tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Like cars have no other purpose than to accidentally kill people. Nope, no utility there at all. An AR 15, in contrast, well, there are lots and lots of good reasons to have one of those around other than killing lots of people really quickly. Quote
rob Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 The NRA should change their slogan: "The U.S. -- still better than Mexico." USA! USA! USA! Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 cars will be fully automated in a couple decades anyway. So will the military, for that matter. Quote
yellowlab03 Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) We restrict the HELL out of cars. Vehicle inspections, tomes of mandates, speed limits, licensing requirements, strict laws. Sure, it would be fun to drive a dragster down I 5 - just like it would be cool to shoot that AR15 full auto at a sheet metal cutout of Santa Claus. We HAVE those restrictions. Do you know what it takes to own a full auto weapon of any kind? 2 passport style photos, finger prints, BATFE form 1 or 4 signed off by the Chief law enforcment official in your city/county (you can form a living trust to get around this but that is $$) then, cut a check to the BATFE and cross your fingers that in 6 weeks you get your form back saying you can purchase said weapon. You also submit to random home checks by the BATFE and have to submit written permission to transport said weapon across state lines. Oh and full auto weapons have to have been made prior to 1984 and cost somewhere around $20k. You can't simply go down to the local gun store and be like, "Hey gimme some of that there full-auto belt fed goodness and 10,000 rounds of hate." edit, forgot to add the more intense background check. Edited January 10, 2013 by yellowlab03 Quote
yellowlab03 Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Yes, the AR does have utility purposes, deer hunting (in some states), varmit hunting, target shooting, 3 gun matches, self defense. Why is this all about "assault weapons?" The Va Tech killer used a Glock 19 9mm(15 rd magazine) and a Walther P22 .22 caliber rimfire (10 rd magazine) and killed what 32 adults? Pistols account for the majority of gun deaths, "assault weapons" account for a very small ammount. Yet this is all about the "assault wepon" and high (standard) capacity magazines? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Force reduction is personnel. The overall military budget is not going down - it's INCREASES are being cut back. It's just the military version of what's going on in industry - machines replacing bodies. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 six round revolvers and 3 round rifles and shotguns unless you apply for a special permit, required for your employment or some other highly unusual circumstances. No clips of any kind. That's my proposal. Yeah, you can shoot anything, deer included, with an AR15. It's not even close to being the best choice for that. You can also upgrade to full auto pretty easily. That makes it a target for bannanation. Require fed licensed gun dealers to have actual stores - and monitor the shit out of them. Background checks for ebbybody - not just fake ones, either. No under the table gun sales - just like cars. Fully licensed trail of ownership. Just to start.... Quote
yellowlab03 Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Not really, a lot of cut backs are being hashed out. The F-22 program is being cut down, massive cuts to the Navy's fleet (which projects US power), cuts to the Air Force's future planes programs. We are getting downsized. Quote
yellowlab03 Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) "You can also upgrade to full auto pretty easily." Um, no... You can't... You have to have a mill to do it and the knowledge how to use the mill. I'm not saying it can't be done, anything can be done, it just isn't as easy as you are saying it is. Unless you are talking about that gay little crank think they sell at Cabela's for .22's or that stupid bump fire thing (which is illegal according to most) I'd be cool with all of that, as long as all Law Enforcement are required to abide by the same rules. (BS, I'm not cool with any of that) And what are you talking about with fake background checks? Have you ever bought a gun? And clips are used in M1 garands. Magazines dude, magazines. Edited January 11, 2013 by yellowlab03 Quote
ivan Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 This homeowner had a revolver with 6 shots. She fired them all and hit the intruder 5 times and he fled, later unable to continue due to his injuries. He is in the hospital. A musket would have been a failure to do much in this case. you miss a mother-fucker w/ a blunderbuss at 5 feet, you probably deserve to die Quote
ivan Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 What is funny, is that you all have an outstanding grasp on what the 1st amendment is and why it is there, but the 2nd amendment? Meh I don't have guns so fuck it I don't care about it. Besides only hillbillies and nut jobs own guns. And yes Ivan back then the 2nd was for muskets, which at the time was the pinnacle of military weapons. Today the main battle rifle of our military is the M-4 carbine. And our citizens are free to buy an AR-15, as it should be. i'm from a deep gun culture, so you seem to have me wrong - sure, i don't own a gun, but that's mostly b/c i'm an alcoholic maniac-depressive and realize i'm less likely to kill everyone around me and myself if i instead rely on a babe-ruth baseball bat and good humor to handle the violent challenges of my domestic life abuse the 1st amendment and you make a man wail. abuse the 2nd and you make a whole community cry. so long as you're happy though... Quote
AlpineK Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 This homeowner had a revolver with 6 shots. She fired them all and hit the intruder 5 times and he fled, later unable to continue due to his injuries. He is in the hospital. A musket would have been a failure to do much in this case. you miss a mother-fucker w/ a blunderbuss at 5 feet, you probably deserve to die A target within 5-feet and a musket is similar to standing and pissing in a toilet bowl. The shortened distance to the toilet bowl (less than 5-feet) is offset by reduced target size. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 you miss a mother-fucker w/ a blunderbuss at 5 feet, you probably deserve to die I think we can agree that a shot gun or revolver are 1) adequate for home defense and 2) within the spirit of the founders' intentions and the 2nd amendment. All without bringing up the ridiculous proposal to go back to muskets. Quote
AlpineK Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 Why are you so anti when it comes to traditional American values as seen on TV [img:center]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Daniel_boone_television_parker_1966.JPG[/img] Quote
ivan Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 you miss a mother-fucker w/ a blunderbuss at 5 feet, you probably deserve to die I think we can agree that a shot gun or revolver are 1) adequate for home defense and 2) within the spirit of the founders' intentions and the 2nd amendment. All without bringing up the ridiculous proposal to go back to muskets. sure, but a (rifled) musket will still be necessary for the hunters n' beer-bottle menaces of 'merica, no? Quote
matt_warfield Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) If you are in the mob, a 22 cal to the base of the skull does the job. For John Q Citizen, a 9 mil is definitely sufficient (2 shots, heart and head) or if you have poor aim a shotgun. None of that requires an assault rifle or a large magazine. But self defense is serious business and any gun owner has to understand when their life is threatened and shoot to kill. Otherwise don't own a gun. But like I have said before I have never used a gun for self defense and most people with one that have not been trained will usually be disarmed by a home invader and shot with their own gun. It's a tough nut to crack. Edited January 11, 2013 by matt_warfield Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 sure, but a (rifled) musket will still be necessary for the hunters n' beer-bottle menaces of 'merica, no? Hunting rifles are for hunting, and I was talking about self-defense. Yes, there are plenty of good, modern hunting rifles that people should be able to acquire. Generally they don't require large-capacity magazines and rapid-fire. Kind of the idea of hunting is killing on the first shot. Pretty easy to come to agreement here amongst sensible folks - again w/o resorting to a discussion of 1776-era muskets. Quote
ivan Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 1791, actually, but whatever - the interwebz are for fun goddammit. i've no expectation of a solution so radical - limiting legal weapons to revolvers, shotguns and limited capacity rifles seems the most likely middle ground attainable (but if there's anything liberals suck at, it's negotitating, so the musket-solution is a good starting point!) Quote
rob Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) handguns account for the vast majority of gun homicides. I think any attempt at a solution that doesn't improve regulations regarding WHO can own a gun is doomed to failure. What we need is a strong registration framework and transfer-of-title system for guns, so that we know who has them, and we know that the title transfers cleanly. You should have to renew your gun license like a driver's license, and prove current ownership of the weapons you have registered. You should also have to prove a valid and current gun license to buy ammunition. Rules of gun ownership should include keeping them out of the hands of anyone without a valid and current gun license, with certain exceptions made for minor children. If your gun is stolen due to negligence, or sold illegally, you should go to jail. Limiting things to revolvers and shotguns won't do much good if you still allow them to be freely sold and purchased, without any mechanism for restricting ownership. Switzerland has mandatory registration. Edited January 11, 2013 by rob Quote
matt_warfield Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) handguns account for the vast majority of gun homicides. I think any attempt at a solution that doesn't improve regulations regarding WHO can own a gun is doomed to failure. What we need is a strong registration framework and transfer-of-title system for guns, so that we know who has them, and we know that the title transfers cleanly. You should have to renew your gun license like a driver's license, and prove current ownership of the weapons you have registered. You should also have to prove a valid and current gun license to buy ammunition. Rules of gun ownership should include keeping them out of the hands of anyone without a valid and current gun license, with certain exceptions made for minor children. If your gun is stolen due to negligence, or sold illegally, you should go to jail. Limiting things to revolvers and shotguns won't do much good if you still allow them to be freely sold and purchased, without any mechanism for restricting ownership. Switzerland has mandatory registration. Freely sold and purchased and restricting ownership of firearms has been and will be defeated under any law. Switzerland is under the radar except for finances. When you live in a country like the US things are different. Edited January 11, 2013 by matt_warfield Quote
rob Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 ah, the old "things are different here" argument. Quote
yellowlab03 Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 That is a very true fact, hell, things are different in the city compared to out in the country. Ways of life and values are different no matter where you go. Quote
rob Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 That is a very true fact, hell, things are different in the city compared to out in the country. Ways of life and values are different no matter where you go. You're right, we should continue to completely ignore solutions our peers have already found for this problem. they obviously won't work here, we're different. The answer is obviously MOAR GUNS!!! All those other countries, they were just lucky that crime didn't increase after restricting gun ownership. 'Cause that's totally what would happen here. It would be like chaos, the only reason I'm not being killed in my sleep right now is because all the bad guys are scared I might have a gun. USA! USA! Quote
rob Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 Anyway, tobacco and obesity kill way more than guns, so I don't even see what the big deal is. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 handguns account for the vast majority of gun homicides. But do revolvers? I mean as opposed to say, a semi-automatic Glock? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.