The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.

you know what's awesome

1235717

Posts

  • bombardierbombardier Moderator Mod Emeritus
    edited July 2009
    Knob wrote: »
    Artreus wrote: »
    Really, that argument aside, gun deaths would drop quite a bit if people were taught how to properly secure and store, and handle their guns.

    This. I am 100% all for this. Free public education. Less knee-jerk terror, more responsible education

    Hooray. And this is why my dad brought me shooting at a young age and taught me how to respect the guns. Didn't care if I liked it or ever wanted to have my own.

    bombardier on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Zoel wrote: »
    Eh I don't really care if the ability to keep an assault weapon at home or in public is restricted, but I think you should be able to use them on a shooting range.

    Everyone should fire an M16 at least once

    Right before being bounced out of the military due to LET'S GO RIDE BIKES

    I uh

    I actually did separate from my flight the day after we went to the range

    Did you name your rifle Charlene?

    Hunter on
  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    There is exactly one thing you need to do in life, and that is die

    Everything past that is varying levels of desire

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • Penguin IncarnatePenguin Incarnate King of Kafiristan Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    My stupid dad won't give me his stupid M1911 for jerks.

    Penguin Incarnate on
  • Charles KinboteCharles Kinbote Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    that's an idiotic argument that I hope that you do not actually believe

    Charles Kinbote on
  • Penguin IncarnatePenguin Incarnate King of Kafiristan Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    that's an idiotic argument that I hope that you do not actually believe
    Well, I don't think every jerk has an M1911, I'm just saying some jerks have one.

    Penguin Incarnate on
  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    unless you mean like pop culture in which case I fail to see how that's relevant

    Don't be obtuse. The point is that whether you deem something necessary is completely irrelevant to whether it should be legal to own. If you start making things illegal because they aren't necessary, you're not going to stop for a long, long time. It's a weak argument that gets repeated for reasons that are unclear to me.

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I find it funny that I am looking to join the military(Need to make weight, need to audition for the whole musician rating thing) and will most likely never fire an M-16.

    Khavall on
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    Hunter wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Zoel wrote: »
    Eh I don't really care if the ability to keep an assault weapon at home or in public is restricted, but I think you should be able to use them on a shooting range.

    Everyone should fire an M16 at least once

    Right before being bounced out of the military due to LET'S GO RIDE BIKES

    I uh

    I actually did separate from my flight the day after we went to the range

    Did you name your rifle Charlene?

    Doris

    Seriouspost: You only handle the real thing once in AF basic, and you only use your trainer weapon for a couple of classes and the gas chamber, or when you're on EC, and BEAST

    Well that and when they test you on breaking it down and putting it back together and that shit's easy

    Me Too! on
  • Penguin IncarnatePenguin Incarnate King of Kafiristan Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
  • TankHammerTankHammer Atlanta Ghostbuster Atlanta, GARegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    I find it funny that I am looking to join the military(Need to make weight, need to audition for the whole musician rating thing) and will most likely never fire an M-16.

    You'll probably fire an M-4 though.

    TankHammer on
  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    that's an idiotic argument that I hope that you do not actually believe

    Reductio ad absurdum

    I'm sure you can find wikipedia on your own

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • Charles KinboteCharles Kinbote Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Tossrock wrote: »
    unless you mean like pop culture in which case I fail to see how that's relevant

    Don't be obtuse. The point is that whether you deem something necessary is completely irrelevant to whether it should be legal to own. If you start making things illegal because they aren't necessary, you're not going to stop for a long, long time. It's a weak argument that gets repeated for reasons that are unclear to me.

    Fine. Most people would not benefit sufficiently from having an assault rifle to warrant the danger it would pose to them. With compulsory education sponsored by the government at a federal or state level required to own such a weapon, the scales could tip to justify placing such firepower in the hands of the public.

    Can you get behind that, at least?

    Charles Kinbote on
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    You'll probably fire an M-4 though.

    Nope, Navy. Only weapons in basic are the M-9 and 12-gauge shotgun.

    Khavall on
  • GoatmonGoatmon Companion of Kess Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Tossrock wrote: »
    There is exactly one thing you need to do in life, and that is die

    Everything past that is varying levels of desire

    Don't you mean before that?

    Or are we talking about planning one out's afterlife?

    Goatmon on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Zoel wrote: »
    Eh I don't really care if the ability to keep an assault weapon at home or in public is restricted, but I think you should be able to use them on a shooting range.

    Everyone should fire an M16 at least once

    Right before being bounced out of the military due to LET'S GO RIDE BIKES

    I uh

    I actually did separate from my flight the day after we went to the range

    Did you name your rifle Charlene?

    Doris

    Seriouspost: You only handle the real thing once in AF basic, and you only use your trainer weapon for a couple of classes and the gas chamber, or when you're on EC, and BEAST

    Well that and when they test you on breaking it down and putting it back together and that shit's easy

    If you get why I asked you if you named it Charlene I'll give you 100 rape dollars.

    Hunter on
  • KnobKnob TURN THE BEAT BACK InternetModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited July 2009
    No. It was an example. Automatic weapons are assault weapons.

    Assault weapons are made to shoot people, whether for defense or offense. End of story.

    using your criteria can you identify which of the following are assault weapons

    Remington%20700%2022-250.jpg

    LTMR_Digital700_Woodland20_1.jpg

    hello-kitty-ar-15-rifle-2.jpg

    TommyDrum11.jpg

    ruger_1022rb.jpg

    Knob on
  • OdenOden Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    is it a full metal jacket reference

    Oden on
  • Penguin IncarnatePenguin Incarnate King of Kafiristan Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The M16 is a much better gun, I found. A lot of people overuse it, especially with the grenade launcher attachment, but you can still do that with the M4. When it comes down to it, I want to be able to put a guy down in one burst, otherwise, with the M4, I'm standing around for a couple of seconds before the guy I'm shooting at finally takes enough damage. Plus, it doesn't really matter what perk you put on when you've got the M16 especially if you're in hardcore mode.

    Penguin Incarnate on
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    Hunter wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Me Too! wrote: »
    Zoel wrote: »
    Eh I don't really care if the ability to keep an assault weapon at home or in public is restricted, but I think you should be able to use them on a shooting range.

    Everyone should fire an M16 at least once

    Right before being bounced out of the military due to LET'S GO RIDE BIKES

    I uh

    I actually did separate from my flight the day after we went to the range

    Did you name your rifle Charlene?

    Doris

    Seriouspost: You only handle the real thing once in AF basic, and you only use your trainer weapon for a couple of classes and the gas chamber, or when you're on EC, and BEAST

    Well that and when they test you on breaking it down and putting it back together and that shit's easy

    If you get why I asked you if you named it Charlene I'll give you 100 rape dollars.

    Gomer Pyle named his rifle Charlene

    Give me some credit man, Full Metal Jacket quotes made up at least a quarter of the conversation in my dorm

    Me Too! on
  • OdenOden Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    when I go to the states i'm going to make some time to go to a rifle range

    I told my friends about this and they were like "cool"

    Oden on
  • Penguin IncarnatePenguin Incarnate King of Kafiristan Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    OlympicArmsoa93withcmaglightNVG.jpg

    For especially tenacious deer.

    Penguin Incarnate on
  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Tossrock wrote: »
    unless you mean like pop culture in which case I fail to see how that's relevant

    Don't be obtuse. The point is that whether you deem something necessary is completely irrelevant to whether it should be legal to own. If you start making things illegal because they aren't necessary, you're not going to stop for a long, long time. It's a weak argument that gets repeated for reasons that are unclear to me.

    Fine. Most people would not benefit sufficiently from having an assault rifle to warrant the danger it would pose to them. With compulsory education sponsored by the government at a federal or state level required to own such a weapon, the scales could tip to justify placing such firepower in the hands of the public.

    Can you get behind that, at least?

    I'm pretty sure everyone ever supports better fire arms education

    And I think heavily restricting inherrantly dangerous objects is a good idea, so that the people who end up owning them really want to, and know what they're getting into

    but I don't think we should make things illegal just because they're dangerous or deemed unnecessary.

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Goatmon wrote: »
    Artreus wrote: »
    Personally, I feel safer living in a country that allows its citizens to own guns. The second amendment mentions a militia. So sure, that might mean that it isn't talking about you being able to own whatever gun you want for every day purposes. But if the situation ever comes up again wherein a militia is necessary, we already have a bunch of people who know how to properly and responsibly use guns instead of having to train everyone from scratch and hasty law making to enable people to have guns again.

    I know that sounds like a pretty rambling and stupid argument "lol wolverines"... but I think there is an argument for an armed populace.

    Really, that argument aside, gun deaths would drop quite a bit if people were taught how to properly secure and store, and handle their guns.

    This is very true. There's a town in the US (Can't remember the name) that passed a law requiring all households to maintain a firearm.

    Their robbery-related crimes pretty much stopped overnight. Imagine that.

    edit: It's Kennesaw, Georgia.

    I live there, and it's not enforced. It's more like a local joke than anything else. It's the suburbs so crime isn't that high anyway.

    Taranis on
    EH28YFo.jpg
  • thorgotthorgot there is special providence in the fall of a sparrowRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Knob wrote: »
    can you identify which of the following...
    hello-kitty-ar-15-rifle-2.jpg

    that one, officer

    that's the gun the little girl was using

    thorgot on
    campionthorgotsig.jpg
  • bombardierbombardier Moderator Mod Emeritus
    edited July 2009
    there is too much pink in your post thorgot

    bombardier on
  • OdenOden Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    the only people I have ever met who owned guns were bikies

    they were pretty responsible about it though and they only ever used them for work (moving drugs)

    Oden on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    OlympicArmsoa93withcmaglightNVG.jpg

    For especially tenacious deer.

    that looks like you covered a pistol in superglue and dropped it in a spare parts box

    what is that on the bottom, a phone?

    MrMonroe on
  • Penguin IncarnatePenguin Incarnate King of Kafiristan Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    OlympicArmsoa93withcmaglightNVG.jpg

    For especially tenacious deer.

    that looks like you covered a pistol in superglue and dropped it in a spare parts box

    what is that on the bottom, a phone?

    I think it's a drum

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • Charles KinboteCharles Kinbote Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Tossrock wrote: »
    Tossrock wrote: »
    unless you mean like pop culture in which case I fail to see how that's relevant

    Don't be obtuse. The point is that whether you deem something necessary is completely irrelevant to whether it should be legal to own. If you start making things illegal because they aren't necessary, you're not going to stop for a long, long time. It's a weak argument that gets repeated for reasons that are unclear to me.

    Fine. Most people would not benefit sufficiently from having an assault rifle to warrant the danger it would pose to them. With compulsory education sponsored by the government at a federal or state level required to own such a weapon, the scales could tip to justify placing such firepower in the hands of the public.

    Can you get behind that, at least?

    I'm pretty sure everyone ever supports better fire arms education

    And I think heavily restricting inherrantly dangerous objects is a good idea, so that the people who end up owning them really want to, and know what they're getting into

    but I don't think we should make things illegal just because they're dangerous or deemed unnecessary.

    You'd be surprised, man. A lot of people don't support fire arms education because they don't support fire arms in any regard.

    By "necessary" I didn't mean "required to exist." I guess what I was mostly getting at is that it would not significantly improve the quality of their life, especially compared to how easily people can hurt themselves with shit like that.

    Education is really the most important thing. Not only book learnin', but actual required practice with an on-site expert.

    Charles Kinbote on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Tossrock wrote: »
    Tossrock wrote: »
    unless you mean like pop culture in which case I fail to see how that's relevant

    Don't be obtuse. The point is that whether you deem something necessary is completely irrelevant to whether it should be legal to own. If you start making things illegal because they aren't necessary, you're not going to stop for a long, long time. It's a weak argument that gets repeated for reasons that are unclear to me.

    Fine. Most people would not benefit sufficiently from having an assault rifle to warrant the danger it would pose to them. With compulsory education sponsored by the government at a federal or state level required to own such a weapon, the scales could tip to justify placing such firepower in the hands of the public.

    Can you get behind that, at least?

    I'm pretty sure everyone ever supports better fire arms education

    And I think heavily restricting inherrantly dangerous objects is a good idea, so that the people who end up owning them really want to, and know what they're getting into

    but I don't think we should make things illegal just because they're dangerous or deemed unnecessary.

    You'd be surprised, man. A lot of people don't support fire arms education because they don't support fire arms in any regard.

    By "necessary" I didn't mean "required to exist." I guess what I was mostly getting at is that it would not significantly improve the quality of their life, especially compared to how easily people can hurt themselves with shit like that.

    Education is really the most important thing. Not only book learnin', but actual required practice with an on-site expert.

    So in the same way people are only allowed to drive a car if they pass a driving test, you would propose a similar scheme for gun ownership/use?

    Would that not be exorbitantly expensive to set up, or just the same as a flat out gun ownership ban with exemptions for trained, qualified individuals?

    The_Scarab on
  • KnobKnob TURN THE BEAT BACK InternetModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited July 2009
    see the big hitch is that driving a car ain't a right

    bein' armed is

    Knob on
  • Charles KinboteCharles Kinbote Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Tossrock wrote: »
    Tossrock wrote: »
    unless you mean like pop culture in which case I fail to see how that's relevant

    Don't be obtuse. The point is that whether you deem something necessary is completely irrelevant to whether it should be legal to own. If you start making things illegal because they aren't necessary, you're not going to stop for a long, long time. It's a weak argument that gets repeated for reasons that are unclear to me.

    Fine. Most people would not benefit sufficiently from having an assault rifle to warrant the danger it would pose to them. With compulsory education sponsored by the government at a federal or state level required to own such a weapon, the scales could tip to justify placing such firepower in the hands of the public.

    Can you get behind that, at least?

    I'm pretty sure everyone ever supports better fire arms education

    And I think heavily restricting inherrantly dangerous objects is a good idea, so that the people who end up owning them really want to, and know what they're getting into

    but I don't think we should make things illegal just because they're dangerous or deemed unnecessary.

    You'd be surprised, man. A lot of people don't support fire arms education because they don't support fire arms in any regard.

    By "necessary" I didn't mean "required to exist." I guess what I was mostly getting at is that it would not significantly improve the quality of their life, especially compared to how easily people can hurt themselves with shit like that.

    Education is really the most important thing. Not only book learnin', but actual required practice with an on-site expert.

    So in the same way people are only allowed to drive a car if they pass a driving test, you would propose a similar scheme for gun ownership/use?

    Would that not be exorbitantly expensive to set up, or just the same as a flat out gun ownership ban with exemptions for trained, qualified individuals?

    I am fairly certain that with strict taxation on publicly sold assault weapons, it would pay for itself after a relatively small kickstart. You only need like one program per state, less on the east coast, and finding individuals with the experience to administrate and run it would be child's play.

    Charles Kinbote on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Knob wrote: »
    see the big hitch is that driving a car ain't a right

    bein' armed is

    You don't think that the circumstances that the 2nd amendment was written in were substantially different than the society/world we live in today, a hundred years later to warrant revoking this right? Is the constitution so set in stone in America that it can never, ever change? While the UK doesn't have a written constitution like the US, the unwritten one has been modified so many times every year every week that few people object to the laws it has laid down. Would that not be a better situation? The America of the eighteenth century is not the America of the twenty-first, surely?

    The_Scarab on
  • DruhimDruhim Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    ok, I apologize if this has already been posted here but it was posted in the pirate thread and is entirely appropriate for this thread as well
    Read about the fascinating and dangerous life of the mall ninja who is out there protecting all us sheeples while we stupidly browse through Bed, Bath, and Beyond

    Druhim on
    belruelotterav-1.jpg
  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    You could probably find people who would take their pay in .50 bmg and job satisfaction

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • TossrockTossrock too weird to live too rare to dieRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    While the UK doesn't have a written constitution like the US, the unwritten one has been modified so many times every year every week that few people object to the laws it has laid down. Would that not be a better situation?

    is this...

    are you even being serious here

    the UK legitimately scares me, they seem as about two government shuffles away from 1984

    Tossrock on
    sig.png
  • ArtreusArtreus I'm a wizard And that looks fucked upRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    Knob wrote: »
    see the big hitch is that driving a car ain't a right

    bein' armed is

    You don't think that the circumstances that the 2nd amendment was written in were substantially different than the society/world we live in today, a hundred years later to warrant revoking this right? Is the constitution so set in stone in America that it can never, ever change? While the UK doesn't have a written constitution like the US, the unwritten one has been modified so many times every year every week that few people object to the laws it has laid down. Would that not be a better situation? The America of the eighteenth century is not the America of the twenty-first, surely?

    Well uh. Being called the 2nd Amendment. It was the second time we amended our constitution. So obviously it is possible. It is just kind of hard, and you really need a good reason to change it. I honestly think there is a strong enough need to amend the 2nd amendment out of the constitution

    Artreus on
    http://atlanticus.tumblr.com/ PSN: Atlanticus 3DS: 1590-4692-3954 Steam: Artreus
  • Charles KinboteCharles Kinbote Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    a friend of mine just got back from spending a year blacksmithing in the UK

    as far as I can tell the place is a total shithole

    Charles Kinbote on
Sign In or Register to comment.