Second Amendment Under Attack In Congress

[CaptainMattJ.]

phew. that was close. seeing as how my semi automatic grenade launcher holds 6 rounds, i think im in the clear

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Beside this, mookie, daily TV will show you examples of commercial adverts introducing new products that before nobody ever has needed and nobody ever has missed, according agencies have the explicit order for which they get payed to artifically create the demand - by in principel nothing else but brainwashing.

You're confusing demand in the economic sense with the act of demanding a specific product. Products and services are designed to fulfill the desire or perceived need that's already there - it doesn't create the desire in and of itself. All advertising does is inform people of that message.

Whirer than white,

People want clean laundry. Whiter whites are perceived to be cleaner.

cleaner than clean

People already wanted clean, they want as clean as can be. Saying "Our product cleans better than the other guy's!" is only saying that the product fulfills the consumer's desire for clean.

better than best.

Consumers desire the best. Advertising informs the consumer that your product will fulfill that desire.

3 blades razors.4 blade razors. 5 blade razors.

All means to achieve the fulfillment of a consumer demand that's been around for ages - a closer shave. The 5 blade razor wouldn't exist without the consumer's demand for a close shave

The other way to create demand artifically, wich is being done especially in the consumer electronics and hopusehold machinery segments, is to artifically shorten the durability and lifespan

In a developed country, the demand for washing machines is fairly constant. You're describing replacement. That's not new demand - the person already owned a washing machine.

Live with it, mookie. Our system depends on constant manipulation of people'S behavior, and precise misinformation of people's thinking.

You're right, but for the wrong reason. Advertising is the art of making people believe that your product fulfills the consumer's demand for ______ (a close shave, clean clothes, a tasty beverage, a car that's a status symbol etc). Nobody has demand for a product that doesn't fulfill one of their needs. Hence why you can advertise the heck out of buggy whips, but you won't sell many.

[Freiwillige]

I own a 9mm service pistol, a .22 revolver (Made in Germany) And now as of yesterday one of these! Its a Bulgarian parts kit -the receiver that I am building



I built the front barrel assembly today and come payday I order the receiver and the rest of the bolts and rivets to bolt this bad boy together.

Now some would call it an assault rifle, It is not, at least not any longer. It does not have full auto capability only semi auto use which makes it just a semi auto rifle.

The big question always posed by the anti gun lobby is "Do you need to own such a rifle?" My thought's are this. When I find out that I NEED to own such a rifle isn't it already to late?
Maybe just maybe I enjoy owning and shooting Military firearms without the sudden murderous compulsion to just put rounds into everybody I see.

But the Final point in the argument is the one that trumps all others and that is that the forefathers had the foresight to put in the Second Amendment to this glorious Constitution of the United States of America.

[gimpy117]

I don't think you will ever need a rifle in 7.62x39 for home defense. It's called home "defense" not "home assault" for a reason. It would be a fun gun for range time, but I think it's overkill for personal defense and an example of what Skybird is talking about. And it's still an assault rifle. has to do with the cartage

[the_tyrant]

Slightly off topic:
how does the NRA get its funds? though membership fees and donations?

[August]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

Slightly off topic:
how does the NRA get its funds? though membership fees and donations?

Yeap.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No, it is not that one-lane road you claim. Demand can artifically be created, and is all the time. To do so is the job of the advertisement industry, and lobbying. One would not spend billions into that effort year by year if it were not producing returns the companies can count in dollars and cents.
That includes the weapons lobby. That includes Hollywood.

And like kids can get used to not like sweets as much as they usually do, you can also educate or influence people to find images of violence and weapons less attractive. For many of us, this also happens all by itself, naturally, when we become older.

PARTY FOUL.

You mean to tell me that the European desire for American movies is solely based on media presentation and advertising? Sorry. that rationale doesn't work, Sky. EVERYONE who pays to see a movie - American or not - makes a CHOICE to do so. Where the rubber meets the road, it's a CHOICE. Unless, of course, the American media companies are subtly brainwashing Europeans into going to the movies... ?

No, sorry, total party foul. American movies are made today based on the perception of European ticket sales - I know this for a fact. If there's little to no European appeal in a title, it's chances of being made by a large studio become almost nil, because there will be so little European ticket sales. Advertising is only a small part of the whole process.

[Skybird]

There is much to be said about "free will" and neural determinism, and in how far our freedom to chose depends on earlier stimuli that have formed our percpetion of ourselves and the world. But it is late over here (or early...), and I just remind of this and tell you that it is by far not that simple as you try to make it appear.

And no, I did not say that movie preferences are completely based on commercials. I hinted at that there is more reason than just commercials why people prefer violent, weapon-heavy action movies - resulting in more of that kind of movies and thus: according commercials. Which means I said something quite different.

Well, full stop here. It's 5:30.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Now some would call it an assault rifle, It is not, at least not any longer. It does not have full auto capability only semi auto use which makes it just a semi auto rifle.

.

I don't remember shooting my assault rifle in full auto during my army service.
That is besides few times to prove how wastefully and ineffective it is.
Ok so you cant preform rage shooting with this rifle but you still have high velocity long range gun.

Why any one would want to own AK 74 is beyond me but have fun.

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

I don't think you will ever need a rifle in 7.62x39 for home defense. It's called home "defense" not "home assault" for a reason. It would be a fun gun for range time, but I think it's overkill for personal defense and an example of what Skybird is talking about. And it's still an assault rifle. has to do with the cartage

Its not a 7.62x39 although that translates into a .308 or 30 cal popular for hunting

It is a 5.45x39 which is similar to the .223\5.56 NATO round. In fact it is a copy of the idea. So that equates it to basically a .22 caliber bullet.

It has nothing to do with the round but the designed intent of the firearm.
Assault weapons are fully automatic. Once that equation is removed the only thing remaining is the looks. My Rifle will look just like the AK-74. It will be based off the AK-74. But it will be just a magazine fed rifle.

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by MH

I don't remember shooting my assault rifle in full auto during my army service.
That is besides few times to prove how wastefully and ineffective it is.
Ok so you cant preform rage shooting with this rifle but you still have high velocity long range gun.

Why any one would want to own AK 74 is beyond me but have fun.

Reason's to own an AK-74.

1. Cost. Dirt cheap right now as low as $399 at some online retailers.
2. Ammo cost. 1,040 rounds of surplus soviet\ukrainian ammo in sealed tins $149 U.S. !!!!!!!!!!!!! That's far less than even 9mm ammo for my handgun
3. maintenance ...almost none, Gun will outlast me and probably my great grandchildren.
4. Fun to shoot a piece of military history

Its not for home defense and I never claimed it was. That's what my 12 gauge is for. Shooting is a hobby just like many other hobby's.

A Ruger mini 14 ranch rifle
http://www.americanfirearmsschool.co...I14_INV225.JPG

Now a militarized one
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog...ini_14-tfb.JPG

So it goes from being a ranch rifle to an assault rifle just by putting cool looking parts on it that have no effect on its actual function?

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by MH

Freedom to carry a gun seems to me more of American symbol than necessity.

Here is the key of it. Necessity is all the time. When you have crazies walking the streets or criminals legal or not doing what they want. Tools suppose to protect us are being abused. Who do you trust? Who do you give up your rights to and believe they will protect you and the people you love? I'm never going to give up my right to defend myself ever. If that means the police or invader will shoot me so be it. I will die trying to protect my family and ---- the system.

States interests aren't your interests. These policies are set for a select few to control the rest. Nothing more nothing less. I personally don't care if the rules are in US, Russia, Europe or any other nation. You have a right to defend yourself Period!

But the Final point in the argument is the one that trumps all others and that is that the forefathers had the foresight to put in the Second Amendment to this glorious Constitution of the United States of America.

If they had the foresight it wouldn't be an amendment would it

[yubba]

Actually it should have been the first amendment, we didn't drive the British out of our country and win our independence from them, by talking nicely to them, we shot and killed them. The gun is what made us free and is what keeps us free, and you guys better not forget that. Anyone that hates your gun rights more than likely hates your other rights too.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If they had the foresight it wouldn't be an amendment would it

Some of them did have the foresight. The anti-Federalists demanded a Bill of Rights be included in the original Constitution.