Gun Control

[Obscura]

Originally Posted by belch

Speaking of crawling out of a hole....

Does every anti-gun advocate have to be smarmy, arrogant, and so quick to insult and yet with such a thin skin that they can't stand any judgement, ot opposition to their own ideas? Well, let's find out shall we?

Ok, you say that knives are not as dangerous as an assault rifle. Fair enough. What about gasoline?

Man guilty of murder in arson attack

So, following your logic, we should seriously look at banning gasoline, right? Yes, you are really making yourself look brilliant with your obsessive demand that everyone feel the same way that you do about firearms. Especially considering that there is no other tool that is as deadly...or even more deadly.... than an assault rifle....

168 dead, 680 inhured...no assault rifle used

It's alright for you to fear a man with a gun. I understand why the very idea scares you. My concern is that you appear to believe that murderous intent lies only within a gun owners heart and mind. Your almost desperate cries for gun owners to toe the line based on your ideas of threat...well, it's born out of ignorance to the truth about murder, the truth about violent acts. You mocked the idea of knives being dangerous, which is revealing.

Yes, you've never seen a mass stabbing. The idea is absurd. But, I almost guarantee you haven't seen what a mob of men wielding machetes can do to the innocent, or you wouldn't be running your mouth spouting foolishness like you have...or would you?

Rwandan Genocide

Firearms can be used to kill. I don't see any gun owners claiming otherwise. Why are the anti-gun advocates so unwilling to admit that the firearm is not the only tool, nor even the most casualty producing tool, that can be used by those wishing to harm innocents?

Again, more hypothetical bullshit theorycrafted by a gun fanatic. And you managed to not MENTION ANYTHING regarding your google-educated statement about a country you have no idea about, because you know you look like a retard. If knives, blades, and gasoline is as dangerous as a gun, then you should be content with just having those to defend yourself right? Since they can cause JUST AS MUCH carnage as a firearm, by your logic you should be able to defend yourself with a gallon of gasoline and a machete, and have no need for a gun.

I own guns, I shoot guns, but I'm not brainwashed by the NRA into thinking that 30 round clips and assault rifles should be easily obtained by anyone who wants them, and that every citizen has a right to own weapons and equipment designed for war-theaters. Common sense buddy, crawl out of your paranoia induced hole and obtain some.

[Obscura]

Originally Posted by AnamNantom

No reason to roll over and give up the right to bear arms. Besides this, you may not know that all servicemen swear to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joini...thofenlist.htm

I swore it once, and I'm a citizen. There are plenty of servicemen and women who will use the weapons issued to them to defend those who don't have the same. Your argument about citizens not having tanks doesn't stand if you consider for a moment that US Military members are citizens too.

I'm fairly certain that most people who work for the Fed Gov, especially the US Military will not go along with corrupt maneuvers by any "mandates" or "orders" that call for breaking Constitutional law.

My grandfather was a vietnam combat vet, a marine, and even he strongly agrees that the ease at which you can obtain a firearm who's only use is to KILL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS is ridiculous. He told me something once, "the only people who enjoy guns that much have never seen one used on another human being". And thats true, you won't find many people who have actually been in COMBAT that enjoy guns as much as some paranoid loser who thinks he's defenseless without a rifle.

There is nothing wrong with a trained citizen owning a gun as long as he's mentally sound and goes through a background check. But the fact that you can buy an AR-15 with a 30 round clip as easy as a hunting rifle meant to kill deer is not right. David Letterman said the other day, and I agree with this, "I have never seen a deer worth 30 rounds"

[belch]

Originally Posted by Obscura

Again, more hypothetical bullshit theorycrafted by a gun fanatic. And you managed to not MENTION ANYTHING regarding your google-educated statement about a country you have no idea about, because you know you look like a retard. If knives, blades, and gasoline is as dangerous as a gun, then you should be content with just having those to defend yourself right? Since they can cause JUST AS MUCH carnage as a firearm, by your logic you should be able to defend yourself with a gallon of gasoline and a machete, and have no need for a gun.

I own guns, I shoot guns, but I'm not brainwashed by the NRA into thinking that 30 round clips and assault rifles should be easily obtained by anyone who wants them, and that every citizen has a right to own weapons and equipment designed for war-theaters. Common sense buddy, crawl out of your paranoia induced hole and obtain some.

It is interesting that you have 'theory-crafted' some opinion of my stance on anything. Even more so, because you admit to owning firearms, that you claim you shoot. If you understand anything about the fundamentals of marksmanship, and indeed, really spend any time shooting...then you understand that more bullets does not mean more 'targets' hit. In fact, even belt fed machine gunners are taught to restrict their fires, as more bullets fired is often times just a waste of ammunition. But by all means, be a soft skinned hypocrite. I enjoy the display of arrogance and name calling.

The difference between weaponizing gasoline, and using a rifle with an ammunition source of any capacity, is the potential accuracy against intended targets. You don't have such accuracy available with molotov cocktails. You cannot restrict the spread of gasoline to only intended tagets. Indeed, weaponzing such items is more suited to inflicted increased random damage.

You have 'hypothesized' about my understanding of foreign wars and the dynamics that have led to specific conflicts panning out the way that they have. In doing so, you are incorrect. Of course, your smug, self aggrandizing attitude leaves one to wonder...just what do you know about such places like Rwanda? I have spent enough time in 3rd world shit holes that you running your mouth means jack shit to me. But, I see you throwing words around loosely and have to ask...so what makes you and your opinion any better? Rather than answer for the facts about what blades can and have done, you insult and blow as hard as you can to brow beat away any idea different than yours. How about you take some of your own advice, with your google abilities, your asinine comments about high cap magazines being harbingers of death and destruction, and crawl back in the hole of obviously stagnant DNA?

[belch]

Originally Posted by Obscura

My grandfather was a vietnam combat vet, a marine, and even he strongly agrees that the ease at which you can obtain a firearm who's only use is to KILL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS is ridiculous. He told me something once, "the only people who enjoy guns that much have never seen one used on another human being". And thats true, you won't find many people who have actually been in COMBAT that enjoy guns as much as some paranoid loser who thinks he's defenseless without a rifle.

There is nothing wrong with a trained citizen owning a gun as long as he's mentally sound and goes through a background check. But the fact that you can buy an AR-15 with a 30 round clip as easy as a hunting rifle meant to kill deer is not right. David Letterman said the other day, and I agree with this, "I have never seen a deer worth 30 rounds"

I respect your grandfathers service. My father is also a multi tour Vietnam veteran. What does that have to do with anything? SHould I bust out my credentials as well? Because here is another category for you: a veteran that sees what a disarmed populace can be subjected to. I haven't advocated for free dissemination of 30 round mags. Nor am I against tighter regulation of firearms. I refuse to adopt the same rabid, slanderous approach that so many of the anti-gun advocates adopt. I am armed with facts, with truth. Not hype and hysteria.

I once ran an experiment, for the sake of my squad 249 gunners. Standing, stock extended, what is the accuracy potential at 25 meters of a SAW on full auto. Gave them 25 rounds to play with for each. 25 meters to an e-type. Can you guess what the results were?

[Obscura]

Originally Posted by belch

It is interesting that you have 'theory-crafted' some opinion of my stance on anything. Even more so, because you admit to owning firearms, that you claim you shoot. If you understand anything about the fundamentals of marksmanship, and indeed, really spend any time shooting...then you understand that more bullets does not mean more 'targets' hit. In fact, even belt fed machine gunners are taught to restrict their fires, as more bullets fired is often times just a waste of ammunition. But by all means, be a soft skinned hypocrite. I enjoy the display of arrogance and name calling.

The difference between weaponizing gasoline, and using a rifle with an ammunition source of any capacity, is the potential accuracy against intended targets. You don't have such accuracy available with molotov cocktails. You cannot restrict the spread of gasoline to only intended tagets. Indeed, weaponzing such items is more suited to inflicted increased random damage.

You have 'hypothesized' about my understanding of foreign wars and the dynamics that have led to specific conflicts panning out the way that they have. In doing so, you are incorrect. Of course, your smug, self aggrandizing attitude leaves one to wonder...just what do you know about such places like Rwanda? I have spent enough time in 3rd world shit holes that you running your mouth means jack shit to me. But, I see you throwing words around loosely and have to ask...so what makes you and your opinion any better? Rather than answer for the facts about what blades can and have done, you insult and blow as hard as you can to brow beat away any idea different than yours. How about you take some of your own advice, with your google abilities, your asinine comments about high cap magazines being harbingers of death and destruction, and crawl back in the hole of obviously stagnant DNA?

Again, more hypothetical bullshit, with a psuedo-intellectual twist. Keep on trying to justify your paranoid fucked up world view, it's pretty funny. But I'm done with this thread

[belch]

Originally Posted by Obscura

Again, more hypothetical bullshit, with a psuedo-intellectual twist. Keep on trying to justify your paranoid fucked up world view, it's pretty funny. But I'm done with this thread

bahaha! Excellent...so you can only insult, and then bow out refusing to answer a single thing.

Oh, by the way, the principles of marksmanship are hardly 'pseudo-intellectual', nor hypothetical bullshit. Not that you'd know, you phoney. I suggest for further reading on the subject, and actual emplacement of a 'machine gun' versus battle rifle/carbine, you do some skimming of FM's 3.22-9 and 3.22-68. Hardly bullshit, nor theory-crafting. Some of us have relied on, and seen proven, all of the things I describe.

Obviously, you are experienced with none of it. I suggest you arm yourself with fact before you try the pompous 'I know everything' approach again.

[Gnske]

Isn't this a touchy subject.

Personally (from a foreign perspective) I wouldn't mind if people had just hunting/bolt action rifles and simplistic hand guns. My problem is just with automatics, guns like the Ar-15 being so available.

There can be a way forward on having proper gun control, the problem is not enough people politically or socially in the USA want it nor care for it, thus I highly suspect no change will ever come to gun laws.

[Figment]

Eclipse, China became this way BECAUSE one part of the citizens (Chinese Communist Party, CCP) got guns and defeated the other party (Kwomingtan, KMT) with those guns to establish a communist regime.

The same happened in Russia and to a large degree in your Civil War.

Guns in civilian hands lead to oppression, because they will try to grab power for their personal political group, once they are strong enough to take out the other group and rule alone.

Before that, the empire had been in a state of civil turmoil including many civil wars since the 1911 revolution against the emperor. Stability had been further undermined by the Japanese and Russians since the second world war (where Japan had occupied German territories in China - yes, both China and Japan were on the side of the allies at the time, 140.000 Chinese even fought in the French trenchwar). The Russian soviets tried to seek world revolution and supported the communists due to the Trotskist soviet policies of the time, but also supported the KMT with the demand there'd be communists in there (hoping the communists would slowly take over the KMT leadership eventually - the KMT leadership however started seeing the communists as a direct threat).

The more democratic and nationalistic KMT party's army was defeated by the CCP, Mao's party. After the KMT's remainder fled to Taiwan, the "People's party" of course takes the monopoly on violence.

You should read up on Chinese history a bit and realise what actually went down there. :/ It's not very pretty and a massive clusterfuck of different attempts for power and opportunistic neighbours and colonial nations (definitely including the ambitious Japanese Empire).


What they needed, was a democratic unity with a strong politically varied standing army.

The last thing you want is civilian, political groups organising themselves in militias under different warlords. Warlords including the likes of Mao Zedong and even some of those that deposed the emperor (since some wanted to be emperor instead of the emperor).


Many, MANY despots come from a hijacked or illussion of a people's revolution. The only thing I trust to some degree is a democratically elected government that cannot create a ruling body without the support of a coalition of sub-groups.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

KMT fled to Taiwan where they used their GUNS to take that island over from the natives.

Taiwan had been under Chinese control and immigration since the 17th century.

And hey, we (the dutch) actually got there first, with guns of course, but without a standing army, just a colonial company with a couple hired guns facing a non-structured, armed civilian populace with spears.

There are no innocents in history, it is the story of the powerful over the powerless. That is human history, to this very day. I do not put blinders over it nor do I want to be a victim of it.

I can assure you that it's more likely that a civil war occurs where that happens with civilians and militias with guns, than without.

We have bigger priorities in the world A) our food is running out, farmland diminishing. B) We have a giant garbage dump floating off the coast of California that is the size of Texas called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. C) We keep getting the most disgusting fuel out of the ground for energy poisoning our water tables to do it.

Polderise the garbage patch and turn it into farmland!

[belch]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

KMT fled to Taiwan where they used their GUNS to take that island over from the natives.

There are no innocents in history, it is the story of the powerful over the powerless. That is human history, to this very day. I do not put blinders over it nor do I want to be a victim of it.

We have bigger priorities in the world A) our food is running out, farmland diminishing. B) We have a giant garbage dump floating off the coast of California that is the size of Texas called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. C) We keep getting the most disgusting fuel out of the ground for energy poisoning our water tables to do it.

And that is only the short list.

Exactly what many are unwilling to admit. It's as if they want to believe that by hoping for the best, humanity can stave off those who have bad intent. History is filled with examples of just how untrue that is.

It is rather convenient that of all the problems in the world, so many choose to make Americans owning firearms a priority issue. And who, exactly, is blind to history here?

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Obscura

And PLEASE, you think that guy would have killed NEARLY that amount of people if he had a knife? The kid was 110 pounds at the most, he would have been overpowered by people at the school in seconds and this would have never happened to this extent.

He wouldn't have used a knife. People like him would use bombs if they didn't have guns.

[belch]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

He wouldn't have used a knife. People like him would use bombs if they didn't have guns.

well, you know Bane, some seem to think bombs pose less of a threat than guns....

[Crator]

Originally Posted by belch

well, you know Bane, some seem to think bombs pose less of a threat than guns....

They do? For what reason? Harder to obtain/operate?

[belch]

Originally Posted by Crator

They do? For what reason? Harder to obtain/operate?

Honestly? Ignorance is about the only reason I can think of.

HME is hardly in the 'hard to obtain or operate' category. Unless you think fertilizer and fuel oil is something you find hard to get a hold of. But that is just one way to go about it....ANFO that is.

[Baneblade]

I could go into the average house and build an explosive device capable of taking out half the block.

Just sayin'. Imo, bombs are easier to kill a lot of people with than guns. But I think some of these mass murderers just want the personal touch of it more than the actual kill counts.