manufacture on your own and therefore your hyperbolic argument raging against your freedom to own military grade weapons is stupid?
Except of course its just as illegal to make them as buy them, and easier to buy them illegally than to make them that way.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 01, 2010, 12:24:32 AM
Except of course its just as illegal to make them as buy them, and easier to buy them illegally than to make them that way.
But no where near as fun.
"Honest officer these aren't weapon components these are just parts for automated hole maker"
Quote from: aedh on August 01, 2010, 12:21:38 AM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on July 31, 2010, 11:53:29 PM
Shouldn't you be playing WoW in your Mom's basement right now?
Or are you too busy fucking a sock while gazing at your "complete human" reflection?
Is this where I pretend to be a macho guy and say "I live in your mom's basement and fuck her"?
Or is this where I point out that whining about not being allowed to posses things that you could with a modicum of technical skill you could manufacture on your own and therefore your hyperbolic argument raging against your freedom to own military grade weapons is stupid?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I'm sure the ONLY thing preventing you from showcasing your missile engineering acumen would be the fact you'd get caught with an Iron Man leotard on, -er, rockets in your closet.
I hope you stick around longer than AKK.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on August 01, 2010, 12:32:42 AM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I'm sure the ONLY thing preventing you from showcasing your missile engineering acumen would be the fact you'd get caught with an Iron Man leotard on, -er, rockets in your closet.
I hope you stick around longer than AKK.
That depends how long it takes for my med to kick in.
Quote from: aedh on August 01, 2010, 12:21:38 AM
Or is this where I point out that whining about not being allowed to posses things that you could with a modicum of technical skill you could manufacture on your own and therefore your hyperbolic argument raging against your freedom to own military grade weapons is stupid?
To those of us who don't have much in the way of technical skill, how would you go about manufacturing your own RPGs and small missiles?
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 01, 2010, 02:24:13 AM
Quote from: aedh on August 01, 2010, 12:21:38 AM
Or is this where I point out that whining about not being allowed to posses things that you could with a modicum of technical skill you could manufacture on your own and therefore your hyperbolic argument raging against your freedom to own military grade weapons is stupid?
To those of us who don't have much in the way of technical skill, how would you go about manufacturing your own RPGs and small missiles?
Make friends with people who do or get the skill? Community colleges always offer vocational education, and chemistry classes.
In other words, you have no idea what actually goes into it. :lulz:
Quote from: aedh on August 01, 2010, 02:26:45 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 01, 2010, 02:24:13 AM
Quote from: aedh on August 01, 2010, 12:21:38 AM
Or is this where I point out that whining about not being allowed to posses things that you could with a modicum of technical skill you could manufacture on your own and therefore your hyperbolic argument raging against your freedom to own military grade weapons is stupid?
To those of us who don't have much in the way of technical skill, how would you go about manufacturing your own RPGs and small missiles?
Make friends with people who do or get the skill? Community colleges always offer vocational education, and chemistry classes.
Well yes, obviously step one is "learn how to make a small missile." What's after that? How do you steer the missile? How do you set the detonator to go off at the appropriate altitude / distance from an object, but not on the way up? What explosive do you use for the warhead that can be made with easily available chemicals and doesn't go off if you drop it on your foot? The engineering behind the V-2 was no small feat.
(http://www.aasewer.net/images/BakingSoda%20vinegar.gif)
(http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/F8D2AC42-1618-4F83-8CF6-3F76A4DD860B/OW005223.jpg)
(http://www.seeingtheforest.com/STFphotos/nuclear-explosion.jpg)
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 01, 2010, 02:44:43 AM
Well yes, obviously step one is "learn how to make a small missile." What's after that? How do you steer the missile? How do you set the detonator to go off at the appropriate altitude / distance from an object, but not on the way up? What explosive do you use for the warhead that can be made with easily available chemicals and doesn't go off if you drop it on your foot? The engineering behind the V-2 was no small feat.
Learn math?
Or settle for simple line of sight missiles.
Throwing a soda can into a pigeon, can be considered "launching a missile" by the loosest definition.
But usually a missile is considered a dirigible projectile.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 01, 2010, 02:44:43 AM
Quote from: aedh on August 01, 2010, 02:26:45 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 01, 2010, 02:24:13 AM
Quote from: aedh on August 01, 2010, 12:21:38 AM
Or is this where I point out that whining about not being allowed to posses things that you could with a modicum of technical skill you could manufacture on your own and therefore your hyperbolic argument raging against your freedom to own military grade weapons is stupid?
To those of us who don't have much in the way of technical skill, how would you go about manufacturing your own RPGs and small missiles?
Make friends with people who do or get the skill? Community colleges always offer vocational education, and chemistry classes.
Well yes, obviously step one is "learn how to make a small missile." What's after that? How do you steer the missile? How do you set the detonator to go off at the appropriate altitude / distance from an object, but not on the way up? What explosive do you use for the warhead that can be made with easily available chemicals and doesn't go off if you drop it on your foot? The engineering behind the V-2 was no small feat.
You used to be able to just buy large solid fuel rocket engines for hobbyist purposes, which simplifies things a bit.
That's something else they don't allow anymore.
Quote from: aedh on August 01, 2010, 03:28:42 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 01, 2010, 02:44:43 AM
Well yes, obviously step one is "learn how to make a small missile." What's after that? How do you steer the missile? How do you set the detonator to go off at the appropriate altitude / distance from an object, but not on the way up? What explosive do you use for the warhead that can be made with easily available chemicals and doesn't go off if you drop it on your foot? The engineering behind the V-2 was no small feat.
Learn math?
Or settle for simple line of sight missiles.
Like what, thrown rocks? The idea here is to get something more dangerous than a compound crossbow with a lit firecracker taped to the end of the bolt.
This clown is a troll. Please act accordingly.
:sotw:
:troll:
Actually, you can use the graphics card from a Playstation 3 to target a missile.
That's how Hezbollah made their own UAVs. Cost them, IIRC, under $2000 to get the flying robot of death up and running. Which, when you consider it costs the Pentagon roughly $3 million, is pretty good value for money.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 06:44:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 31, 2010, 06:32:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 31, 2010, 04:48:33 AM
I am curious as to why so many are interested in restricting freedoms?
To make us all SAFE. So SAFE, you'll live to 100 wishing you were dead the whole fucking time.
Frankly Dok, as we have discussed, I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Or Kill Me.
I live in Australia, where the gun laws are so restrictive that only the filth and violent criminals and a very few licensed professional hunters or gun club members have access to them. I don't feel very safe.
Ever since they staged a massive disarming of the population (called a gun buy-back) in the 1990's, the rate of gun crime has done nothing but escalate. Along with its subsidiary industries. There is now a thriving black market in arms and ammunition. The drug trade and the illegal gun trade are run by the same people. The cops are taking big money to let it happen. In the past gun crime in Australia was restricted to organised crime and bank robberies. Not any more. Smash and grab artists are now often tooled up. In the past they used bricks and iron bars. Now it's Uzis and shotguns.
And cops shoot you if you look at them oddly. Especially if they've been told you're suffering from a mental illness. As it's highly unlikely that a law abiding mental patient will have access to a gun dealer, very few of them turn out to be packing anything more lethal than a potato peeler and pair of safety scissors. As a result tragically few filth are harmed in the process of such confrontations. I do believe they consider it a form of in-field target practice. Advanced On the Job training, if you will.
Oh...and feral pigs and wild dogs are running rampant through native bush, destroying habitat and fauna because so many shooters got regulated out of the sport. And mean while I am not allowed to let off a fire cracker without a license.
Oh....And two of our army officers just got done for selling superannuated Ordinance to Hezbollah.
Well, one thing is letting have predatory people have guns and one thing is letting certain people with certain mental health problems have guns -althought only people with schizophrenia would be a problem (since the really anti-social and psychopathic get it in the black market anyhow)-.
Many people seek to restrict many rights and freedoms based on making themselves richer, safer of more comfortable.
These people should die with their organs stuffed in their mouth after they have been forcefully ripped off of their bodies.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 04:47:29 AM
These people should die with their organs stuffed in their mouth after they have been forcefully ripped off of their bodies.
I disagree. That is a waste of good serfs. If they want to have next to know rights, let them give them away. I am sure I could secure some decent land that I could use some serfs to tend for me.
I've got a feeling you'd be one of the first basement-dwelling fatties to be put to work in the potato fields should that eventuality ever come to pass. :lulz:
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on August 02, 2010, 06:44:09 AM
I've got a feeling you'd be one of the first basement-dwelling fatties to be put to work in the potato fields should that eventuality ever come to pass. :lulz:
That's profiling. :argh!:
maybe you should teach me a thing or two with one of your amazing homemade missiles that you don't know how to make.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on August 02, 2010, 07:14:01 AM
maybe you should teach me a thing or two with one of your amazing homemade missiles that you don't know how to make.
Or I could just bash your head in with a rock.
Dead is dead right?
You people seem to fixated on stuff that you are told you can't have.
which "you people" are you referring to?
also, you'd have to get out of the basement and get some exercise before you could lift a rock heavy enough to be fatal.
PROTIP: you'll need something heavier than that 2-liter of mountain dew you keep by the keyboard.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on August 02, 2010, 07:24:16 AM
which "you people" are you referring to?
also, you'd have to get out of the basement and get some exercise before you could lift a rock heavy enough to be fatal.
PROTIP: you'll need something heavier than that 2-liter of mountain dew you keep by the keyboard.
-yawn-
Quote from: Cain on July 31, 2010, 04:51:09 PMI live in the most heavily armed country in Europe, where there is roughly one gun for every three people owned by the civilian population and militia members are required by law to keep assault rifles in their homes, normally the SIG SG 550 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_SG_550). Violent crime here is virtually unheard of, and the most serious common crime seems to be pickpocketing, in tourist traps.
I think it's the combination of training and easily available firearms that produces the most sensible response. A conscript army means 2/3rds of the national population have professional military training with firearms. That means if you start waving a gun around like an idiot, the chances are someone nearby will have the training and means to coerce your standing down.
The problem comes in if you have lots of loudmouth idiots who think having a gun makes them invincible running around, since then their inclination to use it rises greatly.
Yes. I used to be very anti-gun, it's easy to be in a relatively low-crime country where you aren't allowed guns anyway, if you don't think about it too much. Discussions like these on PD and POEE convinced me otherwise.
I do, however, believe in proper training and licensing. Just like getting a drivers license. Except even moreso, cause if you barely pass your drivers license you still get practice by regular driving, which most people do anyway. While I wouldn't expect someone that barely passed the gun license test to regularly practice at the shooting range in order to brush up, as quickly.
but I don't really understand this argument, Dok (unless I'm really missing the point)
Quote from: DokQuote from: PeleusQuote from: Pēleus on July 30, 2010, 20:16:32
Also with national guard who normal provide for the common defence are often deployed overseas with other armed services. Some countries have a draft, I'm merely suggesting a drivers ed course and some community service before you own a weapon.
I'm merely suggesting a drivers ed course and some community service before you can speak your mind.
I see three rights discussed in this quote:
1 to speak your mind
2 to own a gun
3 to drive a car
for number 3 we already need a license, both here and in the US. do you disagree with that? [not saying you do, just asking, as I said, I might be missing your point]
[at the very least, drivers education is useful and necessary in high traffic areas to ensure efficient traffic flow when the economic impact of traffic congestion is bigger than what you'd gain from spending the same amount of tax money on improving the roads themselves]
of course we don't want to license number 1.
so, is needing a license to own a gun more like needing a license to speak your mind, or more like needing a license to drive a car?
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 01, 2010, 03:28:42 AMQuote from: Golden Applesauce on August 01, 2010, 02:44:43 AMHow do you set the detonator to go off at the appropriate altitude / distance from an object, but not on the way up? What explosive do you use for the warhead that can be made with easily available chemicals and doesn't go off if you drop it on your foot?
Learn math?
It's true! I know a LOT of math and I NEVER had a rocket explode on me feet.
(yet)
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 02, 2010, 07:45:55 AM
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 01, 2010, 03:28:42 AM
Learn math?
It's true! I know a LOT of math and I NEVER had a rocket explode on me feet.
(yet)
Would this be a success or a failure?
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 01, 2010, 03:28:42 AMQuote from: Golden Applesauce on August 01, 2010, 02:44:43 AMHow do you set the detonator to go off at the appropriate altitude / distance from an object, but not on the way up? What explosive do you use for the warhead that can be made with easily available chemicals and doesn't go off if you drop it on your foot?
Learn math?
Train skill points. Spend XP.
fixed
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 02, 2010, 07:55:22 AM
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 01, 2010, 03:28:42 AMQuote from: Golden Applesauce on August 01, 2010, 02:44:43 AMHow do you set the detonator to go off at the appropriate altitude / distance from an object, but not on the way up? What explosive do you use for the warhead that can be made with easily available chemicals and doesn't go off if you drop it on your foot?
Learn math?
Train skill points. Spend XP.
Respec for Siege Ballistics Mastery
fixed
Double fixt
LOLOMGBBQ! Talk about derailing
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 02, 2010, 08:39:29 AM
LOLOMGBBQ! Talk about derailing
I hurd u like trains.
(http://www.thaiphotoblogs.com/media/trainderailed_1.jpg)
You going to kill me with a rock too? :eek:
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 02, 2010, 09:34:56 AM
You going to kill me with a rock too? :eek:
No, I was thinking of smothering you with my sweaty fat folds.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 04:47:29 AM
Many people seek to restrict many rights and freedoms based on making themselves richer, safer of more comfortable.
These people should die with their organs stuffed in their mouth after they have been forcefully ripped off of their bodies.
I know there's a very popular Ben Franklin quote about trading freedom for safety, but the truth is that some level of safety is a prerequisite for freedom. As an extreme example, if anyone was free to murder you because they don't like what you say, then de facto you do not have freedom of speech. It just would just be someone other than the government taking away your rights. If the roads were packed full of drunk, texting teenagers driving around cars at over 150 km/hr, then you don't have the ability to travel anywhere safely, which takes a big bite out of any freedom that can be exercised outside of your house. If industry is free to dump teratogens and carcinogens into your water supply, you lose the freedom to raise a healthy family, go swimming, and fish.
If you want to operate a firearm, then you have a responsibility to know how to operate one responsibly, just like with any other dangerous device (cars, underwater oil wells, anesthesia, etc.) I suspect you would also agree that sacrificing the rights of students to bring guns into a classroom is worth the safety and piece of mind it grants to teachers and other students.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 02, 2010, 02:42:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 04:47:29 AM
Many people seek to restrict many rights and freedoms based on making themselves richer, safer of more comfortable.
These people should die with their organs stuffed in their mouth after they have been forcefully ripped off of their bodies.
I know there's a very popular Ben Franklin quote about trading freedom for safety, but the truth is that some level of safety is a prerequisite for freedom. As an extreme example, if anyone was free to murder you because they don't like what you say, then de facto you do not have freedom of speech. It just would just be someone other than the government taking away your rights. If the roads were packed full of drunk, texting teenagers driving around cars at over 150 km/hr, then you don't have the ability to travel anywhere safely, which takes a big bite out of any freedom that can be exercised outside of your house. If industry is free to dump teratogens and carcinogens into your water supply, you lose the freedom to raise a healthy family, go swimming, and fish.
If you want to operate a firearm, then you have a responsibility to know how to operate one responsibly, just like with any other dangerous device (cars, underwater oil wells, anesthesia, etc.) I suspect you would also agree that sacrificing the rights of students to bring guns into a classroom is worth the safety and piece of mind it grants to teachers and other students.
:kingmeh:
You had me until here.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 02, 2010, 02:42:05 PM
I suspect you would also agree that sacrificing the rights of students to bring guns into a classroom is worth the safety and piece of mind it grants to teachers and other students.
Now while this wasn't directed at me, it does bring up interesting things.
Assuming we lived in a society where gun ownership was commonplace and accepted this would be a non-issues. I mean we don't so ignore that.
Assuming we lived in a society that had a licensing system for firearms similar to automobiles, in that you could take a gun ed class, get a learners permit to carry around oh say an airsoft pistol or a paintball marker. When you attain a certain age, 18 or 21 seems good, you could get a license, lets call it class R for rifle or P for pistol like with a drivers license having different endorsements on it past class C. While we are at it let's toss in registration of your firearms, and, this is novel, you have to have gun insurance for each firearm you posses. That part sounds ludicrous, but hey it might work.
So, assuming we lived in a society like that, why wouldn't you let the majority of licensed individuals carry firearms to school. Unless I had a retard moment and you meant small children bringing dangerous weapons to school instead of adolescents, and adults, in which case I wold agree.
Of course there are a great many issues with that idea. Who gets to decide what constitutes the bare minimum of gun safety to attain a Class R or P license? What kind of rates would be expected for firearm insurance?
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 03:03:10 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 02, 2010, 02:42:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 04:47:29 AM
Many people seek to restrict many rights and freedoms based on making themselves richer, safer of more comfortable.
These people should die with their organs stuffed in their mouth after they have been forcefully ripped off of their bodies.
I know there's a very popular Ben Franklin quote about trading freedom for safety, but the truth is that some level of safety is a prerequisite for freedom. As an extreme example, if anyone was free to murder you because they don't like what you say, then de facto you do not have freedom of speech. It just would just be someone other than the government taking away your rights. If the roads were packed full of drunk, texting teenagers driving around cars at over 150 km/hr, then you don't have the ability to travel anywhere safely, which takes a big bite out of any freedom that can be exercised outside of your house. If industry is free to dump teratogens and carcinogens into your water supply, you lose the freedom to raise a healthy family, go swimming, and fish.
If you want to operate a firearm, then you have a responsibility to know how to operate one responsibly, just like with any other dangerous device (cars, underwater oil wells, anesthesia, etc.) I suspect you would also agree that sacrificing the rights of students to bring guns into a classroom is worth the safety and piece of mind it grants to teachers and other students.
:kingmeh:
would you mind using words and sentences to communicate your opinion? for the sake of the discussion? cause all this emoticon tells me is "I disagree and can't be arsed to explain why" which makes it rather hard to put value to your opinion, regardless whether I agree myself or not.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 02, 2010, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 03:03:10 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 02, 2010, 02:42:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 04:47:29 AM
Many people seek to restrict many rights and freedoms based on making themselves richer, safer of more comfortable.
These people should die with their organs stuffed in their mouth after they have been forcefully ripped off of their bodies.
I know there's a very popular Ben Franklin quote about trading freedom for safety, but the truth is that some level of safety is a prerequisite for freedom. As an extreme example, if anyone was free to murder you because they don't like what you say, then de facto you do not have freedom of speech. It just would just be someone other than the government taking away your rights. If the roads were packed full of drunk, texting teenagers driving around cars at over 150 km/hr, then you don't have the ability to travel anywhere safely, which takes a big bite out of any freedom that can be exercised outside of your house. If industry is free to dump teratogens and carcinogens into your water supply, you lose the freedom to raise a healthy family, go swimming, and fish.
If you want to operate a firearm, then you have a responsibility to know how to operate one responsibly, just like with any other dangerous device (cars, underwater oil wells, anesthesia, etc.) I suspect you would also agree that sacrificing the rights of students to bring guns into a classroom is worth the safety and piece of mind it grants to teachers and other students.
:kingmeh:
would you mind using words and sentences to communicate your opinion? for the sake of the discussion? cause all this emoticon tells me is "I disagree and can't be arsed to explain why" which makes it rather hard to put value to your opinion, regardless whether I agree myself or not.
Of course. I didn't mean to imply that no restrictions would be a good thing. I assumed that my intent would be known. I think private businesses, etc should have control of what comes in and out. I, for one, would not want to go to any more bars where people were carrying guns, especially in this society.
AS far as teens texting and driving I doubt laws have much, if any effect on that.
It's like the lines on the road to control traffic, they won't stop you if you decide to cross them.
I do not support anarchy.
So, it's sounding like most issues... There has to be a line between "everyone do what they want" and "everything not allowed is forbidden."
It sounds like everyone wants to draw the line in a different place. The most optimistic seem to think that a massive influx of common sense would answer most of the questions that come up, so only minor restrictions need to be established. The most pessimistic seem to think that humans are both violent and stupid, and it would be better if no one had access to devices that make it really easy to kill something.
Most of us appear to fall somewhere in between.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 02, 2010, 03:39:24 PM
So, it's sounding like most issues... There has to be a line between "everyone do what they want" and "everything not allowed is forbidden."
It sounds like everyone wants to draw the line in a different place. The most optimistic seem to think that a massive influx of common sense would answer most of the questions that come up, so only minor restrictions need to be established. The most pessimistic seem to think that humans are both violent and stupid, and it would be better if no one had access to devices that make it really easy to kill something.
Most of us appear to fall somewhere in between.
I think you have a handle on this. See, owning a gun doesn't mean you have to carry it everywhere you go. As a hunter my rifles mostly stayed in their cases. There was one point in my life that no matter I went I had 2 pistols on me.
I'd like to give thanks at this point in time for this very important part of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution:
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
SHALL NOT.
BE INFRINGED.
Yes, this means I believe that firearm ownership should not be restricted in any way except at the most basic level (such as not allowing felons convicted of a violent crime to own guns or not allowing people under the age of 18 to own handguns).
Got a gun? Don't know how to use it? Shot yourself and/or someone else? Then we'll deal with that problem when it happens rather than by trying to legislate everyone into safety.
The beauty of that is there would most likely be a lot less retards, because they would have shot themselves.
I'm not sure your average citizen really needs to own any kind of heavy or auto/semi-auto weaponry. I'm perfectly fine myself with bans on assault weapons, weaponry that goes above and beyond defending yourself and are designed to inflict harm on multiple targets and in quick fashion. But I'm not too hot and bothered by it as it seems humans are pretty good at finding a way to kill someone they want to kill whether they have a gun or not.
That said, my concern with firearms will deal mostly with children. That is, guns in the homes where children live. I'm not terribly keen on what kind of laws or policies are in place for gun owners and the children in their homes, but I think there should be some kind of mandate for anyone purchasing a gun, who had kids, to receive some kind of education on proper gun storage. Maybe just have a quick 30 minute session on site and it's part of the process to buy a gun. We educate drivers on how to be safe to keep themselves from harming themselves and children and I think that should be a requirement of gun ownership as well.
Well, I do agree that the common citizenry have no cause to actually posses military grade automatic rifles, but semi-autos? What about double action revolvers?
I dunno man, I'm not a gun expert. I don't need a gun to protect my home, I have my wife. Good luck to anyone who decides to test her.
Personally I think fully automatic weapons are a blast to shoot. Semi-auto military style weapons are also a lot of fun. Expensive as hell, but a lot of fun.
I like traditional archery, bolo and atalatl.
:troll:
Quote from: Kai on August 02, 2010, 05:15:56 PM
I like traditional archery, bolo and atalatl.
:troll:
I would have difficulty hitting the US using archery. But muzzle loaders are the most fun of all.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 04:56:45 PM
Personally I think fully automatic weapons are a blast to shoot. Semi-auto military style weapons are also a lot of fun. Expensive as hell, but a lot of fun.
Agreement. Machine guns are blast to shoot.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 05:17:32 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 02, 2010, 05:15:56 PM
I like traditional archery, bolo and atalatl.
:troll:
I would have difficulty hitting the US using archery. But muzzle loaders are the most fun of all.
More seriously, people who carry less easy to fire types of weapons (like black powder, for example) seem to be far more educated about proper maintenance of firearms and far less likely to act stupid with them.
As for me, I'm 115 lbs and lithe. Anything much stronger than a 22 caliber rifle sends me far enough off balance that I might as well not carry it at all. A hand gun would probably be better, but I don't feel particularly safe wielding one. And when I say that, I mean my own safety as far as not shooting myself in the foot or something equally incompetent.
Guns kill people, but motor vehicles kill MORE people. The moral is: humans are incompetent with machinery. Not that I am advocating pre-industrial primitivism, no, not in the least. Just noting the situation.
Quote from: Kai on August 02, 2010, 05:30:03 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 05:17:32 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 02, 2010, 05:15:56 PM
I like traditional archery, bolo and atalatl.
:troll:
I would have difficulty hitting the US using archery. But muzzle loaders are the most fun of all.
More seriously, people who carry less easy to fire types of weapons (like black powder, for example) seem to be far more educated about proper maintenance of firearms and far less likely to act stupid with them.
As for me, I'm 115 lbs and lithe. Anything much stronger than a 22 caliber rifle sends me far enough off balance that I might as well not carry it at all. A hand gun would probably be better, but I don't feel particularly safe wielding one. And when I say that, I mean my own safety as far as not shooting myself in the foot or something equally incompetent.
Guns kill people, but motor vehicles kill MORE people. The moral is: humans are incompetent with machinery. Not that I am advocating pre-industrial primitivism, no, not in the least. Just noting the situation.
I tend to agree with you. Deer hunting got so boring to us we all switched over to black powder season. I have seen the fear of handguns you mention and have taught several people past it. As small as you say you are if you ever do get a handgun don't go over a 9MM. Pistols can kick like hell.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 02, 2010, 04:40:19 PM
I'm not sure your average citizen really needs to own any kind of heavy or auto/semi-auto weaponry. I'm perfectly fine myself with bans on assault weapons, weaponry that goes above and beyond defending yourself and are designed to inflict harm on multiple targets and in quick fashion. But I'm not too hot and bothered by it as it seems humans are pretty good at finding a way to kill someone they want to kill whether they have a gun or not.
That said, my concern with firearms will deal mostly with children. That is, guns in the homes where children live. I'm not terribly keen on what kind of laws or policies are in place for gun owners and the children in their homes, but I think there should be some kind of mandate for anyone purchasing a gun, who had kids, to receive some kind of education on proper gun storage. Maybe just have a quick 30 minute session on site and it's part of the process to buy a gun. We educate drivers on how to be safe to keep themselves from harming themselves and children and I think that should be a requirement of gun ownership as well.
More or less agree on the "guns in homes with children" thing in theory, but I doubt it could be crafted as legislation without being too broadly infringing.
however...
it doesn't matter if we NEED to own assault rifles or not. Wanting to own them should be good enough. And anyway, the last time I checked, gangsters and drug dealers don't care if a submachine pistol or semi-auto shotgun is overkill, or even legal. And I imagine that legally owning a bolt-action hunting rifle will be cold-comfort when you suddenly find yourself in a position which requires you to dispatch a room full of people with semi-automatic weapons.
And this isn't some imagined "gangsters and drug dealers are armed to the teeth!" bullshit. I used to be those things. I owned a chinese knock-off AK-47 when I was 17 years old. When I was 19 I bought a MAC-10 fully automatic machine pistol for $500. And if my speed-addled dumb ass had decided I needed to shoot someone, they'd have been pretty fucked without similar firepower. And yeah, 99.99% of gun owners will never find themselves in a position where they need that kind of firepower for self-defense but the right to defend yourself isn't based on statistical majorities, it's based on the idea that 100% of the people should be able to defend themselves and their loved ones no matter how unlikely it is they'll ever need to. I will probably never fire my .40 carbine rifle at anything bigger or faster than a beer bottle or a jug of water, but I own it (as opposed to a .30-06 or a .303, both of which would be way better for hunting game) because if I absolutely NEED to kill someone, I KNOW that 11 rounds of 185 grain .40 S&W jacketed hollow-point rounds are going to do the trick as efficiently as possible.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on August 02, 2010, 06:16:08 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 02, 2010, 04:40:19 PM
I'm not sure your average citizen really needs to own any kind of heavy or auto/semi-auto weaponry. I'm perfectly fine myself with bans on assault weapons, weaponry that goes above and beyond defending yourself and are designed to inflict harm on multiple targets and in quick fashion. But I'm not too hot and bothered by it as it seems humans are pretty good at finding a way to kill someone they want to kill whether they have a gun or not.
That said, my concern with firearms will deal mostly with children. That is, guns in the homes where children live. I'm not terribly keen on what kind of laws or policies are in place for gun owners and the children in their homes, but I think there should be some kind of mandate for anyone purchasing a gun, who had kids, to receive some kind of education on proper gun storage. Maybe just have a quick 30 minute session on site and it's part of the process to buy a gun. We educate drivers on how to be safe to keep themselves from harming themselves and children and I think that should be a requirement of gun ownership as well.
More or less agree on the "guns in homes with children" thing in theory, but I doubt it could be crafted as legislation without being too broadly infringing.
however...
it doesn't matter if we NEED to own assault rifles or not. Wanting to own them should be good enough. And anyway, the last time I checked, gangsters and drug dealers don't care if a submachine pistol or semi-auto shotgun is overkill, or even legal. And I imagine that legally owning a bolt-action hunting rifle will be cold-comfort when you suddenly find yourself in a position which requires you to dispatch a room full of people with semi-automatic weapons.
And this isn't some imagined "gangsters and drug dealers are armed to the teeth!" bullshit. I used to be those things. I owned a chinese knock-off AK-47 when I was 17 years old. When I was 19 I bought a MAC-10 fully automatic machine pistol for $500. And if my speed-addled dumb ass had decided I needed to shoot someone, they'd have been pretty fucked without similar firepower. And yeah, 99.99% of gun owners will never find themselves in a position where they need that kind of firepower for self-defense but the right to defend yourself isn't based on statistical majorities, it's based on the idea that 100% of the people should be able to defend themselves and their loved ones no matter how unlikely it is they'll ever need to. I will probably never fire my .40 carbine rifle at anything bigger or faster than a beer bottle or a jug of water, but I own it (as opposed to a .30-06 or a .303, both of which would be way better for hunting game) because if I absolutely NEED to kill someone, I KNOW that 11 rounds of 185 grain .40 S&W jacketed hollow-point rounds are going to do the trick as efficiently as possible.
Several places have 'trigger lock' or 'locked safe' laws. But I agree with the rest.
I think one important piece of technology that's being developed is biometric sensors built in to the guns themselves. I believe it's already available on some of the very high-end handguns. Basically, the handle contains a sensor that reads the finger or thumbprint of the gun's owner. If the prints of the person holding the gun don't match the owner's, the gun won't fire. If that becomes cheap enough to become a standard feature, it will probably cut WAY down on the number of children killed in accidental shootings, especially of the self-inflicted variety.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on August 02, 2010, 06:22:45 PM
I think one important piece of technology that's being developed is biometric sensors built in to the guns themselves. I believe it's already available on some of the very high-end handguns. Basically, the handle contains a sensor that reads the finger or thumbprint of the gun's owner. If the prints of the person holding the gun don't match the owner's, the gun won't fire. If that becomes cheap enough to become a standard feature, it will probably cut WAY down on the number of children killed in accidental shootings, especially of the self-inflicted variety.
Nice safety feature. Now I'm going to have to go look that up.
Quote from: Kai on August 02, 2010, 05:15:56 PM
I like traditional archery, bolo and atalatl.
:troll:
Where do you even buy an atlatl? I'd love to do that again.
Some smart gun technology uses a Verichip which is permanently embedded under the user's skin in order to activate the gun (and to prevent unauthorized users from stealing or duplicating a non-implanted ring or bracelet activator), [4]. Verichip is a technology that has been strongly criticized by privacy advocates, and by some Christians wary of a technological implementation of a "Mark of the Beast" or "the Number of the Beast."
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
can't.....breathe.....
Mossberg
In 1999, Mossberg Shotguns, through its subsidiary Advanced Ordnance and an electronics design contractor KinTech Manufacturing developed a "Smart" shotgun using RFID technology. This product is currently being marketed by IGun Technology Corp. The advantage with this design was that the ring worn by the owner and used to identify the owner has a passive tag (meaning no batteries) that relies on proximity to the gun for power. The battery pack in the gun is designed to last up to 10 years when not used or u×p≥ to 8 hours of continual usage (meaning always ready to be fired). The gun has low-battery indication.
[edit] New Jersey Institute of Technology
A current prototype personalized gun relies on biometric sensors in the grip and trigger that can track a gun owner's hand size, strength, and Dynamic grip style also known as (DGR) Dynamic Grip Recognition. The gun is programmed to recognize only the owner or anyone whom the owner wishes to authorize. One of the major projects involves the New Jersey Institute of Technology team, which claims the prototype identifies gun owners with 90% accuracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun
Damn interesting.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 06:29:12 PM
Verichip is a technology that has been strongly criticized by privacy advocates, and by some Christians wary of a technological implementation of a "Mark of the Beast" or "the Number of the Beast."
You've got to be kidding me. :lulz:
Quote from: Aucoq on August 02, 2010, 06:32:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 06:29:12 PM
Verichip is a technology that has been strongly criticized by privacy advocates, and by some Christians wary of a technological implementation of a "Mark of the Beast" or "the Number of the Beast."
You've got to be kidding me. :lulz:
Because that means the Feds can track your moments with their spy satellites, because you are that important. :lulz:
Correction, anybody with 100$ worth of equipment can track your movements, not to mention duplicate the key to your gun.
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 02, 2010, 06:33:27 PM
Quote from: Aucoq on August 02, 2010, 06:32:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 06:29:12 PM
Verichip is a technology that has been strongly criticized by privacy advocates, and by some Christians wary of a technological implementation of a "Mark of the Beast" or "the Number of the Beast.
You've got to be kidding me. :lulz:
Because that means the Feds can track your moments with their spy satellites, because you are that important. :lulz:
Let's try this again.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 02, 2010, 06:36:12 PM
Correction, anybody with 100$ worth of equipment can track your movements, not to mention cut off your hand
Cuz it's more interesting that way.
But damn. That easy?
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 06:37:50 PM
Let's try this again.
I saw that part too. I just like making fun of conspiracy 'the government is tracking my moments with a satellite' guys more than the crazy 'technology is the devil' guys.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 02, 2010, 06:24:46 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 02, 2010, 05:15:56 PM
I like traditional archery, bolo and atalatl.
:troll:
Where do you even buy an atlatl? I'd love to do that again.
http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&safe=off&q=atlatl&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=eAxXTPntBcH38Aa_mfjOAQ&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CD0QrQQwAw
You asked. :)
Quote from: Kai on August 02, 2010, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 02, 2010, 06:24:46 PM
Where do you even buy an atlatl? I'd love to do that again.
http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&safe=off&q=atlatl&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=eAxXTPntBcH38Aa_mfjOAQ&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CD0QrQQwAw
You asked. :)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260116111026&rvr_id=119004218943&crlp=1_263602_263622&UA=%3F*F%3F&GUID=292071381290a026a3526082fffdef9f&itemid=260116111026&ff4=263602_263622
I love how something 7 feet long can be called a dart.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 02, 2010, 03:39:24 PM
So, it's sounding like most issues... There has to be a line between "everyone do what they want" and "everything not allowed is forbidden."
It sounds like everyone wants to draw the line in a different place. The most optimistic seem to think that a massive influx of common sense would answer most of the questions that come up, so only minor restrictions need to be established. The most pessimistic seem to think that humans are both violent and stupid, and it would be better if no one had access to devices that make it really easy to kill something.
Most of us appear to fall somewhere in between.
A massive influx of common sense would probably solve a LOT of issues, though.
Any ideas on how to spike the water supply with common sense?
If common sense is also known as "PCP", then yes.
the Polite Clown Posse?
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 02, 2010, 08:36:13 PM
the Polite Clown Posse?
Nah, Possibly Conscience Person.
I dunno, the Constitution seems pretty clear... Right to Bear Arms... not infringed...
Commentary on the topic by Madison and others strongly supports the idea that it was intended to make sure that citizens could take up arms against the government if/when necessary.
QuoteNo clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. - Wm. Rawle
The stupidity of some people should not, can not infringe on the rights and freedoms of all people... or the whole system is nothing more than a long and elaborate joke.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 02, 2010, 09:13:58 PM
QuoteNo clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. - Wm. Rawle
The stupidity of some people should not, can not infringe on the rights and freedoms of all people... or the whole system is nothing more than a long and elaborate joke.
Clearly nuclear arms are covered as well. Just because there are people who would cause nuclear winter doesn't mean our right to bear nuclear warheads should be infringed.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 02, 2010, 09:13:58 PM
QuoteNo clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. - Wm. Rawle
The stupidity of some people should not, can not infringe on the rights and freedoms of all people... or the whole system is nothing more than a long and elaborate joke.
I fail to see the problem here.
Quote from: Cain on August 03, 2010, 12:52:12 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 02, 2010, 09:13:58 PM
QuoteNo clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. - Wm. Rawle
The stupidity of some people should not, can not infringe on the rights and freedoms of all people... or the whole system is nothing more than a long and elaborate joke.
I fail to see the problem here.
Really? Are you advocating nihilism or some form of society that places no restrictions on weapons?
I think the "Abuse is not an argument against proper use" argument fails in this context. Clearly people should be allowed to have guns for sport and protecting themselves and their property, I think most people agree with that.
But somewhere along the line, the damage from a single incidence of abusing a larger scale weapon outweighs the benefits of everyone having that ability.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 04:47:29 AM
These people should die with their organs stuffed in their mouth after they have been forcefully ripped off of their bodies.
ITT I just peed a little
No, I mean of course its a long and elaborate joke.
Primate social structure always has alphas, who make the rules and reap the benefits, betas, who enforce the rules due to fear of the alphas and minor perks, and everyone else, who sucks it up until they go "crazy" and stab an alpha through the eye with a sharpened piece of bone or something. Which I generally approve of, though there are circumstances where other actions may be more prudent.
Any attempt at fairness is generally a cover for a more pernicious form of control, in that you think the system is generally alright and so put up with its excesses through rationalization of its actions or stressing their exceptionally, when they are in fact at the heart of the entire social system. I mean, come on, George Washington's first act as President was to crush the Whiskey Rebellion which, IIRC, had something to do with taxes and Hamilton's power grab for the new Treasury. Americans are allowed to keep their weapons insofar as they're never going to use them in a large scale manner to overthrow the Federal Government. I'm just surprised Ratatosk hasn't figured that out already.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 02, 2010, 07:40:31 AM
For number 3 we already need a license
Yes but its a secondary offense meaning you have to be doing something else to get pulled over for it. A lot of states made driving while talking on a cel from that to a primary offense. Even then fine is reduced if you have your papers in order by your court date.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 02, 2010, 04:40:19 PM
I'm not sure your average citizen really needs to own any kind of heavy or auto/semi-auto weaponry. I'm perfectly fine myself with bans on assault weapons, weaponry that goes above and beyond defending yourself and are designed to inflict harm on multiple targets and in quick fashion. But I'm not too hot and bothered by it as it seems humans are pretty good at finding a way to kill someone they want to kill whether they have a gun or not.
Except bans like that void the intent of the amendment which the people would at least have a decent chance of fighting tyrants on their own soil. Which is why I was thinking collective ownership of firearms or at least cleaning up the city park while you wait out your waiting periods.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on August 03, 2010, 12:19:27 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 02, 2010, 09:13:58 PM
QuoteNo clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. - Wm. Rawle
The stupidity of some people should not, can not infringe on the rights and freedoms of all people... or the whole system is nothing more than a long and elaborate joke.
Hell, I have 3 nukes in silos in my back yard right now.
Clearly nuclear arms are covered as well. Just because there are people who would cause nuclear winter doesn't mean our right to bear nuclear warheads should be infringed.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 03:22:19 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 02, 2010, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 03:03:10 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 02, 2010, 02:42:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on August 02, 2010, 04:47:29 AM
Many people seek to restrict many rights and freedoms based on making themselves richer, safer of more comfortable.
These people should die with their organs stuffed in their mouth after they have been forcefully ripped off of their bodies.
I know there's a very popular Ben Franklin quote about trading freedom for safety, but the truth is that some level of safety is a prerequisite for freedom. As an extreme example, if anyone was free to murder you because they don't like what you say, then de facto you do not have freedom of speech. It just would just be someone other than the government taking away your rights. If the roads were packed full of drunk, texting teenagers driving around cars at over 150 km/hr, then you don't have the ability to travel anywhere safely, which takes a big bite out of any freedom that can be exercised outside of your house. If industry is free to dump teratogens and carcinogens into your water supply, you lose the freedom to raise a healthy family, go swimming, and fish.
If you want to operate a firearm, then you have a responsibility to know how to operate one responsibly, just like with any other dangerous device (cars, underwater oil wells, anesthesia, etc.) I suspect you would also agree that sacrificing the rights of students to bring guns into a classroom is worth the safety and piece of mind it grants to teachers and other students.
:kingmeh:
would you mind using words and sentences to communicate your opinion? for the sake of the discussion? cause all this emoticon tells me is "I disagree and can't be arsed to explain why" which makes it rather hard to put value to your opinion, regardless whether I agree myself or not.
Of course. I didn't mean to imply that no restrictions would be a good thing. I assumed that my intent would be known. I think private businesses, etc should have control of what comes in and out. I, for one, would not want to go to any more bars where people were carrying guns, especially in this society.
AS far as teens texting and driving I doubt laws have much, if any effect on that.
It's like the lines on the road to control traffic, they won't stop you if you decide to cross them.
I do not support anarchy.
Here's the thing:
What you
said was that anyone who would impose on someone else's freedom for their safety should be disemboweled to death. That doesn't leave room for any kind of restriction or legislation at all, on any subject, reasonable or not. It doesn't even leave room for discussion, as it calls for the violent death of everyone who disagrees with you.
So no, if your intent was anything other than anarchy, your intent did not come across clearly.
Quote from: Pēleus on August 03, 2010, 02:24:55 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 02, 2010, 04:40:19 PM
I'm not sure your average citizen really needs to own any kind of heavy or auto/semi-auto weaponry. I'm perfectly fine myself with bans on assault weapons, weaponry that goes above and beyond defending yourself and are designed to inflict harm on multiple targets and in quick fashion. But I'm not too hot and bothered by it as it seems humans are pretty good at finding a way to kill someone they want to kill whether they have a gun or not.
Except bans like that void the intent of the amendment which the people would at least have a decent chance of fighting tyrants on their own soil. Which is why I was thinking collective ownership of firearms or at least cleaning up the city park while you wait out your waiting periods.
The only problem with the "allow guns to allow fighting tyrants" approach to the 2nd amendment is that military hardware is so much more advanced compared to the 18th century. If the available weapons are rifles and cannons, then I'd estimate that you'd need at least a third of the armed population in the area willing to fight against a tyrant and goodly number of cannons to have a fighting chance at a grass-roots succession. There's an inherent stability there, because it takes more than a handful of paranoid crazy people to overthrow a perceived tyrant - if enough riflemen are willing to risk their lives fighting against a tyrant to have a chance of succeeding, then they probably have some legitimate grievances.
But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman. You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare. If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good, and that would require having bombers, cruise missiles, and other weapons that are effective against city-scale targets. But then the numbers break down - you don't need a majority of citizens to agree that the government is tyrannical, you just need however many guys it takes to launch enough cruise missiles to obliterate Washington DC. They're almost guaranteed not to succeed, but a lot of people would still be dead. If the general public collectively had enough military hardware to stand a chance in open warfare against the US government, then the Birthers alone would control enough firepower to destroy a city of their choice.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 03, 2010, 06:37:49 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 03, 2010, 02:24:55 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 02, 2010, 04:40:19 PM
I'm not sure your average citizen really needs to own any kind of heavy or auto/semi-auto weaponry. I'm perfectly fine myself with bans on assault weapons, weaponry that goes above and beyond defending yourself and are designed to inflict harm on multiple targets and in quick fashion. But I'm not too hot and bothered by it as it seems humans are pretty good at finding a way to kill someone they want to kill whether they have a gun or not.
Except bans like that void the intent of the amendment which the people would at least have a decent chance of fighting tyrants on their own soil. Which is why I was thinking collective ownership of firearms or at least cleaning up the city park while you wait out your waiting periods.
The only problem with the "allow guns to allow fighting tyrants" approach to the 2nd amendment is that military hardware is so much more advanced compared to the 18th century. If the available weapons are rifles and cannons, then I'd estimate that you'd need at least a third of the armed population in the area willing to fight against a tyrant and goodly number of cannons to have a fighting chance at a grass-roots succession. There's an inherent stability there, because it takes more than a handful of paranoid crazy people to overthrow a perceived tyrant - if enough riflemen are willing to risk their lives fighting against a tyrant to have a chance of succeeding, then they probably have some legitimate grievances.
But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman. You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare. If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good, and that would require having bombers, cruise missiles, and other weapons that are effective against city-scale targets. But then the numbers break down - you don't need a majority of citizens to agree that the government is tyrannical, you just need however many guys it takes to launch enough cruise missiles to obliterate Washington DC. They're almost guaranteed not to succeed, but a lot of people would still be dead. If the general public collectively had enough military hardware to stand a chance in open warfare against the US government, then the Birthers alone would control enough firepower to destroy a city of their choice.
I don't think the US government would use ballistic missiles and whatnot against an internal insurgency.
Was thinking more local then again youtube seems to do a much better job at fighting the man then any firearms could
Quote from: Cain on August 03, 2010, 01:47:37 AM
No, I mean of course its a long and elaborate joke.
Primate social structure always has alphas, who make the rules and reap the benefits, betas, who enforce the rules due to fear of the alphas and minor perks, and everyone else, who sucks it up until they go "crazy" and stab an alpha through the eye with a sharpened piece of bone or something. Which I generally approve of, though there are circumstances where other actions may be more prudent.
Any attempt at fairness is generally a cover for a more pernicious form of control, in that you think the system is generally alright and so put up with its excesses through rationalization of its actions or stressing their exceptionally, when they are in fact at the heart of the entire social system. I mean, come on, George Washington's first act as President was to crush the Whiskey Rebellion which, IIRC, had something to do with taxes and Hamilton's power grab for the new Treasury. Americans are allowed to keep their weapons insofar as they're never going to use them in a large scale manner to overthrow the Federal Government. I'm just surprised Ratatosk hasn't figured that out already.
The Whiskey tax rebellion may have been defeated in the conventional military sense, but it succeeded in making the whiskey tax unenforceable.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 03, 2010, 06:47:32 AM
I don't think the US government would use ballistic missiles and whatnot against an internal insurgency.
I do!
Seems more likely they would use UAVs than ballistic missiles.
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 03, 2010, 04:03:16 PM
Seems more likely they would use UAVs than ballistic missiles.
Kind of depends on how much of the population they want conveniently gone doesn't it?
I have no doubt in my mind the US government would bomb US citizens without giving it more than a passing thought.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 03, 2010, 06:37:49 AM
But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman. You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare. If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good, and that would require having bombers, cruise missiles, and other weapons that are effective against city-scale targets. But then the numbers break down - you don't need a majority of citizens to agree that the government is tyrannical, you just need however many guys it takes to launch enough cruise missiles to obliterate Washington DC. They're almost guaranteed not to succeed, but a lot of people would still be dead. If the general public collectively had enough military hardware to stand a chance in open warfare against the US government, then the Birthers alone would control enough firepower to destroy a city of their choice.
For the general idea I think you are right, but to be specific, I agree they wouldn't use ballistic missile and high firepower stuff.
Rather I think you'd have a lot to worry about the typical crowd control weaponry, like teargas, tazers, those microwave heat weapon things, sonic blasts, or what not. And of course riot police with their armour, helmets, weaponsticks, etc.
Combine that with better training and higher level strategic overview,
and of course, last but not least, PROPAGANDA. because prevention is the best cure.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 03, 2010, 05:06:28 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 03, 2010, 06:37:49 AM
But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman. You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare. If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good, and that would require having bombers, cruise missiles, and other weapons that are effective against city-scale targets. But then the numbers break down - you don't need a majority of citizens to agree that the government is tyrannical, you just need however many guys it takes to launch enough cruise missiles to obliterate Washington DC. They're almost guaranteed not to succeed, but a lot of people would still be dead. If the general public collectively had enough military hardware to stand a chance in open warfare against the US government, then the Birthers alone would control enough firepower to destroy a city of their choice.
For the general idea I think you are right, but to be specific, I agree they wouldn't use ballistic missile and high firepower stuff.
Rather I think you'd have a lot to worry about the typical crowd control weaponry, like teargas, tazers, those microwave heat weapon things, sonic blasts, or what not. And of course riot police with their armour, helmets, weaponsticks, etc.
Combine that with better training and higher level strategic overview,
and of course, last but not least, PROPAGANDA. because prevention is the best cure.
Yes, I agree with you, however, y'all need to stop kidding yourselves. The governement would not hesitate to use bombs to gain control over a situation they felt was not in their control. They'd knock them out with tear gas then go in guns blazing. And that is presuming they don't think the people do not have bombs of their own. If they think that? Then the compound, house, farm, town, wherever will be razed!
It would all be explained as for the good of the people and most of the people would be all "OMG How terrible they had to blow those people up. Can you imagine?" Still doesn't stop the fact that it can and probably at some point will happen!!!
I understand the game Cain ;-)
The basic point is this. The Constitution is clear on the topic. IF its a bad idea because we have flamethrowers and rockets, then there needs to be an amendment to modify the Second.
Personally, I think its an emotional issue that isn't being well thought out on either side... "THEY WANNA TAKE OUR GUNS!!!" vs "OMGZ GUNS CAN KILL PEOPLE"
Interestingly, in the time period when the amendment was added, Madison and others compared the position to that of England and other nations which did not want an armed populace.
http://davidkopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm <--- interesting commentary from the time period.
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 03, 2010, 04:03:16 PM
Seems more likely they would use UAVs than ballistic missiles.
That's likely. UAV's are already being used by the insurgents in Iraq, they aren't that difficult or expensive to build.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 03, 2010, 06:26:10 PM
The basic point is this. The Constitution is clear on the topic. IF its a bad idea because we have flamethrowers and rockets, then there needs to be an amendment to modify the Second.
:lulz:
Don't forget nuclear arms you libertarian wingbat.
I think we can excuse from the second ammendment anything that *nations* aren't allowed to have, nuclear weapons, anthrax, fragmenting rounds, that kind of thing.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 04, 2010, 04:45:40 AM
I think we can excuse from the second ammendment anything that *nations* aren't allowed to have, nuclear weapons, anthrax, fragmenting rounds, that kind of thing.
Don't we have all of those?
Maybe you mean, don;t let citizens have arms that nations aren't supposed to be using?
Yes but we convinced the rest of the world it should be disallowed for any new nations to join the nuclear club.
Do we still have bioweapons? Not just the research to make them if we wanted too, but actual ready to deploy stuff.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 04, 2010, 08:15:44 AM
Do we still have bioweapons? Not just the research to make them if we wanted too, but actual ready to deploy stuff.
I can't come up with any convincing reason why the US wouldn't have those.
Just to have them. After all, you never know.
Apparently the last of the bioweapon material was destroyed in 73. I wouldn't put it past the government to have kept a few missiles somewhere, but if they did I can't find anything about it.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 04, 2010, 09:17:19 AM
Apparently the last of the bioweapon material was destroyed in 73. I wouldn't put it past the government to have kept a few missiles somewhere, but if they did I can't find anything about it.
Oh they still have it, you can be sure of that. My first thought of where.... Tennessee, Colorado, Nevada. Those states have the three top security locations. With the added advantage of 2 of them being underneath mountains.
Quote from: Khara on August 04, 2010, 06:14:21 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 04, 2010, 09:17:19 AM
Apparently the last of the bioweapon material was destroyed in 73. I wouldn't put it past the government to have kept a few missiles somewhere, but if they did I can't find anything about it.
Oh they still have it, you can be sure of that. My first thought of where.... Tennessee, Colorado, Nevada. Those states have the three top security locations. With the added advantage of 2 of them being underneath mountains.
Cheyenne Mountain is a very scary place to be. If you step over a red line armed guards will shoot you. No questions. If they decide to have a drill and the big door closes you are there for the duration of the drill.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 04, 2010, 09:17:19 AM
Apparently the last of the bioweapon material was destroyed in 73. I wouldn't put it past the government to have kept a few missiles somewhere, but if they did I can't find anything about it.
The "weaponized" (milled) anthrax spores that were sent through the mail back in 2001 came from an Army biodefense lab, didn't they?
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on August 04, 2010, 06:34:53 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 04, 2010, 09:17:19 AM
Apparently the last of the bioweapon material was destroyed in 73. I wouldn't put it past the government to have kept a few missiles somewhere, but if they did I can't find anything about it.
The "weaponized" (milled) anthrax spores that were sent through the mail back in 2001 came from an Army biodefense lab, didn't they?
Also see Plum Island.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 06:17:44 PM
Quote from: Khara on August 04, 2010, 06:14:21 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 04, 2010, 09:17:19 AM
Apparently the last of the bioweapon material was destroyed in 73. I wouldn't put it past the government to have kept a few missiles somewhere, but if they did I can't find anything about it.
Oh they still have it, you can be sure of that. My first thought of where.... Tennessee, Colorado, Nevada. Those states have the three top security locations. With the added advantage of 2 of them being underneath mountains.
Cheyenne Mountain is a very scary place to be. If you step over a red line armed guards will shoot you. No questions. If they decide to have a drill and the big door closes you are there for the duration of the drill.
Indian Springs/Creech AFB has areas like that. There is a section of hangars on Nellis that will have you brought home dangling between two MP's if you get close enough to touch the wall.... they will chase you down if you run.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 03, 2010, 06:47:32 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 03, 2010, 06:37:49 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 03, 2010, 02:24:55 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 02, 2010, 04:40:19 PM
I'm not sure your average citizen really needs to own any kind of heavy or auto/semi-auto weaponry. I'm perfectly fine myself with bans on assault weapons, weaponry that goes above and beyond defending yourself and are designed to inflict harm on multiple targets and in quick fashion. But I'm not too hot and bothered by it as it seems humans are pretty good at finding a way to kill someone they want to kill whether they have a gun or not.
Except bans like that void the intent of the amendment which the people would at least have a decent chance of fighting tyrants on their own soil. Which is why I was thinking collective ownership of firearms or at least cleaning up the city park while you wait out your waiting periods.
The only problem with the "allow guns to allow fighting tyrants" approach to the 2nd amendment is that military hardware is so much more advanced compared to the 18th century. If the available weapons are rifles and cannons, then I'd estimate that you'd need at least a third of the armed population in the area willing to fight against a tyrant and goodly number of cannons to have a fighting chance at a grass-roots succession. There's an inherent stability there, because it takes more than a handful of paranoid crazy people to overthrow a perceived tyrant - if enough riflemen are willing to risk their lives fighting against a tyrant to have a chance of succeeding, then they probably have some legitimate grievances.
But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman. You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare. If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good, and that would require having bombers, cruise missiles, and other weapons that are effective against city-scale targets. But then the numbers break down - you don't need a majority of citizens to agree that the government is tyrannical, you just need however many guys it takes to launch enough cruise missiles to obliterate Washington DC. They're almost guaranteed not to succeed, but a lot of people would still be dead. If the general public collectively had enough military hardware to stand a chance in open warfare against the US government, then the Birthers alone would control enough firepower to destroy a city of their choice.
I don't think the US government would use ballistic missiles and whatnot against an internal insurgency.
lol, paid much attention to Israel lately? Guess how many of their hawkish think tanks are staffed by Americans with lots of clout in US policy circles? I'm certain the US would use everything up to and including tactical nuclear warheads to defeat an internal insurgency because, by their very nature, those are the most dangerous kinds.
Hell, they used death squads, torture chambers and white phosphorus in Iraq, I'd expect them do
at least that much on home soil. Civil wars are always the bloodiest.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 03, 2010, 08:37:21 AM
Quote from: Cain on August 03, 2010, 01:47:37 AM
No, I mean of course its a long and elaborate joke.
Primate social structure always has alphas, who make the rules and reap the benefits, betas, who enforce the rules due to fear of the alphas and minor perks, and everyone else, who sucks it up until they go "crazy" and stab an alpha through the eye with a sharpened piece of bone or something. Which I generally approve of, though there are circumstances where other actions may be more prudent.
Any attempt at fairness is generally a cover for a more pernicious form of control, in that you think the system is generally alright and so put up with its excesses through rationalization of its actions or stressing their exceptionally, when they are in fact at the heart of the entire social system. I mean, come on, George Washington's first act as President was to crush the Whiskey Rebellion which, IIRC, had something to do with taxes and Hamilton's power grab for the new Treasury. Americans are allowed to keep their weapons insofar as they're never going to use them in a large scale manner to overthrow the Federal Government. I'm just surprised Ratatosk hasn't figured that out already.
The Whiskey tax rebellion may have been defeated in the conventional military sense, but it succeeded in making the whiskey tax unenforceable.
So that would be in the only sense that it mattered, then, ie when Jefferson, the guy with the army that "only" defeated them in the "conventional military sense"
wanted to repeal the tax, after the change in government.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 04, 2010, 04:59:33 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 04, 2010, 04:45:40 AM
I think we can excuse from the second ammendment anything that *nations* aren't allowed to have, nuclear weapons, anthrax, fragmenting rounds, that kind of thing.
Don't we have all of those?
Yes. But only for defensive purposes, you see. No nation in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) would ever run unorthodox weapons programs for defensive purposes, only to reverse engineer that technology a couple of decades later when it felt like it.
Cheyenne Mountain Village
Its really only a mountain until you look inside.
Quote from: Pēleus on August 04, 2010, 09:12:23 PM
Cheyenne Mountain Village
Its really only a mountain until you look inside.
Kind of like Nevada is a lot of desert until you look underneath :wink:
No they actually hollowed out the mountain a bit... its not what one expects from a bunker.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce link=topic=25906.msg906730#msg906730
But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman. You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare. If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good...
I agree you need more then a riflemen but the other stuff not so much, IRA and the weathermen didn't rely on those. I don't know enough about fifth generation warfare but today id take a PR firm over a nuke. A cause is the factor in both your examples but the later one you seem to ignore that fact. Irish had their hate of british to unite em, wm had the treatment of soldiers who refused to fight.
Cameras are often treated as weapons on the battlefield...
Dok/charley,
Would membership requirement in say NRA be really considered bad?
Quote from: Pēleus on August 09, 2010, 03:04:44 AM
Dok/charley,
Would membership requirement in say NRA be really considered bad?
Yes.
Why do you keep trying to put limitations or qualifiers on individual liberty? We have politicians for that.
Live together or die alone?
Quote from: Pēleus on August 09, 2010, 03:14:28 AM
Live together or die alone?
Out here, we ALL have guns. Way too many guns. And only some of us get shot and tossed in dumpsters. Your argument is invalid.
Also, nobody promised "safe". In fact, "safe" is the enemy of both fun and freedom.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2010, 03:16:23 AM
Also, nobody promised "safe". In fact, "safe" is the enemy of both fun and freedom.
:mittens:
Thats how I see it.
Quote from: Pēleus on August 09, 2010, 03:04:44 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce link=topic=25906.msg906730#msg906730
But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman. You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare. If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good...
I agree you need more then a riflemen but the other stuff not so much, IRA and the weathermen didn't rely on those. I don't know enough about fifth generation warfare but today id take a PR firm over a nuke. A cause is the factor in both your examples but the later one you seem to ignore that fact. Irish had their hate of british to unite em, wm had the treatment of soldiers who refused to fight.
Cameras are often treated as weapons on the battlefield...
Dok/charley,
Would membership requirement in say NRA be really considered bad?
NO. SERSLY. PAINT A BIG TARGET ON YOUR ASS.
Just my two eurocents: gun limitations actually means that more often than not people will not expect to find guns and won't feel a need to possess one to keep the egde. Most robbers bring a knife if anything, except in places bad enough to have everyone bring some kind of weapon. Beside, you're not going to fight an army of trained people with ultralight plasic assault weapons using a common rifle. Some people get shot with their own weapons actually.
Anyway! I guess if someone tried to do that in the U.S. right now you would have a lot of people feel deprived of any right to defend oneself and get an AK trough the black market.
BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE: the Swiss way!
Everyone gets his assault rifle, everyone is trained to use it efficiently.
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
Some people get shot with their own weapons actually.
Darwin says "Hi!"
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE: the Swiss way!
Everyone gets his assault rifle, everyone is trained to use it efficiently.
This. But I want a bazooka.
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
Just my two eurocents: gun limitations actually means that more often than not people will not expect to find guns LEGALLY and won't feel a need to possess one to keep the egde. Most robbers bring a knife if anything, ARE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW SO GUN CONTROL MEANS NOTHING TO THEM except in places bad enough to have everyone bring some kind of weapon. Beside, you're not going to fight an army of trained people with ultralight plasic assault weapons using a common rifle. Some people get shot with their own weapons actually.
Anyway! I guess if someone tried to do that in the U.S. right now you would have a lot of people feel deprived of any right to defend oneself and get an AK trough the black market.
BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE: the Swiss way!
Everyone gets his assault rifle, everyone is trained to use it efficiently.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
Some people get shot with their own weapons actually.
Darwin says "Hi!"
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE: the Swiss way!
Everyone gets his assault rifle, everyone is trained to use it efficiently.
This. But I want a bazooka.
:lulz:
It is my understanding that the Swiss are required to serve in their military (where they receive their rifle proficiency). i can't get behind that.
It is also my understanding that, while they are each issued a rifle to keep at their house, they are also issued a certain limited quantity of ammunition, and they are not able to purchase ammunition freely, as we are here. i couldn't get behind that either. I
like having the problem of wondering whether the foundation of my house is rated for the amount of lead in my closet....
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2010, 03:16:23 AM
Also, nobody promised "safe". In fact, "safe" is the enemy of both fun and freedom.
simply wonderful. :)
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
Just my two eurocents: gun limitations actually means that more often than not people will not expect to find guns LEGALLY and won't feel a need to possess one to keep the egde. Most robbers bring a knife if anything, ARE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW SO GUN CONTROL MEANS NOTHING TO THEM except in places bad enough to have everyone bring some kind of weapon. Beside, you're not going to fight an army of trained people with ultralight plasic assault weapons using a common rifle. Some people get shot with their own weapons actually.
Anyway! I guess if someone tried to do that in the U.S. right now you would have a lot of people feel deprived of any right to defend oneself and get an AK trough the black market.
BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE: the Swiss way!
Everyone gets his assault rifle, everyone is trained to use it efficiently.
Not really, it doesn't work like that. Stealing something here is a way less serious offense than doing the same thing with a gun, it's not either breaking the law or not doing so, there's a lot of stuff between "storming someone's house with assault rifles" and "a law abiding citizen". If people don't feel threatened to find armed resistance then they're just less likely to bring weapons themselves. Even with more restrictive policies here most murders are still performed with legally registered weapons, while many burglars just run for it if you surprise them in your house, or grab wathever comes in handy (like your gun). Your argument only applies to people that would really find no difference in 10 or 20 more years of jail: organized crime, mafia and such. You're still not going to do anything about that by yourself
with a gun anyway :D.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 10, 2010, 09:19:58 PM
It is my understanding that the Swiss are required to serve in their military (where they receive their rifle proficiency). i can't get behind that.
It is also my understanding that, while they are each issued a rifle to keep at their house, they are also issued a certain limited quantity of ammunition, and they are not able to purchase ammunition freely, as we are here. i couldn't get behind that either. I like having the problem of wondering whether the foundation of my house is rated for the amount of lead in my closet....
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2010, 03:16:23 AM
Also, nobody promised "safe". In fact, "safe" is the enemy of both fun and freedom.
simply wonderful. :)
Well, you aren't going to learn how to use an assault rifle to check on your governement by practicing in your backyard. You don't get a driver license on simple trust, why not make sure you actually know what you are doing? Proper use of a weapon may actually require some commitment, having a gun doesn't make a warrior. For me it's either a strict regulation or "everyone handles the biggest gun a single man can handle". The latter would probably be better.
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
Fuck off, you arrogant little shit.
Thanks in advance.
Dok,
Erased the rest of his response when he got to that ignorant drivel.
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
Just my two eurocents: gun limitations actually means that more often than not people will not expect to find guns LEGALLY and won't feel a need to possess one to keep the egde. Most robbers bring a knife if anything, ARE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW SO GUN CONTROL MEANS NOTHING TO THEM except in places bad enough to have everyone bring some kind of weapon. Beside, you're not going to fight an army of trained people with ultralight plasic assault weapons using a common rifle. Some people get shot with their own weapons actually.
Anyway! I guess if someone tried to do that in the U.S. right now you would have a lot of people feel deprived of any right to defend oneself and get an AK trough the black market.
BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE: the Swiss way!
Everyone gets his assault rifle, everyone is trained to use it efficiently.
Not really, it doesn't work like that. Stealing something here is a way less serious offense than doing the same thing with a gun, it's not either breaking the law or not doing so, there's a lot of stuff between "storming someone's house with assault rifles" and "a law abiding citizen". If people don't feel threatened to find armed resistance then they're just less likely to bring weapons themselves. Even with more restrictive policies here most murders are still performed with legally registered weapons, while many burglars just run for it if you surprise them in your house, or grab wathever comes in handy (like your gun). Your argument only applies to people that would really find no difference in 10 or 20 more years of jail: organized crime, mafia and such. You're still not going to do anything about that by yourself with a gun anyway :D.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 10, 2010, 09:19:58 PM
It is my understanding that the Swiss are required to serve in their military (where they receive their rifle proficiency). i can't get behind that.
It is also my understanding that, while they are each issued a rifle to keep at their house, they are also issued a certain limited quantity of ammunition, and they are not able to purchase ammunition freely, as we are here. i couldn't get behind that either. I like having the problem of wondering whether the foundation of my house is rated for the amount of lead in my closet....
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2010, 03:16:23 AM
Also, nobody promised "safe". In fact, "safe" is the enemy of both fun and freedom.
simply wonderful. :)
Well, you aren't going to learn how to use an assault rifle to check on your governement by practicing in your backyard. You don't get a driver license on simple trust, why not make sure you actually know what you are doing? Proper use of a weapon may actually require some commitment, having a gun doesn't make a warrior. For me it's either a strict regulation or "everyone handles the biggest gun a single man can handle". The latter would probably be better.
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
You have just managed to reach the 'Fucking Idiot' level. Now go away.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
Fuck off, you arrogant little shit.
Thanks in advance.
Dok,
Erased the rest of his response when he got to that ignorant drivel.
Sorry Dok, didn't see this before I posted.
Interestingly enough, the stupid shit posts as if he were somewhere else, but his spelling ("practicing") is American.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 10:36:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
Fuck off, you arrogant little shit.
Thanks in advance.
Dok,
Erased the rest of his response when he got to that ignorant drivel.
Sorry Dok, didn't see this before I posted.
No problem.
Where do we get these assbags? I mean, shit, "YOU HAVE A DIFFERING OPINION FROM MINE, SO I MUST PSYCHOANALYZE YOU" is got to be the stupidest fucking attitude on the internet, and that's saying something.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 10:38:02 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 10:36:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
Fuck off, you arrogant little shit.
Thanks in advance.
Dok,
Erased the rest of his response when he got to that ignorant drivel.
Sorry Dok, didn't see this before I posted.
No problem.
Where do we get these assbags? I mean, shit, "YOU HAVE A DIFFERING OPINION FROM MINE, SO I MUST PSYCHOANALYZE YOU" is got to be the stupidest fucking attitude on the internet, and that's saying something.
Agreed. Probably some teen spouting nonsense they heard from an adult.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 10:42:03 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 10:38:02 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 10:36:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
Fuck off, you arrogant little shit.
Thanks in advance.
Dok,
Erased the rest of his response when he got to that ignorant drivel.
Sorry Dok, didn't see this before I posted.
No problem.
Where do we get these assbags? I mean, shit, "YOU HAVE A DIFFERING OPINION FROM MINE, SO I MUST PSYCHOANALYZE YOU" is got to be the stupidest fucking attitude on the internet, and that's saying something.
Agreed. Probably some teen spouting nonsense they heard from an adult.
Or just another stupid hippie, resorting to appeal to ridicule. There's no shortage of those. In any case, he's proved - in one post - that he isn't intelligent enough to have a discussion.
Quote from: Pēleus on August 09, 2010, 03:04:44 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce link=topic=25906.msg906730#msg906730
But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman. You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare. If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good...
I agree you need more then a riflemen but the other stuff not so much, IRA and the weathermen didn't rely on those. I don't know enough about fifth generation warfare but today id take a PR firm over a nuke. A cause is the factor in both your examples but the later one you seem to ignore that fact. Irish had their hate of british to unite em, wm had the treatment of soldiers who refused to fight.
Cameras are often treated as weapons on the battlefield...
Dok/charley,
Would membership requirement in say NRA be really considered bad?
If you learn from the resent insurgences the American militias could do quite a lot of damage to government forces with just assault rifles and RPG's if they have some good knowledge of the country (which they do), have some crazy religious drivel to bound them together (which they do) and have enough support from the local population (which Im not sure of)
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2010, 10:44:35 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 09, 2010, 03:04:44 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce link=topic=25906.msg906730#msg906730
But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman. You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare. If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good...
I agree you need more then a riflemen but the other stuff not so much, IRA and the weathermen didn't rely on those. I don't know enough about fifth generation warfare but today id take a PR firm over a nuke. A cause is the factor in both your examples but the later one you seem to ignore that fact. Irish had their hate of british to unite em, wm had the treatment of soldiers who refused to fight.
Cameras are often treated as weapons on the battlefield...
Dok/charley,
Would membership requirement in say NRA be really considered bad?
If you learn from the resent insurgences the American militias could do quite a lot of damage to government forces with just assault rifles and RPG's if they have some good knowledge of the country (which they do), have some crazy religious drivel to bound them together (which they do) and have enough support from the local population (which Im not sure of)
Right up until the assault helicopters showed up.
They send in the helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan too, all that does is piss off the local population more and more
Here's the deal: Guns are FUN. Remember FUN? It's that shit we have, and that asstards like Nowaxo had, before they became fanatical fucked up little hipsters that think they can psychoanalyze everyone that disagrees with them.
I don't need to excuse owning guns, because Madison already did that for me. I don't need to excuse having fun, because stupid little hipsters like Nowaxo aren't worth the time it would take to explain the concept.
That's why you don't often hear me talk about the defense aspect (which is negligible) or the tyranny aspect (which is a joke) of gun ownership. I own guns because I like to go into the Santa Ritas and shoot them.
But it can't be that simple, right? No, it has to be tied to my dick, somehow.
Stupid fucking hippie. :lulz:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2010, 10:46:49 PM
They send in the helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan too, all that does is piss off the local population more and more
Difference: Americans are cowards.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2010, 10:46:49 PM
They send in the helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan too, all that does is piss off the local population more and more
The local population wold be turned into insurgents by the military and the media. If the helicopters weren't enough the military has lots of fun toys to play with.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 10:50:38 PM
Here's the deal: Guns are FUN. Remember FUN? It's that shit we have, and that asstards like Nowaxo had, before they became fanatical fucked up little hipsters that think they can psychoanalyze everyone that disagrees with them.
I don't need to excuse owning guns, because Madison already did that for me. I don't need to excuse having fun, because stupid little hipsters like Nowaxo aren't worth the time it would take to explain the concept.
That's why you don't often hear me talk about the defense aspect (which is negligible) or the tyranny aspect (which is a joke) of gun ownership. I own guns because I like to go into the Santa Ritas and shoot them.
But it can't be that simple, right? No, it has to be tied to my dick, somehow.
Stupid fucking hippie. :lulz:
This. I remember teaching myself to use an assault rifle. Took about 5 minutes. Burned a shit load of ammo that day.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 10:50:56 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2010, 10:46:49 PM
They send in the helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan too, all that does is piss off the local population more and more
Difference: Americans are cowards.
I may agree with this. After only 10 years in Afghanistan and even the Conservatives are rolling over now. Newsflash Guerrilla wars can last generations. If you don't like this, don't get involved, once involved expect to be there for a long long time. Also there are some cooks that are willing to kill and die right now... but I don't know if that runs really deep through the movement. I guess it depends how desperate they get.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 10:51:15 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2010, 10:46:49 PM
They send in the helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan too, all that does is piss off the local population more and more
The local population wold be turned into insurgents by the military and the media. If the helicopters weren't enough the military has lots of fun toys to play with.
Again all you do is piss off the population more. You kill one family, their neighbors and their friends rise up. Iraq, Vietnam, ect. ect. Next to genocide, which your not going to do with your own population, the only option is failure.
Of course I was speaking purely hypothetical, and I agree with Roger... I can't see this happening in this generation even with all the weirdness and hatred going on.
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
Have you even picked up a rifle?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2010, 10:58:57 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 10:51:15 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2010, 10:46:49 PM
They send in the helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan too, all that does is piss off the local population more and more
The local population wold be turned into insurgents by the military and the media. If the helicopters weren't enough the military has lots of fun toys to play with.
Again all you do is piss off the population more. You kill one family, their neighbors and their friends rise up. Iraq, Vietnam, ect. ect. Next to genocide, which your not going to do with your own population, the only option is failure.
Of course I was speaking purely hypothetical, and I agree with Roger... I can't see this happening in this generation even with all the weirdness and hatred going on.
Yeah, the odds of it even being seriously considered, except by fringe lunatic groups is out of the question.
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 10, 2010, 11:00:09 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
Have you even picked up a rifle?
Of course he hasn't. He has no idea what he's talking about, which is why he decided to be a twat.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:06:07 PM
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 10, 2010, 11:00:09 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
Have you even picked up a rifle?
Of course he hasn't. He has no idea what he's talking about, which is why he decided to be a twat.
I bet he has, once, but it was too heavy for him, all 8 pounds.
These problems would be solved if there more guns. Then guns wouldn't be big and scary to the little people.
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 10, 2010, 11:10:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:06:07 PM
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 10, 2010, 11:00:09 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
Have you even picked up a rifle?
Of course he hasn't. He has no idea what he's talking about, which is why he decided to be a twat.
I bet he has, once, but it was too heavy for him, all 8 pounds.
These problems would be solved if there more guns. Then guns wouldn't be big and scary to the little people.
Meh. He's been back twice, and left again.
I kind of figured. He's a bullshitter.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:17:19 PM
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 10, 2010, 11:10:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:06:07 PM
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 10, 2010, 11:00:09 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
Have you even picked up a rifle?
Of course he hasn't. He has no idea what he's talking about, which is why he decided to be a twat.
I bet he has, once, but it was too heavy for him, all 8 pounds.
These problems would be solved if there more guns. Then guns wouldn't be big and scary to the little people.
Meh. He's been back twice, and left again.
I kind of figured. He's a bullshitter.
It realized we weren't going to drink the pond scum it was trying to serve us. I say good riddance.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 10:35:28 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 10:25:36 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 10, 2010, 08:25:03 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 08:08:33 PM
Just my two eurocents: gun limitations actually means that more often than not people will not expect to find guns LEGALLY and won't feel a need to possess one to keep the egde. Most robbers bring a knife if anything, ARE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW SO GUN CONTROL MEANS NOTHING TO THEM except in places bad enough to have everyone bring some kind of weapon. Beside, you're not going to fight an army of trained people with ultralight plasic assault weapons using a common rifle. Some people get shot with their own weapons actually.
Anyway! I guess if someone tried to do that in the U.S. right now you would have a lot of people feel deprived of any right to defend oneself and get an AK trough the black market.
BUT THERE IS STILL HOPE: the Swiss way!
Everyone gets his assault rifle, everyone is trained to use it efficiently.
Not really, it doesn't work like that. Stealing something here is a way less serious offense than doing the same thing with a gun, it's not either breaking the law or not doing so, there's a lot of stuff between "storming someone's house with assault rifles" and "a law abiding citizen". If people don't feel threatened to find armed resistance then they're just less likely to bring weapons themselves. Even with more restrictive policies here most murders are still performed with legally registered weapons, while many burglars just run for it if you surprise them in your house, or grab wathever comes in handy (like your gun). Your argument only applies to people that would really find no difference in 10 or 20 more years of jail: organized crime, mafia and such. You're still not going to do anything about that by yourself with a gun anyway :D.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 10, 2010, 09:19:58 PM
It is my understanding that the Swiss are required to serve in their military (where they receive their rifle proficiency). i can't get behind that.
It is also my understanding that, while they are each issued a rifle to keep at their house, they are also issued a certain limited quantity of ammunition, and they are not able to purchase ammunition freely, as we are here. i couldn't get behind that either. I like having the problem of wondering whether the foundation of my house is rated for the amount of lead in my closet....
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2010, 03:16:23 AM
Also, nobody promised "safe". In fact, "safe" is the enemy of both fun and freedom.
simply wonderful. :)
Well, you aren't going to learn how to use an assault rifle to check on your governement by practicing in your backyard. You don't get a driver license on simple trust, why not make sure you actually know what you are doing? Proper use of a weapon may actually require some commitment, having a gun doesn't make a warrior. For me it's either a strict regulation or "everyone handles the biggest gun a single man can handle". The latter would probably be better.
I actually think that people in the U.S. just like to shoot each other and feel powerful handling big, hevy and hard guns ready to OH FREUD WHERE ARE YOU?
You have just managed to reach the 'Fucking Idiot' level. Now go away.
Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside,
you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:45:19 PM
Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside, you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.
What argument? That anyone who owns a firearm is "compensating"?
You're a fucking idiot. Please die of cancer.
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:45:19 PM
Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside, you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.
Yes, a lot of training. Firing an assault rifle is extremely difficult.
Anyone who has been trained with one knows what I am talking about. Everyone else will assume I am being facetious.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:48:27 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:45:19 PM
Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside, you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.
What argument? That anyone who owns a firearm is "compensating"?
You're a fucking idiot. Please die of cancer.
LOL WUT
That whole sentence wasn't a real argument. I meant that piece of text above it.
edit: Oh, beside the first part. I actually think people in the U.S.A. like guns more than we do. That's why gun regulations is such a sensitive topic I guess.
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:51:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:48:27 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:45:19 PM
Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside, you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.
What argument? That anyone who owns a firearm is "compensating"?
You're a fucking idiot. Please die of cancer.
LOL WUT
That whole sentence wasn't a real argument. I meant that piece of text above it.
edit: Oh, beside the first part. I actually think people in the U.S.A. like guns more than we do. That's why gun regulations is such a sensitive topic I guess.
No, I just hate assholes that try to simplify arguments by claiming that everyone who owns one is on some Freudian compensation kick.
In short, you.
Asshole.
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 10, 2010, 11:50:55 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:45:19 PM
Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside, you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.
Yes, a lot of training. Firing an assault rifle is extremely difficult.
Anyone who has been trained with one knows what I am talking about. Everyone else will assume I am being facetious.
well, having fired one on numerous with a great deal of accuracy, i will disagree.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:56:23 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:51:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:48:27 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:45:19 PM
Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside, you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.
What argument? That anyone who owns a firearm is "compensating"?
You're a fucking idiot. Please die of cancer.
LOL WUT
That whole sentence wasn't a real argument. I meant that piece of text above it.
edit: Oh, beside the first part. I actually think people in the U.S.A. like guns more than we do. That's why gun regulations is such a sensitive topic I guess.
No, I just hate assholes that try to simplify arguments by claiming that everyone who owns one is on some Freudian compensation kick.
In short, you.
Asshole.
Sure, sure. Keep feeling angry about it if you like so. If I just wanted to simplify I would have only answered with that sentence tohugh.
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 11, 2010, 12:05:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:56:23 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:51:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:48:27 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:45:19 PM
Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside, you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.
What argument? That anyone who owns a firearm is "compensating"?
You're a fucking idiot. Please die of cancer.
LOL WUT
That whole sentence wasn't a real argument. I meant that piece of text above it.
edit: Oh, beside the first part. I actually think people in the U.S.A. like guns more than we do. That's why gun regulations is such a sensitive topic I guess.
No, I just hate assholes that try to simplify arguments by claiming that everyone who owns one is on some Freudian compensation kick.
In short, you.
Asshole.
Sure, sure. Keep feeling angry about it if you like so. If I just wanted to simplify I would have only answered with that sentence tohugh.
:troll:
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 11, 2010, 12:05:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:56:23 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:51:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 11:48:27 PM
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 10, 2010, 11:45:19 PM
Lol thanks for answering to sarcasm and not arguments. Beside, you really do need some training to effectively use an assault rifle. Deal with it.
What argument? That anyone who owns a firearm is "compensating"?
You're a fucking idiot. Please die of cancer.
LOL WUT
That whole sentence wasn't a real argument. I meant that piece of text above it.
edit: Oh, beside the first part. I actually think people in the U.S.A. like guns more than we do. That's why gun regulations is such a sensitive topic I guess.
No, I just hate assholes that try to simplify arguments by claiming that everyone who owns one is on some Freudian compensation kick.
In short, you.
Asshole.
Sure, sure. Keep feeling angry about it if you like so. If I just wanted to simplify I would have only answered with that sentence tohugh.
Shut your cakehole, asswipe. The fact that you said the sentence in the first place says everything anyone needs to know about you.
The fact that you thought you'd ever get a serious discussion here after saying that is what makes this really funny.
So fuck off.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:02:49 AM
well, having fired one on numerous with a great deal of accuracy, i will disagree.
So by disagreeing you are saying it's hard or easy?
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 11, 2010, 12:15:31 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:02:49 AM
well, having fired one on numerous with a great deal of accuracy, i will disagree.
So by disagreeing you are saying it's hard or easy?
With a knowledge of firearms it seemed to come very easy.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:16:26 AM
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 11, 2010, 12:15:31 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:02:49 AM
well, having fired one on numerous with a great deal of accuracy, i will disagree.
So by disagreeing you are saying it's hard or easy?
With a knowledge of firearms it seemed to come very easy.
That would still not allow you to fight a coordinated group of soldier. Training goes beyond operating a firearm, and for how much experience of any kind a civilian may have I doubt there isn't someone in the military focused only on the improvement of its soldier's effectiveness in such conditions. It's just that military "technology" (and I don't mean just firearms) went much further away from what a common man with a weapon could do since the war of indipendence.
its really not the firing part that's hard, does an ak even have a safety?
Its keeping on target
Quote from: Pēleus on August 11, 2010, 12:29:49 AM
its really not the firing part that's hard, does an ak even have a safety?
Its keeping on target
Yes it has a safety. And keeping it on target relies on the knowledge that in fully automatic mode the weapon is going to want to walk skyward. 3 round bursts make it much more easy to control.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:16:26 AM
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 11, 2010, 12:15:31 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:02:49 AM
well, having fired one on numerous with a great deal of accuracy, i will disagree.
So by disagreeing you are saying it's hard or easy?
With a knowledge of firearms it seemed to come very easy.
I may not be being totally honest here. When I was 17 I was in the army and our weapon was the M-16. But it was decades later that I shot an AK-47.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:33:41 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:16:26 AM
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 11, 2010, 12:15:31 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:02:49 AM
well, having fired one on numerous with a great deal of accuracy, i will disagree.
So by disagreeing you are saying it's hard or easy?
With a knowledge of firearms it seemed to come very easy.
I may not be being totally honest here. When I was 17 I was in the army and our weapon was the M-16. But it was decades later that I shot an AK-47.
Well, that does make a difference!
Quote from: Pēleus on August 11, 2010, 12:29:49 AM
its really not the firing part that's hard, does an ak even have a safety?
Its keeping on target
Yes, an AK47 has a safety. And if you fire full auto, you aren't going to hit a damn thing.
Quote from: Nawaxo on August 11, 2010, 12:26:47 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:16:26 AM
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 11, 2010, 12:15:31 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:02:49 AM
well, having fired one on numerous with a great deal of accuracy, i will disagree.
So by disagreeing you are saying it's hard or easy?
With a knowledge of firearms it seemed to come very easy.
That would still not allow you to fight a coordinated group of soldier. Training goes beyond operating a firearm, and for how much experience of any kind a civilian may have I doubt there isn't someone in the military focused only on the improvement of its soldier's effectiveness in such conditions. It's just that military "technology" (and I don't mean just firearms) went much further away from what a common man with a weapon could do since the war of indipendence.
This is why we won Afghanistan, right? :lulz:
But what do I know? I only served 10 years in the infantry, which must mean I have a HUGE Freudian complex, right?
You're a fucking joke. Your earlier comment makes you no different than Bill O'Reilly or any of the other American right wing nutjob gasbags that try to tell Europeans how to live.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2010, 01:02:32 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 11, 2010, 12:29:49 AM
its really not the firing part that's hard, does an ak even have a safety?
Its keeping on target
Yes, an AK47 has a safety. And if you fire full auto, you aren't going to hit a damn thing.
Puts an entire new spin on 'Controlling Firearms', doesn't it? :lulz:
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2010, 01:02:32 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 11, 2010, 12:29:49 AM
its really not the firing part that's hard, does an ak even have a safety?
Its keeping on target
Yes, an AK47 has a safety. And if you fire full auto, you aren't going to hit a damn thing.
Puts an entire new spin on 'Controlling Firearms', doesn't it? :lulz:
Funniest part: Nowaxo is an Italian, trying to explain warfare. :lulz:
On the other hand, he's probably dropped a few rifles in his day.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2010, 01:06:48 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2010, 01:02:32 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 11, 2010, 12:29:49 AM
its really not the firing part that's hard, does an ak even have a safety?
Its keeping on target
Yes, an AK47 has a safety. And if you fire full auto, you aren't going to hit a damn thing.
Puts an entire new spin on 'Controlling Firearms', doesn't it? :lulz:
Funniest part: Nowaxo is an Italian, trying to explain warfare. :lulz:
On the other hand, he's probably dropped a few rifles in his day.
Well, hell, you can't run correctly and carry a rifle at the same time!
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 01:09:10 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2010, 01:06:48 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2010, 01:02:32 AM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 11, 2010, 12:29:49 AM
its really not the firing part that's hard, does an ak even have a safety?
Its keeping on target
Yes, an AK47 has a safety. And if you fire full auto, you aren't going to hit a damn thing.
Puts an entire new spin on 'Controlling Firearms', doesn't it? :lulz:
Funniest part: Nowaxo is an Italian, trying to explain warfare. :lulz:
On the other hand, he's probably dropped a few rifles in his day.
Well, hell, you can't run correctly and carry a rifle at the same time!
:lulz:
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 12:16:26 AM
With a knowledge of firearms it seemed to come very easy.
That was my point. An m-16 is fairly user friendly. I've never fired an AK, but I have fired an SKS, and a my share of sporting rifles and shot guns. Not a good shot, but that's cuz I can't see much clearly past 250m for a point target.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 01:09:10 AM
Well, hell, you can't run correctly and carry a rifle at the same time!
Cuz it's so big and heavy. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2010, 01:02:32 AM
Yes, an AK47 has a safety. And if you fire full auto, you aren't going to hit a damn thing.
well, to be fair, if you are firing automatically, you are presumably just laying down suppressive fire, and aren't really trying to do anything but come close, no?
Quote from: Iptuous on August 11, 2010, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2010, 01:02:32 AM
Yes, an AK47 has a safety. And if you fire full auto, you aren't going to hit a damn thing.
well, to be fair, if you are firing automatically, you are presumably just laying down suppressive fire, and aren't really trying to do anything but come close, no?
I still say 3 round bursts are the best.
as a general rule?
kinda seems wasteful...
i mean, even with the mouse gun, as a private citizen, you can get the more effective defense ammunition that would do more than the nato fmj stuff.
i guess i don't really know, but i've always kinda figured that if i was using a rifle for defense purposes, god forbid, the shots would each be deliberate. like when hunting... except with more cardio and involuntary defecation involved.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 11, 2010, 05:46:29 AM
as a general rule?
kinda seems wasteful...
i mean, even with the mouse gun, as a private citizen, you can get the more effective defense ammunition that would do more than the nato fmj stuff.
i guess i don't really know, but i've always kinda figured that if i was using a rifle for defense purposes, god forbid, the shots would each be deliberate. like when hunting... except with more cardio and involuntary defecation involved.
Trust me, in a firefight, you want a controlled 3 round burst.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 05:48:49 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on August 11, 2010, 05:46:29 AM
as a general rule?
kinda seems wasteful...
i mean, even with the mouse gun, as a private citizen, you can get the more effective defense ammunition that would do more than the nato fmj stuff.
i guess i don't really know, but i've always kinda figured that if i was using a rifle for defense purposes, god forbid, the shots would each be deliberate. like when hunting... except with more cardio and involuntary defecation involved.
Trust me, in a firefight, you want a controlled 3 round burst.
The new thing is controlled pairs with teh m16 on semi. 2 to the head and 2 the chest. But......I am not in a line unit, that's just what I was taught in WLC (PLDC for you oldtimers), and I'm not a rifleman. I'm a machinegunner/automatic-rifleman. I'm all about the 5-6 round burst and suppressive fire.
i would think in such a tense situation the time dilation from your body squeezing out every last drop of gogogo out of your go gland, and you could get off pretty rapid bursts of fire in semiautomatic, no?
i guess it's all really contextual, anyways, too....
hopefully i'll never have to find out for sure.
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 11, 2010, 05:55:32 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 05:48:49 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on August 11, 2010, 05:46:29 AM
as a general rule?
kinda seems wasteful...
i mean, even with the mouse gun, as a private citizen, you can get the more effective defense ammunition that would do more than the nato fmj stuff.
i guess i don't really know, but i've always kinda figured that if i was using a rifle for defense purposes, god forbid, the shots would each be deliberate. like when hunting... except with more cardio and involuntary defecation involved.
Trust me, in a firefight, you want a controlled 3 round burst.
The new thing is controlled pairs with teh m16 on semi. 2 to the head and 2 the chest. But......I am not in a line unit, that's just what I was taught in WLC (PLDC for you oldtimers), and I'm not a rifleman. I'm a machinegunner/automatic-rifleman. I'm all about the 5-6 round burst and suppressive fire.
In a firefight you want to aim at the center of the body and spit out 3 rounds, this is not a suppressive fire exercise, you want to wound or kill.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 11, 2010, 05:59:15 AM
i would think in such a tense situation the time dilation from your body squeezing out every last drop of gogogo out of your go gland, and you could get off pretty rapid bursts of fire in semiautomatic, no?
i guess it's all really contextual, anyways, too....
hopefully i'll never have to find out for sure.
Small rounds fire is the least feared of all combat situations.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 05:59:38 AM
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 11, 2010, 05:55:32 AM
The new thing is controlled pairs with teh m16 on semi. 2 to the head and 2 the chest. But......I am not in a line unit, that's just what I was taught in WLC (PLDC for you oldtimers), and I'm not a rifleman. I'm a machinegunner/automatic-rifleman. I'm all about the 5-6 round burst and suppressive fire.
In a firefight you want to aim at the center of the body and spit out 3 rounds, this is not a suppressive fire exercise, you want to wound or kill.
Just repeating what the great and wise SGLIs said at one day of
simulated closequarter marksmanship said.
Center mass, easier to hit
something vital.
3 roundburst, more holes is good. Although I've never seen what a 5.56 does to human flesh. Funny how the Army works.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 11, 2010, 05:59:15 AM
i would think in such a tense situation the time dilation from your body squeezing out every last drop of gogogo out of your go gland, and you could get off pretty rapid bursts of fire in semiautomatic, no?
i guess it's all really contextual, anyways, too....
hopefully i'll never have to find out for sure.
Speaking from experience, if you aren't practiced at doing it, you won't hit much putting a lot of rounds out with a semiauto.
Quote from: The Great Bovinity on August 11, 2010, 06:05:33 AM
Although I've never seen what a 5.56 does to human flesh. Funny how the Army works.
from what i've seen it do to cervine flesh, i would say you cant issue a blanket statement on it. it depends heavily, in my experience, on the round and rifle used.... but i guess more holes
is better.
i guess i'm also thinking that if i've done something that requires that i make my way to the rifle for defense, then i'm worried about more than one or two people....
i'd be worried from the get go about running our of ammunition.
probably get myself killed being stingy with it...
(snip, off-topic blabla)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 10:50:38 PM
Here's the deal: Guns are FUN. Remember FUN?
(...)
But it can't be that simple, right? No, it has to be tied to my dick, somehow.
That's exactly what this guy thought, too:
(http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad169/beta_fghter/Funny%20Animated%20Pics/policiamv3.gif)
FUN? check
Not that simple? check
Tied to his dick? CHECK
;-)
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 11, 2010, 05:38:10 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on August 11, 2010, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2010, 01:02:32 AM
Yes, an AK47 has a safety. And if you fire full auto, you aren't going to hit a damn thing.
well, to be fair, if you are firing automatically, you are presumably just laying down suppressive fire, and aren't really trying to do anything but come close, no?
I still say 3 round bursts are the best.
Semi-auto or GTFO.
Dok,
Aimed shots.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 11, 2010, 10:43:30 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 10:50:38 PM
Here's the deal: Guns are FUN. Remember FUN?
(...)
But it can't be that simple, right? No, it has to be tied to my dick, somehow.
That's exactly what this guy thought, too:
(http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad169/beta_fghter/Funny%20Animated%20Pics/policiamv3.gif)
FUN? check
Not that simple? check
Tied to his dick? CHECK
;-)
Yeah, let's see him try that with a rifle. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 11, 2010, 05:33:22 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 11, 2010, 10:43:30 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2010, 10:50:38 PM
Here's the deal: Guns are FUN. Remember FUN?
(...)
But it can't be that simple, right? No, it has to be tied to my dick, somehow.
That's exactly what this guy thought, too:
(http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad169/beta_fghter/Funny%20Animated%20Pics/policiamv3.gif)
FUN? check
Not that simple? check
Tied to his dick? CHECK
;-)
Yeah, let's see him try that with a rifle. :lulz:
A big bore rifle.