Should assault rifles be banned in the US?

[Cybermat47]

They should. All you need to defend yourself is a handgun. If your hand's shaking, you obviously didn't pass your gun test.

[GoldenRivet]

1. how many rounds need to be sent down range depends entirely upon who you are defending yourself against

2. I think if a person is properly trained and certified for ownership they have the right to own whatever type of firearm they want

3. nobody uses an assault rifle for home defense as it is an incredibly poor choice for close quarters shooting in a situation where the avoidance of collateral damage is obviously critical

4. I have always tried to make it a point not to participate in polls with loaded poll choices.

have a nice day everyone :salute:

[Cybermat47]

3. nobody uses an assault rifle for home defense as it is an incredibly poor choice for close quarters shooting in a situation where the avoidance of collateral damage is obviously critical

So they're pretty much useless unless you wanted to murder some kindergarten kids.

have a nice day everyone :salute:

It's nighttime here :haha:
But the same to you.

[GoldenRivet]

I was unaware that the shooter used a fully automatic assault rifle.

I thought he used a bushmaster .223

Guess when you don't know what you're talking about even a muzzle loader is an assault rifle.

And no, I'd not use my assault rifles to shoot kindergarten students as you put it, my two fully automatic assault rifles have been out of the vault twice in as many years for routine cleaning. They have both been fired one full magazine once each in the last 5 years. I don't point my firearms at anything with a personality unless I want that personality to go away forever.

Personally I think this is a really inappropriate and disrespectful time to have this discussion and I don't think I'll participate beyond this post.

Good night

[Skybird]

Civilians buying SARs or ARs for "self-defence" do not really buy them for self-defence, but because they are either paranoid or fetishists.

To keep in check,. kill, scare to death the criminal in your home, in your train compartment, in the shop, on the streets, a pistol or revolver is perfectly sufficient. 9mm, .32, .38 - good enough if you really are just about self-defence.

If you think you need military weapons to defend yourself in your neighbourhood, then I recommend to move out of said neighbourhood, because obviously he lives in a hot warzone.

Who claims the right to own firearms of any type, even of the military type, for principal reasons of "freedom", by that logic can also claim the right to posses mines, rockets launchers, grenades. Becasue telling him he shall not own them also would limit his precious absolute and total freedom.

Firearms are no tools like any other. They are not like a knife that you can use for cutting an apple, do some work on wood - or slash a throat. A firearm is only for one purpose. It's a tool of death. I find it worrying if one is fascinated by that. One should not fear them. But one also should not like them.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I voted 'No' as protest for rigged poll. I will not waste time commenting this thread unless someone post something so ridiculous I can't resist urge.

Have a nice day/night! :salute:

[Oberon]

What kind of assault rifle do you own that has a magazine of 79 rounds? :doh:

[Oberon]

I voted 'No' as protest for rigged poll.

Same. :haha:

[Hottentot]

I voted 'No' as protest for rigged poll. I will not waste time commenting this thread unless someone post something so ridiculous I can't resist urge.

According to the latest research, the trails left behind by airplanes are in fact chemicals used to indoctrinate the people into believing that the wide ranging global Jewish Rosicrucian conspiracy is the acceptable reality and accepting that we are really just living in a virtual reality while our real brains are being eaten by hamster shaped machines singing Christmas carols over and over again on C Major.

Have a nice time of the day. :woot:

[Jimbuna]

Personally I think this is a really inappropriate and disrespectful time to have this discussion and I don't think I'll participate beyond this post.


Agreed :yep:

[Herr-Berbunch]

I don't think now is the right time, but it would be interesting to see the North American/European/Australasian split for this type of question. :hmmm:

[troopie]

I don't think now is the right time, but it would be interesting to see the North American/European/Australasian split for this type of question. :hmmm:

I don't really wanna encourage this thread with a post,...But!.. I gotta pull ya up HB! I'm pretty sure the term 'Australasia' went out in the nineties,...along with Keating..:haha:.

Proximity aside, Aus. has pretty muh zero cultural/political commons with SE Asia. Any responses from Aus./Asia would be poles apart!

[Red October1984]

You should've gone with a simple yes or no. The way you worded the answers makes it seem that everybody should pick yes and not go with their opinion.

Assault weapons should not be banned. Banning those weapons don't make it any harder to kill somebody. If the gunman had run in with a knife instead, you would be talking about banning knives. Assault weapons these days are basically anything with a pistol grip and a magazine over 10 rounds. Many more people who own the guns practice the Amendment safely than people who unload into a school.


This thread and poll are both a load of BS.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I don't really wanna encourage this thread with a post,...But!.. I gotta pull ya up HB! I'm pretty sure the term 'Australasia' went out in the nineties,...along with Keating..:haha:.

Proximity aside, Aus. has pretty muh zero cultural/political commons with SE Asia. Any responses from Aus./Asia would be poles apart!

Please accept my '90s-style' apology. It was only because I couldn't be bothered to type NZ so I used an all encompassing name.

Honestly. :03:

[troopie]

Please accept my '90s-style' apology. It was only because I couldn't be bothered to type NZ so I used an all encompassing name.

Honestly. :03:


Ha Ha. You just made my evening! Cheers HB! PM Keating was hell-bent on sucking up to Asia in the 90's and used the term prolifically, albeit with little effect (allthough included, I don't think our trans-tasmin brothers were oft' intended as the descriptors!).

I suspect there may be a few Kiwi's with their noses out of joint right now! :haha:

Edit: Apology graciously accepted! In a nineties kinda way of course! :rock:

[August]

Gee the foreigners think we should be disarmed. My my.

Well why don't you try to come and get them from us? We'll be waiting for you. :yep:

[Tribesman]

Gee the foreigners think we should be disarmed. My my.

Well why don't you try to come and get them from us? We'll be waiting for you. :yep:
On a scale of patheticness that really breaks the meter.:rotfl2:

[soopaman2]

On a scale of patheticness that really breaks the meter.:rotfl2:

I cannot speak for August myself. But I can speak on how I construed his comment.

Foreigners cannot understand American gun culture, or find us barbaric for clinging to it. It is like how outlanders cannot fully understand American racism, as they do not have the experiences we have with it.

Blacks used to have separate water fountains up until the late 60s. Alot of folks are still resisting this change.

It is what makes up our fabric, good or bad.

Guns is an American tradition.

I will say this, rural areas are very liberal with guns, come to Jersey and see the hoops I had to navigate and money I had to pay, red tape and bull-stuff to own my guns.

My cousin in Alabama can just walk into a walmart.

(edit: I own a so called "assault rifle (though I have no plans of assaulting anybody, I hate that term), because it is goddam fun to shoot, I murder paper targets with it, and giggle like a child as I do it.:) )

[Takeda Shingen]

I cannot speak for August myself. But I can speak on how I construed his comment.

Foreigners cannot understand American gun culture, or find us barbaric for clinging to it. It is like how outlanders cannot fully understand American racism, as they do not have the experiences we have with it.

Blacks used to have separate water fountains up until the late 60s. Alot of folks are still resisting this change.

It is what makes up our fabric, good or bad.

Guns is an American tradition.

I will say this, rural areas are very liberal with guns, come to Jersey and see the hoops I had to navigate and money I had to pay, red tape and bull-stuff to own my guns.

My cousin in Alabama can just walk into a walmart.

(edit: I own a so called "assault rifle (though I have no plans of assaulting anybody, I hate that term), because it is goddam fun to shoot, I murder paper targets with it, and giggle like a child as I do it.:) )

Yeah, but this is not just a national, but an international forum. As such, you had better get used to reading the opinions of people from other parts of the world. It is their right to give those opinions, whether you like it or not. This whole 'beat it, outlander' thing is just silly.

[Sailor Steve]

They should. All you need to defend yourself is a handgun. If your hand's shaking, you obviously didn't pass your gun test.
Exactly how much firearms experience do you have? Do you have the slightest clue whay you're talking about?

3. nobody uses an assault rifle for home defense as it is an incredibly poor choice for close quarters shooting in a situation where the avoidance of collateral damage is obviously critical
I once had a friend who asked it I would use my 0ught-three Springfield on an intruder. I replied no, that's what the .45 was for. The .30-06 round would go through the burglar, through the wall, through my roommate, through the other wall and possible across the street and through my neighbor.

4. I have always tried to make it a point not to participate in polls with loaded poll choices.
Not me. I love rigged polls. I voted no, because as a stupid beknighted American (and a traditional old fart to boot) I obviously believe that "spray and pray" is the only way to go! :rock:

So they're pretty much useless unless you wanted to murder some kindergarten kids.
Again, what experience in shooting, or even life, do you speak from.

Guess when you don't know what you're talking about even a muzzle loader is an assault rifle.
As was my Springfield, back in 1917.

Personally I think this is a really inappropriate and disrespectful time to have this discussion and I don't think I'll participate beyond this post.
I disagree. Personally, I think anytime is appropriate to have a stupid and useless discussion based on a stupid and useless poll.

I voted 'No' as protest for rigged poll. I will not waste time commenting this thread unless someone post something so ridiculous I can't resist urge.
Yep. I'm hoping my posts will live down to your standards. :rock:

According to the latest research, the trails left behind by airplanes are in fact chemicals used to indoctrinate the people into believing that the wide ranging global Jewish Rosicrucian conspiracy is the acceptable reality and accepting that we are really just living in a virtual reality while our real brains are being eaten by hamster shaped machines singing Christmas carols over and over again on C Major.

Have a nice time of the day. :woot:
:rock: :rock: Candidate for post of the year! Well, maybe next year.

Well why don't you try to come and get them from us? We'll be waiting for you. :yep:
Arrogant, disrespectful...and funny as hell! :rock:

[Hottentot]

This whole 'beat it, outlander' thing is just silly.

This. There are times when I'm wondering what would the experimental removal of the "location" part of the user profile do, provided that the long time posters didn't already know from where each of them was.

[soopaman2]

Yeah, but this is not just a national, but an international forum. As such, you had better get used to reading the opinions of people from other parts of the world. It is their right to give those opinions, whether you like it or not. This whole 'beat it, outlander' thing is just silly.


Where did I say "beat it outlander"?

I was simply clarifying how Americans feel alot more passionatly about guns than most.

Or is it you do not agree with me, and felt like chastizing?

I never told anyone to beat it, I am confused...I didn't mean the term outlander in a demeaning way.

I did not minimize no ones opinion, once again, I was attempting to make him understand why we are the way we are about firearms.

I usually need to be told to calm down by you, man :O:

Chill:D

(edit: thanks for painting me a xenophobic bigot, when I said nothing of the sort in my post)

[Hottentot]

:rock: :rock: Candidate for post of the year! Well, maybe next year.

But, but, but...if the world is going to end in 2012, then I'll never get one of those fancy "Best of Subsim" badges. :(

[Takeda Shingen]

Where did I say "beat it outlander"?

I was simply clarifying how Americans feel alot more passionatly about guns than most.

Or is it you do not agree with me, and felt like chastizing?

I never told anyone to beat it, I am confused...I didn't mean the term outlander in a demeaning way.

I did not minimize no ones opinion, once again, I was attempting to make him understand why we are the way we are about firearms.

I usually need to be told to calm down by you, man :O:

Chill:D

Yeah, but you defended a 'beat it outlander' post. It is also becoming something of a theme on these forums lately, which is something that I don't think we should be doing. And that was the point.

I am chill. Trust me, you'll know when I'm angry.

[Tribesman]

Yeah, but this is not just a national, but an international forum.
But it goes even further on the level of patheticness than that, as even domesticly it is an issue so attempting to write it off with nonsense about "foriegners" just doesn't wash
All August did was a really bad impression of Charlton Heston when he stood at the NRA podium and made a complete dick of himself.

Foreigners cannot understand American gun culture, or find us barbaric for clinging to it.
Now you are making no sense at all Soopa, think about it

[CCIP]

Foreigners cannot understand American gun culture, or find us barbaric for clinging to it. It is like how outlanders cannot fully understand American racism, as they do not have the experiences we have with it.


That's not really true. You make some American friends, go visit America, shoot some guns with decent, responsible people. That's what I did, and it certainly gave me a sense of perspective and qualified my opinion on gun culture significantly.

As Takeda said, everyone's entitled to an opinion, and even a foreigner's opinion can be well-informed and legitimate. Now, I agree that some opinions are misinformed, but saying that "you're an outsider so your opinion doesn't matter" is stupid. Any civil, educated, critical person can have a rational opinion on anything. To say that they can't is essentially assigning mystical value to things that actually have none. There is nothing mystical about being American, and there is nothing mystical about gun culture or constitutional values. Promoting mystical views of these things only deepens the cultural misunderstanding.

[soopaman2]

Yeah, but you defended a 'beat it outlander' post. And that was the point.

I am chill. Trust me, you'll know when I'm angry.

Yeah, but I kinda got his point. We all know August can be blunt, but I understood his point, even if he broadcasted it...well bluntly.

Trust me, I have my moments where I wanna strangle (figuratively) August, but I understand what he was getting at.

He was simply saying it can be hard to understand why we are the way we are, if you are not one of us.

I can never tell you how it is like to be german, where saying Hitler was a cool fella can get you thrown in jail, I find that silly. Just like people find our guns silly...

I took a long path to say this, it was all about perspective, August was simply stating that they can never understand our perspective.

He don't need me to defend him.
I am more defending how I took his post, which I took as a way of saying, you do not understand, because culturally we are different.

No love lost Daimyo-sama:)

[Sailor Steve]

All August did was a really bad impression of Charlton Heston when he stood at the NRA podium and made a complete dick of himself.
You're pushing the line again. No matter how strongly you feel about something, a personal insult is not the way to express it.

[Sonarman]

Here's another "foreigner's" view...

Why not ban all lethal guns and allow the use of tranquilizer weapons instead?That way you could still subdue a perpetrator and not open yourself up to a manslaughter/murder rap and hopefully stop these nutters getting hold of life ending equipment.

As for the sport argument... I've never seen anything macho about hunting with guns a "real man" should surely be able to wrestle an animal to the ground and kill it with his bare hands instead taking the rather cowardly minimal risk/ hide behind a tree/sniper scope approach .

As for the "inshrined in the constitution" arguement... Bush and his cronies were fast enough to bend the constitution to take away suspected terrorists rights but suddenly now it can't be bent to protect America's children?

[Takeda Shingen]

As for the sport argument... I've never seen anything macho about hunting with guns a "real man" should surely be able to wrestle an animal to the ground and kill it with his bare hands instead taking the rather cowardly minimal risk/ hide behind a tree/sniper scope approach

Or at least use a long bow like real men used to. None of this sissified compound bow with a scope garbage. And then there's this new-fangled bait crap. Don't get me started on this whole Gore Tex thing either. Real men wore sack cloth breeches and a hood on rainy days. In fact, I can't help but notice that the decline in social mores coincides with the increase in hunter amenities. Coincidence?

[Sailor Steve]

Here's another "foreigner's" view...

Why not ban all lethal guns and allow the use of tranquilizer weapons instead?That way you could still subdue a perpetrator and not open yourself up to a manslaughter/murder rap and hopefully stop these nutters getting hold of life ending equipment.
Because banning all lethal guns would require attempting to disarm a vast number of citizens who would rather be labelled outlaws than give up their guns.

As for the sport argument... I've never seen anything macho about hunting with guns a "real man" should surely be able to wrestle an animal to the ground and kill it with his bare hands instead taking the rather cowardly minimal risk/ hide behind a tree/sniper scope approach .
What you, or I, think is "macho" is irrelevant. What a gun owner uses the gun for is, within limits, his or her own business. The opposite argument would be to leave the guns alone but ban hunting. That isn't going to happen either.

On the other hand how "macho" is it to buy a steak cut from a cow that someone else clubbed on the head? It has nothing to do with anything.

As for the "inshrined in the constitution" arguement... Bush and his cronies were fast enough to bend the constitution to take away suspected terrorists rights but suddenly now it can't be bent to protect America's children?
And many Americans protested that, and still are.

You can't just remove something from the constitution. First a new amendment has to be proposed. Then it has to pass the appropriate committee. Then it has to be voted on by both House and Senate. Then it has to be ratified by two-thirds of the States. If the government tries to bypass that procedure then we no longer have a Constitutional government, and you will see an armed rebellion, which is the real reason the Second Amendment is there in the first place.

August's reply may have been cliched, but I feel the same way. If you want my guns, by all means come try to take them.

While people have taken August and Soopaman to task for the "Outlander" thing, I think Sonarman's post is a perfect example of that very thing. Opinion is fine, and criticizm is fine, but you obviously have no understanding at all of the way we think, or of the way things work here.

[Takeda Shingen]

While people have taken August and Soopaman to task for the "Outlander" thing, I think Sonarman's post is a perfect example of that very thing. Opinion is fine, and criticizm is fine, but you obviously have no understanding at all of the way we think, or of the way things work here.

In case, I will expect to see you refrain from commenting about an east coast school shooting due to the fact that you are a non-school district employee from Utah. After all, fair is fair outlander.

[Jimbuna]

Hard to believe this has made page 3 :)

[Sailor Steve]

In case, I will expect to see you refrain from commenting about an east coast school shooting due to the fact that you are a non-school district employee from Utah. After all, fair is fair outlander.
I wouldn't dream about it. Did you call me outlandish?

On the other hand the Christians tried to get a Mormon elected, and you don't get much more outlandish, or outlander, than that.

And before anyone says that comment is not related, I live in the heart of Mormonville, and you don't get much more related than that.

[Takeda Shingen]

I wouldn't dream about it. Did you call me outlandish?

On the other hand the Christians tried to get a Mormon elected, and you don't get much more outlandish, or outlander, than that.

Beat it, outlander.

EDIT: I think you're missing the point. We can all create artificial constructs in order to marginalize opinions that we don't like, but this is not only unhealthy for the community but against the spirit of what these forums are supposed to be.

[Sailor Steve]

Beat it, outlander.
Beat what?

[edit]EDIT: I think you're missing the point. We can all create artificial constructs in order to marginalize opinions that we don't like, but this is not only unhealthy for the community but against the spirit of what these forums are supposed to be.
Sorry, I thought I got the point exactly. My point was to do just that, as a humorous way of dismissing the dismissals.

I thought.

[GT182]

I don't think we're going to have much of a choise after what happened in Conneticut. The Pres will see to it assault guns are banned completely, and the handgun laws will change too. There's no way any new law will please everyone, but something has to happen so nothing like this ever happens again. They need some fool proof way to determine if someone is a potiential risk and not allowed to even have, let alone own a firearm.

Now I have a question. Would you feel uncomfortable with someone carrying a consealed handgun while you are working with them? This pereson is not a Federal officer and not a cop, but he does have a 'consealed handgun permit'. He's just a young guy that thinks he has to have it on him where ever he goes.

[August]

Yeah, but this is not just a national, but an international forum. As such, you had better get used to reading the opinions of people from other parts of the world. It is their right to give those opinions, whether you like it or not. This whole 'beat it, outlander' thing is just silly.

That's not really an accurate representation of what I said. I never told him to leave, just to mind his own business. I have no problem with him being here but I do expect him to show respect for other cultures.

I would not go to Germany or Australia for example and begin ragging on aspects of their culture that I didn't like and there are things I don't like about both countries because to do so would be rude and disrespectful.

And make no mistake, showing disrespect is exactly what Cybermat was intending when he put up this thread.

[Sailor Steve]

Now I have a question. Would you feel uncomfortable with someone carrying a consealed handgun while you are working with them? This pereson is not a Federal officer and not a cop, but he does have a 'consealed handgun permit'. He's just a young guy that thinks he has to have it on him where ever he goes.
Since it's 'concealed' I think the proper question is how comfortable are you with the idea that the guy next to you might be carrying. Since there are a large number of CC permits in Utah and anybody I see anywhere might be carrying, no, I don't have a problem with it at all. On the other hand I've seen at least three men carrying openly in the last year, and after the initial surprise I wasn't bothered by that either. Your "Just a young guy who thinks he has to have it on him wherever he goes" might turn out to be a nutcase who shoots me dead without warning. He may also be the guy who saves my life when someone else tries to do just that.

A retired cop of my aquaintance once said he considered the armed citizen to be his best backup.

We had a thread on this not long ago.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=199572&highlight=open+carry

[August]

Or at least use a long bow like real men used to. None of this sissified compound bow with a scope garbage. And then there's this new-fangled bait crap. Don't get me started on this whole Gore Tex thing either. Real men wore sack cloth breeches and a hood on rainy days. In fact, I can't help but notice that the decline in social mores coincides with the increase in hunter amenities. Coincidence?

Oh yeah you want to tell a woman who has a violent ex boyfriend stalking her to use a long bow like a real man if she wants to defend herself? You want to tell an elderly person or handicapped person what weapons you feel they don't need to protect themselves?

[August]

In case, I will expect to see you refrain from commenting about an east coast school shooting due to the fact that you are a non-school district employee from Utah. After all, fair is fair outlander.

Wrong. We as a nation worked that particular issue out amongst ourselves back in 1865. Steves home, my home, your home, OUR home is everywhere from Maine to Hawaii and Alaska to Texas.

[Sonarman]

Oh yeah you want to tell a woman who has a violent ex boyfriend stalking her to use a long bow like a real man if she wants to defend herself? You want to tell an elderly person or handicapped person what weapons you feel they don't need to protect themselves?

No but she could use some form of tranquilser weapon the longbow reference is out of context as it was a reference to hunting not home intrusion.

[Takeda Shingen]

That's not really an accurate representation of what I said. I never told him to leave, just to mind his own business. I have no problem with him being here but I do expect him to show respect for other cultures.

I would not go to Germany or Australia for example and begin ragging on aspects of their culture that I didn't like and there are things I don't like about both countries because to do so would be rude and disrespectful.

And make no mistake, showing disrespect is exactly what Cybermat was intending when he put up this thread.

Respect is a two-way street. You've said the same thing to multiple people over the past few days. I'm not a part of this gun culture, and I find it completely alien to me. Am I to be silenced as well?

Oh yeah you want to tell a woman who has a violent ex boyfriend stalking her to use a long bow like a real man if she wants to defend herself? You want to tell an elderly person or handicapped person what weapons you feel they don't need to protect themselves?

Do you use a long bow?

[August]

Respect is a two-way street. You've said the same thing to multiple people over the past few days. I'm not a part of this gun culture, and I find it completely alien to me. Am I to be silenced as well?

Silenced? :roll: Stop being such a drama queen. Can you tell me the respect that was intended with his stupid poll?

Do you use a long bow?

I own three of them. I'm a pretty good shot with them too.

[Takeda Shingen]

Silenced? :roll: Stop being such a drama queen. Can you tell me the respect that was intended with his stupid poll?

Then tell him why he is wrong. You know, discussion? Like, on a discussion forum? Otherwise it's all just snippy snippy, and there's Reddit, 4Chan and SomethingAwful for that. We're supposed to be something better here.

I own three of them. I'm a pretty good shot with them too.

Then you're a man.

EDIT: Oh, and drama? Let's be honest, this thread would have probably have sunk to page two by now, like most of Cybermat's other nonsense, if you hadn't come in and drama'd the place up a few pages ago.

[Tribesman]

You're pushing the line again. No matter how strongly you feel about something, a personal insult is not the way to express it.
It depends on perspective, many people think that Heston wan't really making a prick of himself with his rant, many people even bought the bumber stickers and t-shirts with his nonsense lines on them, from their perpective it wouldn't be an insult if their statement was compared to his nonsense as they think his nonsense was really correct.

I took a long path to say this, it was all about perspective, August was simply stating that they can never understand our perspective.


Soopa, it has already been pointed out that that simply isn't true.

I live in the heart of Mormonville, and you don't get much more related than that.
Not even in West Virginia?

Now I have a question. Would you feel uncomfortable with someone carrying a consealed handgun while you are working with them? This pereson is not a Federal officer and not a cop, but he does have a 'consealed handgun permit'. He's just a young guy that thinks he has to have it on him where ever he goes.
Thats the problem, too many unknowns, every individual is individual could be a paranoid nut could be a complete fruitcake might just be a worrier maybe a wannabe hero or just a regular guy.
Plus you have to weigh in his tolerance threshold which is also different for everyone, he might be a nice regular guy at work who suddenly goes postal just because someone looked at him funny.

[andritsos]

OT.

[soopaman2]

I am a subsim celebrity as the originator of the outlander term, that has become so politically charged here.

I expect you to follow me on my non existent facebook, and twitter accounts that I do not have, maybe I can become bigger than PSY and that Gangnam style crap?

I am a celebrity style now!
Oppa, controversy style *dances like a horses ass*

Since I said outlander first, yet August got the flack for the term.

Anymore hair trigger responses?

Attack me for it.

[Armistead]

The best gun for home defense of offense...is a shotgun. I live out in the hicks, the few times I've thought something was amiss, I pull out the 12 gauge auto. Can I aim with a pistol, pretty damn good, but I also know I would be somewhat nervous if an intrders in the house, so I don't want to miss.

It still amazes me we talk about gun laws during these mass shootings when no amount of gun law will have effect. Gun laws may help with rage shooters "3 day wait", preventing accidents, etc..., they're not gonna stop the nuts.

I would have no problem restricting clips 8-10 rounds, even though I doubt it would solve much. I assume Adam had the standard 30 round clip, but it's clear he exchanged them several times.

[soopaman2]

If you know the right folks, here in Jersey you can get a weapon smuggled straight from a southern state, alot of money in running guns into states with draconian laws.

You will never stop the thugs from getting guns, and all gun laws do is stop the legals from getting them.

I know America seems weird to most, but we love our Bill Of Rights. We see it as a sacred document, that has shaped the world, no one can deny.

We thought of civil rights when the rest of the world was stuck on divinely appointed monarchies.

We elected on merits, and not birthrights, just look at Obama. As hated as he is...A negro, a liberal, (who never tried to take anyones guns away, so calm down. :)

The bill of rights is our first 10 amendments, 10 basic rights that should never be appealed.

From freedom of speech, press, and religion, to gun ownership, to right to a speedy trial when accused. Or no brutal sentence when condemned.

Nation of laws, we are not completely broken yet as a country, and we have our rights, it is "we the people" not "we who control the people":rock:

[TLAM Strike]

Why not ban all lethal guns and allow the use of tranquilizer weapons instead?That way you could still subdue a perpetrator and not open yourself up to a manslaughter/murder rap and hopefully stop these nutters getting hold of life ending equipment.
What is a tranquilizer weapon? If you are talking about darts with a tranquilizing compound then that has to be filled on a per target basis because what would take down a 180 pound man would kill a 120 pound female or mildly annoy a 300 pound male.

If you are thinking of a taser or stun gun then those can kill people with medical conditions (yea looking at person try to guess who has a heart defect) or can kill the young or old. With people on drugs the taser might do nothing or it might kill them. There are some people (a very small number) who can just take a taser and not be affected (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avAH49NY_iY). Things like heavy clothing or body armor also reduce effectiveness.

If we are talking about blinding laser weapons there have been countermeasures to them for decades.

Until we get Phasers a projectile at a high velocity is still the most effective weapon out there. (and if we do get Phasers the lethal ability of them are quite impressive).

[AVGWarhawk]

What is a tranquilizer weapon? If you are talking about darts with a tranquilizing compound then that has to be filled on a per target basis because what would take down a 180 pound man would kill a 120 pound female or mildly annoy a 300 pound male.

If you are thinking of a taser or stun gun then those can kill people with medical conditions (yea looking at person try to guess who has a heart defect) or can kill the young or old. With people on drugs the taser might do nothing or it might kill them. There are some people (a very small number) who can just take a taser and not be affected (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avAH49NY_iY). Things like heavy clothing or body armor also reduce effectiveness.

If we are talking about blinding laser weapons there have been countermeasures to them for decades.

Until we get Phasers a projectile at a high velocity is still the most effective weapon out there. (and if we do get Phasers the lethal ability of them are quite impressive).


Let's use high frequency to make'em crumb to the floor! :D

[Hottentot]

We thought of civil rights when the rest of the world was stuck on divinely appointed monarchies.

Such as women's suffrage?

[Madox58]

There are some people (a very small number) who can just take a taser and not be affected (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avAH49NY_iY).
Several years ago, there were a few of us that would hit each other with stun weapons to see how long we could hold up.
There were a few cases when we burned holes in each other but never went down.
Once we got up past the 60 second time we got bored with it all.

[soopaman2]

Such as women's suffrage? Yeah 1919.

Didn't europe kill a crap load of jews just 20 years later, and bend over to a dictator yes, so refined. A few tanks and surrender! Germany voted for Hitler remember? Other countries hailed his arrival.

Kinda needed us then, but not now right?

Yes Europe is so refined. Always does what is right, America is so evil, pardon us .

We all have our demons. Why should our demons be worse than yours, since they happened for culturally different reason?

[Sailor Steve]

Oh yeah you want to tell a woman who has a violent ex boyfriend stalking her to use a long bow like a real man if she wants to defend herself? You want to tell an elderly person or handicapped person what weapons you feel they don't need to protect themselves?
I believe that Tak's post, addressed to Sonarman, was meant to be a joke, or at least somewhat humorous.

Wrong. We as a nation worked that particular issue out amongst ourselves back in 1865. Steves home, my home, your home, OUR home is everywhere from Maine to Hawaii and Alaska to Texas.
I know his post addressed to me was a flat-out joke. I'm sorry you missed it. Of course the repartee between us should have suggested something.

[Bilge_Rat]

Several years ago, there were a few of us that would hit each other with stun weapons to see how long we could hold up.
There were a few cases when we burned holes in each other but never went down.
Once we got up past the 60 second time we got bored with it all.

:o

....I prefer Subsims....

[Sailor Steve]

It depends on perspective, many people think that Heston wan't really making a prick of himself with his rant, many people even bought the bumber stickers and t-shirts with his nonsense lines on them, from their perpective it wouldn't be an insult if their statement was compared to his nonsense as they think his nonsense was really correct.
It doesn't matter if Heston was right or wrong, or what the perspective is. We don't insult other members. Well, some do, but we try to keep it in line.

Soopa, it has already been pointed out that that simply isn't true.
Except in the case of Sonarman's post I'd say it was very true.

Thats the problem, too many unknowns, every individual is individual could be a paranoid nut could be a complete fruitcake might just be a worrier maybe a wannabe hero or just a regular guy.
Plus you have to weigh in his tolerance threshold which is also different for everyone, he might be a nice regular guy at work who suddenly goes postal just because someone looked at him funny.
The unknowns can indeed be a problem, but where I live we consider the risk to be worth the possible downsides. Maybe you don't know as much about us as you think you do.

[Hottentot]

Yeah 1919.

And Finland in 1906. New Zealand in 1893. But hey, don't let that get in your way.


Didn't europe kill a crap load of jews just 20 years later, and bend over to a dictator yes, so refined. A few tanks and surrender! Germany voted for Hitler remember? Other countries hailed his arrival.And that relates how to, say, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Poland, let alone the rest of the world?


Yes Europe is so refined. Always does what is right, America is so evil, pardon us .I again suggest getting help. You seem to be hearing voices saying things I never said. You are hiding behind a whole country and people, when it was your post, both arrogant and ignorant, that I was addressing.

[Sailor Steve]

I expect you to follow me on my non existent facebook, and twitter accounts that I do not have, maybe I can become bigger than PSY and that Gangnam style crap?
Wait. I want to follow your account that you do not have. Does someone else have your accounts, or can I follow a nonexistent account?

I want to 'Like' you, but I don't know how! :wah:

[Sailor Steve]

Several years ago, there were a few of us that would hit each other with stun weapons to see how long we could hold up.
That explains a few things. :rotfl2:

On the other hand there was also a case several years ago of someone being shot in the head at point-blank range with a .45. The 'victim' (he was fleeing the scene of his robbery) sat down on the sidewalk, then suddenly jumped up and ran away. Apparently the bullet just creased is scalp, snapping his skull back and bouncing off.

[RickC Sniper]

Several years ago, there were a few of us that would hit each other with stun weapons to see how long we could hold up.
There were a few cases when we burned holes in each other but never went down.
Once we got up past the 60 second time we got bored with it all.

Please tell me alcohol was consumed before this happened. The thought of someone doing this sober is almost unbearable.

[Madox58]

Please tell me alcohol was consumed before this happened. The thought of someone doing this sober is almost unbearable.

Of course alcohol was involved.
:D
At first anyway.
We decided that it may be swaying the results of the 'scientific' study.
:hmmm:
We then started testing sober.
The tests ended pretty quickly after that.
:har::har:

[August]

Such as women's suffrage?

Here in Massachusetts we've had Women's Suffrage since 1756. :yep:

[GoldenRivet]

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States is a safety measure built in by our forefathers. It is a safety measure which grants us the means to protect ourselves from tyranny. From the tyranny of enemies both foreign and domestic, from the tyranny of those who would stand to do us harm. But most importantly, our forefathers labored under extreme conditions to create a nation as we enjoy today, and they had the foresight to understand that no system of government is infallable and as such they armed the citizens with the basic rights to protect themselves from the tyranny of a corrupt government.

These rights include

Right to Freedom of speech and religion

Right to bear arms

Freedom from forced quartering

Freedom from unwarranted search and seizure

Right to due process

Right to face an accuser in court

Right to trial by jury

Freedom from cruel or excessive punishment

The list continues, but the nature of every one of these is born in limiting government and allowing the people a means of protecting themselves from government. No single amendment is greater than another. But they are all greater than the individual. And I for one will not be turning my back and surrendering any of them freely.

The biggest mistake the government made is closing down mental health facilities en masse thereby denying proper care to scores of individuals with mental health needs. Until this is corrected, expect such mass incidents to occur whether the committed through the use of tanks, assault rifles, machine pistols, muzzle loaders, machetes, pocket knifes, screw drivers, pencils, sharp sticks, rocks, bare hands etc controlling firearms through strict laws treats the symptom not the disease.

[Oberon]

The biggest mistake the government made is closing down mental health facilities en masse thereby denying proper care to scores of individuals with mental health needs. Until this is corrected, expect such mass incidents to occur whether the committed through the use of tanks, assault rifles, machine pistols, muzzle loaders, machetes, pocket knifes, screw drivers, pencils, sharp sticks, rocks, bare hands etc controlling firearms through strict laws treats the symptom not the disease.

Bingo.

For every one school massacre, there are hundreds of instances of violence caused by people with mental health issues that don't hit the global news networks because only one or two people die at a time, or if they do they are quickly forgotten. It's sad that in this day and age it takes a massacre of children to bring an issue to light.

[AVGWarhawk]

The biggest mistake the government made is closing down mental health facilities en masse thereby denying proper care

I think at the time of the closing the care was not proper. :hmmm::06: Hence the reason for closing these institutions.

[Cybermat47]

And no, I'd not use my assault rifles to shoot kindergarten students as you put it,

No, I wasn't suggesting that you would use them in such a way! I am really sorry, I didn't mean to offend you like that!

[Skybird]

I think the children got what they deserved. Why haven't they gone to school fully armed to defend themselves? :88)

"There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11? " (Nicolas Cage: Lord of War)

[Cybermat47]

And make no mistake, showing disrespect is exactly what Cybermat was intending when he put up this thread.

Actually, I have great respect for America. If it weren't for you, I'd be bowing to my Japanese masters by now.

All I wanted was to see what people thought of the issue, and yes, the poll options were stupid, incredibly so, which should be a lesson teaching me not to post a thread at 7:45 at night after watching a News report about the same topic.

[GoldenRivet]

My mom recalls that in the early days of her nursing career the govt started shutting all these facilities down largely as a cost cutting measure.

She said that back then these people had constant access to professionals and had access to mood altering medications and other treatments... They were either too content in their own little neverland or to medicated to formulate a plan to gun down a school full of people.

Many of us are asking the wrong questions.

The right questions are:

1. In the present age of tougher gun laws, why are these events much more prevalent than in the yesteryear of more lax legislation?

2. Many people much past the age if 30 are often heard saying "this sort of thing was unheard of when I was in school." But why? While in fact school shootings go way back, why has the frequency and severity of the attacks sharply increased since the mid 80s?

3. Why is it that someone like myself who legally owns fully automatic rifles has not once in 34 years ever committed mass murder, but someone who gets their hands on a semi-automatic "assault rifle" does commit mass murder.

Answer these questions and you're closer to your solution.

[August]

I think at the time of the closing the care was not proper. :hmmm::06: Hence the reason for closing these institutions.

I remember that and you're right. There were too many stories of abuse and most of these institutions were just places to house the insane rather than attempt to cure them of their insanity.

It'd been much better if they were reformed to actually help their inmates instead of just being closed down but I think the underlying driving force was money. Cheaper to put the insane on the street than spend the money to care for them properly.

[AVGWarhawk]

I remember that and you're right. There were too many stories of abuse and most of these institutions were just places to house the insane rather than attempt to cure them of their insanity.

It'd been much better if they were reformed to actually help their inmates instead of just being closed down but I think the underlying driving force was money. Cheaper to put the insane on the street than spend the money to care for them properly.

I think in the long run that was the decision. We are perhaps reaping the consequences from the decision.

[RickC Sniper]

Of course alcohol was involved.
:D
At first anyway.
We decided that it may be swaying the results of the 'scientific' study.
:hmmm:
We then started testing sober.
The tests ended pretty quickly after that.
:har::har:


:rotfl2: I suspected as much. :sunny:

[Armistead]

I remember that and you're right. There were too many stories of abuse and most of these institutions were just places to house the insane rather than attempt to cure them of their insanity.

It'd been much better if they were reformed to actually help their inmates instead of just being closed down but I think the underlying driving force was money. Cheaper to put the insane on the street than spend the money to care for them properly.

We have a few Mental Health facilities, but I wouldn't advice anyone to to use them. Basically where cops take disturbed people for evaluation.

A few years ago one of my neighbors went nuts, he had lost his job, marriage fell apart, started drinking. They had a big fight and he sat in his truck with a gun going to kill himself, but cops came, tazed him, got him out. I sat with him at the clinic the next day. He walked out in about 30 minutes with 3 presciptions for depressants, including Adderol. I noticed in a week he was high strung, talked non stopped, acted crazy. His wife had left him and he started pulling stunts for attention. One day I heard a gun shot, so called cops, then another gun shot. He shot a window out, poured ketchup on it, I guess to scare his wife that he had killed himself. He then went to hide in a barn, problem was he put his pistol in his waist, forgot he had it cocked and it went off when he was crawling in his hide out. The bullet went between his penis and balls, scraping both and blew the top of his thigh off. He was sent to a state hospital, never saw him again after that. I did talk to his wife later, she said he acted like a nut for another 3 months until a Doctor took him off all the mind meds and he had moved on and seemed fine.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^
Poor guy.

[Lord_magerius]

We're getting on to the real issue here now which most people have only seemed to gloss over. Gun control laws are just the easiest thing to blame for everybody, it also gives both sides of the fence another reason to spit fire at each other over a national tragedy. When it comes to mental health issues it's a topic that nobody is really willing to discuss, so when something like this happens, it's far easier to blame the secondary or even tertiary cause.

The main reason for this happening is that society let this individual down, it's a bitter pill that nobody is wanting to swallow. Gun control laws, no gun control laws, free lego with every handgun purchased, it doesn't matter. This was a deeply disturbed person and it would have happened either way.

Edit: In no way am I defending the abhorrent actions of this individual, or even saying that we should be feeling sorry for him. I'm just highlighting the fact that the media has plastered over the main issues to pursue the "Guns, yes or no?" topic once again.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^^^^^^

You make a good point. If Lanza didn't have access to the guns, he might have used a knife. Not as many people would have died, but they would have died nonetheless.

[GoldenRivet]

^^^^^^^^^^

You make a good point. If Lanza didn't have access to the guns, he might have used a knife. Not as many people would have died, but they would have died nonetheless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendermonde_nursery_attack

recall this?

The bushmaster .223 was not designed by its creators with the intent that it be fired at children, no more than the butcher knife in this situation was designed for the purpose of cutting them to pieces.

crazy people will always be crazy people and can use nearly anything to kill someone.

Heck, i can turn a rolled up magazine into a lethal weapon, and kill someone in a matter of minutes with it. (no... seriously)

[Madox58]

Heck, i can turn a rolled up magazine into a lethal weapon, and kill someone in a matter of minutes with it. (no... seriously)
Minutes?
You need to practice abit.
It should only take seconds if applied properly.

[GoldenRivet]

Minutes?
You need to practice abit.
It should only take seconds if applied properly.

im out of practice :salute:

besides i was factoring in their bleeding to death internally

[Madox58]

im out of practice :salute:

besides i was factoring in their bleeding to death internally
Ah Yes.
The old watch them suffer approach.
:D

[Lord_magerius]

You guys scare me sometimes :huh:

[yubba]

Ted Kennedys car killed more people than mine,, though my rifle looks like an ak it is used for defence of my home it is a defencive armorment. Any weapon used to attack someone can be constrewed as an assult weapon,,,So what happen at Ft Hood ???? Will the war on guns be like the war on drugs ?????? Why doesn't this happen more in Isreal ????

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^^

Sorry, what!?

[Neptunus Rex]

Amendment II
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.

"A well regulated Militia" - This refers to all able persons able to bear and fire arms.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - Secure from a Federal Government from taking these rights away.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" = Clearly defines AS A RIGHT to the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms.

"shall not be infringed" - Denies any authority to the Federal Government (AND CONGRESS) from enacting any law (or definition) restricting the people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights. The choice and use of the words "shall not" were deliberate and unambiguous.

[Cybermat47]

Amendment II
"A well regulated Militia" - This refers to all able persons able to bear and fire arms.

Militia

(Mi-li-tia)

Noun

Definition: A military force that is raised from the civilian population in an emergency to supplement a regular army



Would you say that the shooter was supplementing the regular army in an emergency?

[August]

^^^^^^

Sorry, what!?

Let me translate:

First a little contextual background:

In 1969 Liberal lion Democrat Senator Edward M Kennedy, now deceased, got drunk and drove off a bridge into a tidal channel, leaving a young secretary named Mary Jo Kopechne, to drown in the car. Apparently she survived for up to two hours on an air bubble trapped in the back window.

Rather than run just a few yards up the road to a nearby house for help he went home and didn't report the accident for nine hours. He avoided getting in any trouble because of his family's name. Kennedy's can do no wrong in this state.

Yubba is attempting to draw a comparison between Dead Teds DWI body count to that of his cheap semi-auto assault weapon he keeps for self defense. Apparently his must be less than "1". (insert shrug smiley)

He then goes on to say that any object can be used as a weapon but only mentions a gun crime (see Ft. Hoot shootings) as an example. (insert another shrug smiley)

He then wonders if the war on guns will be as successful as the war on drugs and why isn't the availability of weapons causing Israelis to start shooting up their own schools.

Of course these last two are the closest thing he comes to having a point. I find it somewhat ironic that the government that gave guns to the Mexican drug cartels is now going to try and take them away from us.

It's also interesting that countries awash in Assault weapons like Israel and Switzerland do not have the same problem that we do.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^^^
Thank you.

[August]

Militia

(Mi-li-tia)

Noun

Definition: A military force that is raised from the civilian population in an emergency to supplement a regular army



Would you say that the shooter was supplementing the regular army in an emergency?

He did not legally possess the weapons so no, and Militias are by definition self equipped. Raising an army of unarmed men is pretty much useless exercise.

Besides "shall not infringe on the right of the people" is far more unambiguous than Separation of Church and state which relies on an after the fact explanation by only some of it's authors.

[Cybermat47]

He did not legally possess the weapons

No, but he got to them so easily because his mother legally owned them.

So perhaps they should make it so that you aren't allowed to have guns if you have mental health issues, or if you live with someone who does?

[Onkel Neal]

So they're pretty much useless unless you wanted to murder some kindergarten kids.


I wouldn't say that is helpful to the discussion.

[August]

No, but he got to them so easily because his mother legally owned them.

So perhaps they should make it so that you aren't allowed to have guns if you have mental health issues, or if you live with someone who does?

The first is already law I believe but the Patient Privacy Lobby doesn't want anyone to know who might suddenly snap so it's effectiveness is limited. As to your second idea I could agree with that at least not have guns on the premises. She should have known to keep the weapons under lock and key with a kid like that but apparently, for some reason which the cops haven't figured out yet, he managed to get his hands on them anyways.

[CaptainMattJ.]

The .223 is roughly the same to a 5.56x45 NATO, which is used in M4 carbines and M16s. I have a .223 cartridge right in front of me, the bullet would be about as long as an average pinkie. The cartridge i have in front of me was fired from a .223 M14, known as a mini-m14 because of the fact that a military issue m14 fires 7.62x51 NATO.

The .223 may be almost identical (some say it's different, but by all that much) to a 5.56 but the .223 was originally designed to take down really big game animals. The .223 offered hunters the ability to take down an animal with less bullets and more force. Hunters are actually vital to ecosystems in some places, where population control over problem species needs to be maintained. Not to mention it's potential uses in extreme law enforcement and security for high risk events such as the olympics. It is in some cases interchangeable with the 5.56mm so it could be used with some 5.56 rifles. the .223 round is considered an assault rifle round, but banning it would cause semi automatic weapons to be affected too.

So yes, even the high powered rifles have a use in civilian hands (security firms are considered civilian in some cases). And i wholesomely believe in the right to own one. And yes, these incidents occur in the few psychotic individuals who get their hands on one, not by the millions of responsible owners around the country.

A ban on high capacity clips seems the only thing that's agreeable. that and the SERIOUS firepower, such as .50 caliber machine guns and grenades/explosives.


As for some of the real problem, it's been hit right on the head earlier in this thread. This country offers almost no support for mental issues. In fact, there are stories of people asking for help with their mentally disabled child and being told "the best case scenario is if your son/daughter/spouse gets incarcerated and put in jail". Budget cuts to mental treatment are SERIOUSLY hurting those who really need the help.

[Sailor Steve]

Definition: A military force that is raised from the civilian population in an emergency to supplement a regular army
Shows how little you know about America. At the time of the founding of the country a "regular army" was something to be afraid of. The Second Amendment was written partly to let the citizens stand against the possibility of a Federal Army. Each State was supposed to have its own militia. A Federal Army was created during our 1861-1865 Civil War, and then quickly disbanded. It was recreated for the First World War, then allowed to shrink considerably, then revived for World War 2. With the coming of the cold war it was considered necessary to keep it going, and today we accept it without question.

During the early period of our country's history, Militia was defined as every able-bodied male between the age of 17 and 45, and every single one was expected to bring his own gun.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^^^^^^^

So in those days, people thought that a regular army would have too much power? Seems fair enough.

But you have to remember that the constitution was written about 200 years ago. Perhaps there should be a plebescite vote on wether or not they should change it? That way, most of the country gets what it wants.

[Sailor Steve]

But you have to remember that the constitution was written about 200 years ago. Perhaps there should be a plebescite vote on wether or not they should change it? That way, most of the country gets what it wants.
Wrong again. I've already explained what it takes to amend the Constitution. If a new convention were held it could come up with anything. The first time we were lucky to have people smart enough to create a form of government that actually worked for the the people. There's no guarantee it would happen again. That's why it's so hard to change it.

The Constitution itself is the instruction manual for running the government. The first ten Amendments - the 'Bill Of Rights' - is there to guarantee non-interference by the government in the daily lives of the people. That we've managed to let them do that anyway is to our shame.

But no. No popular vote can change the Constitution. Period.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^^^^^^

So, I guess that's that, then.

[Sailor Steve]

So, I guess that's that, then.
Not as far as this discussion is concerned. There is no final word or answer to this problem. I was merely speaking to changing the Constitution.

[August]

Think of it this way Cybermat. A constitution that can be easily changed is a weak constitution just begging to be usurped by a would be dictator.

[Oberon]

The only beef I have about the whole second amendment was that it was written in an era when cavalry and infantry were the biggest concern to a soldier (well, that and not catching infection or a random disease). If the US government wanted to turn its resources on its citizens, what can a Bushmaster do against a fully loaded B-52 bomber operating at high altitude? :hmmm:

But putting that to one side for the moment since as Lord Magerius says, we're hitting on the real meat of the problem here and it's got nothing to do with gun control or the second amendment.
Rivet mentioned the Dendermonde attack, but I can bring forward a much more recent event that was overshadowed by Newtown:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910

All that guns do is increase the killing efficiency of the person holding them, that's all that they were designed to do. They are lumps of metal and oil, extensions of the person operating them.

[Cybermat47]

Think of it this way Cybermat. A constitution that can be easily changed is a weak constitution just begging to be usurped by a would be dictator.

Good point. :hmm2: Anyway, your constitution is very heavy on freedom. Perhaps a little too much, in my opinion, but too much freedom is better than no freedom. And it mightn't even be gun laws that are causing these shootings. China has had more school shootings than America, just not as bad.

[Oberon]

Good point. :hmm2: Anyway, your constitution is very heavy on freedom. Perhaps a little too much, in my opinion, but too much freedom is better than no freedom. And it mightn't even be gun laws that are causing these shootings. China has had more school shootings than America, just not as bad.

Americas constitution is heavy on freedom because America is based around freedom, it was born from the idea of having freedom over their own actions rather than having to obey the whims of a nation over a thousand miles away. It's a big word in America, one of the founding principles of it, and sometimes that can confuse people who are not American, it can confuse them as to why on Earth are they so paranoid about their own government taking some sort of dictatorial control over them, when said government can't even control itself, however it has been hammered into the American code, the way of life, heck perhaps even the American DNA, that freedom is a right given not by God, but by man, and that freedom can be taken away again just as easily if you are not vigilant, and that's spot on, it can be, although usually it's done in a manner through which you don't notice it happening until it's too late, which is probably why Americans are rather jumpy when it comes to governments doing anything, just in case it's the first step on that slippery slope.
As a Brit I can understand both the American viewpoint and the Australian one to a point, after all, you're both children of the Empire, even if you have grown up and left home (:O:) and I think that in the great cultural melting pot that is America, freedom is a good thing, and of course it's going to be abused, that's the price of freedom and free-will, not everyone is going to behave, but you can't judge a whole nation on the actions of a few nutjobs, just as you can't judge the whole of Germany on one or two peoples opinions...isn't that right, August? :03:

[Cybermat47]

As a Brit I can understand both the American viewpoint and the Australian one to a point, after all, you're both children of the Empire, even if you have grown up and left home (:O:)

As a toddler, I wanted, for some reason, Britain to annex Australia :D

[August]

...but you can't judge a whole nation on the actions of a few nutjobs, just as you can't judge the whole of Germany on one or two peoples opinions...isn't that right, August? :03:

Yeah I suppose so, especially since I have more relatives that are German citizens than Americans and none of them are anything like some of the Germans I meet here.

Of course their constant attacks on my country do tend to tempt me to respond in kind but I guess I should keep in mind that for every nipplespanner or Skybird there is a Penguin or a Lurchi and a few others to counteract them.

[Oberon]

Yeah I suppose so, especially since I have more relatives that are German citizens than Americans and none of them are anything like some of the Germans I meet here.

Of course their constant attacks on my country do tend to tempt me to respond in kind but I guess I should keep in mind that for every nipplespanner or Skybird there is a Penguin or a Lurchi and a few others to counteract them.

Sadly that's the price you pay for being top dog, I imagine if the internet had been around in the 1800s I'd be undergoing a similar trial by nationality. :03:

[Oberon]

As a toddler, I wanted, for some reason, Britain to annex Australia :D

We did our best, but we were forced back by the legions of Dropbears and Bunyips. 'Tis a strange and hostile land Australia. :03::O:

[Stealhead]

The .223 is roughly the same to a 5.56x45 NATO, which is used in M4 carbines and M16s. I have a .223 cartridge right in front of me, the bullet would be about as long as an average pinkie. The cartridge i have in front of me was fired from a .223 M14, known as a mini-m14 because of the fact that a military issue m14 fires 7.62x51 NATO.

The .223 may be almost identical (some say it's different, but by all that much) to a 5.56 but the .223 was originally designed to take down really big game animals. The .223 offered hunters the ability to take down an animal with less bullets and more force. Hunters are actually vital to ecosystems in some places, where population control over problem species needs to be maintained. Not to mention it's potential uses in extreme law enforcement and security for high risk events such as the olympics. It is in some cases interchangeable with the 5.56mm so it could be used with some 5.56 rifles. the .223 round is considered an assault rifle round, but banning it would cause semi automatic weapons to be affected too.



Your statement about the .223 being designed to hunt large game is completely incorrect.The opposite is in fact true the .223 was designed as a varmint round so small game coyotes,wolves things of this nature you can hunt deer with one but it is not the ideal round for that role and it not a very good round for large game.Against a human being either round is highly effective and likely to cause death or very serious injury.I don't know where you got your information but it is wrong. No .223 or 5.56mm round is a long a a pinke either unless you have tiny fingers my pinkie is about 3 inches long maybe you mean the casing and the bullet.A .233 or 5.56mm is about the length of an AA battery.


Now the 5.56x45mm and the .223 are almost exactly the same in most respect they have a differences the inner wall of a 5.56mm case in thinker allowing for higher pressures the cambering is slightly different the leade of a .223 chamber will be 0.085 on a 5.56mm round the leade is 0.162 both rounds will fit in either chamber but it would be un wsie to use military grade 5.56mm rounds in a .223 chamber.

[geetrue]

I was unaware that the shooter used a fully automatic assault rifle.

I thought he used a bushmaster .223

Guess when you don't know what you're talking about even a muzzle loader is an assault rifle.

And no, I'd not use my assault rifles to shoot kindergarten students as you put it, my two fully automatic assault rifles have been out of the vault twice in as many years for routine cleaning. They have both been fired one full magazine once each in the last 5 years. I don't point my firearms at anything with a personality unless I want that personality to go away forever.

Personally I think this is a really inappropriate and disrespectful time to have this discussion and I don't think I'll participate beyond this post.

Good night

I agree ... good night to rigged polls

True to your word Golden Rivet, you have decided to stay out of polictal motivated threads lol

[RickC Sniper]

The .223 may be almost identical (some say it's different, but by all that much) to a 5.56 but the .223 was originally designed to take down really big game animals. The .223 offered hunters the ability to take down an animal with less bullets and more force.

Documentation, please.

The .223 was NEVER designed to hunt very big game.

As far as hunting calibers go, the .223 is right at the marginally useful category. In many states like here in Colorado it is illegal to use a .223 Remington or a 5.56 to hunt anything except varmints. They simply don't provide an ethical kill reliably enough. The states that do allow it for deer usually have much smaller deer than here. (deer grow bigger bodies in different parts of the country)

The only reason it is popularly owned is that the semi-auto rifles in .223 available are fun to shoot and the ammo is dirt cheap compared to other center fire calibers.

(Please, no comments about the proper shot placement gets the job done yadda yadda. I have heard all those arguments) For hunting North American big game, you really should be using something else.

@Stealhead you type faster than me. :)

[Stealhead]

Documentation, please.

The .223 was NEVER designed to hunt very big game.

As far as hunting calibers go, the .223 is right at the marginally useful category. In many states like here in Colorado it is illegal to use a .223 Remington or a 5.56 to hunt anything except varmints. They simply don't provide an ethical kill reliably enough. The states that do allow it for deer usually have much smaller deer than here. (deer grow bigger bodies in different parts of the country)

The only reason it is popularly owned is that the semi-auto rifles in .223 available are fun to shoot and the ammo is dirt cheap compared to other center fire calibers.

(Please, no comments about the proper shot placement gets the job done yadda yadda. I have heard all those arguments) For hunting North American big game, you really should be using something else.

@Stealhead you type faster than me. :)

I have a PhD in hunt and peck :03:

Matt sounds like he is looking at a 7.62x51mm round or he has very bad eye measurement.Hell a bullet as long as your pinkie your talking .50 BMG there.

You will find that most true bolt action varmint/small game rifles are .223 and most modern AR-15 and clones are 5.56mm because so much 5.56 is already used by the military and law enforcement they could really sell it for much less but you know the gun market I'm sure profit profit profit.

Oh and someone said where can you a 79 round AR-15 magazine? Answer almost anywhere Beta mags are sold in almost every gun store in up to 100 round models that is just ridiculousness.
The most I own for an AR-15 are 20 round and I dont use them often I mostly use the 10 round mags.Guys will try to sell them all the time.

Photo of a 100 round magazine:
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/010406-046_zps0deb0fa1.jpg




Wanna buy one? http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/916/products_id/411551785/Buds+Surplus/AR-15+Dual+Drum+100+Round+Mag

If you need that to defend your self your either a drug cartel member or you really need to speak to a mental health professional because you are freaking paranoid.

[Neptunus Rex]

Militia

(Mi-li-tia)

Noun

Definition: A military force that is raised from the civilian population in an emergency to supplement a regular army



Would you say that the shooter was supplementing the regular army in an emergency?

You have to view it in the context of American history. Until the formation of the Continental Army, it was by colonial MI-LI-TIA. In colonial America, all able bodied males between the ages of 18-50 were part of that militia and all were required to maintain arms. And the militia grew in popularity when the British Crown was perceived as being oppressive.

[RickC Sniper]

Hell a bullet as long as your pinkie your talking .50 BMG there.

You will find that most true bolt action varmint/small game rifles are .223 and most modern AR-15 and clones are 5.56mm because so much 5.56 is already used by the military and law enforcement they could really sell it for much less but you know the gun market I'm sure profit profit profit.

I highly suspect he meant the pinkie from the last joint out to the tip. At least, I HOPE that was his intent. Even then.....?

[Stealhead]

With small fingers that is a about right on me that is still a big bullet like a .338 maybe I have long fingers though.In the old day when measures where the kings arm length and such maybe my great great great great grand father was the man the king sent to measure things on his behalf.

[RickC Sniper]

Wanna buy one? http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/916/products_id/411551785/Buds+Surplus/AR-15+Dual+Drum+100+Round+Mag

If you need that to defend your self your either a drug cartel member or you really need to speak to a mental health professional because you are freaking paranoid.

The Aurora theater shooter had a 100 round drum magazine. THOSE they could outlaw and I wouldn't mind it.

[GoldenRivet]

I agree ... good night to rigged polls

True to your word Golden Rivet, you have decided to stay out of polictal motivated threads lol

For the most part yes.

I think if you review my participation in political threads you'd see a sharp decline over the past 2 years. Additionally my participation in such threads has been considerably more... Reserved in commentary ;)

[August]

I believe Matt is thinking of the bullet and it's shell casing together which is a little over two inches.

[Stealhead]

His jammed thankfully but he was still able to get a 30 round magazine that he had with him into the rifle I have seen photos of his AR on the ground with a 30 round magazine. I think he had a misfeed in the 100 rounder and then tired to swap out the 30 rounder but had failed to clear the weapon and tossed it.Of course he did unload much of the 100 mag before it failed on him.

@August yes most likely thinking about it that makes since.

[Oberon]

Oh and someone said where can you a 79 round AR-15 magazine? Answer almost anywhere Beta mags are sold in almost every gun store in up to 100 round models that is just ridiculousness.
The most I own for an AR-15 are 20 round and I dont use them often I mostly use the 10 round mags.Guys will try to sell them all the time.

Photo of a 100 round magazine:


Wanna buy one? http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/916/products_id/411551785/Buds+Surplus/AR-15+Dual+Drum+100+Round+Mag

If you need that to defend your self your either a drug cartel member or you really need to speak to a mental health professional because you are freaking paranoid.


That would have been me, and funnily enough I was looking at the doubled up mags earlier when trying to formulate a response that involved the fact that an Assault RIFLE ban would skip machine pistols and pistols with double mags, so I had a quick google to check that these things did exist for pistols and machine pistols and sure enough they do. :yep:

However, the ban that Cyber is probably thinking of is the Assault WEAPON ban which encompasses weapons with certain characteristics, such as the Uzi, and more recently the AA-12. The effectiveness of such a ban is debatable, it didn't do much to stop the Columbine shootings or the other hundred and fifty people killed on school property in the period between 1994 and 2004.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Your statement about the .223 being designed to hunt large game is completely incorrect.The opposite is in fact true the .223 was designed as a varmint round so small game coyotes,wolves things of this nature you can hunt deer with one but it is not the ideal round for that role and it not a very good round for large game.Against a human being either round is highly effective and likely to cause death or very serious injury.I don't know where you got your information but it is wrong. No .223 or 5.56mm round is a long a a pinke either unless you have tiny fingers my pinkie is about 3 inches long maybe you mean the casing and the bullet.A .233 or 5.56mm is about the length of an AA battery.


Now the 5.56x45mm and the .223 are almost exactly the same in most respect they have a differences the inner wall of a 5.56mm case in thinker allowing for higher pressures the cambering is slightly different the leade of a .223 chamber will be 0.085 on a 5.56mm round the leade is 0.162 both rounds will fit in either chamber but it would be un wsie to use military grade 5.56mm rounds in a .223 chamber.
My uncle uses his mini-14 for hunting deer and says he has no problem. but yea sorry about the big game thing. in retrospect, the high velocity wouldn't make it the best caliber for bigger game.

And some additional misunderstanding. When i mentioned the bullet i was including the casing and the bullet together, and my pinkie is around 2.75 in Indeed, a bullet the size of even my pinkie is pretty damned big.

And there are rifles suited to both 5.56 NATO and .223 rounds, the mini-14 being one of them. But as a general rule the 5.56 will put alot of stress on the gun if it's chambered for .223.

A deadly round nonetheless.

[Stealhead]

That would have been me, and funnily enough I was looking at the doubled up mags earlier when trying to formulate a response that involved the fact that an Assault RIFLE ban would skip machine pistols and pistols with double mags, so I had a quick google to check that these things did exist for pistols and machine pistols and sure enough they do. :yep:

However, the ban that Cyber is probably thinking of is the Assault WEAPON ban which encompasses weapons with certain characteristics, such as the Uzi, and more recently the AA-12. The effectiveness of such a ban is debatable, it didn't do much to stop the Columbine shootings or the other hundred and fifty people killed on school property in the period between 1994 and 2004.


That ban expired in 2004 or 2008 somewhere in there.The magazine size varies by state some a strict others very lax and some even have laws where you can not have a high cap magazine loaded in a weapon but you can buy one and own one now that it just stupid right there.

After the ban expired it more or less meant free reign in most cases on magazine capacity.That ban also made open pistol grips on rifles illegal it did not effect pre 1988 produced firearms though.

Any weapon that allows the shooter to fire dozens upon dozens with he right magazine is an assault weapon and if anything semi auto actually is more deadly it much more accurate.In the military especially in well trained ones fully automatic fire is very rarely used only in most cases for suppression to pin down an enemy so that an enemy can be flanked and someone on your side can take well aimed shots.

Fully auto is very inaccurate and even in a trained shooters hands many rounds miss.Semi auto on the other hand is not much slower but is far more accurate.The only firearms that are truly accurate with fully automatic are machine guns such as an M60 or a FN MAG or Vickers.

[Oberon]

Fully agree with you, furthermore for an inexperienced shooter, a semi-auto allows for a burst, aim, burst effect, so some compensation can be developed for recoil.
However, the AA-12 auto-shotgun has virtually no recoil to it, something to do with springs in the butt, so if you are even reasonably fit, you can do a lot of damage with this thing, and it's supposedly quite reliable in terms of being dropped in water and manhandled.

The biggest magazine is only 32 shells though, so that's a limitation, but you can change them pretty quick, and honestly...with a shotgun...the spread of the fire is going to cause some nasty wounds, if not fatalities, and that's just with standard ammo, you factor in HE ammo into that...ouch.

Still, I imagine that anyone buying copious amounts of HE ammo and an AA-12 would spend warning bells ringing at the ATF.

I know I get kind of hung up on the AA-12...but its design, ease of operation and damage potential do impress me, I certainly would not like to face an enemy with one.

[Stealhead]

Fully agree with you, furthermore for an inexperienced shooter, a semi-auto allows for a burst, aim, burst effect, so some compensation can be developed for recoil.
However, the AA-12 auto-shotgun has virtually no recoil to it, something to do with springs in the butt, so if you are even reasonably fit, you can do a lot of damage with this thing, and it's supposedly quite reliable in terms of being dropped in water and manhandled.

The biggest magazine is only 32 shells though, so that's a limitation, but you can change them pretty quick, and honestly...with a shotgun...the spread of the fire is going to cause some nasty wounds, if not fatalities, and that's just with standard ammo, you factor in HE ammo into that...ouch.

Still, I imagine that anyone buying copious amounts of HE ammo and an AA-12 would spend warning bells ringing at the ATF.

I know I get kind of hung up on the AA-12...but its design, ease of operation and damage potential do impress me, I certainly would not like to face an enemy with one.


Well you cant buy HE assuming you mean high explosive ammo anyway.Armor piecing rounds, incendiary rounds those are 100% illegal.

I think that AA12 has very good marketing or it did I don't think any place that can buy the full auto one is interested.The US military has the outstanding Bellini M1014(civil M4) which is based largely on the M1 which saw lots of use with the Navy Seals and SAS in the 80's and 90's and they don't use crappy weapons.Those are semi-autos.

Also shotguns are most effective at close range less so farther out that means carrying lots of different shells to try and do one well and one job so so compared to a rifle.The shotgun from a military standpoint is a scalpel of sorts great for a point man CQC or at a check point or a point man is dense woodland.The other thing is the duckbill chokes that make the spread deadly at close range make the shot carp at longer range and the door hinge/door knob choke has the same problem.

There was a battle in Vietnam fought by the 173rd Airborne in 1967 Battle of Dak To there is film footage of a 173rd rifleman that was the point man he has a 12 gauge in his hands but the contact was beyond it effect range and looks over his shoulder and yells "Someone get me a M16!", hed have said the same if that shotgun had been an AA12.

A spree killer though could kill a lot of people with an AA12 them not being a in war zone and just minding their own business.

[Oberon]

Good points, although in the average school area it's mostly close quarters, but certainly on the battlefield, the shotgun has short legs, auto or not. I didn't know about the HE and AP rounds being illegal, is that a nation wide thing or does it vary state to state?

The M4, now that's a tried and tested design, I believe we also use it as the L128A1, I know they tried to get the AA-12 into the USMC but I don't think it's gone through. It's being put on a drone system though, I suppose the low recoil and full auto ability make it useful for that at least.

I'll have to look up that footage, the M16 has weathered the years quite well all things considered, certainly I imagine there were a few who weren't impressed by the Mattel toy at the time it came out who have changed their minds by now, although I do like the classic design of the M14 and you get a little bit more bang for your buck with the .308.

[Stealhead]

Good points, although in the average school area it's mostly close quarters, but certainly on the battlefield, the shotgun has short legs, auto or not. I didn't know about the HE and AP rounds being illegal, is that a nation wide thing or does it vary state to state?

The M4, now that's a tried and tested design, I believe we also use it as the L128A1, I know they tried to get the AA-12 into the USMC but I don't think it's gone through. It's being put on a drone system though, I suppose the low recoil and full auto ability make it useful for that at least.

I'll have to look up that footage, the M16 has weathered the years quite well all things considered, certainly I imagine there were a few who weren't impressed by the Mattel toy at the time it came out who have changed their minds by now, although I do like the classic design of the M14 and you get a little bit more bang for your buck with the .308.


Im not 100% sure the exact name of the battle the area was hilly and they are going up hill in the remains of jungle.There is also a few photos of this solider looking over his shoulder after someone had given him a rifle.

I found the name the exact battle was on Hill 882. The guys may have been 4th Infantry though in 1965.
From the same battle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhfvmUd1sSQ
Notice the lack of fully automatic fire form the rifles now what does that make an AR-15?M16 semi auto and AR-15 semi auto one and the same.

It might take me a few days but I could find the moment I am thinking of sooner or later.I have pretty good size collection combat footage filmed by combat filmographers but I think this guy got shot by an ABC crew.

[Hottentot]

Here in Massachusetts we've had Women's Suffrage since 1756. :yep:

And in Greece they had democracy in 500 BCE. :)

I was replying to a post that flat out said that America (as in the whole nation) is superior to the "Rest of the World" (that apparently these days means "Europe", which in turn means "Germany" :roll:). It was simple enough to demonstrate how ridiculous the statement was.

As someone asking for respect from the others, I'm sure you can see why I was annoyed. That comment was not one of a kind in the Internet forums or even in Subsim. I didn't learn to speak English so that I could communicate with someone who can just run around and blurt out how much everyone else sucks in his own native language and take it for granted.

[Oberon]

Im not 100% sure the exact name of the battle the area was hilly and they are going up hill in the remains of jungle.There is also a few photos of this solider looking over his shoulder after someone had given him a rifle.

I found the name the exact battle was on Hill 882. The guys may have been 4th Infantry though in 1965.
From the same battle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhfvmUd1sSQ
Notice the lack of fully automatic fire form the rifles now what does that make an AR-15?M16 semi auto and AR-15 semi auto one and the same.

It might take me a few days but I could find the moment I am thinking of sooner or later.I have pretty good size collection combat footage filmed by combat filmographers but I think this guy got shot by an ABC crew.

Watching that footage all I can say is that those helo pilots are heroes. I've always had a lot of respect for them, often coming in under fire, to scoop up some poor soul who has caught the raw end of the deal.

Would be interested to see the footage you mean though, seeing that colour footage gives a good perspective of the combat conditions in Vietnam, it's not always thick rainforest like jungle as it is often depicted in films and television.

[Tribesman]

Except in the case of Sonarman's post I'd say it was very true.

But Steve that doesn't make the statement true at all, the statement simply made no sense, you can put up 100 sonarmans and a thousand others and it still couldn't be true.

The unknowns can indeed be a problem, but where I live we consider the risk to be worth the possible downsides. Maybe you don't know as much about us as you think you do.

Think about that statement and understand why it fails twice

[Sailor Steve]

But Steve that doesn't make the statement true at all, the statement simply made no sense, you can put up 100 sonarmans and a thousand others and it still couldn't be true.
It only didn't make sense to you. Or possibly it did and this is just more of your way of insulting people. It's hard to tell.

Think about that statement and understand why it fails twice
Think about trying to be less cryptic. Only you know what you meant by that.

Also, it amazes me that someone as obviously smart as you still can't figure out how to use the quote function. I'm getting tired of scrolling through five pages of posts just to find out the context of the post you're answering. I'd refuse to answer at all when you do that, but you would only assume that I'd surrendered because I thought you were right.

It's really quite simple.

[Jimbuna]

Bushmaster gunmaker stake to be sold by Cerberus

Can't say I'm all that surprised.


A US private equity firm has said it is to sell its stake in the maker of the AR15 rifle, the weapon used in the Newtown school shootings.
Cerberus Capital Management's move came after pressure from one of its own biggest investors, the California State Teachers' Retirement System (Calstrs).
Cerberus bought Bushmaster in 2006, and more gunmakers since, merging them into Freedom Group, which it will now sell.
The firm said it wanted to avoid being drawn into the gun control controversy.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20770290

[TFatseas]

I can't stand this kneejerk, emotional sensationalism.

Laws didn't prevent this(which CT has some of the strictest in the nation)and they are not going to change anything after the fact either.

Yes, it's too bad that the children were killed, but using the tragedy to push a political agenda is just as bad.

If anything, this should be a catalyst for looking at our mental health systems in this country.

Full disclosure, I am not a NRA member, but I am a gun owner including those so called "evil assault rifles".

[MH]

May I ask why you own the rifles?
What do you need them for?

I ask it as someone who used to be a gun user but I hardly can comprehend why anybody would want to keep this junk at home...with all the family and kids.

[GoldenRivet]

May I ask why you own the rifles?
What do you need them for?

I ask it as someone who used to be a gun user but I hardly can comprehend why anybody would want to keep this junk at home...with all the family and kids.

They are collectible to some extent, they are fun to shoot, the rifles are heirlooms etc. worst / extreme case scenario they could be used in national defense or to protect home and family the event of a break down in the social order of things due to natural disaster, riot, war, insurrection, man made catastrophe etc. and yes... nations, even first world nations, experience these things.

as far as these rifles falling into the wrong hands... unless nieces and nephews become highly experienced safe crackers at 3-7 years of age, the risk of these rifles falling into their hands is ZERO. three people are in possession of the combination to the safe which also requires a key to unlock the dial. additionally, a beeper emits a polite yet clearly audible tone if the safe is open longer than 60 seconds so the risk of opening the safe, getting a couple of rifles out, closing it and forgetting to lock it is extremely remote.

thus if someone wanted to get their hands on the rifles (or any of the other firearms save a couple of pistols for home defense) they would have to take the key from me (or the second individual) unlock the dial, and figure out the combination.

not all gun owners go to such lengths obviously, but if a gun owner accepts the responsibility of owning an "assault rifle" then they must go to these lengths IMHO

On the day i was born, my grandfather purchased a .22 caliber rifle that was to be given to me at the proper time as determined by my parents. one could say my first gift in my life was a firearm. I handled my first firearm at 7 years of age, i owned my first firearm at 13, and was deemed responsible enough to have unsupervised access to the firearm at 16 at which time i was also hunting solo or with friends.

understandably some young men are not worthy of such responsibility, and their parents are likely right to treat them like small boys well into their twenties... to each their own. I dont think a gun owner's right to own any class of firearm should be infringed upon any more than someone elses right not to.

[Takeda Shingen]

My grandfather's first gift to me was a blue one-piece pajama set with duckies on them. He also made me a stool that was shaped like a turtle. I'm a small boy.

[geetrue]

I got a Lionel train set :D, but when I turned 19 the US Navy handed me a belt and a holster with forty-five hand gun with two clips and told me to watch the sub while they were busy doign other things :woot:

[Sammi79]

They are collectible to some extent, they are fun to shoot, the rifles are heirlooms etc. worst / extreme case scenario they could be used in national defense or to protect home and family the event of a break down in the social order of things due to natural disaster, riot, war, insurrection, man made catastrophe etc. and yes... nations, even first world nations, experience these things.

But do you really need them? for imaginary scenarios? I can imagine a great many catastrophes that could befall a nation. An assault rifle won't help you when the ocean takes to land, or the nuclear weapons rain down. It is not the best for home defense (think intruder with SMG or shotgun) or otherwise close quarters, but as a military grade weapon can indeed kill a large amount of non combatant people fairly quickly from any range. Should we be allowed AAA and SAMs in our gardens or deterrent nuclear devices of our own? As I understand it the primary reason the amendment was made was as you point out to be able support the military in national defense. Do you still need that support for your military? Has it been used this or last century?

I heard that the late mother of the Newtown murderer was one who aspired to this prep for the fall of society mentality. Seems like that could end up being a self fulfilling prophecy to me. Could that be a factor in his actions?

understandably some young men are not worthy of such responsibility, and their parents are likely right to treat them like small boys well into their twenties... to each their own. I dont think a gun owner's right to own any class of firearm should be infringed upon any more than someone elses right not to.

So is it an acceptable risk that the rights of children or innocents to their lives are infringed upon because sometimes some people make mistakes or go mad and guns are readily available? Would you not gladly give up your right if it meant reducing that risk? I suspect the large majority of gun owners are like yourself responsible and careful, but in a nation with a large enough population even million to one risks become inevitable.

Sam.

[GoldenRivet]

But do you really need them? for imaginary scenarios?

looting, rioting and mass hysteria are not imaginary things, dont get me wrong... im nto a prepper, and im not preparing for doomsday, its just that im better prepared to keep a hoard of looters off my family and property than someone who only has a .38 special

Do you still need that support for your military?

Thus far using assault rifles to assist the military has not been necessary, but you must also consider that the second amendment arms the citizens not only for the purpose of assisting the federal government but also ensuring that it does not grow tyrannous.

So is it an acceptable risk that the rights of children or innocents to their lives are infringed upon because sometimes some people make mistakes or go mad and guns are readily available?

yes, even my own life is worth that right. This maniac would have committed this crime even if he had to do it with sharp sticks or machetes

Would you not gladly give up your right if it meant reducing that risk?

I have the right to own firearms just as i have the right to free speech or trial by jury... all of those rights are critically equal in their importance and i wouldn't surrender a single one of them

should we stop publishing certain types of books for fear of giving crazy people ideas? should we not print certain news stories for fear of eliciting an emotional response from certain ethnic groups? would you give up your right to free speech to prevent these things? should we surrender our right to a fair trial because so many people are caught in the act and are clearly guilty?

[Oberon]

Thus far using assault rifles to assist the military has not been necessary, but you must also consider that the second amendment arms the citizens not only for the purpose of assisting the federal government but also ensuring that it does not grow tyrannous.

The only question I have though is twofold.

In the event of an invasion of American soil by an enemy, how much of a help would armed civilians be to the native military forces, or would they just get in the way of the soldiers trying to do their jobs?

Secondly, if the US government becomes tyrannical and decides to take a Syrian approach to dealing with internal affairs, providing it has the support of the military, what is to stop it from using a flight of B-52s from levelling your town and how much help would an assault rifle be in such a circumstance...or indeed, how much help would an assault rifle be against a Bradley IFV or Abrams MBT?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming down on the side of gun restriction, but just pondering how relevant the second amendment remains in the world of modern warfare.

[Dowly]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming down on the side of gun restriction, but just pondering how relevant the second amendment remains in the world of modern warfare.

Been wondering the same thing everytime someone brings up the 2nd amendment. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming down on the side of gun restriction, but just pondering how relevant the second amendment remains in the world of modern warfare.

I don't think it does but I can understand why the said amendment is so important to them.

Safety in numbers if nothing else.

[GoldenRivet]

The only question I have though is twofold.

In the event of an invasion of American soil by an enemy, how much of a help would armed civilians be to the native military forces, or would they just get in the way of the soldiers trying to do their jobs?

Secondly, if the US government becomes tyrannical and decides to take a Syrian approach to dealing with internal affairs, providing it has the support of the military, what is to stop it from using a flight of B-52s from levelling your town and how much help would an assault rifle be in such a circumstance...or indeed, how much help would an assault rifle be against a Bradley IFV or Abrams MBT?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming down on the side of gun restriction, but just pondering how relevant the second amendment remains in the world of modern warfare.

Dont think the thought has not crossed my mind.

but also one must bear this in mind... if things got that bad, it is a fair assumption that at least a segment of the US Military would align with the people. I doubt such extreme circumstances would ever come to pass, but im sure there are a lot of folks in various nations around the earth who once thought the same thing of their own countries.

as far as being in the way, i think a lot of that would depend on how difficult things got.

There has always been a resistance movement in any occupation, and this resistance movement always involved a fair amount of armed civilians.

at present im not remotely worried about the government getting so tyrannical that i will need my firearms

of course it is because i have them that im not worried about it

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Secondly, if the US government becomes tyrannical and decides to take a Syrian approach to dealing with internal affairs, providing it has the support of the military, what is to stop it from using a flight of B-52s from levelling your town and how much help would an assault rifle be in such a circumstance...or indeed, how much help would an assault rifle be against a Bradley IFV or Abrams MBT?Propably depends on how far Americans are ready to go. Taliban is doing quite good job in killing (and wounding) Americans in Afganistan although major reason (I believe) is that they accept heavy casualties as unavoidable cost. Besides I don't think that leveling cities with B-52s would be smart move as I believe it would only increase resistance. :hmmm:

[mapuc]

I have been following these threads and your comments. So far I have nothing to say but when I read in an article that Iran accused Israel for being behind this awful thing, then I had to tell you about it

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4321777,00.html

As some type of expert on conspiracy I knew that it was only a question about time when some of the first conspiracy would hit the internet.

It's so low

Markus

[Madox58]

Air bombardment that can flatten entire cities has been shown to be completely useless against a dug in infantry force.

As anyone with a Military backfround can tell you?
You don't own the ground until you put Troops on it!

That's why I'll keep my weapons Thank You.
:salute:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Air bombardment that can flatten entire cities has been shown to be completely useless against a dug in infantry force.

As anyone with a Military backfround can tell you?
You don't own the ground until you put Troops on it!

That's why I'll keep my weapons Thank You.
:salute:I remember reading about case where B-52 squadron attacked NVA positions in Vietnam. End result? Landscape looked like moon but troops were still there and ready to fight.

Ofcourse they took casualties but I have never heard of any official figures and doubt I will ever do.

[Sailor Steve]

I have the right to own firearms just as i have the right to free speech or trial by jury... all of those rights are critically equal in their importance and i wouldn't surrender a single one of them
What most people (including most Americans) don't know is that James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution', didn't want a bill of rights at all. He firmly believed that all rights belong to the individual, and none to the government. He thought that if any rights were listed, sooner or later someone down the line would point out some right that was not listed would be mentioned in a negative fashion: "They didn't list that one, so it must not count!" This is exactly what happened with the so-called "right to privacy". Judges have been arguing about that one since 1890.

should we stop publishing certain types of books for fear of giving crazy people ideas? should we not print certain news stories for fear of eliciting an emotional response from certain ethnic groups? would you give up your right to free speech to prevent these things? should we surrender our right to a fair trial because so many people are caught in the act and are clearly guilty?

I've always like this quote from 1996 Libertarian candidate Harry Browne:
The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the internet. The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.

[Tribesman]

Dear Steve
It only didn't make sense to you. Or possibly it did and this is just more of your way of insulting people. It's hard to tell.

Blankets.
They simply fail, oversimplification nearly always does on specifics and those were very large blankets indeed.

Think about trying to be less cryptic. Only you know what you meant by that.


It was a blanket and a wild shot in the dark that missed, which made it two fails in that line.

Something for you to consider, in another relatively recent firearms related topic you linked to you went on and on trying to back up something someone had written, yet through the whole episode missed that there was a blanket statement which was the issue and nothing you countered with actually went near backing up that blanket statement.
Language can be very important, like yesterday someone went off on a rant about something I wrote even though the words used specificly excluded the meaning they attempted to put to them.

[Sailor Steve]

Air bombardment that can flatten entire cities has been shown to be completely useless against a dug in infantry force.
Air bombardent that can flatten entire cities has been shown to be completely useless against pretty much everything except the civilian population.

On the other hand, sometimes that's the point.

[Platapus]

The issue is that the problem is not being accurately defined.

The problem seems to be that the "wrong" people are getting a hold of weapons.

Why would the solution be taking weapons away from the "right" people?

In many (not all) cases of these horrible shootings, the shooter had a history of mental illness/treatment.

In the case of the VA shooter, he was able to purchase weapons by lying on the application form. There was no way the gun store could determine whether he was lying or not.

A solution is for specific types of mental illness/treatment be considered a contraindicator for owning firearms. What types of illnesses would have to be determined by people smarter than I am. But I envision an appended data file on the same criminal database that gun stores already use. In this data file I would be categorized into one of three categories.

1. No mental health issues that would preclude my owning a firearm
2. A mental health issue that would preclude my owning a firearm

and because the world is not binary, a third category

3. Mental health issues that require a medical statement from a mental health MD stating that it is OK for me to own a firearm.

That will help reduce (but nothing can eliminate) nutters from "legally" obtaining firearms. But at the same time not infringe on other people who do not have mental health issues from legally obtaining a firearm.

There would, of course, be procedures for a person to appeal and to have multiple doctors render opinions.

The problem is not the firearms but the people obtaining the firearms. We already infringe on the second amendment rights for people with specific criminal records. The Courts have upheld that as a reasonable precaution for public safety. I do not think it is unreasonable to expand this to include a specific type of mental illness/treatment.

I also think it should not be allowed for private citizens to transfer ownership of firearms without taking the same precautions as gun dealers follow.

Before we can solve the problem, we have to accurately identify and define what the problem is. Then we can solve the right problem in the right ways.

[Tribesman]

Good comprehensive post. One point though.

I also think it should not be allowed for private citizens to transfer ownership of firearms without taking the same precautions as gun dealers follow.

That requires registration of ownership for all firearms and that will never get past the gun lobby because if the government knows who has guns then the government knows who has guns.

[Sammi79]

looting, rioting and mass hysteria are not imaginary things, dont get me wrong... im nto a prepper, and im not preparing for doomsday, its just that im better prepared to keep a hoard of looters off my family and property than someone who only has a .38 special

So civilians being armed does not prevent these things? It might seem reasonable to expect a reduction but how much? doesn't it just mean that when looting or rioting, all parties will be armed?

Thus far using assault rifles to assist the military has not been necessary, but you must also consider that the second amendment arms the citizens not only for the purpose of assisting the federal government but also ensuring that it does not grow tyrannous.

I do appreciate the concept from its time. I am unsure if it still applies today. Most European countries are not tyrannical dictatorships yet do not generally allow civilians to be armed. Is there any real risk of your government becoming tyrannous?


yes, even my own life is worth that right. This maniac would have committed this crime even if he had to do it with sharp sticks or machetes


Fair enough, your position is clear. However you have no reason to assert he would have done it with knives or sticks as that would be a far more difficult, time consuming and cold blooded task, that he may not have been capable of, and even the unarmed teachers may have been able to halt. The gun makes the kill relatively quick and easy. I know I know... arm the teachers. More guns is what you need. Fancy that, more guns than people and you haven't got enough! :haha:

Seriously though, fair enough. If you accept these events as a necessary evil and stand by it, it's your country sir.

I have the right to own firearms just as i have the right to free speech or trial by jury... all of those rights are critically equal in their importance and i wouldn't surrender a single one of them

I know you have that right, I am simply questioning the validity of the contemporary justification for it. It doesn't bother me here if you own guns or not, but I worry that maybe in USA the majority of people would like tighter gun laws and that your view is in the minority. What is the split between owners /non owners? I found this after a quick search :

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/nate-silver-gun-ownership-demographics/60131/

From 2008, not sure how accurate. Do all non gun owners oppose gun ownership? Are all gun owners opposed to increased restrictions?

should we stop publishing certain types of books for fear of giving crazy people ideas? should we not print certain news stories for fear of eliciting an emotional response from certain ethnic groups? would you give up your right to free speech to prevent these things? should we surrender our right to a fair trial because so many people are caught in the act and are clearly guilty?

Free speech and fair trial I would not give up. Besides, fair trial is to ensure against mistakes that with capital punishment cannot be corrected. It was a mistake to legally allow this woman to own that firearm. It was a mistake for her to train her son to use it. It was a mistake for her to not make it impossible for him to obtain the firearm that day or any other. These mistakes are easily made without fear of the consequence because it is normal, it is her right, and would seem normal to you as I understand it. Kid was a loner. Funny thing about loners is, people leave them alone, or simply ignore them. I'll bet that most will say he was a bit weird but otherwise okay.

These mistakes cannot be corrected.

Fantastical doomsday prophecies combined with the tendency of people to desire and propagate the assumed truth of such things probably doesn't help, but if you look at the demographics of gunshot fatalities in USA, it is clear that events like those in Newtown are still technically freak occurrences.

Sam.

[Oberon]

I remember reading about case where B-52 squadron attacked NVA positions in Vietnam. End result? Landscape looked like moon but troops were still there and ready to fight.

Ofcourse they took casualties but I have never heard of any official figures and doubt I will ever do.

I was generalising really, but GoldenRivet is right that it is likely that a good portion of the US military would join any resistance style movement against a potential tyrannical government and would probably be key in training up various 'Wolverine' style units to harrass the enemy using asymetrical warfare which, as we have learnt in Afghanistan, can be bloody effective against even a superior foe.
However, against a determined enemy, well unless the firearm owners had had sufficient training in warfare or were army vets, I can't see them being much more than a nuisance, and perhaps a hinderance to US forces. After all, you can't get AT weaponry legally, so you can't stockpile it, and explosives are strictly monitored, so you'd be forced to take it from the enemy who would be doing their damnedest to protect it.

In many ways, anyone invading the US would face their very own Afghanistan, with Americans playing the Afghans. There's a strange thought. :hmmm:

[GT182]

They need a moron test to buy any tyrpe of weapon. That would disqualify at least 88.9% of the population here in the US. The other 10.1% is law enforcement, and they gotta have something to shoot the morons with. :D

Besides, Guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns. Remove their trigger fingers and they won't be able to fire a gun.


In many ways, anyone invading the US would face their very own Afghanistan, with Americans playing the Afghans. There's a strange thought. :hmmm:

Oberon... didn't you know we are a strange country? We can't play Cowboys and Indians anymore due to political correctness. So we might as well play Afghans and make blankets. It's just a big cover-up. ;) LOL

[CaptainMattJ.]

They need a moron test to buy any tyrpe of weapon. That would disqualify at least 88.9% of the population here in the US. The other 10.1% is law enforcement, and they gotta have something to shoot the morons with. :D

Besides, Guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns. Remove their trigger fingers and they won't be able to fire a gun.



Oberon... didn't you know we are a strange country? We can't play Cowboys and Indians anymore due to political correctness. So we might as well play Afghans and make blankets. It's just a big cover-up. ;) LOL
I Think you should check your numbers again their, pal. :03: What about that 1% left?

[August]

Is there any real risk of your government becoming tyrannous?

Some would say it already is in some ways. But be that as it may in general any government has the potential to turn tyrant. After all they hold the keys to power and as we all know power corrupts. History is filled with examples of it so why should we be any different?

The point of RKBA is that armed people are slaves to no one. The means to resist puts a price upon tyranny that so far, 200 some odd years now, has been too high for a would be tyrant to pay.

That's why I know that in 4 years President Obama will turn over the keys to power to whoever the American people elects to replace him just as I knew that President Bush would obey the will of the people in relinquishing power to Obama back in 2008, the same for every other elected position in government, because the price is too high for them to pull off doing otherwise and they know it. It's how our system endures.

Taking away the means to resist dramatically lowers that price. That's what I think of when I hear folks talk about gun bans.

[August]

In many ways, anyone invading the US would face their very own Afghanistan, with Americans playing the Afghans. There's a strange thought. :hmmm:

Yeah and there are 300 million of us spread over an area the size of couple dozen Afghanistan's. We're far more educated and resourceful and we'd know what we'd be missing if we let them win.

[soopaman2]

Yeah and there are 300 million of us spread over an area the size of couple dozen Afghanistan's. We're far more educated and resourceful and we'd know what we'd be missing if we let them win.

There was a quote falsely attributed to Yamamoto.

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

[Cybermat47]

There was a quote falsely attributed to Yamamoto.

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.



Here's a quote from IJA high command:

We cannot invade Australia. It's civilians are too awesome, and they use the deadliest weapon: Prawns on Barbies!

[Neptunus Rex]

I've been reading this thread litely. By that I mean I simply do not have the time to read the entire on going discussion and all the points raised. Earlier I posted the wording of the 2nd amendmend and my interpretation of each of it's points but here I'm simply going to address the last four words....

shall not be infringed.

The framers of the Constitution were very adament that the Fed Gov't not have the authority to disarm the population. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with national defense outside that the states have the right to form their own militia's. This was the genesis for the creation of the National Guard.

It's not a question of someone taking my guns. The issue is that because the vocal opinion is that something needs to be done, the fear is the Fed Gov't is/will attempt to grab authority do do so when the Constitution specifically denies them this authority.

And to the SUBSIM members who are citizens of other nations, this is a general discussion forum and this subject is certainly worthy of it and I respect your opinions, I do take umbridge to someone demanding, or even suggesting, that I (or Americans) give up something that really does not affect them.

[August]

I've been reading this thread litely. By that I mean I simply do not have the time to read the entire on going discussion and all the points raised. Earlier I posted the wording of the 2nd amendmend and my interpretation of each of it's points but here I'm simply going to address the last four words....

shall not be infringed.

The framers of the Constitution were very adament that the Fed Gov't not have the authority to disarm the population. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with national defense outside that the states have the right to form their own militia's. This was the genesis for the creation of the National Guard.

It's not a question of someone taking my guns. The issue is that because the vocal opinion is that something needs to be done, the fear is the Fed Gov't is/will attempt to grab authority do do so when the Constitution specifically denies them this authority.

And to the SUBSIM members who are citizens of other nations, this is a general discussion forum and this subject is certainly worthy of it and I respect your opinions, I do take umbridge to someone demanding, or even suggesting, that I (or Americans) give up something that really does not affect them.

Well said and if anyone thinks that the National Guard is a replacement for the Militia I invite them to note that their uniforms say "US Army" not "XXXX State Militia". The NG is created and maintained under Congresses right to raise standing armies.

[Platapus]

The Second Amendment reads

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Interesting word "militia". I wonder if it appears anywhere else in the Constitution?

Article 1 sect 8 (powers of congress)

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, of the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


It appears that congress has the authority to call up the militia to respond to some specific issues. It also appears that congress has the authority for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. Congress also has the authority to govern that portion of the militia while they are in the service of the federal government. The individual states retain the right for appointing officers and training the militia.


The states train the militia, congress arms the militia. That's interesting.


article 2 section 2 (powers of the President)
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;



Once Congress calls up the militia, the President is in command of them.


Ok, it seems pretty clear who has responsibilities for equipping and training the militia as well as how they are called up for federal service and who is in command of them during this federal service. But what IS a militia?


Let's reference 10 U.S.C section 311


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.



(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and


(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



hmm an unorganized militia? How does that fit in with the US Constitutional articles? Especially since members of an unorganized militia are members of the militia. :hmmm:


And what is this militia of the United States?



It appears that the Militia of the United States is the militia eligible to be called up by congress. Does the second amendment only apply to the Militia of the United States?



So if Congress is responsible for the arming of the militia, does that mean that the congress has the authority to define what arms are appropriate to the militia?


What about people not in the militia? Does the second amendment even apply to them?



Well the second amendment does state that the "right of the people" and not the "right of the militia".



I have always thought that the second amendment was not one of the better written amendments considering how short it is.



But it does make for some interesting conversations. :yep:

[August]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

That says it all to me. It doesn't say "the right of the militia" or the "right of a free state" it's the right of the people.

The minute you start limiting what constitutes "the people" to a small government approved group you might as well tear up the Bill of Rights because it is no longer worth the paper it was printed on. It will mean that any constitutional right can and will be eroded by exceptions right into irrelevance.

[Platapus]

I agree. But I wonder why if the intention was that the right of the people, why did the founding dudes even put the words about militia?

Such justification is not included in any of the other "rights"

I wonder why they just did not write "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

There had to be a reason.

If one looks at the drafts of the second amendment, the wording is a little different.

Like I posted, a most interesting topic.

[Neptunus Rex]

I agree. But I wonder why if the intention was that the right of the people, why did the founding dudes even put the words about militia?

The framers and the populance as well had a very strong aversion to a regular standing army. They simply did not trust a military that was not "of their own". That's why the Officers are assigned by the govenor.

"Unorganized militia" have no state or federal officers assigned. They "vote" for their leaders and they would "drill" on their own dime. Many "volunteer" units during the War of Rebellion were self organized, the chief organizer would usually become the battalion or regimental commander. They would petition for recognition from the state.

[August]

I agree. But I wonder why if the intention was that the right of the people, why did the founding dudes even put the words about militia?

Such justification is not included in any of the other "rights"

I wonder why they just did not write "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

There had to be a reason.

If one looks at the drafts of the second amendment, the wording is a little different.

Like I posted, a most interesting topic.

I believe they were intending to say that a civilian militia was necessary to the security of a free state, as opposed to a standing army which they feared as a threat to that security.

I think the reach and power the Federal government of today has over the American people would have frightened the founding fathers out of forming a union in the first place.

BTW:

8000 new NRA members per day since the Dec 14th.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/20/A-Real-Public-Opinion-Poll-8-000-People-A-Day-Join-NRA-Since-Dec-14

[TarJak]

I suspect the reach and power of the NRA today would have frightenend them more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/god-bless-america-20121220-2bpf1.html

I said in one of the (many) other threads on gun politics here that because of the NRA's marketing spin and the sheer economics of the problem, I serisously doubt that there will be any serious and meaningful change to the gun laws.

Additionally its not just about the gun laws, although I believe that making appropriate changes to our gun laws has saved lives here (and that they could in the US), There also needs to be better support for mentally ill people both in the detection and a significant change in the fear that thr media appears to whip up in Americans which drives many of them to want to own guns for "self defence".

Yes we still have gun crime, however nothing on the scale of the US even on a per capita basis. But the fact is since 1996 no mass shootings in Australia, whilst we had 16 between 1989 and 1996 prior to the laws banning semi-automatic weapons.

That said I know from reading here that neither August or GR are likely to change their minds about something that they passionately believe in. Certainly they are unlikely to be swayed by facts or figures thrown at them at Subsim. Perhaps getting them out of America into a different culture for a while might make a difference.

So good luck and keep wearing your flak jackets. I hope you never need them.

[RickC Sniper]

I think the more violent our society gets, the more good decent Americans feel they need to arm themselves legally. Take away our guns and only the good, decent law abiding people would be the ones affected.

The lawbreakers and rampage killers would still find a way to get their guns. Guns can be gotten illegally here as easily as illegal drugs. I cannot see any law changing that fact.

We are simply a violent society. I cannot say why that is the way of it, and I cannot say why it is getting worse, but there it is, it is a fact.
Those who are willing and able to defend their homes will never give up the right to do so, even if it means becoming as violent as the criminals. There really is no other way when you think about it, except to passively watch the thugs have their way with your loved ones or your property.

Regardless of the wording of the second amendment, and regardless of its original intent, the majority of Americans BELIEVE it simply means we have the right to own guns, and action by the government to chew slowly away at that idea is pretty much political suicide.

I'm all for the right to arm ourselves to defend home and family, but the so-called assault rifles are simply a poor choice for that. I also come from a background of rural America where hunting is a way of life passed down from generation to generation. Again, Assault rifles are a poor choice for that activity.

We know we don't need them to defend ourselves. We know the legal owners of them shoot them as a hobby. They don't hunt with them. (majority don't), they wouldn't or shouldn't use them as home defense. They shoot them because they are fun to shoot.

The pervailing thought by gun owners is, if we give up THIS small right now (say high capacity magazines), then the next thing you know they will be asking us to give up semi automatic guns.

If you make a concession, the thought is that eventually, little by little they take it all away.
And for the most part, I believe that to be true.

An honest question: If YOUR society was as violent as ours, would you have a different opinion about the gun ownership rights you gave up?

[Sailor Steve]

After a careful rereading of this thread, I've come to a conclusion:

People should be banned from the US!

And maybe the rest of the world too!

We'll find out today/tomorrow. :sunny:

[TarJak]

An honest answer: No I would not. I've never felt the need nor had the inclination to own a gun. I think that Australian society is no less violent than the US or any other western society. Violence is in every society in just about the same proportions, except where rule of law has broken down completely.

The right that was taken away had a positive impact on these types of incident, which is exactly what they were designed to do. Despite the NRA's marketing of fear, I think you could do better than hanging onto a "right" just because its fun.

I'm sure its fun to fire an RPG or a bazooka or a 40mm AAA gun too. Does it mean you should maintain a right to do so?

Anyway I keep coming back to the ecomonics. You guys will keep your "fun" guns and keep having massacres. All the best from those that gave them up and don't have massacres.:sunny:

[Sailor Steve]

I'm sure its fun to fire an RPG or a bazooka or a 40mm AAA gun too. Does it mean you should maintain a right to do so?
Yes.

The right you give away today is the right you'll miss tomorrow.

[Agiel7]

I subscribe to Marilyn Manson's interpretation of the "Culture of Fear." Here in the United States, our social mores have ridiculously high standards, which boils down to roughly "if you and your family aren't attractive or don't make six figures, then you're abnormal." We have cultivated a society that believes those who do not meet those standards (in this case, the Adam Lanza kid) deserve to be unloved, ignored, and even downright ridiculed (I of course speak of before the fact).

Legislation that bans assault and concealed weapons may have reduced the body count, true, but it's not exactly a *SOLUTION* insomuch as the word "treatment" for a disease isn't a "cure" (And who's to say he couldn't have accomplished the same feat with mustard gas, when the ingredients for it were underneath the kitchen sink?) Such a ban would not make the gang problems in South Central LA disappear because the people who live there also live under the same "Culture of Fear." In the schools the problem goes both ways; the kids realise they don't have much to look forward to when they either graduate or (unfortunately much too often) drop out, and the schools' faculties know they're basically wasting their time with that "climate of fear."

[August]

Perhaps getting them out of America into a different culture for a while might make a difference.

I spent three years living in another country. No offense to Australia, i'm sure it's a very nice place, but to tell you the truth there is no where I'd rather be than here.

As I noted above the NRA is getting on average 8000 new members a day for a week now. Gun owners are not the tool of the NRA, the NRA is the tool of the gun owner, and there are many millions of us.

[TarJak]

and the right you keep that kills your kids is a yoke you'll have on your neck forever.

[Sailor Steve]

and the right you keep that kills your kids is a yoke you'll have on your neck forever.
It's not the right that's killing our kids. It's the abuse of the right. I see a big difference.

[TarJak]

I see your point however, its the right that makes the abuse more accessible, therefore the right is in the wrong. Take the weapons out of the market and that makes the abuse much harder to commit.

[August]

It's not the right that's killing our kids. It's the abuse of the right. I see a big difference.

Exactly and if abuse of a right is a justification for it's elimination then what other rights can be abused and therefore eliminated?

[ZeeWolf]

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or self-protection from
criminals. But has everything to do with overthrowing a tyranny that mutates
from power. Power that was once intrusted to govern by consent but has turned against the will of the people and has mutated into a threat to liberty.

ZeeWolf :D

[TarJak]

Exactly and if abuse of a right is a justification for it's elimination then what other rights can be abused and therefore eliminated?

That's a nice piece of NRA PR you've got going there August. Its not the right to bear arms that's at issue, its the type of arms being born. Assault weapons have no place in civilian society and just because they are fun to fire doesn't give them one.

[August]

That's a nice piece of NRA PR you've got going there August. Its not the right to bear arms that's at issue, its the type of arms being born. Assault weapons have no place in civilian society and just because they are fun to fire doesn't give them one.

Look don't try to belittle my position by saying I got it from the NRA. I am not a member and haven't been since for years though I will be joining in response to this latest assault on our constitution.

My opinions are my own. I'll thank you to respect that.

As for your opinion on what you think I should have a right to have so noted.

[TarJak]

I respect your right to your opinion and said as much in an earlier post. Its just that your opinion appears to be very consistent with the NRA's pitch since 1977. Can't help it if their marketing works can I?

I also said that my opinion is never likely to sway you from your belief in the right to hold a weapon of a particular type. This is also why I've said I doubt that anything meaningful will be done in relation to gun laws in the US. If you don't want to listen to experience from outside then we can't really help you save your kids can we?

[August]

I respect your right to your opinion and said as much in an earlier post. Its just that your opinion appears to be very consistent with the NRA's pitch since 1977. Can't help it if their marketing works can I?

I also said that my opinion is never likely to sway you from your belief in the right to hold a weapon of a particular type. This is also why I've said I doubt that anything meaningful will be done in relation to gun laws in the US. If you don't want to listen to experience from outside then we can't really help you save your kids can we?


Well no offense but I don't recall us asking for your help TarJak.

As I said the NRA is a tool of us gun owners, not the other way around. If our positions are similar then it's because they are doing their job representing our feelings. Again, it's not money that gives the NRA it's clout, it's the numbers and they're signing up at 8k per day.

[TarJak]

Well no offense but I don't recall us asking for your help TarJak.

As I said the NRA is a tool of us gun owners, not the other way around. If our positions are similar then it's because they are doing their job representing our feelings. Again, it's not money that gives the NRA it's clout, it's the numbers and they're signing up at 8k per day.

None taken. Good luck. I wish you all the best in saving your kids without changing the laws for access to these weapons.

Your post supports mine. Their marketing works. I also agree that NRA's clout comes from its numbers. That was the central point of the article I posted. Its also naive to think that it is only the gun owners that have a voice in the NRA. As the article points out, gun manufacturers also have significant sway in the operation of NRA's marketing and lobbying.

The economic factors are a major factor in why change is unlikely. At $1500 per weapon it would cost $3bn to remove 2 million guns from the system. That's a small dent in the number of guns out there. I just don't see any administration in the US swallowing a much larger pill to help solve the problem. The gun makers will lose business, which will impact jobs meaning the threat of all this plus potential political annihilation is why nothing has been done and nothing will be done.

When the next massacre comes around we'll probably all go around the same buoy again.

[Onkel Neal]

Well no offense but I don't recall us asking for your help TarJak.



Ummm,,,, do you think you can be a little less abrasive?

[magic452]

I've been a life member of the NRA since the early sixties.
At the time I feel that they are not doing me a service I'll quit.

TarJak you may be right in some of what you say but I think you have more confidence in your government than many Americans do in ours.
Don't think of the US as a country such as England, Germany or Australia.
Think of us as you would the EU, big, many different cultures and customs, and hard to get consensuses on anything. A lot of power in so few hands.

Just look at the abortion of a health care law they fostered on us. Not just the crappy law but the way they passed it. If they can do this they can do almost anything. There doesn't seem to be any limit. They are bypassing the Constitution on so many levels I'm really getting concerned.
It's been happening for a long time not just the clowns we have now.
16.3 Trillion in debt and they can't even cut a few Billion off the growth of the debt much less actually do anything to reduce it.

We have seen many times that what starts small doesn't always stay that way. You open the door and the government comes rushing through.
You give an inch and they take a mile. It's happened time after time.
About the only time our government get it almost right is the military, most everything else they screw up.

Can we govern using only the strictest interpretation of the Constitution, probably not in a modern society but in my opinion we should we should stay as close to it as possible.

America is a big country with a big population 315,000,000+ with 315,000,000+ different opinions and many of us don't want to see the government chip away at the Constitution any more than they already have and we feel very strongly about this.

An assault weapons ban would do little or nothing to solve the problem.
That would take weapons confiscation and that would not be acceptable to sooo many Americans. It sounds simple take away the guns and all will be well. What many of us are afraid of is that's all they do and nothing about the mental health aspect. All these guys have mental health problems.

There are already laws forbidding guns to these people but privacy laws are such that the mentally ill can't be reported to ATF unless the condition is so apparent that danger is immanent. The Virginia Tech shooter was such a case. The move theater guy the same but the privacy laws are such than the doctors are reluctant to act. You can't keep people from buying guns because of mental issues unless you know who these people are. Background checks aren't much good if they aren't complete. It's not going to be a problem that is easily solved.

I don't see any need for assault weapons with high capacity mags but you start there and where does it stop, most all guns like the UK? That's the problem, where will it stop. Fun to shoot but necessary? No.

Does TV, movie and video game violence play a part? I happen to think that for the one in 10 million or so that would do something like this that it does. We're not talking about the average gamer here but mentally ill people. A reason to ban violent games and movies, of course not.

I've been around for so many of these tragic events, from Texas University
in the sixties to Sandy Hook. Never before has an event like this had such an impact on me. I'm not an overly emotional guy, I feel the for the pain and suffering that these things bring but this one brings tears to my eyes every time I see anything about those poor little kids,their parents and all the others that have been affected.

Nobody wants to see this kind of thing happen again but the solution is far more complicated than just passing a few gun laws and saying "Well we did something". We don't need to do "something", we need to do the right things.

Ok that's off my chest, I'm ready for the world to end.
Oh wait it's 1:30am. We made it, well almost.

Magic

Edited for spelling.

[Tribesman]

I've been a life member of the NRA since the early sixties.......Magic
That post certainly covers the bases.

[TarJak]

Magic, I certainly hold very little trust in our government, however I certainly don't live with the fear that you do that if they take away everything. I agree that voters are the only protection we have against government interference.

I disagree though that by removing assault weapons from sale would be the thin edge of the wedge. In 1996 there was a bit of a fear campaign run by our gun lobby (nowhere near as strong as the NRA but every bit as vocal, we even have a Shooters Party in our State Parliament), that was run along similar lines. But the law stopped where it did and that was that. In the US I still don't think you'll go that far because of the reasons I've already stated.

Again in our example we have restrictions on sale and waiting periods and background checks plus audits of gun storage and safety training prior to purchase. We had most of those prior to 1996 with the exception that semi-automatics were permitted.

If you choose to you can still buy bolt action and single shot weapons for agricultural, target or hunting purposes.

If the NRA is serious in making "meaningful contributions" to the debate and to the formulation of policy and law to prevent re-occurrence of the massacres we've seen to date, then they need to seriously consider the outcomes they are really aiming for. Is it saving kids lives or playing hero to their constituents?

Yes some people will be miffed at losing what they see as a birthright, however the greater good may be served by thinking more of the possible outcomes than being selfish about having the thrill of firing lots of rounds in a short period of time.

I also agree with you that being a complex issue there are a number of solutions that need to be brought to bear. Mental health care, societal norms and the media all have to be brought into the mix otherwise all you do is treat one or two symptoms and not the root causes.

[yubba]

Well the little gun shop across the way is doing a great business all this talk of gun bans has boosted sales Who would have known Obama would be good for business , that is the gun business.

[magic452]

I don't "fear" that they will take everything away nor do I think the NRA is my "hero", that kind of thing adds nothing to a discussion. You are better than that. This is a complex problem and spin and buzz words don't help at all.

I don't buy half the stuff the NRA puts out and no doubt the vast majority of gun owners don't either but they are a voice and pretty much the only loud one we have.

If you want to know what I fear, well it's that this country may be getting too big to effectively govern with the system we have.
"For the greater good" is also on the list. Who decides the greater good?
Right the voters, tell that to the Republicans in California or the Dems in some red state. I afraid that this place may be coming to a near halt and if it does watch out. We'll survive it but may get messy along the way.

It's fine that your law stopped where it did but that's no guarantee that's what will happen here. Maybe when a younger generation grows up things will change but then it's that same generation that shooting up the schools. Right now we have a problem with no easy solutions and are either going to make a lot of people mad or cost an enormous amount of money and most likely both.

I don't see any need for an AR 15, yes I've burned up quit a few rounds with one (wasn't mine) but that thrill wears off pretty quickly and least it did for me after I got the bill for all that ammo.
I would think that many such guns are gathering dust in some closet someplace and that in it's self is a big problem. That is one of the things the evil NRA tries to teach, gun safety and responsibility. It seems to me that owning one of these things has taken on the same mentality as being the first to own the latest I phone or the fastest car at least for many but not all. Should it be this way? No but the reality of the situation is that it is.

Banning the sale of these will do nothing, only the complete removal of these guns would help, there are just too many of them out there already for a simple law to to do any good. As you said a buy back would not work only confiscation would do it and that just isn't going to happen.

A law such as yours may work in a country the size of Australia but here such things as inspections for safe storage or safety training, would be impossible to enforce. Background checks are fine for criminals but as I said not very effective as far as the mentally ill goes and it's these that are the problem.

Confiscation is what I'm concerned about. I don't see that happening but why, because there are too many that oppose it and if we don't oppose this sort of thing it just might happen. If you don't stand up for your rights you will loose them and to stand up to big government you need some sort of organized voice.

Do we have a right to guns? The constitution says we do. Are we ready to give up that right? NO.
Are we ready to set strong limits on that right? Not yet and maybe never.
Weather others see this as reasonable or not is immaterial, that's the situation we have and we have to deal with it.

Connecticut has some of the strongest gun laws in the country and they didn't even come close to preventing Sandy Hook.

It's 6 AM and I can't even spell anything right anymore so I off to bed.

Magic

[Sailor Steve]

I agree that voters are the only protection we have against government interference.
Part of the American experience is that when a government decides to start ignoring the voters it doesn't take long to escalate. The voters are no protection at all when someone manages to convince the military to back him.

That sounds far-fetched, and with modern attitudes in western society it is, but we try not to forget that America was born out of that very situation.

[soopaman2]

Guns in America.

It is kinda something that makes us different, unique

I have 3 guns, 2 handguns and an ar-15, made by bushmaster. Same rifle this Lanza idjit had.

Am I a threat by association?

It is a dream to shoot. Barely a kick, accurate.

At home it is in a locked cabinet unloaded.

The point of the second amendment, is to give us a chance against a tyrannical government.

The previous declaration of independence alluded to this as well.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


I see that passage as not only a declaration of independence, but as a promise that our government should and will always be about the people, for the people. Guns ensure we have a chance, Hitler and Stalin disarmed their countries before they consolidated power. Draconian gun control is a rational fear.

I can see repealing, and changing amendments to suit the times, but the first 10 amendments, the bill of rights should never be touched, it is the spine of our system. It is mostly based on morals and fair play.

Sure I trash my country at times, but I believe in us. I believe in our spirit, our fight. Our kindness.

[Armistead]

Not hearing much of all the illegal guns {not to mention drugs} coming across the Mexican border. If the concern is assault weapons, that's where the fully auto weapons come through for most our inner city warzones....

I know this, if the government ever tried to do a house to house search down south, you would see a gun war.

[soopaman2]

Not hearing much of all the illegal guns {not to mention drugs} coming across the Mexican border. If the concern is assault weapons, that's where the fully auto weapons come through for most our inner city warzones....

I know this, if the government ever tried to do a house to house search down south, you would see a gun war.

Most of those down south boys would be legal, they got it easier than me up here in a "draconian" overpopulated state.

Now do a search of the minority neighborhoods, and see how many illegal guns you find.

Go ahead, call me rascist, but I live close to such a neighborhood, and the bloods and crips and competing drug dealers like to treat each other like paper targets.

Gun control penalizes legal owners, it does nothing to the black market buyers.

Stop the gun runners coming from gun shows and shops in Georgia, and selling on the street out of the trunk of their car.

I love how when a bunch of white kids die, in white-town Conneticut, but more people see the morgue in Chicago than this 5 times over, and no one cares?

The media is rubbish. They got a boner over this tragedy, get a boner over gang violence. Alot more common than school shootings.

[Neptunus Rex]

Here's a question relating to this thread.

Give us your definition of an "assault weapon".

I'll start. A weapon that keeps firing as long as the trigger is held and until the ammo runs out.

[nikimcbee]

I love how when a bunch of white kids die, in white-town Conneticut, but more people see the morgue in Chicago than this 5 times over, and no one cares?

The media is rubbish. They got a boner over this tragedy, get a boner over gang violence. Alot more common than school shootings.

:salute:

I was gunna point this out. The exact smurfing thing happens here, there are shootings all the time in North Portland, the local media will mention it and that's the end of the story.

You pop off a few rounds in a posh mall... It's nonstop coverage. " Thank god for the local media to tell us when we can get our stuff back.:dead:

[Madox58]

Banning so-called assault weapons will only serve the Black Market.
Thanks to shows like CSI? We know gringing off serial numbers is a waste of time.
Now with Home Plasma cutters and Welders?
Those sections get cut out and replaced makeing the weapon untraceable.

Those who follow the laws now are not the problem.
Passing new laws does not fix the problem but may create more problems.

The Government can't take the full auto weapons from the street gangs as it is!
Hell! They can't take the weapons from them at all!

What they gonna do if a new weapons law is passed?
Hold thier breaths and hope?

[TarJak]

Found an interesting article discussing the "Secret history of Guns" in America today. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

In particular this on the Founding Father's gun controls of the time: ... "The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

"For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the 'individual mandate' that has proved so controversial in President Obama's health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters -- where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls."
I'd say that in any discussion of what the Founding Fathers intended with the second amendment, this regulation gives a very clear indication. It's not all about rights and no regulation.


And something a little more modern from elsewhere:
• In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the US Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, beyond that of "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

• The Court's decision also held:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not 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. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

[Sailor Steve]

Found an interesting article discussing the "Secret history of Guns" in America today. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
A good article. I liked the story of Huey Newton and the police. It's what America is about.

In particular this on the Founding Father's gun controls of the time:
I'd say that in any discussion of what the Founding Fathers intended with the second amendment, this regulation gives a very clear indication. It's not all about rights and no regulation.
I do have to disagree here. The article cites the denial of slaves as a form of gun control. That's a very limited viewpoint. They were slaves, and as such were denied all human rights. The ownership of weapons for defense was still considered a right for all citizens. Slaves weren't considered citizens, as was shown by the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott petitioned the court for his freedom, since his late owner had lived in several states where slavery was outlawed. Rather than decide the case on its own merits the court said that Scott had no right to petition the court at all, since as a slave he wasn't a citizen.

So the Founders didn't have a gun-control law denying a certain segment of the population what they considered a basic right. They denied a certain segment of the population access to all basic human rights, on the principle that they weren't citizens. Kind of like the whole Guantanamo thing. Gun ownership was indeed considered a right that citizens could enjoy.

As for a law requiring all male citizens of militia age to own a gun? You can argue that that constitues gun control, but I doubt you'll get much joy from the Brady group.

[August]

And something a little more modern from elsewhere:


You'll notice that nowhere in that paragraph does it say that firearms can't be owned and possessed by sane and law abiding citizens.

[TarJak]

A good article. I liked the story of Huey Newton and the police. It's what America is about.


I do have to disagree here. The article cites the denial of slaves as a form of gun control. That's a very limited viewpoint. They were slaves, and as such were denied all human rights. The ownership of weapons for defense was still considered a right for all citizens. Slaves weren't considered citizens, as was shown by the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott petitioned the court for his freedom, since his late owner had lived in several states where slavery was outlawed. Rather than decide the case on its own merits the court said that Scott had no right to petition the court at all, since as a slave he wasn't a citizen.

So the Founders didn't have a gun-control law denying a certain segment of the population what they considered a basic right. They denied a certain segment of the population access to all basic human rights, on the principle that they weren't citizens. Kind of like the whole Guantanamo thing. Gun ownership was indeed considered a right that citizens could enjoy.

As for a law requiring all male citizens of militia age to own a gun? You can argue that that constitues gun control, but I doubt you'll get much joy from the Brady group.
The points I got from this were that there were controls which excluded some segments of the community (including some with human rights), and that regular compulsory musters and inspections constitute higher levels of control than exist now. In particular the requirement to own and register a weapon for service in the militia AND muster for regular inspections gives credence to the intent of the 2nd amendment right of gun ownership being linked very strongly to militia membership.

Granted the slaves had no rights at all, but that does not invalidate the rest of the commentary.

You'll notice that nowhere in that paragraph does it say that firearms can't be owned and possessed by sane and law abiding citizens.
Noted. But that's not the point.

[Sailor Steve]

The points I got from this were that there were controls which excluded some segments of the community (including some with human rights), and that regular compulsory musters and inspections constitute higher levels of control than exist now. In particular the requirement to own and register a weapon for service in the militia AND muster for regular inspections gives credence to the intent of the 2nd amendment right of gun ownership being linked very strongly to militia membership.

Granted the slaves had no rights at all, but that does not invalidate the rest of the commentary.
And my point was that the article tries to equate the deprivation of all rights to a certain segment of the population with firearms regulation, and the two have nothing to do with each other. My second point was that a law requiring all male members of a certain age to own a firearm also is not an attempt at reglulating said arms. There is, however, something to be said for the requirement to meet and drill with those firearms.

[August]

There is, however, something to be said for the requirement to meet and drill with those firearms.

I'd love it if the Federal or state government fulfilled their obligation of training and equipping the militia but they choose not to.

[yubba]

Heard something funny in the last day or so that China was upset that there was so many weapons in American households, I say,, now that's funny..:har::har: and by the looks of it today as the doorman for a day for the gunshop across the way there are more...

[TarJak]

I'd love it if the Federal or state government fulfilled their obligation of training and equipping the militia but they choose not to.

Cough* National Guard *cough. http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx

[August]

Cough* National Guard *cough. http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx


I don't care what they call themselves, they're a standing federal army TarJak. Haven't you been paying attention on the difference between the organized and unorganized Militia?

[TarJak]

I don't care what they call themselves, they're a standing federal army TarJak. Haven't you been paying attention on the difference between the organized and unorganized Militia?

Yes I have, however you were not clear in your post which one you were talking about. I merely pointed out that the organized militia IS funded by both Federal and States.

[August]

Yes I have, however you were not clear in your post which one you were talking about. I merely pointed out that the organized militia IS funded by both Federal and States.

But the unorganized militia is not and it should be.

[CaptainMattJ.]

But the unorganized militia is not and it should be.
Are you implying that gun-owning civilians should be funded because they own military-grade assault weapons for absolutely no good reason?

The whole "we need to keep a standing militia" argument is utter nonsense. It sounds like those doomsday-preppers. "if we don't own military-grade assault weapons the federal government that the people elect are going to put us into a tyrannical dictatorship!". But hey those preppers are the crazy ones.

The 2nd amendment was proposed in 1789 when we had no standing army and the government was highly unstable and had little organization.

There have been a multitude of amendments made ever SINCE then, as a result of this country progressing forward. But hey, we need to keep the 2nd amendment set in stone and completely untouched, right? Even though 2 centuries have passed? Even though there is absolutely no reason for assault weapons nor assault rifles?

There are PERFECTLY legitimate reasons for owning pistols. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for owning rifles and semi-automatics. But why would anyone EVER need an automatic weapon, especially military grade automatic weapons and assault rifles? To keep a standing militia where none is needed WHATSOEVER?

Your reasons are archaic and sad. The militia you speak of is no longer necessary. The government has been democratic for 2 and a half centuries. Democracies around the world have unrelenting gun laws yet still remain perfectly democratic. Hoarding these kinds of weapons is not useful in any sense to responsible gun owners and great for those who want to kill large groups of people in very short amounts of time.

Pistols and rifles should be about the only category of weapons people should be allowed to own. Banning assault rifles may stop these people from getting them, and while it won't stop these massacres completely, but it sure as hell is going to help.

[TarJak]

My understanding (garnered by what I read and hear from friends in the US), is that the unorganised militia is actually what is referred to as the Reserve Militia and is therefore catered for under the model used in WWII, Korea and Vietnam where, when activated eligible adults were called up into military service either as part of guard units or regular army/navy/air force formations.

If so, then this is AFAIK federally funded, trained and equipped. You just don't get the equipment and training until required by your call up.

This being the case, any military style weapon ownership by individuals would be redundant, as weapons would be provided by the standing military organisations and not by individuals.

This from Wikipedia on that subject.

The reserve militia
All able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the reserve militia, also known as the unorganized militia (10 USC). Able bodied men who are not eligible for inclusion in the reserve militia pool are those aliens not having declared their intent to become citizens of the United States (10 USC 311) and former regular component veterans of the armed forces who have reached the age of 64 (32 USC 313). All female citizens who are members of National Guard units are also included in the reserve militia pool (10 USC 311).
Other persons who are exempt from call to duty (10 USC 312) and are not therefore in the reserve militia pool include:

The Vice President (also constitutionally the President of the Senate, that body which confirms the appointment of senior armed forces officers made by the Commander in Chief).
The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
Customhouse clerks.
Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
Pilots on navigable waters.
Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

Many individual states have additional statutes describing their residents as part of the state militia; for example Washington law specifies all able-bodied citizens or intended citizens over the age of eighteen as members of the state militia, as explicitly distinct from the National Guard and Washington State Guard.[43]

Not being familiar with all the state statutes is there any provision for an unorganised militia outside call up to military service?

[Scurvy]

Are you implying that gun-owning civilians should be funded because they own military-grade assault weapons for absolutely no good reason?

The whole "we need to keep a standing militia" argument is utter nonsense. It sounds like those doomsday-preppers. "if we don't own military-grade assault weapons the federal government that the people elect are going to put us into a tyrannical dictatorship!". But hey those preppers are the crazy ones.

The 2nd amendment was proposed in 1789 when we had no standing army and the government was highly unstable and had little organization.

There have been a multitude of amendments made ever SINCE then, as a result of this country progressing forward. But hey, we need to keep the 2nd amendment set in stone and completely untouched, right? Even though 2 centuries have passed? Even though there is absolutely no reason for assault weapons nor assault rifles?

There are PERFECTLY legitimate reasons for owning pistols. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for owning rifles and semi-automatics. But why would anyone EVER need an automatic weapon, especially military grade automatic weapons and assault rifles? To keep a standing militia where none is needed WHATSOEVER?

Your reasons are archaic and sad. The militia you speak of is no longer necessary. The government has been democratic for 2 and a half centuries. Democracies around the world have unrelenting gun laws yet still remain perfectly democratic. Hoarding these kinds of weapons is not useful in any sense to responsible gun owners and great for those who want to kill large groups of people in very short amounts of time.

Pistols and rifles should be about the only category of weapons people should be allowed to own. Banning assault rifles may stop these people from getting them, and while it won't stop these massacres completely, but it sure as hell is going to help.

I lurk here far more than I post but I jumped to the end of this thread and read this and had to reply. I might be beating a dead horse, but, anyway...

If you really live in California, this makes complete sense to me and the Liberal media has done a fine job telling you what to think. Don't take that as a personal jab at you, or anything...plenty of Americans have been brainwashed by the TV, radio and newspapers, including several of my dearest friends and family members.

Let's first address what a "military-grade assault weapon" is. That would be a firarm with a selector switch that is able to fire fully-automatic (press the trigger and the gun will fire continuously, until you take your finger off the trigger or until it runs out of ammunition, with the exception of the M-16A2 and some A4 variants, which fire a three-round burst).

Oh, yes, you can buy full-auto guns in America, as long as you pay the $200 tax and can afford a $5000 (minimum) gun that was made before 1986. Most guns cost more around the $10,000+ mark, since they're now considered collector's arms and antiques.

Of course, you're not talking about those real assault rifles because you're calling an AR-15 a "military-style" "assault weapon". That's the mainstream media presstitute's codeword for Scary-Black Gun-That's-Evil; an emotional catchword intended to send fear into the mindset of the typical low-information voter.

Time and time again, people who are for gun-control prove they don't know anything about guns. Another case that proves my point is that you think there's value in Americans owning handguns but not rifles (you later mention rifles and semi-automatics, but an AR-15 is exactly just that--a semi-automatic rifle). I don't understand your logic because the majority of violent crimes that occur in the US involves small-caliber handguns, not AR-15's or the real assault rifles, in inner-city Liberal Gun-Control Utopias. That does not mean I support banning handguns, by the way. I'm only pointing out that you are misguided in thinking that an "assault weapons" ban will stop criminals and gang members from giving political ammunition to our anti-gun politicians and their lapdog media. Fact is, Clinton's "Assault Weapons Ban" did nothing to stop gun violence and even after Bush allowed it to expire, violent crimes in America decreased, at the bewilderment of several anti-gun Congressmen, who claimed that more guns would turn the streets in America crimson, with the blood of innocents. Funny thing you won't learn from CNN or MSNBC, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals actually drives down crime.

To think that our government could never become so corrupt as to devolve into Tyranny is a pathetic excuse to disarm American law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment was primarily designed to create fear in our politicians, who would likely abandon the Constitution and create rules against the people's will. The precursor to all Tyrannical rule was to disarm the people.

Or, to scale it down to a more local arena, why do the police need AR-15's but I don't? Or, what kind of fire-extinguisher is too big and powerful for me to be allowed to own? I don't need a Ferrari, that can do more than double the speed-limit, but I should be banned from owning a certain semi-automatic rifle to defend my family's life with?

Have you ever heard of the Battle of Athens (http://constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm)? If you haven't the time to read it, a corrupt Democrat Sheriff in McMinn County, TN was committing voter fraud for a decade. The people, including several veterans of WWII, responded after the Sheriff sent 200 sworn "Deputies" to suppress voters and eventually shot a black citizen for trying to vote. The People responded and several WWII veterans and townsfolk armed themselves and fought against the Tyrant. The deputies eventually surrendered and new laws against voter-fraud were enacted. That is the Second Amendment, in action.

We all got to see Obama, the guy who would bring "Change" to America, pretend to cry on National TV, over the senseless act in Sandy Hook. Nothing more than a knee-jerk emotional response to do something anti-American, immediately after a tragedy that occurred in a state where gun-control is one of the nation's highest priorities.

To President Obama (and his Liberal Defenders), you say you want a "serious" talk about the killing of innocent children? You defend the abortion doctors who murderously suck 150 million children out of the womb, who never have the chance to ever hide under their desks or in the closet, with their protective teachers. And you are being serious?

You want a serious talk about the same guns that you allowed the Mexican Drug Cartel and Syrian terrorist to have, but you don't trust the law-abiding American citizen to own?

I'm thinking now, more than ever, we law-abiders should stock up on guns. The pro-Islamic Arab Spring in Egypt, Libya and Syria is more important to our "Leader's" diplomacy, abroad, than his Domestic policy to protect Americans against Tyranny, here.

Twitter: MrKangaRoop
Veteran of Desert Storm, MOS: 91-A, Combat Medical Specialist in the US Army, NRA member, proud husband and father of one girl and owner of guns...one of them is an Bushmaster XM-15 that's never killed ANYONE.

[August]

Are you implying that gun-owning civilians should be funded because they own military-grade assault weapons for absolutely no good reason?;

No I am stating that the Federal government is supposed to be training the American people in the use and operation of firearms like the law says.

The whole "we need to keep a standing militia" argument is utter nonsense.

No more or less so than you need the right to free speech which includes bathing our children in blood and violence since the day they are born in everything they watch and play.

Banning assault rifles may stop these people from getting them, and while it won't stop these massacres completely, but it sure as hell is going to help.

No, what will help more is banning violent video games and movies. Your right to free speech does more to create and motivate these monsters than any firearm.

[Dowly]

No, what will help more is banning violent video games and movies. Your right to free speech does more to create and motivate these monsters than any firearm.

[citation needed]

[soopaman2]

I'd love it if the Federal or state government fulfilled their obligation of training and equipping the militia but they choose not to.


National Guard?

State run for the most part.

I understand your point, but independant Paramilitary groups will never be sanctioned in modern America. We are a slight step behind China or Russia in oppressiveness, just look at what we lost in the Patriot act.

I still have faith in us though, I still have faith in the people.

[August]

[citation needed]

There's this thing called Google. A 2 second search produces this:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/18/do-violent-movies-games-make-teens-aggressive/

[soopaman2]

Video games are freaking evil.

I played the campaign in Call of Duty Black ops 2, and it forced me to stick a machete into the side of a mans face.

I then got on the USS Barack Obama, as a staging point to take out Raul Menendez.

I am a freedom fighter!

Rata-tat-tat, M60 IN YOUR FACES YOU SCUM!

Yes I do have problems.

[August]

National Guard?

State run for the most part.

I understand your point, but independant Paramilitary groups will never be sanctioned in modern America. We are a slight step behind China or Russia in oppressiveness, just look at what we lost in the Patriot act.

I agree and I see the upcoming gun ban bills as just another piece to that puzzle. You know however it's worded it will not have an effect on the propensity for their use in crime or violent crime but it will definitely end up giving government more power.

.I still have faith in us though, I still have faith in the people.

Me too. The anti gun forces and their supporters will continue with their attempts to ban guns just like they had been ramping up for all year but I still hope that more sensible heads will eventually prevail and if something does get passed it will be watered down.

The Democrats don't want to loose Congress and if they identify themselves too closely with their anti-gun element they are risking a lot in 2014.

[CCIP]

This "google" you speak of also points to a mass of contrary research, some even suggesting that video games, among other things, have been linked to reductions in violence in the real world.

Also....

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18954vlw1naaqjpg/original.jpg

[nikimcbee]

I then got on the USS Barack Obama

:hmm2:

http://jokes.conservativepapers.com/files/2012/08/USS-Barack-Obama.jpg

There's always this one:
http://jokes.conservativepapers.com/files/2010/06/ussobama1.jpg

:haha:

[CaptainMattJ.]

I lurk here far more than I post but I jumped to the end of this thread and read this and had to reply. I might be beating a dead horse, but, anyway...

If you really live in California, this makes complete sense to me and the Liberal media has done a fine job telling you what to think. Don't take that as a personal jab at you, or anything...plenty of Americans have been brainwashed by the TV, radio and newspapers, including several of my dearest friends and family members.

Let's first address what a "military-grade assault weapon" is. That would be a firarm with a selector switch that is able to fire fully-automatic (press the trigger and the gun will fire continuously, until you take your finger off the trigger or until it runs out of ammunition, with the exception of the M-16A2 and some A4 variants, which fire a three-round burst).

Oh, yes, you can buy full-auto guns in America, as long as you pay the $200 tax and can afford a $5000 (minimum) gun that was made before 1986. Most guns cost more around the $10,000+ mark, since they're now considered collector's arms and antiques.

Of course, you're not talking about those real assault rifles because you're calling an AR-15 a "military-style" "assault weapon". That's the mainstream media presstitute's codeword for Scary-Black Gun-That's-Evil; an emotional catchword intended to send fear into the mindset of the typical low-information voter.

Time and time again, people who are for gun-control prove they don't know anything about guns. Another case that proves my point is that you think there's value in Americans owning handguns but not rifles (you later mention rifles and semi-automatics, but an AR-15 is exactly just that--a semi-automatic rifle). I don't understand your logic because the majority of violent crimes that occur in the US involves small-caliber handguns, not AR-15's or the real assault rifles, in inner-city Liberal Gun-Control Utopias. That does not mean I support banning handguns, by the way. I'm only pointing out that you are misguided in thinking that an "assault weapons" ban will stop criminals and gang members from giving political ammunition to our anti-gun politicians and their lapdog media. Fact is, Clinton's "Assault Weapons Ban" did nothing to stop gun violence and even after Bush allowed it to expire, violent crimes in America decreased, at the bewilderment of several anti-gun Congressmen, who claimed that more guns would turn the streets in America crimson, with the blood of innocents. Funny thing you won't learn from CNN or MSNBC, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals actually drives down crime.

To think that our government could never become so corrupt as to devolve into Tyranny is a pathetic excuse to disarm American law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment was primarily designed to create fear in our politicians, who would likely abandon the Constitution and create rules against the people's will. The precursor to all Tyrannical rule was to disarm the people.

Or, to scale it down to a more local arena, why do the police need AR-15's but I don't? Or, what kind of fire-extinguisher is too big and powerful for me to be allowed to own? I don't need a Ferrari, that can do more than double the speed-limit, but I should be banned from owning a certain semi-automatic rifle to defend my family's life with?

Have you ever heard of the Battle of Athens (http://constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm)? If you haven't the time to read it, a corrupt Democrat Sheriff in McMinn County, TN was committing voter fraud for a decade. The people, including several veterans of WWII, responded after the Sheriff sent 200 sworn "Deputies" to suppress voters and eventually shot a black citizen for trying to vote. The People responded and several WWII veterans and townsfolk armed themselves and fought against the Tyrant. The deputies eventually surrendered and new laws against voter-fraud were enacted. That is the Second Amendment, in action.

We all got to see Obama, the guy who would bring "Change" to America, pretend to cry on National TV, over the senseless act in Sandy Hook. Nothing more than a knee-jerk emotional response to do something anti-American, immediately after a tragedy that occurred in a state where gun-control is one of the nation's highest priorities.

To President Obama (and his Liberal Defenders), you say you want a "serious" talk about the killing of innocent children? You defend the abortion doctors who murderously suck 150 million children out of the womb, who never have the chance to ever hide under their desks or in the closet, with their protective teachers. And you are being serious?

You want a serious talk about the same guns that you allowed the Mexican Drug Cartel and Syrian terrorist to have, but you don't trust the law-abiding American citizen to own?

I'm thinking now, more than ever, we law-abiders should stock up on guns. The pro-Islamic Arab Spring in Egypt, Libya and Syria is more important to our "Leader's" diplomacy, abroad, than his Domestic policy to protect Americans against Tyranny, here.

Twitter: MrKangaRoop
Veteran of Desert Storm, MOS: 91-A, Combat Medical Specialist in the US Army, NRA member, proud husband and father of one girl and owner of guns...one of them is an Bushmaster XM-15 that's never killed ANYONE.
No, im afraid you misunderstood what i was saying.

I said that no one needs an automatic ANYTHING. Not a glock 19, not an automatic assault rifle. Not anything. I was in favor of banning automatic assault rifles. Not, as you claim, a semi-automatic AR-15 that isn't capable of fully automatic fire. In another related thread i mentioned my uncle owning an AK-47 only capable of semi-automatic fire and the fact that my uncle only buys ten round clips. It's firing rifle rounds, semi-automatic, ten round clip, therefore it is not an assault rifle but rather a rifle.

And there are legitimate reasons for having a semi-automatic rifle. Diddo with handguns. I was never for banning those. But none for automatic weapons. Absolutely no reason.

In addition, if I am the one brainwashed by "liberal media" then i could just as EASILY accuse you the the EXACT same thing, given that you were not only in the military (thank you for your service) and you are a NRA member. I wasn't indoctrinated into a damned thing. I grew up and made my own decisions. I didn't go on what i saw on the news, i didn't go on what i had simpyl heard. I make my own logical decisions because i'm not like some of my peers, who DO get sucked into lies. Hell, most americans were grown up to believe that America is the greatest country on earth and that what few wrongs it's done it's made up for plenty in good. That of course is false. Whether you think a country is the greatest is opinion (not saying that my own country is bad, but i certainly don't put it on a pedestal and worship it) and the U.S has committed a great deal of injustices and massacres. The middle east has had a ridiculous amount of civilian casualties, and for what? Trying to install democracy in the middle east? That place is going to fall apart the second we leave and the trillions spent there and the thousands of dead will be wasted on absolutely nothing. Yet so many people still think it's necessary to further our time there. now THAT'S propaganda. I also see you didn't mention FOX NEWS, one of the most propagandistic filth-spewing channels on T.V. MSNBC has a few of their own ultra-liberals (i hate al sharpton and chris matthews), but Fox news is just mind-numbingly biased.

In addition, the battle of athens was 66 years ago. That sort of thing wouldn't stand to pass at ALL today. Not with the communication and information age we live in today. If there was that kind of brutality it would just as quickly come to an end. For instance, if Rodney King had been assaulted in 1946 you think people wouldve cared, or even heard about it? The reason it caused so much anger is because we had both recordings of it happening and a progressive attitude that finally accepted blacks as full, honored, equal citizens.

Having a 200 year old stonewall interpretation of an amendment written when both severe government instability and the fact we had no standing army were very real dangers, is ridiculous. There's no good reason to have automatic weapons. Absolutely zero. If you need an automatic weapon to hunt or defend yourself then you really shouldn't be owning a gun. Learn how to use semi-automatics to their full extent. Automatic weapons are both useless for responsible gun owners and perfect for those who wish to kill wide swaths of people.

Furthermore, i explained how i knew it wasn't going to stop, necessarily, massacres, but they sure as hell help.

And, August, free speech never killed anyone. Free speech never shot the millions of now dead or injured americans that have faced gun violence. I'd say the 2nd amendment is in need of WAY more reform than the 1st. And, to say this for the hundredth time, i was never in favor of taking guns away entirely. I was never for taking rifles or pistols. Automatic weapons are different. Automatic weapons have NO purpose but to kill large groups of people. And in both self defense and hunting, there is no use for them.

[CaptainMattJ.]

There's this thing called Google. A 2 second search produces this:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/18/do-violent-movies-games-make-teens-aggressive/
But social healthcare is the supreme evil, right? Government funded mental healthcare is just some liberal communist agenda, RIGHT? Even though very few insurance policies, especially private insurance companies, cover full-blown mental healthcare?

But youre ready to rag on violent video games as a leading perpetrator? What? Violent video games have never killed anyone. Ever think that the psycho plays violent video games so much because he's psycho, instead of "playing video games so often turn an ordinary child into a psycho?"

Video games never killed anyone. Assault rifles have killed millions. Your analogy to banning assault rifles relates to banning violent games is simply a poor analogy. People use games and movies to entertain themselves. Normal human beings can very well distinguish pixelated gore and real death perfectly. Only psychos do not make this comparison. Assault weapons have only one purpose: to kill many people in VERY short amounts of time. Automatic weapons have no practical use in home defense nor hunting. It does allow psychos to get a hold of them, though. So why do we allow them? If you need to arm yourself, get a semi-automatic rifle or a pistol. You still have the tools necessary to fully use your 2nd amendment rights.

[Oberon]

Been playing FPS's since Doom when I was, what, fourteen, fifteen. Still haven't brutally murdered anyone.
That's probably my upbringing more than it is anything else though, honestly can't speak for the youth of today, since I'm the wrong side of that barrier now. But I think that considering violent movies have been around for some time now, as have movies that glorify war and violence, and video games are extrapolations of films in a manner that they are (some more than others) interactive film events.
Besides, such games are sold worldwide, and the youngest perpetuater of a massacre (defined by myself as more than five people shot in a go) was a 27 year old, and that was in 1987, long before the likes of Call of Duty. At first the media tried to blame Rambo, but there was no evidence to prove that Ryan even had a VCR, as Stallone put it:

"I carry the can for every lunatic in the world who goes crazy with a gun...but it wasn’t Rambo who sent Michael Ryan mad. In fact Rambo is the opposite of people like Ryan. He is always up against stronger opposition and never shoots first. Murderers are always saying, "God told me to kill" or "Jesus ordered me to kill" - so should the rest of us stop praying? There are always sick people out there who will hang their illness on to your hook."

[August]

This "google" you speak of also points to a mass of contrary research, some even suggesting that video games, among other things, have been linked to reductions in violence in the real world.

Well I remember there was a mass of contrary research to the idea that smoking caused cancer too. How much of your research is funded by media and game companies? It's obvious the media is promoting violence among our youth and like in the tobacco wars there is a growing body of evidence to prove it.

As for your implication that I want to "destroy the first amendment" nothing could be farther from the truth. I only use it as an example of how easy it is to rationalize our way out of essential liberties.

I like my violent movies and video games too, but I'm a 53 year old man who doesn't have the inclination or time to become totally absorbed by it like a kid will. I see nothing wrong with limiting under 18 access to them though. No way should the graphic violence like what is in Batman the Dark Knight for example be considered a PG-13 rated movie.

[CCIP]

Oh, I don't disagree entirely about having some sensible restrictions. I am playing devil's advocate to an extent. More than anything though, I believe that these restrictions need to be less about banning and more about educating parents rationally and in a manner that is not hysterical.

And I can answer your first question about research funding very reliably: practically none at all. By virtue of my work, I am connected to the Games Research Institute at University of Waterloo, the biggest research group of this type in Canada. While none of our projects look at video games violence at the moment, I can tell you that funding for social studies on games from game companies is basically non-existent. This is certainly the case all over North America at least. The entertainment industry is not interested in funding this type of research at all, and has never been. And yet there are some pretty reliable studies out there.

I, too, was playing Duke Nukem from age 12 and am probably the least violent person I know. And that is despite growing up in an incredibly violent environment around me. My parents, however, had made far more important choices than simply games in regard to my education, and in the end, it all worked out. That's where the responsibility really needs to be.

[Cybermat47]

Video games are freaking evil.

I played the campaign in Call of Duty Black ops 2, and it forced me to stick a machete into the side of a mans face.

Well, not all video games are like that. In Halo 4, for example, you only kill xenophobic aliens and robots, sticking sharp things into them is optional and only lasts half a second, and when you are killing your fellow man in multiplayer, the story explanation is that it's a simulator.

But I tell you, CoD just disturbs me, so I'm never going to join the army.

[Jimbuna]

But I tell you, CoD just disturbs me, so I'm never going to join the army.

Well we can all give thanks for that :cool:

[Madox58]

Well we can all give thanks for that :cool:
:haha:

[Sailor Steve]

I'm never going to join the army.
By your own admission you're 13. You are just starting to enter the most formative years of your life. You have no idea how you're going to feel in five years, let alone ten.

[Jimbuna]

:haha:

:03:

[Stealhead]

Yes COD is 100% accurate in how it represents combat anyone that is good at COD should consider joining the Navy Seals or the Rangers you have all the skills needed.

I fail to see how a game like COD can disturb a person yet a game like Halo does not disturb the same person that is simply an illogical claim when both of them show humans in violent
situations the only difference is in one the enemies in one are humans and in another they are humanoids yet in Halo the humanoids kill humans and you see this so really there is no difference
from a moral standpoint if you have a seriuos issue with the deception of humans beings killed or harmed then both games should disturb you.

Also COD does not reflect what real combat is like in the slightest fashion most people that like COD would never allow themselves to be a in real combat situation because they are button mashing twerps and putting their lives in danger is only worthy when seeking a resupply for Mountain Dew by asking mom and dad for the money which would require them to do chores a life threatening activity for most COD players.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^

Yes, but quite a lot of Halo fiction has strong anti-war themes, and people or aliens never get blown apart; there's almost no gore apart from a little blood. Also, one of the main messages of Halo is that you should only kill something if it wants to kill you. The problem I have with CoD is its casual depiction of human death and suffering, while in Halo that's the thing you're fighting so desperately to stop.

Also, 6-foot long worms are not humanoid.

[Takeda Shingen]

^^^^^

Yes, but quite a lot of Halo fiction has strong anti-war themes, and people or aliens never get blown apart; there's almost no gore apart from a little blood. Also, one of the main messages of Halo is that you should only kill something if it wants to kill you. The problem I have with CoD is its casual depiction of human death and suffering, while in Halo that's the thing you're fighting so desperately to stop.

Also, 6-foot long worms are not humanoid.

Sounds like you've spent too much time playing Halo.

[Cybermat47]

Sounds like you've spent too much time playing Halo.

No! I haven't! Sorry, I'll have to go, it's time for my detox. See you!

Sincerely,
Cybermat47,
Halo addict rehab centre.

[Madox58]

there's almost no gore apart from a little blood.

That would be what I would say about the targets I took out in RL service.
:hmmm:

[Cybermat47]

That would be what I would say about the targets I took out in RL service.
:hmmm:

I was talking about when you throw grenades at them, but I probably didn't make that clear.

[Jimbuna]

That would be what I would say about the targets I took out in RL service.
:hmmm:

What, no video/computer games!? :o

[Jimbuna]

I was talking about when you throw grenades at them, but I probably didn't make that clear.

Probably not....he has served his country which is more than:yep: some

[Cybermat47]

Probably not....he has served his country which is more than:yep: some

Well don't look at me, I'm only 13! But God Bless him for protecting his country :salute:

[Jimbuna]

Well don't look at me, I'm only 13! But God Bless him for protecting his country :salute:

Precisely....so don't mix with the reality.

[Madox58]

What, no video/computer games!? :o
I've never played any Games that show graphic, gory deaths.
Maybe that's one reason I like the SH series so much.
It's a detached kill that I have no visual attachment to.
I don't even use the Life Boats mod anymore myself.
I played a Game once as a Sniper.
I decided that was to close to what I wanted to keep behind me and not think about.
Not that I am sorry for what I had to do. Just that I don't want to dwell on it.

[Cybermat47]

Precisely....so don't mix with the reality.

I'm not. I just play video games :up:

[Jimbuna]

I'm not. I just play video games :up:

Then good for you...enjoy the entertainment :sunny:

[mapuc]

I haven't that much knowledge about weapon and even if I had, I wouldn't be part of this thread, why?

Because this issue about assault weapon or stronger weapon laws or not is an American problem and should be solved by them self

Yes I do have my thoughts about the Americans love to weapons

Why do a person need an M16 or some other big assault weapon to defend their home.

From what I have learned a 9 mm can do enough to stop the criminal/s if you are trained to use it

That's my thought about this issue.

Markus

[Madox58]

I don't argue for a simple reason.
I can't say anything that would change a belief someone has.
They can't say anything that changes my beliefs.

Most of what I see going on in this thread is akin to the Spanish Inquisition in my mind.
:nope:

[Sailor Steve]

Why do a person need an M16 or some other big assault weapon to defend their home.

From what I have learned a 9 mm can do enough to stop the criminal/s if you are trained to use it
You are absolutely right. A pistol is a far better tool in any indoor situation, unless it's something big like a warehouse. No one "needs" an M-16 to defend their home. What you ar missing is that unless you are a registered firearms dealer you can't own an M-16 anyway, or any other fully automatic weapon. The noise everyone is making is actually over the AR-15, which is an M-16 that can only fire single shots, and other similar weapons.

Of course you don't need one of those either. But it isn't about what you think I "need". So we let you take away all the semi-automatic rifles. Then you point out that we don't really "need" any other kind of rifles. The you point out that we don't really "need" any kind of gun at all. This may or may not be true, but there will be gun makers, and there will be a black market, and there will be guns in the hands of pretty much everybody except the law-abiding citizens.

[mapuc]

^ Thank you for your answer.

I hope that your President comes with a solution that both side can support.


Markus

[Sailor Steve]

^ Thank you for your answer.
Don't misunderstand me. I may be forceful in that argument, but I am well aware that it is just my opinion, and I can be as wrong as anybody else.

I hope that your President comes with a solution that both side can support.
So do I.

[Armistead]

You are absolutely right. A pistol is a far better tool in any indoor situation, unless it's something big like a warehouse. No one "needs" an M-16 to defend their home. What you ar missing is that unless you are a registered firearms dealer you can't own an M-16 anyway, or any other fully automatic weapon. The noise everyone is making is actually over the AR-15, which is an M-16 that can only fire single shots, and other similar weapons.

Of course you don't need one of those either. But it isn't about what you think I "need". So we let you take away all the semi-automatic rifles. Then you point out that we don't really "need" any other kind of rifles. The you point out that we don't really "need" any kind of gun at all. This may or may not be true, but there will be gun makers, and there will be a black market, and there will be guns in the hands of pretty much everybody except the law-abiding citizens.


I don't know, if a criminal breaks in my house, a pistol is the last thing I'm pulling out and I own a few. The few times I've heard strange noises, I get out my 12 ga, that way if I'm a lil bit nervous I won't miss. Still, I'd rather pull my rifle out than try aiming with a pistol when I'm nervous. I know I'd feel a lot better with an AR with a 30 round clip than a mere 9mm pistol if someone was coming in my house.

[Sailor Steve]

As I told a housemate when he asked if I would shoot a burglar with my Springfield, "No. The bullet would go through the burglar, through the wall, through you, out the other wall and possibly through the neighbor across the street."

I know that even at very close range most shots miss anyway, but I think that a bunch of shots from a 9mm, or seven shots from a .45, will do the job inside my apartment.

Actually I think my bolo will do the job inside my apartment. Another good weapon is a stack of dinner plates. A dinner plate thrown like a frisbee at close range will break bones, and a lucky hit can kill.

[August]

As I told a housemate when he asked if I would shoot a burglar with my Springfield, "No. The bullet would go through the burglar, through the wall, through you, out the other wall and possibly through the neighbor across the street."

I know that even at very close range most shots miss anyway, but I think that a bunch of shots from a 9mm, or seven shots from a .45, will do the job inside my apartment.

Actually I think my bolo will do the job inside my apartment. Another good weapon is a stack of dinner plates. A dinner plate thrown like a frisbee at close range will break bones, and a lucky hit can kill.

Bolo, dinner plates? You must have a huge apartment to have the space to swing a bolo or wing a dinner plate. I'd think it'd be tough to keep them from closing the distance on you.

Now the best anti-home invader weapon in my opinion is a .12ga pump shotgun like my Mossberg 590. In the dark nothing says "git" to a burglar like the sound of a round being racked into a shot gun.

Mine has a bayonet lug and mounts a standard M7/M9 Army bayonet (Yes Obama they still issue bayonets). I figure it'd serve pretty good to keep someone at bay without having to splatter them.

[Armistead]

Yea, shotgun is the way to go, but still, if I had to choose between a pistol and rifle, I'd prefer the rifle. Course in apt I wouldn't, but I live out in the hicks. I do carry my rifle should I venture outside at night, but usually it's wild animals and I'll shoot any coyote on site.

[Tribesman]

Now the best anti-home invader weapon in my opinion is a .12ga pump shotgun like my Mossberg 590. In the dark nothing says "git" to a burglar like the sound of a round being racked into a shot gun.


In the dark nothing says "get ready to shoot him" to a burglar like the sound of a round being racked into a shot gun.