With every shooting I hear people arglebargle about Obama taking away guns. I've yet to see a word from the man himself about it. I don't even think he mentioned it after the Giffords shooting in Arizona.
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
There's no difference between that and a magazine fed weapon, aside from how and how fast it's reloaded. Every gun is single shot.
A single-shot weapon requires manual intervention to reload. A magazine-fed weapon does not.
That would be what we call "a difference."
Magazine-fed bolt-action rifles require manual intervention to reload. Single-action revolvers require manual intervention to reload. Every gun is single shot.
Do you have a source for your contention, or are you just spouting nonsense?
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
I'm a tad freaked out by that lockdown business in the article. An administrator pushed a button and all exits closed and locked themselves? Am I reading that right?
If it's using a mag-lock security system like the ones we have at work, it's not that the exits locked themselves, it's that they stop responding to unlock requests/REXs.
Um, kinda. First you'd never see a school deploy maglocks for every classroom door. That's way too fucking expensive. And a maglock system doesn't need to be configured for that. For a school, you'd likely have the maglocks off during the day and simply turn them on a scheduled at night. Or you set up a pair of REXs, one tied to a push button and one to a motion detector. And the big problem with an access control based locked down is that pulling the fire alarm will disable it.
I know. My statement was somewhat simplified. Under normal operation all the doors would have a bypass setting during X hours based on the portal, with a threat level override. Somebody logs into the server, sets the threat level to "MAN WITH GUN" and all the REXs go 'fuck off' and ignore anybody without a certain access level on a swipe point.
And yes, the fire alarm would fuck it all up anyways. But who outside of security technicians, responders, and everyone on this forum now would know that?
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
There's no difference between that and a magazine fed weapon, aside from how and how fast it's reloaded. Every gun is single shot.
A single-shot weapon requires manual intervention to reload. A magazine-fed weapon does not.
That would be what we call "a difference."
Magazine-fed bolt-action rifles require manual intervention to reload. Single-action revolvers require manual intervention to reload. Every gun is single shot.
Do you have a source for your contention, or are you just spouting nonsense?
How would a source help? The things he is saying are correct. Whether you consider them an acceptable argument is another.
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
0
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
the worst part about school shootings (apart from the people hurt, of course) is that it opens up the floor for talking heads to yell about gun control on evening editorial shows and somehow we completely bypass the discussion as to why all this happened.
Yep. Or I guess in the political climate, "Is this just the kind of tragedy that Obama has been waiting for to use as an excuse to take away your guns?"
Because telling parents that they're doing things wrong and telling society it's dysfunctional doesn't make people watch your commercials, I guess.
Well I think there are politicians on either side of the gun control debate who try to use every tragedy as a political football to advance their position.
But yeah, telling people "shit like this happens because you are terrible parents to your children or because your children are terrible people to other children" doesn't resonate with viewers
I started thinking about this again the other day - the case of that poor kid who killed himself after his room mate outed him was in the news - I think the room mate was either sentenced or it's gone to trial? I dunno. I thought about it though, and it made me so god damn mad. Like, what is it that seperates that kid from killing himself and another from getting a gun and hurting others? It all seems steeped in the same problem that there are plenty of people in the world like the room mate that are absolute miserable shitheels and deserve no sympathy
The unfortunate thing is that people like the shitheel roommate are themselves a product of their environment and what needs to happen is coming together as a society to help such individuals become more mindful of their fellow human beings.
You say so many intelligent and well informed things that I completely agree with.
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
There's no difference between that and a magazine fed weapon, aside from how and how fast it's reloaded. Every gun is single shot.
A single-shot weapon requires manual intervention to reload. A magazine-fed weapon does not.
That would be what we call "a difference."
Magazine-fed bolt-action rifles require manual intervention to reload. Single-action revolvers require manual intervention to reload. Every gun is single shot.
"single shot" means that you can only load one shot at a time. you can only put one bullet or ball or what have you in the weapon. like, the term exists for a reason. it's not a made up term, or a fiction.
Ok, show me a gun that lets you put two rounds in the chamber? A magazine full of bullets is no different than a powder horn and wadding in your pouch. They're useless until they're in the chamber. The only difference is reloading speed.
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
There's no difference between that and a magazine fed weapon, aside from how and how fast it's reloaded. Every gun is single shot.
A single-shot weapon requires manual intervention to reload. A magazine-fed weapon does not.
That would be what we call "a difference."
Magazine-fed bolt-action rifles require manual intervention to reload. Single-action revolvers require manual intervention to reload. Every gun is single shot.
"single shot" means that you can only load one shot at a time. you can only put one bullet or ball or what have you in the weapon. like, the term exists for a reason. it's not a made up term, or a fiction.
Ok, show me a gun that lets you put two rounds in the chamber? A magazine full of bullets is no different than a powder horn and wadding in your pouch. They're useless until they're in the chamber. The only difference is reloading speed.
0
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
oh hey, looks like all sorts of employee info spreadsheets are open to me.
I had access to the HR databases at my old company. It was really depressing knowing what everyone made. Like super depressing. In the office I had like the red terminator vision with a HUD overly that displayed people's salaries as I passed by.
bah, nothing interesting on me or current coworkers. oh well. maybe something will turn up inadvertently some other day. i'm such a snoopy bastard.
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
There's no difference between that and a magazine fed weapon, aside from how and how fast it's reloaded. Every gun is single shot.
A single-shot weapon requires manual intervention to reload. A magazine-fed weapon does not.
That would be what we call "a difference."
Magazine-fed bolt-action rifles require manual intervention to reload. Single-action revolvers require manual intervention to reload. Every gun is single shot.
"single shot" means that you can only load one shot at a time. you can only put one bullet or ball or what have you in the weapon. like, the term exists for a reason. it's not a made up term, or a fiction.
Ok, show me a gun that lets you put two rounds in the chamber? A magazine full of bullets is no different than a powder horn and wadding in your pouch. They're useless until they're in the chamber. The only difference is reloading speed.
... This is stupid, it's like saying every car engine is a cannon and the only difference is that in an engine the pistons/cannonball are returned automatically.
With every shooting I hear people arglebargle about Obama taking away guns. I've yet to see a word from the man himself about it. I don't even think he mentioned it after the Giffords shooting in Arizona.
well, you do have the Brady Campaign, which is viewed as a Democratic-friendly interest group, giving its rabblerabble opposite the NRA at every shooting.
It's a lot easier to say "Obama is going to take your guns" than "The Brady Campaign is going to lobby members of congress who are going to draft a bill, which will go through several revisions, which will be voted on in the house and senate and then head to President Obama's desk where if he decides to not veto it he will sign it into law"
0
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
I'm a tad freaked out by that lockdown business in the article. An administrator pushed a button and all exits closed and locked themselves? Am I reading that right?
If it's using a mag-lock security system like the ones we have at work, it's not that the exits locked themselves, it's that they stop responding to unlock requests/REXs.
Um, kinda. First you'd never see a school deploy maglocks for every classroom door. That's way too fucking expensive. And a maglock system doesn't need to be configured for that. For a school, you'd likely have the maglocks off during the day and simply turn them on a scheduled at night. Or you set up a pair of REXs, one tied to a push button and one to a motion detector. And the big problem with an access control based locked down is that pulling the fire alarm will disable it.
I know. My statement was somewhat simplified. Under normal operation all the doors would have a bypass setting during X hours based on the portal, with a threat level override. Somebody logs into the server, sets the threat level to "MAN WITH GUN" and all the REXs go 'fuck off' and ignore anybody without a certain access level on a swipe point.
And yes, the fire alarm would fuck it all up anyways. But who outside of security technicians, responders, and everyone on this forum now would know that?
Kids of responders, teachers, janitors. It becomes common knowledge. Shit like this comes out. But it would still be way too damn expensive.
On May 25, 2011, Judge Burns ruled Loughner was then incompetent to stand trial. Court proceedings were suspended while Loughner, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia,[82] undergoes psychiatric treatment at the psychiatric wing of the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri. He was scheduled to appear in court on September 21, 2011, but that hearing was delayed until September 28, 2011, when the judge reviewed whether he could understand the charges against him and could assist in his own defense. (Loughner’s lawyers unsuccessfully objected to him appearing at the hearing.)[83] Loughner disrupted the court hearing with an outburst, and was carried from the court room. According to the New York Times, Loughner believes he succeeded in killing Giffords, and clashed with his lawyer when she informed him that the congresswoman had survived.[82]
Forced medication rulings
On June 26, 2011, Judge Burns ruled that prison doctors could forcibly medicate Loughner with antipsychotic drugs in order to make him fit to stand trial.[84][85] However, on July 12, 2011, a three-judge federal appeals panel from the Ninth Circuit ruled that Loughner could refuse anti-psychotic medication, since he "has not been convicted of a crime, is presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled to greater constitutional protections than a convicted inmate."[86][87][88][89] However, the ruling stated that it "does not preclude prison authorities from taking other measures to maintain the safety of prison personnel, other inmates and Loughner himself, including forced administration of tranquilizers"[86]
A week after the ruling, prison medical authorities resumed forcible treatment of Loughner with the antipsychotic risperidone, this time citing Harper and stating the purpose of treatment was the need to control the danger he posed to himself and others in prison, rather than rendering him fit for trial.[90][91] Loughner's defense team submitted an emergency motion to the 9th Circuit Appeals Court claiming that this treatment was in violation of their ruling and seeking an immediate injunction to halt treatment.[90] The request for an injunction was denied by the court, allowing treatment to continue pending a full hearing into the matter.[92] Arguments began in the 9th Circuit Appeals Court began on the 30th August as to the lawfulness of this treatment,[93][94] and as of December 2011, arguments are ongoing, with Loughner continuing to be treated in the interim.[95]
Speaking of the Giffords shooting, did the shooter's trial ever happen?
Wasn't he declared batshit?
Ah here it is. He was declared incompetent to stand trial. They figure he would be competent if given meds, and they've tried to force giving him meds so they can put him on trial, but his lawyers sued and the 9th circuit said "he's not been convicted of anything, so you can't force meds on him unless it's to keep everyone safe." So now they're forcing the medication on him 'for the safety of other inmates and corrections employees.'
0
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
i do not understand this stupid stupid argument
its pretty obvious what is going on
thanatos said "single shot musket", fucking obviously referring to a particular definition of single shot (hint: probably one consistent with the word musket)
he was intending to communicate a particular concept and he used a correct term to do so
why even bother arguing some absurd semantic point that has nothing to do with it and is basically just a definition argument, the most productive of all possible arguments
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
I'm a tad freaked out by that lockdown business in the article. An administrator pushed a button and all exits closed and locked themselves? Am I reading that right?
If it's using a mag-lock security system like the ones we have at work, it's not that the exits locked themselves, it's that they stop responding to unlock requests/REXs.
Um, kinda. First you'd never see a school deploy maglocks for every classroom door. That's way too fucking expensive. And a maglock system doesn't need to be configured for that. For a school, you'd likely have the maglocks off during the day and simply turn them on a scheduled at night. Or you set up a pair of REXs, one tied to a push button and one to a motion detector. And the big problem with an access control based locked down is that pulling the fire alarm will disable it.
I know. My statement was somewhat simplified. Under normal operation all the doors would have a bypass setting during X hours based on the portal, with a threat level override. Somebody logs into the server, sets the threat level to "MAN WITH GUN" and all the REXs go 'fuck off' and ignore anybody without a certain access level on a swipe point.
And yes, the fire alarm would fuck it all up anyways. But who outside of security technicians, responders, and everyone on this forum now would know that?
Kids of responders, teachers, janitors. It becomes common knowledge. Shit like this comes out. But it would still be way too damn expensive.
Oh no doubt. And it'd get lowest-bidder'd anyways, and then you'd wind up with the system we had that had to have its main board replaced every three months.
0
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
thanatos said "single shot musket", fucking obviously referring to a particular definition of single shot (hint: probably one consistent with the word musket)
he was intending to communicate a particular concept and he used a correct term to do so
why even bother arguing some absurd semantic point that has nothing to do with it and is basically just a definition argument, the most productive of all possible arguments
da fuq chat?
Because wasting time on the Internet is better than working.
here's the article I mentioned, written way back in 1995. Things have obviously advanced since then, toward the "individual right" interpretation. Section C-2 is pertinent to the current tangent.
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
There's no difference between that and a magazine fed weapon, aside from how and how fast it's reloaded. Every gun is single shot.
A single-shot weapon requires manual intervention to reload. A magazine-fed weapon does not.
That would be what we call "a difference."
Magazine-fed bolt-action rifles require manual intervention to reload. Single-action revolvers require manual intervention to reload. Every gun is single shot.
"single shot" means that you can only load one shot at a time. you can only put one bullet or ball or what have you in the weapon. like, the term exists for a reason. it's not a made up term, or a fiction.
Ok, show me a gun that lets you put two rounds in the chamber? A magazine full of bullets is no different than a powder horn and wadding in your pouch. They're useless until they're in the chamber. The only difference is reloading speed.
... This is stupid, it's like saying every car engine is a cannon and the only difference is that in an engine the pistons/cannonball are returned automatically.
It's a pretty significant difference
The point I'm trying to make is the "hurf durf it shoots a lot of bullets" argument is as dumb an anti-gun argument as "I should be allowed to own nukes!" is a pro-gun argument. If everything was outlawed except black powder muskets, what if I could load and fire 6 rounds a minute, and my neighbor only 3? Legislation trying to limit the number of rounds a gun can hold in reserve is akin to being told you can only reload your gun at a certain speed.
thanatos said "single shot musket", fucking obviously referring to a particular definition of single shot (hint: probably one consistent with the word musket)
he was intending to communicate a particular concept and he used a correct term to do so
why even bother arguing some absurd semantic point that has nothing to do with it and is basically just a definition argument, the most productive of all possible arguments
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
There's no difference between that and a magazine fed weapon, aside from how and how fast it's reloaded. Every gun is single shot.
A single-shot weapon requires manual intervention to reload. A magazine-fed weapon does not.
That would be what we call "a difference."
Magazine-fed bolt-action rifles require manual intervention to reload. Single-action revolvers require manual intervention to reload. Every gun is single shot.
"single shot" means that you can only load one shot at a time. you can only put one bullet or ball or what have you in the weapon. like, the term exists for a reason. it's not a made up term, or a fiction.
Ok, show me a gun that lets you put two rounds in the chamber? A magazine full of bullets is no different than a powder horn and wadding in your pouch. They're useless until they're in the chamber. The only difference is reloading speed.
... This is stupid, it's like saying every car engine is a cannon and the only difference is that in an engine the pistons/cannonball are returned automatically.
It's a pretty significant difference
The point I'm trying to make is the "hurf durf it shoots a lot of bullets" argument is as dumb an anti-gun argument as "I should be allowed to own nukes!" is a pro-gun argument. If everything was outlawed except black powder muskets, what if I could load and fire 6 rounds a minute, and my neighbor only 3? Legislation trying to limit the number of rounds a gun can hold in reserve is akin to being told you can only reload your gun at a certain speed.
this is the idea i thought you were hinting at and you probably should have started out with this
0
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
"Rage faces" are the best invention of the Internet.
0
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
and look theres now a loose sorites paradox in the thread
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
There's no difference between that and a magazine fed weapon, aside from how and how fast it's reloaded. Every gun is single shot.
A single-shot weapon requires manual intervention to reload. A magazine-fed weapon does not.
That would be what we call "a difference."
Magazine-fed bolt-action rifles require manual intervention to reload. Single-action revolvers require manual intervention to reload. Every gun is single shot.
"single shot" means that you can only load one shot at a time. you can only put one bullet or ball or what have you in the weapon. like, the term exists for a reason. it's not a made up term, or a fiction.
Ok, show me a gun that lets you put two rounds in the chamber? A magazine full of bullets is no different than a powder horn and wadding in your pouch. They're useless until they're in the chamber. The only difference is reloading speed.
... This is stupid, it's like saying every car engine is a cannon and the only difference is that in an engine the pistons/cannonball are returned automatically.
It's a pretty significant difference
The point I'm trying to make is the "hurf durf it shoots a lot of bullets" argument is as dumb an anti-gun argument as "I should be allowed to own nukes!" is a pro-gun argument. If everything was outlawed except black powder muskets, what if I could load and fire 6 rounds a minute, and my neighbor only 3? Legislation trying to limit the number of rounds a gun can hold in reserve is akin to being told you can only reload your gun at a certain speed.
this is the idea i thought you were hinting at and you probably should have started out with this
Yeah, well, give me enough rope and I hang myself. But I won't shoot myself. Because I practice trigger safety. Like a responsible gun owner.
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
There's no difference between that and a magazine fed weapon, aside from how and how fast it's reloaded. Every gun is single shot.
A single-shot weapon requires manual intervention to reload. A magazine-fed weapon does not.
That would be what we call "a difference."
Magazine-fed bolt-action rifles require manual intervention to reload. Single-action revolvers require manual intervention to reload. Every gun is single shot.
"single shot" means that you can only load one shot at a time. you can only put one bullet or ball or what have you in the weapon. like, the term exists for a reason. it's not a made up term, or a fiction.
Ok, show me a gun that lets you put two rounds in the chamber? A magazine full of bullets is no different than a powder horn and wadding in your pouch. They're useless until they're in the chamber. The only difference is reloading speed.
If we're going to use the Constitution as a justification for a right to bear arms, then that's fine, as long as you're okay with the arms in question being single-shot black powder muskets.
Posts
3 lives and 2 continues
The broad side of a barn.
I know. My statement was somewhat simplified. Under normal operation all the doors would have a bypass setting during X hours based on the portal, with a threat level override. Somebody logs into the server, sets the threat level to "MAN WITH GUN" and all the REXs go 'fuck off' and ignore anybody without a certain access level on a swipe point.
And yes, the fire alarm would fuck it all up anyways. But who outside of security technicians, responders, and everyone on this forum now would know that?
I think you only grazed that buck in the woods.
EDIT: Dammit, flippy!
How would a source help? The things he is saying are correct. Whether you consider them an acceptable argument is another.
Thanks, Dudeward
Ok, show me a gun that lets you put two rounds in the chamber? A magazine full of bullets is no different than a powder horn and wadding in your pouch. They're useless until they're in the chamber. The only difference is reloading speed.
.....WITH MY KNIFE....
Wasn't he declared batshit?
RAMIREZ MILK THOSE COWS
The batshittest.
... This is stupid, it's like saying every car engine is a cannon and the only difference is that in an engine the pistons/cannonball are returned automatically.
It's a pretty significant difference
well, you do have the Brady Campaign, which is viewed as a Democratic-friendly interest group, giving its rabblerabble opposite the NRA at every shooting.
It's a lot easier to say "Obama is going to take your guns" than "The Brady Campaign is going to lobby members of congress who are going to draft a bill, which will go through several revisions, which will be voted on in the house and senate and then head to President Obama's desk where if he decides to not veto it he will sign it into law"
Kids of responders, teachers, janitors. It becomes common knowledge. Shit like this comes out. But it would still be way too damn expensive.
Okay then.
Ah here it is. He was declared incompetent to stand trial. They figure he would be competent if given meds, and they've tried to force giving him meds so they can put him on trial, but his lawyers sued and the 9th circuit said "he's not been convicted of anything, so you can't force meds on him unless it's to keep everyone safe." So now they're forcing the medication on him 'for the safety of other inmates and corrections employees.'
its pretty obvious what is going on
thanatos said "single shot musket", fucking obviously referring to a particular definition of single shot (hint: probably one consistent with the word musket)
he was intending to communicate a particular concept and he used a correct term to do so
why even bother arguing some absurd semantic point that has nothing to do with it and is basically just a definition argument, the most productive of all possible arguments
da fuq chat?
Oh no doubt. And it'd get lowest-bidder'd anyways, and then you'd wind up with the system we had that had to have its main board replaced every three months.
Because wasting time on the Internet is better than working.
@Nova_c
here's the article I mentioned, written way back in 1995. Things have obviously advanced since then, toward the "individual right" interpretation. Section C-2 is pertinent to the current tangent.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
You're being pedantic and I think you know what Than meant when he said "single shot".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaUqdIFUbxE
The point I'm trying to make is the "hurf durf it shoots a lot of bullets" argument is as dumb an anti-gun argument as "I should be allowed to own nukes!" is a pro-gun argument. If everything was outlawed except black powder muskets, what if I could load and fire 6 rounds a minute, and my neighbor only 3? Legislation trying to limit the number of rounds a gun can hold in reserve is akin to being told you can only reload your gun at a certain speed.
Hey man, those are like, the best arguments.
this is the idea i thought you were hinting at and you probably should have started out with this
ABANDON THREAD
Yeah, well, give me enough rope and I hang myself. But I won't shoot myself. Because I practice trigger safety. Like a responsible gun owner.
fine
I am going to brag about applying for jobs up in this place and ignore this retarded gun "discussion"
I am fishing for compliments here people.
lots of them
What if you tape like six guns together and wire the triggers up so you pull one and they all fire simultaneously and you call it Supergun.
Is it not, then, a gun unto itself? And would it not, then, be multi-shot?
And before you reject this argument, ask yourself this: Is Voltron one or many?