Gun control

tad10 · Dec 19, 2012

Etoille_sl said:
Israel's gun policies are EXTREMELY strict. You need to have a valid reason for having one which needs to be recertified every 6 months.

Yeah, so strict that settlers have easy access to machine guns. Go visit the country sometime.

tad10 · Dec 19, 2012

Azrayne_sl said:
You realize large swaths of Mexico are one step away from being in a state of anarchy or under complete control of criminal Cartels, courtesy of the war on drugs? It's effectively a warzone in many respects, with endemic corruption and the army fighting against the Cartels, which fight against eachother for control of key territory, as well as terrorizing and extorting those under their control.

Yes, because we buy their drugs. Drug control is another fucking problem but deserves its own thread -- basically legalize almost everything.

Anyway last time I checked Mexico had strict gun laws. Amazing that the Cartels managed to find guns anyway

Fuse · Dec 20, 2012

Thorne_sl said:
I just don't get how people can be so afraid of guns. My only thought is that living in an area where you can be in a rural setting in a 30 mile car ride is it.

I think in most cases people just didn't grow up with them or have postive experiences with them (hunting with dad, etc.) People who grew up in familes of resonsible gun owners probably tend to not be afraid of them, and people with no contact with them other than what they see on the teevee are.

Fuse · Dec 20, 2012

Big Phoenix_sl said:
So its Ford's or Toyotas fault when a drunk hits a car full of kids and kills them all, right? Not the person behind the wheel.

Well then, the first amendment only applies to newspapers and mail, as no other form of communication existed back then right?

Don't know if that first part was directed towards me, but of course not. You would not want that guy to be driving drunk though, and we have reasonable regulations to minimize it the best we can. Same should be true for guns. Just as banning Toyotas isnt the answer, neither is banning guns. I think I have been pretty clear on my position on that.

As to your second point, I wasnt making a judgement on the Second Amendment other than that the balance of power between the government and militias was quite different when it was written. I was making a statement about the practicality of fighting the government, not whether I think citizens have a right to arm them selves (which I do).

Big Phoenix · Dec 20, 2012

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2FZ23Kzej

Records show the gun was purchased in January 2010 by George Gillett, the former No. 2 in the ATF office in Phoenix. Gillett now works at ATF headquarters in Washington as a liaison to the federal Bureau of Prisons.

Gillett purchased the weapon at Legendary Arms, a Phoenix gun store. On the federal form 4473 used to buy the gun, Gillett used the ATF office address, 201 East Washington, and said "Apt 940." On subsequent purchase, Gillett used a commercial address, that of a strip mall.

Both actions are illegal, since ATF regulations require buyers use their residential address.

"Lying on form 4473 is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison in addition to fines," Sen. Charles Grassley said in a letter Wednesday to Michael Horowitz in the Office of Inspector General. "I request that you initiate an investigation into these matters and that you specifically examine whether Mr. Gillett was the purchaser as indicated by these documents, why the forms list multiple, inaccurate residential addresses while purchasing the weapons, and how the weapon purchased on January 7, 2010 ended up in Mexico."

Gillett's gun was found in Sinaloa after a gun battle that killed Mexican beauty queen Maria Susana Gamez. Gamez was reportedly fighting alongside the cartel. Police found a weapon similar to an AK-47 and some 50 bullets next to her body. Another weapon found at the crime scene was traced to a Uriel Patino, who illegally bought more than 600 guns and is a main suspect in the controversial Operation Fast and Furious run out of the Phoenix office of the ATF.

Read more:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2FZHSpLiS

Gun laws are real fucking useful when the fucking pieces of shit charged with enforcing them break them.

Agraza · Dec 20, 2012

I grew up with guns. I don't see why a private person needs to own more a .22 pistol or something to hunt with, but short of confiscating 90% of the guns in the country and prohibiting the police from carrying them I don't see many of the limits that have been proposed as effective in reducing situations like the one in Connecticut. A lot of these are mental health and education issues. Plenty of damage can be done with the aforementioned pistol/shotgun/rifle. It will still be a tragedy that gets nationwide attention, and when it does critics of the current gun laws will point out how they just punish law abiding citizens while critics of gun violence will ask for more half-assed regulation.

We've had like two or more cases in the last few days of some kids being given guns by their parents to take to school for protection. That's just fucking retarded. People like that are the problem. I suspect the shooter's mother in Connecticut was irresponsible as well. If you want to legislate on gun control, go after the people that demonstrate disregard for gun safety. It shouldn't even be legal for a mental kid to live in the same house as that many weapons.

a_skeleton_03 · Dec 20, 2012

http://www.ak-47.us/build/index.php

You can easily build an AK-47 if you have the slighest bit of man abilities and a few basic tools.

In the futurer we will have 3D printed guns -http://www.webpronews.com/3d-printed...eaking-2012-12

You won't restrict guns you need to figure out how to change minds.

tad10 · Dec 20, 2012

Agraza_sl said:
I grew up with guns. I don't see why a private person needs to own more a .22 pistol or something to hunt with.

Spend more time in the shitty areas of D.C. or New Orleans.

Zombie Thorne_sl · Dec 20, 2012

If someone told me, give up your guns and there will be no more gun related deaths I would do it in a heartbeat.

But we all know that isn't going to happen. Firearms are a significant part of my life. They are a significant part of many people's lives. If I thought that banning magazines sizes, or certain types of weapons would have even a small effect on gun violence I would support it. It won't. Anyone that understands firearms knows this.

Flunklesnarkin_sl · Dec 20, 2012

When the government has been passing laws like the Patriot act and laws like this

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...ors_picks=true

I'd much rather have a few guns lying around in case the government goes full blown evil empire.

Arbitrary · Dec 20, 2012

The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), believes detaining Americans without charge or trial is constitutional

Meanwhile Walmart is running out of guns to sell. What a strange road we are on these days.

Zhaun_sl · Dec 20, 2012

The secret has been revealed my friends. The truth is out. This has been passed around in email:

Newtown, Connecticut is the second Dunblane Primary-School Massacre.?

The primary-school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, approximately 45 miles from the Colt Arms Factory, is just another one in the long line of government psyops designed to persuade the public to allow the government to take away their guns, and their means to defend themselves against the government and the banksters that the politicians really serve.

The small children murders are designed to create hysterical emotions in women to get them to demand that guns are banned. If that doesn't work they will continue with their evil agenda with worse and worse atrocities on younger children, until they get their way and disarm the people, so that they cannot fight back against government tyranny.

Newtown is the U.S.A.'s Dunblane, which was orchestrated in Scotland in 1996 by the British establishment, to whip up hysteria in order to ban all handguns from the U.K. It was a follow-up to the Hungerford Massacre in England in 1987, which was carried out by mind-controlled Michael Ryan, who then shot himself so he could not be questioned, and it was used to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

It's always the same people behind it - the gun-grabbers who want the people to be defenceless against the gun-grabbers' employers - the banksters who own all of the politicians. They get their politicians to pass legislation for them, in order to remove the people's freedoms and means of defending themselves, and enslave them in a draconian police-state, under a mountain of debt, and then exterminate the useless-eaters.

The Dunblane massacre was supposedly carried out by Thomas Hamilton, who was a paedophile and procurer of children, for a high level paedophile ring involving senior members of the Tony Blair Labour-Party shadow-cabinet and others. The massacre served two purposes, it achieved their desired handgun-ban and killed the abused children, so they could not be witnesses against the elite-paedophiles. They then had the findings of the inquiry sealed for 100 years, which is proof of the above.

Like Newtown there were two shooters, Hamilton and a hit-man who shot Hamilton and made it look like Hamilton committed suicide after shooting 16 children, so that he couldn't be questioned. Hamilton was found in the school gymnasium slumped against a wall and still gurgling, when an off-duty policeman PC Grant McCutcheon entered the gym and saw two semi-automatic pistols, one on either side of Hamilton's body.

The autopsy revealed that Hamilton was killed with a .38 revolver. These people always slip-up with their crimes. There was no .38 revolver for him to have shot himself with. Thus, there was a second shooter who killed Hamilton.

Similarly, the first reports from Newtown were of two shooters, just like mind-controlled James Holmes in the Denver Batman Cinema massacre, the story then quickly changes to just one.

Columbine was similar, in that a team of shooters in black outfits were seen there and the two accused were on mind-altering prescription-drugs.

Wake up and see the pattern and their modus operandi and don't fall for it. Never let them take your guns, except from your cold dead hands.

All of these are staged events to whip-up hysterical public support for banning the people from having guns. It works the same in every country - Hungerford in England, Dunblane in Scotland, Port Arthur in Australia and the list in America is endless, because of the Second Amendment and the people having a pro-gun culture. That makes it much more difficult to break the Americans' love of guns and the Second Amendment, which was put in place to protect the people from the government.

Gun bans work well for tyrants. They worked well for Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao, to name just three.

If you want to stop these massacres, wake-up and get rid of the banksters, their puppet-politicians and all gun-grabbers; arm teachers and ban gun-free zones.

From one who can see the pattern and hopes to enable you to see it too.

fanaskin · Dec 20, 2012

Thorne_sl said:
I think part of the problem is non gun people overestimate what a fully automatic rifle is capable of. There are almost zero situations where an M4/M16 is more effective than its semi auto counterpart. Automatic fire is inaccurate and it expends ammo quickly. Ammo is heavy and bulky. Only when you get to the light machine guns and mounted machine guns that it makes any real differences.

the automatic portion of the assault rifle is for the assault action where you close distance, for medium/short range fire. you are right though at most combat distances the single shot bolt action rifle is more effective, the Taliban for example early in the war had an advantage over NATO troops who where using 5.56 ammo for most of the soldiers who use the m4, the 7.62 ww2 bolt action guns many of them where using where superior at range to American weapons. I remember reading a article about how America had to attach more snipers per platoon to counter there advantage at range.

ZyyzYzzy · Dec 20, 2012

Did Fanaskin write that?

Tuco · Dec 20, 2012

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
Did Fanaskin write that?

he must've phoned a friend

UnobservantBastard_sl · Dec 20, 2012

Well, pretty sure 7.62 wasn't around until after the war, as it is a NATO round. And he's conflating .223 and .308 with 5.56 and 7.62. Does that help?

Sulrn · Dec 20, 2012

Fuse + Azrayne_sl said:
Sure and you could do that with hunting rifles and revolvers. Don't get me wrong, as I've said, I'm not a proponent of banning anything (well I suppose I'm ok with civillians not having mortars), I just think 'we shouldn't have gun laws because the Taliban' is a stupid argument. If it ever came to citizens vs the government it would be more like Syria with some military units fighting against the government, but I have a hard time even imagining any sort of remotely plausible scenario that would resemble that.

When the constitution was written the British had sabers, muskets and flintlocks. The colonists had sabers, muskets and flintlocks.

Now you have a bushmaster and the government has an AH-64. If defense against our government is why people arm up, nothing available is remotely adaquate and wont be until you can buy shoulder fired SAMs at, well Sam's Club.

Every modern conflict since WW1 has proven that with all available technology in the world you don't win wars withoutBoots on Ground.

Drones, Apaches, B2s, Abrams, Bradleys, Strykers, etc. Are all well and great and can stop, scatter, or disperse a mob with little effort if need be -- but they don't stop wars, rebellions, or even a coup d'?tat. Grunts and diplomats do -- both are very susceptible to small arms fire.

So you're right - thinking that AR-15/10 guage sportsman from Wally World won't stop the tank from treading over your car or barricading your fuel/food source. It will, however, give you the means to circumvent and find other available means - even if that does mean fighting federal forces directly.

Military studies have shown that aerial bombings and drone strikes harden resolve and unify populations to fight, and do nothing but hinder means for production/livelihood (if targeted).

You need to remember that "The American Spirit" (or human spirit, really), is a real deal and not just a part of popular fantasy games. Having a personal weapon or quick access to is a major enhancing factor. So when that "boulder" rolled down hill through Iraq it did so very successfully over a group with little personal involvement in Hussein's fall, but when the perceived threat was against existence and culture...that boulder stopped rolling immediately (and arguably was forced into a different route entirely).

So please, stop waiving the 2nd off as antiquated in this regard. While I don't tout the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as sacred, the founding fathers did have a pretty solid understanding of human existence and the concepts of "power" that are still very much applicable to today.

Tuco · Dec 20, 2012

Sulrn_sl said:
Every modern conflict since WW1 has proven that with all available technology in the world you don't win wars withoutBoots on Ground.

Drones, Apaches, B2s, Abrams, Bradleys, Strykers, etc. Are all well and great and can stop, scatter, or disperse a mob with little effort if need be -- but they don't stop wars, rebellions, or even a coup d'?tat. Grunts and diplomats do -- both are very susceptible to small arms fire.

So you're right - thinking that AR-15/10 guage sportsman from Wally World won't stop the tank from treading over your car or barricading your fuel/food source. It will, however, give you the means to circumvent and find other available means - even if that does mean fighting federal forces directly.

Military studies have shown that aerial bombings and drone strikes harden resolve and unify populations to fight, and do nothing but hinder means for production/livelihood (if targeted).

You need to remember that "The American Spirit" (or human spirit, really), is a real deal and not just a part of popular fantasy games. Having a personal weapon or quick access to is a major enhancing factor. So when that "boulder" rolled down hill through Iraq it did so very successfully over a group with little personal involvement in Hussein's fall, but when the perceived threat was against existence and culture...that boulder stopped rolling immediately (and arguably was forced into a different route entirely).

So please, stop waiving the 2nd off as antiquated in this regard. While I don't tout the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as sacred, the founding fathers did have a pretty solid understanding of human existence and the concepts of "power" that are still very much applicable to today.

Best defense of the 2nd amendment as a means to combat a government I've seen. Bravo.

Sebudai · Dec 20, 2012

The problem I have with the "defense against government tyranny" argument is that, given who's most likely to currently rise up against the government because of "tyranny," I'd most likely be rooting for the government to win.

Sulrn · Dec 20, 2012

Sebudai_sl said:
The problem I have with the "defense against government tyranny" argument is that, given who's most likely to currently rise up against the government because of "tyranny," I'd most likely be rooting for the government to win.

You know, they were saying that same thing 160-170 years ago. Surprising to see what falls out of the crown molding when things get stirred up.

Gun control

Elisha Dushku

Elisha Dushku

Silver Knight of the Realm

Silver Knight of the Realm

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Registered Hutt

Elisha Dushku

shitlord

shitlord

Tranny Chaser

shitlord

Well known agitator

RIP USA

I got Tuco'd!

shitlord

Deuces

I got Tuco'd!

Ssraeszha Raider

Deuces