I'm not particularly fond of guns, but I think there's a big difference between the collection of guns and the use of guns.
I don't begrudge someone who likes them to collect and use them for hunting/target practice, etc. (although, I do think that there should be limits- who the hell needs a goddamn vulcan gun?)
On the flip side, how do we enforce existing gun laws better? How can we be more effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and others who would only use them against others?
I was going to say something about me being a gun owner, and not really giving a shit about gun control because it's a totally retarded, irrelevant issue that's used pretty much exclusively to distract from things that actually matter, but Feral beat me to it.
Actually I agree with you here, and feel the same way about gay marriage, religion, schools, global warming, taxes, and Iraq. It's all just statism and control. But if I don't care about the political discussions of the day, I might as well stick to my favorite one.
Do you honestly think we've gotten to the point where people should be voting from the rooftops? I mean, yeah, things have gotten bad rights-wise...but have we really hit that point? I'm not sure what it is you're expecting people (or rather, gunowners) to do, here.
I'm expecting them to stop using bullshit fictitious arguments about how they're standing by to defend freedom for all of us. Because so far all they're doing is standing.
Most of them have a sole criterion in mind to determine when the government has gotten so oppressive that it's time to start shooting. That criterion is: when guns are banned.
So the "guns protect freedom" is a circular argument. "Guns protect the freedom to have guns."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think I'm mostly with Feral, here, except that I think he may have just called me retarded. I'm not sure.
I just posted in a gun control thread, so by my own reasoning I am also retarded.
So you're in good company.
Works for me. :P
Also, fully-automatic weapons are already subject to a de facto ban at the federal level in the U.S. So, again, I ask what qualify as "assault weapons" that are in need of further banning.
None, then, I suppose. I thought you could buy full auto after the AWB sunset. Or at least something that could becoem full auto/burst with little effort.
moniker on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I'm not particularly fond of guns, but I think there's a big difference between the collection of guns and the use of guns.
I don't begrudge someone who likes them to collect and use them for hunting/target practice, etc. (although, I do think that there should be limits- who the hell needs a goddamn vulcan gun?)
On the flip side, how do we enforce existing gun laws better? How can we be more effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and others who would only use them against others?
Registration, background checks, waiting periods, licenses, etc.
None, then, I suppose. I thought you could buy full auto after the AWB sunset. Or at least something that could becoem full auto/burst with little effort.
You can buy full-auto. It's subject to additional background checks, tax stamps, and no new ones are allowed to be sold (so supply is very limited, driving up price). Basically, you're not buying a full-auto unless you're a particularly well-off and law-abiding citizen. Which is why I say there's a de facto ban...they're expensive enough and restricted enough that pretty much only collectors are going to bother.
As for things that can become full auto with little effort, yes. Many semi-auto versions of military rifles can be made burst/full-auto with little effort. Of course, going through that effort will (or rather, can) land you in a federal prison for a fairly long time. In fact, even having a gun malfunction in a way that causes full-auto fire, and not getting it fixed immediately, can land you in a federal prison for a long time.
EDIT: Also, there are very few cases of full-auto weapons (legal or illegal...I'm pretty sure there are almost no cases of legal ones being used in the last 50 years or so) in a crime. That includes converted AK's/AR's. Drive-by's actually go better with semi-auto...you can burn through a magazine far too quickly on full-auto...barely enough to cover a bedroom.
I think I'm mostly with Feral, here, except that I think he may have just called me retarded. I'm not sure.
I just posted in a gun control thread, so by my own reasoning I am also retarded.
So you're in good company.
Works for me. :P
Also, fully-automatic weapons are already subject to a de facto ban at the federal level in the U.S. So, again, I ask what qualify as "assault weapons" that are in need of further banning.
None, then, I suppose. I thought you could buy full auto after the AWB sunset. Or at least something that could becoem full auto/burst with little effort.
No. It is de facto due to market forces. The 1986 FOPA (designed to protect gun owners) included something in there to freeze the list of weapons that could be added to the NFA registry, so there is now basically a set limit of guns in the market. Remember your microeconomics class? What happens when demand increases and supply stays the same?
Shitty Sten guns that were $500 ten or fifteen years ago are now $3000+. But a thug is still better with a handgun, a D.C.-style sniper with any one-shot rifle that has been buried in someone's backyard for 100 years, and a school shooter with whatever he wants since children have been programmed to assume the fetal position during an active shooter. So automatic weapons don't really matter, they are enthusiast guns.
I was going to say something about me being a gun owner, and not really giving a shit about gun control because it's a totally retarded, irrelevant issue that's used pretty much exclusively to distract from things that actually matter, but Feral beat me to it.
Actually I agree with you here, and feel the same way about gay marriage, religion, schools, global warming, taxes, and Iraq. It's all just statism and control. But if I don't care about the political discussions of the day, I might as well stick to my favorite one.
Because you were involved in a political discussion of the day before the retarded trolling got split?
I was going to say something about me being a gun owner, and not really giving a shit about gun control because it's a totally retarded, irrelevant issue that's used pretty much exclusively to distract from things that actually matter, but Feral beat me to it.
Actually I agree with you here, and feel the same way about gay marriage, religion, schools, global warming, taxes, and Iraq. It's all just statism and control. But if I don't care about the political discussions of the day, I might as well stick to my favorite one.
Except all of those things you listed actually have far-reaching, significant effects on people's lives and well-being.
Given the current situation in the U.S., gun control really doesn't.
I'm not particularly fond of guns, but I think there's a big difference between the collection of guns and the use of guns.
I don't begrudge someone who likes them to collect and use them for hunting/target practice, etc. (although, I do think that there should be limits- who the hell needs a goddamn vulcan gun?)
On the flip side, how do we enforce existing gun laws better? How can we be more effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and others who would only use them against others?
Registration, background checks, waiting periods, licenses, etc.
I'm assuming you mean better implimentation of these? Because I'm pretty sure most of these are around, and not that much of a deterrent.
Aww fuck you, 150 seconds between posts? This is more retarded than the 60 second limit on searches. Goddammit, now I really am sorry for trolling you geeks.
I think I'm mostly with Feral, here, except that I think he may have just called me retarded. I'm not sure.
I just posted in a gun control thread, so by my own reasoning I am also retarded.
So you're in good company.
Works for me. :P
Also, fully-automatic weapons are already subject to a de facto ban at the federal level in the U.S. So, again, I ask what qualify as "assault weapons" that are in need of further banning.
None, then, I suppose. I thought you could buy full auto after the AWB sunset. Or at least something that could becoem full auto/burst with little effort.
No. It is de facto banned due to market forces. The 1986 FOPA (designed to protect gun owners) included something in there to freeze the list of weapons that could be added to the NFA registry, so there is now basically a set limit of guns in the market. Remember your microeconomics class? What happens when demand increases and supply stays the same?
Shitty Sten guns that were $500 ten or fifteen years ago are now $3000+. But a thug is still better with a handgun, a D.C.-style sniper with any one-shot rifle that has been buried in someone's backyard for 100 years, and a school shooter with whatever he wants since children have been programmed to assume the fetal position during an active shooter. So automatic weapons don't really matter, they are enthusiast guns.
I'm not particularly fond of guns, but I think there's a big difference between the collection of guns and the use of guns.
I don't begrudge someone who likes them to collect and use them for hunting/target practice, etc. (although, I do think that there should be limits- who the hell needs a goddamn vulcan gun?)
On the flip side, how do we enforce existing gun laws better? How can we be more effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and others who would only use them against others?
Registration, background checks, waiting periods, licenses, etc.
Pretty much. Though I generally think these need to be unrestrictive enough that they don't unduly hamper law-abiding citizens who are looking to defend themselves. When my wife's stalker ex-roommate starts creeping around (and breaking in) I'm not fond of the idea of a 10-day wait before I can get her a gun and start showing her how to use it.
I'm also not big on the idea of the fees for things like licensing/registration being used to discourage ownership.
But there are plenty of compromises possible regarding background checks, licensing, and registration that would help reduce the supply available to criminals while not really hampering the law-abiding.
mcdermott on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited May 2008
I don't really follow this issue closely, so I'll just spout some generalities:
There are two main classes of gun, here, and they have totally different purposes. First, we have handguns, used expressly for self-defense and fun. There is obviously a problem with handguns being used in crimes. I don't object to laws regulating handguns in such a way that it doesn't impede the legitimate uses, while making them less dangerous when used illegally. Things like banning excessively powerful guns strikes me as reasonable, for example. What's the absolute strongest weapon you reasonably need to enjoy target practice and defend yourself? Ban anything more powerful. Things like armor-piercing rounds fall into this category, too, unless your house is frequently broken into by Robocop.
On the other side, we have rifles and shotguns, used for hunting and (I guess) target practice. Here it's a little trickier, because it seems the same thing that makes a weapon ideal for hunting - quick firing, good scope, long range, etc - makes it ideal for, say, shooting presidents from the book depository. This would require a massive cost-benefit analysis, and if it looks like we could, say, save 500 people a year by making it 5% more difficult to shoot a deer on the run, it strikes me as worth it. This is a very gray-scale debate, but you get the idea.
Anyway, those are the sort of regulations on the actual weapons that I support. I won't get into regulations on gun sales.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I was going to say something about me being a gun owner, and not really giving a shit about gun control because it's a totally retarded, irrelevant issue that's used pretty much exclusively to distract from things that actually matter, but Feral beat me to it.
Actually I agree with you here, and feel the same way about gay marriage, religion, schools, global warming, taxes, and Iraq. It's all just statism and control. But if I don't care about the political discussions of the day, I might as well stick to my favorite one.
Except all of those things you listed actually have far-reaching, significant effects on people's lives and well-being.
Given the current situation in the U.S., gun control really doesn't.
I sympathize with this. It's more of a principle thing.
And like jack was getting at, guns don't really help on the front lines of civil rights issues. They only come into play at the very last point when nothing else can be done and we just can't stand for it. It's kind of like you saying that stamp taxes and tea tarriffs have a more significant effect on people's lives. Well, yeah, but..
I was going to say something about me being a gun owner, and not really giving a shit about gun control because it's a totally retarded, irrelevant issue that's used pretty much exclusively to distract from things that actually matter, but Feral beat me to it.
Actually I agree with you here, and feel the same way about gay marriage, religion, schools, global warming, taxes, and Iraq. It's all just statism and control. But if I don't care about the political discussions of the day, I might as well stick to my favorite one.
Except all of those things you listed actually have far-reaching, significant effects on people's lives and well-being.
Given the current situation in the U.S., gun control really doesn't.
I sympathize with this. It's more of a principle thing.
And like jack was getting at, guns don't really help on the front lines of civil rights issues. They only come into play at the very last point when nothing else can be done and we just can't stand for it. It's kind of like you saying that stamp taxes and tea tarriffs have a more significant effect on people's lives. Well, yeah, but..
And no, I'm not a goddamn militia crazy.
Except that against a genuinely tyrannical regime in control of the U.S. military, a bunch of rednecks with .22s aren't going to matter. Hell, a bunch of rednecks with bazookas wouldn't matter.
I'm not particularly fond of guns, but I think there's a big difference between the collection of guns and the use of guns.
I don't begrudge someone who likes them to collect and use them for hunting/target practice, etc. (although, I do think that there should be limits- who the hell needs a goddamn vulcan gun?)
There is no way to debate this feeling. You either have one perspective or another. That human beings are too stupid to be able to buy something like a 20mm cannon that they don't need. Or you think that human beings can generally be left alone as long as they aren't harming others. Again, there is no debate. You just have one view of people or the other.
On the flip side, how do we enforce existing gun laws better? How can we be more effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and others who would only use them against others?
A better question is how do we reduce violent crime? Anti-gun types get caught up by scary guns, but I'd personally rather get shot by a .22 by some thug at an ATM than get raped with a broomhandle. Once you ask the right question, it opens up a few more things.
I was going to say something about me being a gun owner, and not really giving a shit about gun control because it's a totally retarded, irrelevant issue that's used pretty much exclusively to distract from things that actually matter, but Feral beat me to it.
Actually I agree with you here, and feel the same way about gay marriage, religion, schools, global warming, taxes, and Iraq. It's all just statism and control. But if I don't care about the political discussions of the day, I might as well stick to my favorite one.
Except all of those things you listed actually have far-reaching, significant effects on people's lives and well-being.
Given the current situation in the U.S., gun control really doesn't.
I sympathize with this. It's more of a principle thing.
And like jack was getting at, guns don't really help on the front lines of civil rights issues. They only come into play at the very last point when nothing else can be done and we just can't stand for it. It's kind of like you saying that stamp taxes and tea tarriffs have a more significant effect on people's lives. Well, yeah, but..
And no, I'm not a goddamn militia crazy.
Except that against a genuinely tyrannical regime in control of the U.S. military, a bunch of rednecks with .22s aren't going to matter. Hell, a bunch of rednecks with bazookas wouldn't matter.
Again, nice work with your angst-filled trolling, dismissing gun owners as rednecks with .22s. I'm amazed ElJeffe infracts me when you are truly a master.
A serious gun owner can give a better answer than me, but here is something to chew over.
1. If something like this really happened, half of the military would immediately quit out of loyalty to the Constitution and principles of freedom. I am aware that if you were in the military, you would not.
2. Tanks and missles are irrelevant. A .22 shot from a bedroom window will do more to break the will of the military than an anti-tank gun. Hell, even a bunch of scrubs in Iraq have made a decent go at it.
I'm not particularly fond of guns, but I think there's a big difference between the collection of guns and the use of guns.
I don't begrudge someone who likes them to collect and use them for hunting/target practice, etc. (although, I do think that there should be limits- who the hell needs a goddamn vulcan gun?)
There is no way to debate this feeling. You either have one perspective or another. That human beings are too stupid to be able to buy something like a 20mm cannon that they don't need. Or you think that human beings can generally be left alone as long as they aren't harming others. Again, there is no debate. You just have one view of people or the other.
And then we run into the problem of "how do you define 'harming others?'"
Thanatos on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Pretty much. Though I generally think these need to be unrestrictive enough that they don't unduly hamper law-abiding citizens who are looking to defend themselves. When my wife's stalker ex-roommate starts creeping around (and breaking in) I'm not fond of the idea of a 10-day wait before I can get her a gun and start showing her how to use it.
What about something like an expedited check if you have some obvious pressing need - police reports, restraining orders against a harasser, that sort of thing?
Except that against a genuinely tyrannical regime in control of the U.S. military, a bunch of rednecks with .22s aren't going to matter. Hell, a bunch of rednecks with bazookas wouldn't matter.
Again, nice work with your angst-filled trolling, dismissing gun owners as rednecks with .22s. I'm amazed ElJeffe infracts me when you are truly a master.
A serious gun owner can give a better answer than me, but here is something to chew over.
1. If something like this really happened, half of the military would immediately quit out of loyalty to the Constitution and principles of freedom. I am aware that if you were in the military, you would not.
2. Tanks and missles are irrelevant. A .22 shot from a bedroom window will do more to break the will of the military than an anti-tank gun. Hell, even a bunch of scrubs in Iraq have made a decent go at it.
1. If half of the military immediately quits and fights back, the tyrannical regime is over, therefore personal gun ownership is unnecessary.
2. What can a .22 shot from a bedroom window do about a bomb dropped from 40,000 feet in the air? As for "a bunch of scrubs in Iraq" having made a decent go of it, I wasn't aware that the U.S. military currently constitutes "a truly tyrannical regime," but Saddam Hussein somehow managed to keep those scrubs in line for decades with a military that wasn't anywhere near as good as ours.
1. If half of the military immediately quits and fights back, the tyrannical regime is over, therefore personal gun ownership is unnecessary.
50% = 50%. How does that kick the regime out of the ports, out of D.C., out of control of the nukes?
2. What can a .22 shot from a bedroom window do about a bomb dropped from 40,000 feet in the air?
For someone that isn't a fan of Iraq, I figured you would've understood that bombs are useless in these kind of wars.
As for "a bunch of scrubs in Iraq" having made a decent go of it, I wasn't aware that the U.S. military currently constitutes "a truly tyrannical regime"
It isn't, only that small arms can help stop (or in this case, delay) it.
but Saddam Hussein somehow managed to keep those scrubs in line for decades with a military that wasn't anywhere near as good as ours.
Pretty much. Though I generally think these need to be unrestrictive enough that they don't unduly hamper law-abiding citizens who are looking to defend themselves. When my wife's stalker ex-roommate starts creeping around (and breaking in) I'm not fond of the idea of a 10-day wait before I can get her a gun and start showing her how to use it.
What about something like an expedited check if you have some obvious pressing need - police reports, restraining orders against a harasser, that sort of thing?
I'm more a fan of instant background check followed by a licensing/registration/whatever requirement that can be fulfilled within some reasonable amount of time. Failure to follow up can be subject to criminal prosecution (hell, make it a felony).
That way somebody can get the gun for self defense now, but the other requirements (to in theory make them harder to get for criminals) are met as well.
Still won't stop a nutjob who is looking to go on a rampage today, but that's pretty difficult to stop anyway. Aside from having them adjudicated as mentally unfit to own a gun, and making sure that database is checked by the instant background check.
Or, you know, seeing that they actually get decent treatment. But there you get into our absolute failure to address the root causes of crimes committed with guns, whether it's school shootings or random robberies. Promising to ban/restrict guns is easier, and gets you more votes to boot.
As for "a bunch of scrubs in Iraq" having made a decent go of it, I wasn't aware that the U.S. military currently constitutes "a truly tyrannical regime"
It isn't, only that small arms can help stop (or in this case, delay) it.
Right, and no despot is going to force his military to keep the kid gloves on.
1) I'm a "gun nut."
2) "Assault weapon" is basically a meaningless term at this point.
3) Consider ElJeffe's post limed. The assault weapons ban is retarded.
4) Most anti-gun pundits are retarded.
5) Most pro-gun pundits are retarded.
6) Most people who speak out on this issue at all are retarded.
7) The Second Amendment is retarded.
8) The whole situation is retarded.
Gorbachev ended a military coup by convincing a handful of tanks to turn around. 50% of the army? Military takeover is over before it started.
Ok then 10% of the army! Yay, I win the Intardnets!
Only if you're trying to minimize civilian casualties. Maybe you don't understand what "tyranny" is...?
As long as American principles aren't further eroded over the next few decades, all members of the military would revolt at the point we start bombing American citizens. Your response is that gun owners wouldn't be necessary then, but you're basically saying that there is no line that could be crossed, no situation ever when a gun-owning public is necessary and "sufficient" (with some possible military help) to revolt and preserve freedom.
As long as American principles aren't further eroded over the next few decades, all members of the military would revolt at the point we start bombing American citizens.
Don't be so sure. Rolling Stone went to West Point a few years ago and interviewed a bunch of officer-larvae who expressed an eagerness to "take the gloves off" and "clean up things at home." They were referring, of course, to people they don't think count as real Americans anyway, like gays and people from the best-educated, highest-income cities.
2. What can a .22 shot from a bedroom window do about a bomb dropped from 40,000 feet in the air?
For someone that isn't a fan of Iraq, I figured you would've understood that bombs are useless in these kind of wars.
If a government is actively attacking its own people why would it care if civilians were harmed in massive carpet bombings?
Well, one reason is sympathizers. There'd be a lot of limp dicks that would gladly bomb civilians in certain areas if they felt more secure, or some such bullshit. The 80 million gun owners would grow, along with the X million that gave a shit.
Tim James on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
2. What can a .22 shot from a bedroom window do about a bomb dropped from 40,000 feet in the air?
For someone that isn't a fan of Iraq, I figured you would've understood that bombs are useless in these kind of wars.
If a government is actively attacking its own people why would it care if civilians were harmed in massive carpet bombings?
Well, one reason is sympathizers. There'd be a lot of limp dicks that would gladly bomb civilians in certain areas if they felt more secure, or some such bullshit. The 80 million gun owners would grow, along with the X million that gave a shit.
As long as American principles aren't further eroded over the next few decades, all members of the military would revolt at the point we start bombing American citizens.
Don't be so sure. Rolling Stone went to West Point a few years ago and interviewed a bunch of officer-larvae who expressed an eagerness to "take the gloves off" and "clean up things at home." They were referring, of course, to people they don't think count as real Americans anyway, like gays and people from the best-educated, highest-income cities.
What is that term that Karl Marx used to use, about how the "story" is more important than the facts, and people always fall for it, like that there darn military hatin' on them gays and rich educated people in San Francisco. I always forget the word.
2. What can a .22 shot from a bedroom window do about a bomb dropped from 40,000 feet in the air?
For someone that isn't a fan of Iraq, I figured you would've understood that bombs are useless in these kind of wars.
If a government is actively attacking its own people why would it care if civilians were harmed in massive carpet bombings?
Well, one reason is sympathizers. There'd be a lot of limp dicks that would gladly bomb civilians in certain areas if they felt more secure, or some such bullshit. The 80 million gun owners would grow, along with the X million that gave a shit.
What?
You're not making any sense. The government is actively attacking its own people, presumably either to subjugate or erradicate them. What's a guy with a rifle going to do against repeated carpet bombings?
I'm not particularly fond of guns, but I think there's a big difference between the collection of guns and the use of guns.
I don't begrudge someone who likes them to collect and use them for hunting/target practice, etc. (although, I do think that there should be limits- who the hell needs a goddamn vulcan gun?)
On the flip side, how do we enforce existing gun laws better? How can we be more effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and others who would only use them against others?
Registration, background checks, waiting periods, licenses, etc.
Pretty much. Though I generally think these need to be unrestrictive enough that they don't unduly hamper law-abiding citizens who are looking to defend themselves. When my wife's stalker ex-roommate starts creeping around (and breaking in) I'm not fond of the idea of a 10-day wait before I can get her a gun and start showing her how to use it.
I'm also not big on the idea of the fees for things like licensing/registration being used to discourage ownership.
But there are plenty of compromises possible regarding background checks, licensing, and registration that would help reduce the supply available to criminals while not really hampering the law-abiding.
Discouraging ownership is the only way to reduce the supply available to criminals. Most guns used by criminals in this country were, at one point, legally purchased, and have since been stolen. Since there's not a whole lot the government can do to prevent gun thefts, the obvious thing to do is to reduce the number of firearms legally purchased.
Only if you're trying to minimize civilian casualties. Maybe you don't understand what "tyranny" is...?
As long as American principles aren't further eroded over the next few decades, all members of the military would revolt at the point we start bombing American citizens. Your response is that gun owners wouldn't be necessary then, but you're basically saying that there is no line that could be crossed, no situation ever when a gun-owning public is necessary and "sufficient" (with some possible military help) to revolt and preserve freedom. I love D&D. Great place you run here, ElJeffe.
You mean I could actually be saying that in the face of a modern military, civilian gun ownership doesn't present an appreciable nor effective resistance against tyranny? Gee, imagine, that's like saying that the abacus is not an effective calculation tool when compared to the computer. I'm just so crazy.
2. What can a .22 shot from a bedroom window do about a bomb dropped from 40,000 feet in the air?
For someone that isn't a fan of Iraq, I figured you would've understood that bombs are useless in these kind of wars.
If a government is actively attacking its own people why would it care if civilians were harmed in massive carpet bombings?
Well, one reason is sympathizers. There'd be a lot of limp dicks that would gladly bomb civilians in certain areas if they felt more secure, or some such bullshit. The 80 million gun owners would grow, along with the X million that gave a shit.
You mean like in Iraq, when Saddam Hussein fucked up the friends and family of anyone foolish enough to screw with him?
Yeah, that was really effective.
Thanatos on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
As long as American principles aren't further eroded over the next few decades, all members of the military would revolt at the point we start bombing American citizens.
Don't be so sure. Rolling Stone went to West Point a few years ago and interviewed a bunch of officer-larvae who expressed an eagerness to "take the gloves off" and "clean up things at home." They were referring, of course, to people they don't think count as real Americans anyway, like gays and people from the best-educated, highest-income cities.
What is that term that Karl Marx used to use, about how the "story" is more important than the facts, and people always fall for it, like that there darn military hatin' on them gays and rich educated people in San Francisco. I always forget the word.
Out of all the highest-income cities with the best-educated citizens, what made you choose San Francisco for your example. Why not Chicago or Pittsburgh. Is it something to do with the conservative narrative (Is that the word you're looking for) that makes San Francisco stick out in your mind?
And I'm not saying that we should take away everyone's guns because we don't need them to fight against the government; I'm saying that the argument "we need guns to fight against the government" is a fucking stupid argument.
2. What can a .22 shot from a bedroom window do about a bomb dropped from 40,000 feet in the air?
For someone that isn't a fan of Iraq, I figured you would've understood that bombs are useless in these kind of wars.
If a government is actively attacking its own people why would it care if civilians were harmed in massive carpet bombings?
Well, one reason is sympathizers. There'd be a lot of limp dicks that would gladly bomb civilians in certain areas if they felt more secure, or some such bullshit. The 80 million gun owners would grow, along with the X million that gave a shit.
You mean like in Iraq, when Saddam Hussein fucked up the friends and family of anyone foolish enough to screw with him?
Yeah, that was really effective.
And that's a place where every household has a fully automatic weapon. To say nothing of the illegal ones.
As long as American principles aren't further eroded over the next few decades, all members of the military would revolt at the point we start bombing American citizens.
Don't be so sure. Rolling Stone went to West Point a few years ago and interviewed a bunch of officer-larvae who expressed an eagerness to "take the gloves off" and "clean up things at home." They were referring, of course, to people they don't think count as real Americans anyway, like gays and people from the best-educated, highest-income cities.
What is that term that Karl Marx used to use, about how the "story" is more important than the facts, and people always fall for it, like that there darn military hatin' on them gays and rich educated people in San Francisco. I always forget the word.
Out of all the highest-income cities with the best-educated citizens, what made you choose San Francisco for your example. Why not Chicago or Pittsburgh. Is it something to do with the conservative narrative (Is that the word you're looking for) that makes San Francisco stick out in your mind?
YES THANK YOU! I don't know why, but I always forget that word. This is like the "name that game" thread.
Thanatos: there is really no way to know for sure. I acknowledge that you'd never admit that, but I could be wrong and civilian gun ownership would be useless against a committed American tyrant and most of the military. History (oh hey, our own) has shown that it has worked before, but mass destruction could change things.
And yes, the argument is dumb and I don't go around thinking it. It's kind of like libertarians that want to privatize roads. Who cares?
But ElJeffe flamebaited me with the new thread (after declaring that I'd be happy to go peacefully) and I took the bait. So here we are. Everyone's the same as 3 months ago in the Ron Paul threads, ElJeffe's a crybaby because I'm too clever, and I need to go home and take a break from D&D.
Tim James on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Don't be so sure. Rolling Stone went to West Point a few years ago and interviewed a bunch of officer-larvae who expressed an eagerness to "take the gloves off" and "clean up things at home." They were referring, of course, to people they don't think count as real Americans anyway, like gays and people from the best-educated, highest-income cities.
What is that term that Karl Marx used to use, about how the "story" is more important than the facts, and people always fall for it, like that there darn military hatin' on them gays and rich educated people in San Francisco. I always forget the word.
There had to have been a less torturously awkward way for you to phrase that. Anyway, if your point is that the article was somehow in error, consider yourself invited to supply argument and citation for that point. In my own purely anecdotal experience, it sounded pretty accurate, at least as far as officer-types go.
Posts
I don't begrudge someone who likes them to collect and use them for hunting/target practice, etc. (although, I do think that there should be limits- who the hell needs a goddamn vulcan gun?)
On the flip side, how do we enforce existing gun laws better? How can we be more effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and others who would only use them against others?
Most of them have a sole criterion in mind to determine when the government has gotten so oppressive that it's time to start shooting. That criterion is: when guns are banned.
So the "guns protect freedom" is a circular argument. "Guns protect the freedom to have guns."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
None, then, I suppose. I thought you could buy full auto after the AWB sunset. Or at least something that could becoem full auto/burst with little effort.
Registration, background checks, waiting periods, licenses, etc.
You can buy full-auto. It's subject to additional background checks, tax stamps, and no new ones are allowed to be sold (so supply is very limited, driving up price). Basically, you're not buying a full-auto unless you're a particularly well-off and law-abiding citizen. Which is why I say there's a de facto ban...they're expensive enough and restricted enough that pretty much only collectors are going to bother.
As for things that can become full auto with little effort, yes. Many semi-auto versions of military rifles can be made burst/full-auto with little effort. Of course, going through that effort will (or rather, can) land you in a federal prison for a fairly long time. In fact, even having a gun malfunction in a way that causes full-auto fire, and not getting it fixed immediately, can land you in a federal prison for a long time.
EDIT: Also, there are very few cases of full-auto weapons (legal or illegal...I'm pretty sure there are almost no cases of legal ones being used in the last 50 years or so) in a crime. That includes converted AK's/AR's. Drive-by's actually go better with semi-auto...you can burn through a magazine far too quickly on full-auto...barely enough to cover a bedroom.
Shitty Sten guns that were $500 ten or fifteen years ago are now $3000+. But a thug is still better with a handgun, a D.C.-style sniper with any one-shot rifle that has been buried in someone's backyard for 100 years, and a school shooter with whatever he wants since children have been programmed to assume the fetal position during an active shooter. So automatic weapons don't really matter, they are enthusiast guns.
Because you were involved in a political discussion of the day before the retarded trolling got split?
Given the current situation in the U.S., gun control really doesn't.
I'm assuming you mean better implimentation of these? Because I'm pretty sure most of these are around, and not that much of a deterrent.
Pretty much. Though I generally think these need to be unrestrictive enough that they don't unduly hamper law-abiding citizens who are looking to defend themselves. When my wife's stalker ex-roommate starts creeping around (and breaking in) I'm not fond of the idea of a 10-day wait before I can get her a gun and start showing her how to use it.
I'm also not big on the idea of the fees for things like licensing/registration being used to discourage ownership.
But there are plenty of compromises possible regarding background checks, licensing, and registration that would help reduce the supply available to criminals while not really hampering the law-abiding.
There are two main classes of gun, here, and they have totally different purposes. First, we have handguns, used expressly for self-defense and fun. There is obviously a problem with handguns being used in crimes. I don't object to laws regulating handguns in such a way that it doesn't impede the legitimate uses, while making them less dangerous when used illegally. Things like banning excessively powerful guns strikes me as reasonable, for example. What's the absolute strongest weapon you reasonably need to enjoy target practice and defend yourself? Ban anything more powerful. Things like armor-piercing rounds fall into this category, too, unless your house is frequently broken into by Robocop.
On the other side, we have rifles and shotguns, used for hunting and (I guess) target practice. Here it's a little trickier, because it seems the same thing that makes a weapon ideal for hunting - quick firing, good scope, long range, etc - makes it ideal for, say, shooting presidents from the book depository. This would require a massive cost-benefit analysis, and if it looks like we could, say, save 500 people a year by making it 5% more difficult to shoot a deer on the run, it strikes me as worth it. This is a very gray-scale debate, but you get the idea.
Anyway, those are the sort of regulations on the actual weapons that I support. I won't get into regulations on gun sales.
And like jack was getting at, guns don't really help on the front lines of civil rights issues. They only come into play at the very last point when nothing else can be done and we just can't stand for it. It's kind of like you saying that stamp taxes and tea tarriffs have a more significant effect on people's lives. Well, yeah, but..
And no, I'm not a goddamn militia crazy.
A better question is how do we reduce violent crime? Anti-gun types get caught up by scary guns, but I'd personally rather get shot by a .22 by some thug at an ATM than get raped with a broomhandle. Once you ask the right question, it opens up a few more things.
A serious gun owner can give a better answer than me, but here is something to chew over.
1. If something like this really happened, half of the military would immediately quit out of loyalty to the Constitution and principles of freedom. I am aware that if you were in the military, you would not.
2. Tanks and missles are irrelevant. A .22 shot from a bedroom window will do more to break the will of the military than an anti-tank gun. Hell, even a bunch of scrubs in Iraq have made a decent go at it.
What about something like an expedited check if you have some obvious pressing need - police reports, restraining orders against a harasser, that sort of thing?
2. What can a .22 shot from a bedroom window do about a bomb dropped from 40,000 feet in the air? As for "a bunch of scrubs in Iraq" having made a decent go of it, I wasn't aware that the U.S. military currently constitutes "a truly tyrannical regime," but Saddam Hussein somehow managed to keep those scrubs in line for decades with a military that wasn't anywhere near as good as ours.
For someone that isn't a fan of Iraq, I figured you would've understood that bombs are useless in these kind of wars.
It isn't, only that small arms can help stop (or in this case, delay) it.
Reading this guy might help you. http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_archive.htm
I'm more a fan of instant background check followed by a licensing/registration/whatever requirement that can be fulfilled within some reasonable amount of time. Failure to follow up can be subject to criminal prosecution (hell, make it a felony).
That way somebody can get the gun for self defense now, but the other requirements (to in theory make them harder to get for criminals) are met as well.
Still won't stop a nutjob who is looking to go on a rampage today, but that's pretty difficult to stop anyway. Aside from having them adjudicated as mentally unfit to own a gun, and making sure that database is checked by the instant background check.
Or, you know, seeing that they actually get decent treatment. But there you get into our absolute failure to address the root causes of crimes committed with guns, whether it's school shootings or random robberies. Promising to ban/restrict guns is easier, and gets you more votes to boot.
Only if you're trying to minimize civilian casualties. Maybe you don't understand what "tyranny" is...?
Right, and no despot is going to force his military to keep the kid gloves on.
Maybe you should cite exactly what you're talking about, because I'm not reading through fifty pages for the one sentence you're referring to.
I love you.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
I love D&D. Great place you run here, ElJeffe.
Don't be so sure. Rolling Stone went to West Point a few years ago and interviewed a bunch of officer-larvae who expressed an eagerness to "take the gloves off" and "clean up things at home." They were referring, of course, to people they don't think count as real Americans anyway, like gays and people from the best-educated, highest-income cities.
Just for my own reference......how old are you?
You're not making any sense. The government is actively attacking its own people, presumably either to subjugate or erradicate them. What's a guy with a rifle going to do against repeated carpet bombings?
Discouraging ownership is the only way to reduce the supply available to criminals. Most guns used by criminals in this country were, at one point, legally purchased, and have since been stolen. Since there's not a whole lot the government can do to prevent gun thefts, the obvious thing to do is to reduce the number of firearms legally purchased.
You mean I could actually be saying that in the face of a modern military, civilian gun ownership doesn't present an appreciable nor effective resistance against tyranny? Gee, imagine, that's like saying that the abacus is not an effective calculation tool when compared to the computer. I'm just so crazy.
Yeah, that was really effective.
Out of all the highest-income cities with the best-educated citizens, what made you choose San Francisco for your example. Why not Chicago or Pittsburgh. Is it something to do with the conservative narrative (Is that the word you're looking for) that makes San Francisco stick out in your mind?
Thanatos: there is really no way to know for sure. I acknowledge that you'd never admit that, but I could be wrong and civilian gun ownership would be useless against a committed American tyrant and most of the military. History (oh hey, our own) has shown that it has worked before, but mass destruction could change things.
And yes, the argument is dumb and I don't go around thinking it. It's kind of like libertarians that want to privatize roads. Who cares?
But ElJeffe flamebaited me with the new thread (after declaring that I'd be happy to go peacefully) and I took the bait. So here we are. Everyone's the same as 3 months ago in the Ron Paul threads, ElJeffe's a crybaby because I'm too clever, and I need to go home and take a break from D&D.
There had to have been a less torturously awkward way for you to phrase that. Anyway, if your point is that the article was somehow in error, consider yourself invited to supply argument and citation for that point. In my own purely anecdotal experience, it sounded pretty accurate, at least as far as officer-types go.