If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   California decrees that guns must stamp their serial numbers on shell casings as they fire, or they aren't safe. Dumbass tag calls for backup   (mensnewsdaily.com) divider line 760
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

16589 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Aug 2006 at 5:25 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



760 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-08-28 06:22:44 PM
Duhhh
Use railguns!


img169.imageshack.us

img103.imageshack.us


The future! Is now!
:p
/knows that railguns aren't real
//still thinks they're cool
///tranclucent stuff looks cool
//slashiess
 
2006-08-28 06:22:52 PM
uidzero,

At any rate, still no need for guns.

Ok, let's assume for a second that you're right. We don't need guns here in America.

We ban guns. We tell all registered gun owners that they must turn in their guns for destruction. The vast majority of the registered gun owners, being law-abiding citizens, are going to turn in their guns. Some of them will hide their guns and tell the government to go fark themselves.

So, now, you've got a population where the vast majority of law-abiding citizens are unarmed.

What about the criminals? They're not going to turn their guns in. They're going to continue to use their guns, only now they know that the vast majority of their victims are going to be unarmed.

Further, how do you plan to keep guns out of the country? We can't do it with drugs. We can't do it with human trafficking.

The guns that will be getting into the country will be illegal guns. They will be unregistered. And, whose hands do you think these guns will be going into?

The problem in our country is not with the guns, but with the criminals. We have a huge population of poor, uneducated people in this country and that is a breeding ground for crime. You throw our drug problem into the mix and you get what we have today.

Even assuming you do manage to get every gun out of American and keep the guns from being smuggled into America, the crime isn't going to go away.

Instead of shootings, you're going to have stabbings. Or any other of the multitude of items available in this country that make great weapons.

Stop focusing on the tools that the criminals choose to use and start focusing on the crime problem itself.
 
2006-08-28 06:23:01 PM
Uidzero-"We're being run by a complete tool. Please read my whole post. No matter how opressive, a couple of yahoos with tv beerguts who love to hold a metal phallis in their hands aren't going to somehow stop the government and save America. The government has firepower so superior it's not even worth discussing."

Actually, you're being a tool. The erroneous assumption you are making is in assuming that because the government is so much better armed, the very idea that citizens with small arms could ever put up any effective resistance is so ludicrous that the 2nd amendment is woefully outdated and can be safely discarded. It might have been useful 200+ years ago, when people were shooting muzzle-loaders, but not anymore.

I've got news for you, citizens with small arms were no match for professional soldiers even back then. Even then, miltary forces outgunned civilians (artillery). Moreover, the discipline and training of regular troops meant that citizen militias got monkey stomped every time they tried to face them. Look at the American Revolution; it wasn't until Continental troops got training from the likes of Von Steuben, and organized and operated under military discipline, that they could put up effective resistance. In other words, they couldn't face professional soldiers until they BECAME professional soldiers themselves. The founding fathers knew this, and yet still, even after the lessons of the Revolution, saw fit to put the 2nd amendment in the consititution.

The reason they did this is that they understood what you do not: namely, that no matter how much better armed the military is, it will not be able to effectively occupy and hold down a citizenry determined to resist and capable of doing so.

A good example of this in post-industrial times can be found in Irish history. The IRA (Old IRA, not the car-bombing,Provisional IRA of present times, which is really a different organization), did not in any sense defeat the British military in Ireland. They were never even capable of engaging the the British Army in conventional warfare. Earlier attempts to do so (e.g. the 1916 Easter Rising) were utterly crushed in a matter of days. Richard Mulcahy, second in command of the IRA behind Michael Collins during the Irish War of Independance observed rather dejectedly that they had never been able to drive the British, "out of anything bigger than a fairly good size police barracks". Yet the armed resistance by the Irish was NOT ineffective. The guerrilla warfare the IRA waged in 1919-21 had made Ireland ungovernable, and this forced the British to the negotiating table.

And then aside from the possibility of resisting an oppressive government via guerilla warfare, there is also the fact that the 2nd amendment protects the right to defend oneself against attacks, armed and otherwise, by society's more predatory members.
 
2006-08-28 06:23:18 PM
uidzero

Here, let me change your quote for ya, to prove the fallacy of your argument.

All for it. SUVs are for people who can't think straight. I haven't met a SUV owner yet that could give me a cogent argument on why they need such a large vehicle, versus a kia. They're for idiots, and people that are extremely insecure insert jock size joke. The more we can cripple SUV use and especially superflous gass-guzzeling joy-riding, the better.

Your ignorance is showing. Guns are not the enemy. If something bothers you, and you see no reason for a person to have it, it should be illegal...right? Right?

/has a shotgun
//keeps it at his Grandparent's house
///because I don't have a secure gun closet, and they do
 
2006-08-28 06:23:18 PM
Just_Another_Drug_Overdose_Survivor

When a 12 year old kills a 6 year old with a gun; the NRA should be outraged!

When a police officer is shot, the NRA should be the first one on the spot trying to develop a working methodology to get guns OUT of the hands that shame them.



um...correct me if I am wrong here (but I'm not) but the NRA supports strict enforcement of laws dealing with crimes with firearms.

The problem doesn't stem from people owning guns...it stems from not enforcing the laws we already DO have.

There are already laws on the book that deal with these things, but they either are not being enforced, or the penalties are too light.

Remember, it's illegal to rob a bank in the first place, yet people do it all the time. Maybe the solution is to outlaw banks?
 
2006-08-28 06:23:32 PM
Wouldn't it be smarter to stamp it on the bullets? Or whatever the things that get stuck in people are called.
 
2006-08-28 06:23:34 PM
uidzero
"The founding fathers were dealing with a world that is almost nothing like present day. All governments need to change continiously to deal with the present-day situation. This is simply an outdated law that deals with a problem which A. doesn't exist anymore and B. if it didn't couldn't be dealt with in this way.

The idea wasn't that they had a hardon for guns like all the insecure gun-freaks of today. The idea was to be able to fight off a tyranical government. That's over now."


This might be the funniest thing I've ever read. Thanks for the laugh.
 
2006-08-28 06:24:24 PM
God I hate our legislature.
 
2006-08-28 06:24:26 PM
My Thread Summary

The most infuriating thing about people like YOU is how you like to defend your 1st amendment rights tooth and nail, and in the same breath want to deny other people of their 2nd amendment rights.

Everyone's freedoms are equal. None of the constitutional amendments are more or less important than the others. If you don't understand this, then you are mentally impaired.


best thing i have read all thread!!!

I'd do a stupidest comment one but it would contain every single one of UIDZERO's posts

EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS THREAD WHO THINKS THIS WOULD WORK NEEDS TO STFU AND LISTEN TO jessiL.

Ammunition casings can be REUSED!!! I know many people that collect casings (that would be stamped) and reload them for later use. It is very cheap and easy to do. Just like filing a raised serial number out of the chamber so it leaves no impression or disabling a stamping mechanism (much like people disable semi-auto safty pins making weapons fully automatic. My uncle had a fully auto AK-47 which he took the pin out of. Yes we have AK-47s in canada)

If you think this idea will work even a little bit you need to STFU and GBTW because you know DICK about guns.

/has friends at the firing range that collect spent shell casings for friends to reuse
 
2006-08-28 06:24:39 PM
ronaprhys

As one of those gun nuts you speak of, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on subjects when confronted with appropriate evidence. The difference here is that no one has been able to do that.

I believe I stated that as my stance in my Boobies. No difference.

It's a difference of basic fundamental thought - I believe that people should be free to do damn near anything they want up until they actually hurt someone, or are in imminent danger of hurting someone. Until that, leave them alone.

I am all for absolute personal liberty, provided it doesn't threaten me. Where would YOU like to draw the line? Knives? Hand guns? Rifles? Sniper Rifles? Grenades? Rocket launchers? Tanks? Nuclear weapons? There is no genuine need for a gun, hence the risk vs reward is simply not in balance to have gun ownership so common.

Wow - so it's absolutely not possible to intelligent and secure while owning a firearm?

Intelligent people do not make uniformly intelligent decisions. To clarify, I'd say that it's not possible to make an intelligent choice for a John Q public to own a firearm.

It's also not possible to own a firearm because I like to shoot, rather than from fear or insecurity?

If we had laws to license shooting ranges to secure and hold onto gun owners guns when they aren't at the range, I'd be perfectly fine with that. I haven't met or heard of a gun owner yet who is interested in leaving their gun at the range.

And that I fully recognize that people do try and break into people's houses and do bad things to them?

How often does that happen, really? I've had my car stereo stolen 4 times, had my house burglarized 3 times, and even been mugged. I've never needed a gun, why do you?

Is that fear or responsibility. Would you equate having insurance to fear as well?

Nope, I carry a good deal of insurance related to my business. Risk and reward. Gun CREATES risk with very little chance of reward. I'll never end up killing someone else or getting killed myself for owning insurance.

But you've yet to prove why they are idiots.

I blame our schooling system and parental training mostly.

It's the manner with which you did it. Had you said something to the effect of "I really see no reason for personal firearm ownership, even for hobbies, hunting, or other legitimate pursuits due to the inherent danger they present" or pushed for some sort of actual constructive comment, you wouldn't be treated as a troll. Until then, that's how you've managed to label yourself.

I certaintly have NOT labeled myself... that was all you.
 
2006-08-28 06:24:55 PM
" KrispyKringle


I_Should_Be_Working_Right_Now: It takes more than gun ownership to secure individual freedoms.

As shown by the current state of affairs in this country. Are you as upset about warrantless wiretapping as I am?"

No, I dont have anything to worry about. I couldnt care less if some dude sitting in a office is listening to me talk to my brother over the phone. "out of sight, out of mind" right? BTW, Guns didnt give us our freedom, but they had a damn helpful part in helping. More then you and I.
 
2006-08-28 06:25:01 PM
KrispyKringle: I believe that a significant portion of violent crimes are committed with legally purchased or illegally but not difficultly purchased guns. I also believe that a significant portion of that portion are non-premeditated. Thus I believe that in that subset, the perpetrator would rarely have significant incentive to jump many hurdles to get a gun illegally if so doing was very difficult, since he doesn't intend to commit a crime to begin with. Thus in those cases, the crime, if committed at all, would not have guns involved and probably thus be less severe.

I agree, and therein lies the real gun control problem: guns are so common that I can hardly imagine a situation where it would be difficult to get a gun illegally. Especially since the illegal guns seem to awfully cheap. Guns will last an awful long time just laying around, and practically forever with care. They're small and easy to transport, and with time and dedication, can be manipulated or even be built from scratch. I have a hard time imagining any gun control measure that might be effective.

But you're right that a lot of crime has no premeditation, and that the guns laying around certainly make things worse. There's just no good way to fix that problem.

If a good, effective idea can be thought of, I'd be all for it.
 
2006-08-28 06:26:03 PM
Mensan: The idea behind this law is that the inside of the chamber can have slightly raised or indented letter and number stamps so that, when the casing expands from the pressure of powder combustion, the series of characters is imprinted on the side of the casing.

Two problems with that:

1. Autos don't leave the shell in the chamber the way revolvers do.

Stamping the firing chamber would not in turn stamp the shell; the shell would gouge most of its own stamping off during extraction, ruining the stamp. And that would be on the first shot.

Subsequent shots would foul the stamp with brass shavings, making no legible stamp at all and probably fouling the gun (gives lie to the argument about making the guns safer, eh?).

2. The firing chamber in most autos is part of the barrel. And the barrel in most autos is interchangeable.

I own a Springfield XD .357 Sig. The barrel can be removed (has to for a good cleaning, in fact).

It can also be replaced with another barrel, even one of a different caliber. If I bought an XD series .40 cal barrel and a couple of extra mags I could easily convert to a .40 cal.

All of which underscores why this is such a stupid idea: The people who dreamed this up say it's to make the guns "safer," but they don't have the slightest idea how these guns work in the first place.

No different from the "assault weapons" ban, aka "the ban on ugly-looking paramilitary weapons with composite pieces that scare liberal lawmakers who don't realize it's the same weapon as the pretty ones with polished wood and bluing."
 
2006-08-28 06:26:03 PM
the language is clear. read it. and it's not the language of the first amendment, jebus.
 
2006-08-28 06:26:12 PM
"2006-08-28 06:04:28 PM Mr. Pither


Americans have too many freedoms and can't be trusted with them, as your murder rate shows. We're just the same in the UK. In the UK you can't walk down the street without being on video surveillance, and it's a damn good thing too, or we would be murdering each other. And if you let the great British public have pistols, they would first head round to the pub, get pissed, and kill everyone they know. And free speech? In the UK you have to get police permission to protest the government, as Maya Evans could tell you, because the people just can't be trusted. A step in the direction of civilisation, I say."

Sounds pretty farking Orwellian to me. "because the people just can't be trusted" gives me the chills.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts
Cold ashes for dreams
Hot air for a cool breeze
Cold confort for change.
Did they get you to trade a walk on part in the war
for a lead role in a cage.

Pink Floyd="Wish you were here"
 
2006-08-28 06:26:32 PM
Uncle Karl:

1) We might reduce the murder rates in a statistically significant way while still having one higher than most other first world nations. The disparity is that huge.

But I know what you meant. I happen to disagree, as you will see if you read some of my prior posts in this thread.

2) I'm undecided on this one. I'm generally speaking an absolutist on individual liberties, but in this case I think of gun ownership as sort of a meta-liberty--it's something we preserve as a means of protecting other liberties. Insofar as it's ineffective or irrelevant at that (because, as I said before, I don't think gun ownership is a significant barrier anymore to government tyranny, as shown, see e.g. warrantless wiretapping), I don't think it's in it's own right an inanlienable personal freedom.

But at the same time, I'm certainly very hesitant of any sort of abridgement of the ten commandments...
 
2006-08-28 06:27:05 PM
I_Make_Jebus_Cry: 20+ times? yeah....right.

He's right. Good brass can be reloaded a whole bunch of times, depending on caliber.
 
2006-08-28 06:27:17 PM
kyoryu,

1) It can actually work.

Physically, yes, it can work. You can stamp the casings. It will be expensive and add weight to the gun, but it would work.

At the same time, however, it wouldn't work. It can be bypassed with a $.10 piece of burlap sack. I do it every time I qualify at the range so I don't have to hunt around in the grass for my casings.

It would cost a whole lot to implement and would have an insanely easy work-around. Kind of like the CD protection technology that was bypassed with a sharpie.
 
2006-08-28 06:28:10 PM
I'd rather hunt/fish/farm my food than eat overpriced bad tasting unsure-of-safety-GMO crap anyday. I'm sure the animals prefer it too... they get to run around in the outdoors instead of living in some lame-ass farm pen.
 
2006-08-28 06:28:37 PM
Gonzee

That is a sweet looking piece. I like your rationale for owning your AK. "Just for fun". Guns are cool. Buy some so that when some criminal-type starts shooting at you, you can kill him. Problem solved.
 
2006-08-28 06:28:42 PM
2006-08-28 06:23:01 PM Viator

I've got news for you, citizens with small arms were no match for professional soldiers even back then. Even then, miltary forces outgunned civilians (artillery). Moreover, the discipline and training of regular troops meant that citizen militias got monkey stomped every time they tried to face them. Look at the American Revolution; it wasn't until Continental troops got training from the likes of Von Steuben, and organized and operated under military discipline, that they could put up effective resistance. In other words, they couldn't face professional soldiers until they BECAME professional soldiers themselves. The founding fathers knew this, and yet still, even after the lessons of the Revolution, saw fit to put the 2nd amendment in the consititution.

The reason they did this is that they understood what you do not: namely, that no matter how much better armed the military is, it will not be able to effectively occupy and hold down a citizenry determined to resist and capable of doing so.

A good example of this in post-industrial times can be found in Irish history. The IRA (Old IRA, not the car-bombing,Provisional IRA of present times, which is really a different organization), did not in any sense defeat the British military in Ireland. They were never even capable of engaging the the British Army in conventional warfare. Earlier attempts to do so (e.g. the 1916 Easter Rising) were utterly crushed in a matter of days. Richard Mulcahy, second in command of the IRA behind Michael Collins during the Irish War of Independance observed rather dejectedly that they had never been able to drive the British, "out of anything bigger than a fairly good size police barracks". Yet the armed resistance by the Irish was NOT ineffective. The guerrilla warfare the IRA waged in 1919-21 had made Ireland ungovernable, and this forced the British to the negotiating table.


also....see iraq
 
2006-08-28 06:28:58 PM
The CraneMeister

Maybe its because I'm overly cautious, or maybe it's because I follow directions.

I load all my high-pressure cartridges a maximum of 3 times. Low-pressure rounds I load 10 times max.
 
go3
2006-08-28 06:29:54 PM
Just_Another_Drug_Overdose_Survivor

When a 12 year old kills a 6 year old with a gun; the NRA should be outraged!


We are outraged. However, we're not outraged at some inanimate object that is incapable of doing good or evil.


When a police officer is shot, the NRA should be the first one on the spot trying to develop a working methodology to get guns OUT of the hands that shame them.


We're busy right now fighting against methodologies trying to take guns out of the hands of those who don't shame them.

The Left's view of 'gun control' has nothing to do with decreasing crime, and everything to do with control of its 'subjects'

Remember kids, the police hold no duty to protect you. You and you alone are responsible for your safety.
 
2006-08-28 06:30:20 PM
uselessgit

You can no more go back to "Something less dangerous" than you can go back to using vacuem tubes. If you would like to change the very concepts of individual liberty, self-determination, and personal accountability based simply off of the fact that someone, somewhere might abuse their rights, then you are the person that our guns were meant for. If people like you became the government, and wanted to implement their view of what they wanted,

You have no idea how right you are.

then you are the person that the 2nd amendment was meant to be used on. People have the freedom to chose. Just because some people can and will make wrong choices does not mean that you take those rights away from everyone.

Yes, let's throw away drivers licenses, everyone should own RPGs, cheap heroin for everyone, and no traffic laws.

/The idea is that you should be allowed to act how you care to PROVIDED it's not endangering someone else. Do we wait until the drunk driver has actually hit someone before pulling them over?
 
2006-08-28 06:30:22 PM
Repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934!
 
2006-08-28 06:30:23 PM
BrotherTheodore

ok, now we are gonna have to drag you out back and beat you down for having a rash, well thought plan. HOW *wack* DARE *wak* YOU *wack* POINT *wack* OUT *wack* THE *wack*, BAM* OBVIOUS *smack, smack, kick to groin area*

any other people who want to be rational on today??

//PMSing can be fun!
 
2006-08-28 06:30:39 PM
Mensan: an attempt to imprint an identifier would at best result in streaks down the side of the casing.

Ah. Same thing I was saying. I suspect extraction would damage the casing and/or stamping anyway.
 
2006-08-28 06:31:03 PM
here's how it would work - and also why it won't:

"...Microstamping is a patented process that laser engraves the firearm's make, model and serial number on the tip of the gun's firing pin so it imprints the information on discharged cartridge cases.
A recent independent, peer-reviewed, study published in the professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners proved that this technology is unreliable and does not function as the patent holder claims and it can be easily defeated in mere seconds using common household tools. Furthermore, criminals will simply switch the engraved firing pin for readily available unmarked spare parts thereby circumventing the technology."
 
2006-08-28 06:31:15 PM
bin smokin,

also....see iraq

To put it another way, guerilla forces don't have to win. All they have to do is hold out and not lose.
 
2006-08-28 06:31:42 PM
hillbillypharmacist:

Well, I agree with you, then. If gun control can be effective at making guns much harder to get, I think it would work. If not, obviously, it can't.

I_Should_Be_Working_Right_Now:

So it's not so much that you care about personal freedoms granted in the Constitution as that you like to own a gun? Why even bother to bring up the Second Amendment argument, then? Or does that amendment mean more to you than the first and fourth?

Or do you feel that the violation of that amendment by making guns available but traceable is more severe than the violation of the Fourth Amendment by, you know, completely violating the Fourth Amendment?

As always (well, no, sometimes this isn't true), I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm just curious what you really believe (as opposed to what you'll say in an argument).
 
2006-08-28 06:31:57 PM
junkee

the language is clear. read it. and it's not the language of the first amendment, jebus.


What...the phrase "the people" means something totally different in the 2nd amendment than it does in all the rest of them? In the context of the constitution as a whole, "the people" refers to every individual in this country. Strange how it can all of a sudden mean something totally different when you have an inordinate fear of firearms.

/point and laugh at junkee
 
2006-08-28 06:32:01 PM
Good points schling and Viator

I was a cop for 10 years, and am also in the Army now. The people are the government. The same peopole that uidzeor hates are the government. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It has been and always should be the case that the people of the United States make up their government, not some high minded elite that knows what's better for us (as uidzero seems to think is the case). In the Army, they joke all the time with the "I'm with the government, I'm here to help" line.
 
2006-08-28 06:32:28 PM
the second amendment says that, because it's necessary to have a WELL-REGULATED militia to protect the security of the STATE (meaning nation in this use), THE PEOPLE (collectively, not individual dumbfark trailer park morons with 3 inch cocks) shouldn't be deprived of the right to bear arms.

Actually the supreme court has generally upheld that ALL amendments in the bill of rights are PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL rights.
 
2006-08-28 06:32:54 PM
KickahaOta
I support a variant of this law: All lobbyists must stamp their serial numbers on politicians as they're bribed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
WOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOO
LOL even
 
2006-08-28 06:32:59 PM
2006-08-28 06:24:39 PM uidzero

And that I fully recognize that people do try and break into people's houses and do bad things to them?

How often does that happen, really? I've had my car stereo stolen 4 times, had my house burglarized 3 times, and even been mugged. I've never needed a gun, why do you?


LOL, Seems to me like you could use a gun lol. I'll shoot the first burglar that enters my home. I doubt that there would be 2 more after that.
 
2006-08-28 06:33:16 PM
"As shown by the current state of affairs in this country. Are you as upset about warrantless wiretapping as I am?" They want to listen in on my phone conversation they are going to be mighty farking bored quickly and move on. All of this so called un-warrented wire taps was not a big deal except to the dumocrats who are guilty of the same violations. You gave up a lot of the day you got a social security number.....get used to it.
 
2006-08-28 06:33:26 PM
All I'm saying; GUN owners, please take an active and constructive roll in helping our country develop laws and programs that get guns OUT of the hands of criminals. Who other than you has more knowledge of what we might put in place. Honestly, if you are not planning to commit a crime; why should this hurt you? Can you think of nothing better to do than to shrug, throw your hands in the air and say "get your stinking paws OFF my guns" evertime there is a tragedy?

Again, I am 100% pro the right to own a gun. With rights come responsibilities!
 
2006-08-28 06:34:41 PM
junkee:

Amendment I, in part: Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

Amendment II, in part: ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Looks the same to me.
 
2006-08-28 06:35:13 PM
2 obvious flaws:

#1) This is California only. So all someone has to do is visit Oregon, Nevada or Arizona to buy a gun.

#2) It does nothing about the hundreds of millions of guns already available.
 
2006-08-28 06:35:28 PM
Gah!: Yes, and drunk driving causes accidents, but the laws don't stop people from actually getting in the car and driving drunk, therefore we should remove all those laws because they don't do any good...

Bad analogy. Drunk-driving laws punish drunk drivers for driving drunk and/or causing an accident while driving drunk.

Gun control laws punish law-abiding gun owners while pretending that they'll stop crooks from getting ahold of guns.

A better analogy would be a law that requires all drivers to put a $500 device on their cars to detect intoxication. It doesn't work right, is easily bypassed and keep sober users from driving when they need to or pushes production costs so high they can't afford a car in the first place.

Let's couple this with intrusive, unconstitutional state laws in which someone wanting to buy a car has to demonstrate not that they can drive safely, but that they really NEED to drive according to the state's arbitrary criteria.
 
2006-08-28 06:36:01 PM
Do we wait until the drunk driver has actually hit someone before pulling them over?

Like I said uidzero, I was a cop. In a word to that question. YES. You have to wait for the asshat to do something wrong before you take action. If you fall into the trap that laws are there to "prevent" crime, then you caan go on endlessly about how to make your laws more effective. If you understand that the intent of laws are to provide redress for actions, then you have an understanding for what it means to live in freedom.
 
2006-08-28 06:36:29 PM
BrotherTheodore:

"The rifle used in the Martin Luther King assassination was test fired 18 times under court supervision, and the results showed that no two bullets were marked alike. 'Every test bullet was different because it was going over plating created by the previous bullet.'" ("Ballistics 'fingerprinting' not foolproof", Baltimore Sun, October 15, 2002)

As much as I think the argument for gun control is heavily flawed at best, ballistic fingerprinting just doesn't work. In fact, per the same article and validated, ("NY ballistic database firing blanks?", Associated Press, June 3, 2004) New York has not had a single arrest or conviction from balistic fingerprints.

Research graciously stolen from gunfacts.info
 
2006-08-28 06:36:35 PM
uidzeroNo matter how opressive, a couple of yahoos with tv beerguts who love to hold a metal phallis in their hands aren't going to somehow stop the government and save America. The government has firepower so superior it's not even worth discussing.

So are we winning or losing in Iraq and Afghanistan? What about Vietnam?

Of course you make the same tired mistake in assuming that is the shiat did really come down, that the US militay would be 100% on the side of the government. Civil wars don't typically work that way.
 
2006-08-28 06:36:50 PM
I_Make_Jebus_Cry: Maybe its because I'm overly cautious, or maybe it's because I follow directions.

I load all my high-pressure cartridges a maximum of 3 times. Low-pressure rounds I load 10 times max.


With 2.7 grains of Bullseye and a soft lead bullet, I don't know that I could ever wear out a 38 case. I always look for split necks and loose primer pockets, but I haven't found any yet. I am much pickier wih my rifle brass, I had some very old 30-40 Krag brass that split the first time I loaded it, and that was a light load of H4895.
 
2006-08-28 06:37:03 PM
uidzero

You fail as a troll. DIAF.

/If you're serious, then I'm glad I'm no longer a democrat
//Not a republican, either
///Party line toting jackasses like uidzero are why I own guns.
 
2006-08-28 06:37:07 PM
Uidzero-"How often does that happen, really? I've had my car stereo stolen 4 times, had my house burglarized 3 times, and even been mugged. I've never needed a gun, why do you?"

Because not everybody is lucky enough to survive a violent assault by a vicious predator, and you'll excuse me if I don't care to be completely at the mercy of such a person.

Regardless of what you may think, there are lots of average people DO make intelligent choices about owning firearms, and the vast majority of gun owners never hurt anybody with them. They also occasionally put them to good use in preventing themselves from becoming another tragic statistic.
 
2006-08-28 06:37:21 PM
junkee: the second amendment says that, because it's necessary to have a WELL-REGULATED militia to protect the security of the STATE (meaning nation in this use), THE PEOPLE (collectively, not individual dumbfark trailer park morons with 3 inch cocks) shouldn't be deprived of the right to bear arms.

Riiiiiight. All the other amendments in the bill of rights protect the rights of the individual. But the second protects the right of the states.

Look! A unicorn!
 
2006-08-28 06:37:25 PM
KrispyKringle

So it's not so much that you care about personal freedoms granted in the Constitution as that you like to own a gun? Why even bother to bring up the Second Amendment argument, then? Or does that amendment mean more to you than the first and fourth?


Allow me to answer this one for you.

The problem here is not that gun owners are only worried about the 2nd amendment. It is that the ANTI-GUN crowd is. You see, I support everyone's rights. You have the right to disagree with me. You even have the right to protest the fact that I own guns.

The wierd thing is, I would actually support your protest of my owning guns because you have the RIGHT to do so, and to deny you of your right to protest would be in violation of your 1st amendment rights.

Why the fark can't the anti-gun crowd grasp this concept??!?!?!

I have the exact same rights as everyone else. Your personal FEELINGS mean nothing as it pertains to rights. No one ever said you have the right to not be offended by something....and your rights are certainly no more, and no less, important than mine.

Why is it then, that the anti-gun crowd seems to think that their rights are superior to mine, and why can they not recognize the fact that the 2nd amendment is every bit as important as the 1st and 4th?
 
2006-08-28 06:37:55 PM
How's that militia coming along?
 
2006-08-28 06:39:01 PM
JADOS,

Honestly, if you are not planning to commit a crime; why should this hurt you?

It makes guns more expensive for me to buy, and it does nothing to reduce crime.

All I'm saying; GUN owners, please take an active and constructive roll in helping our country develop laws and programs that get guns OUT of the hands of criminals.

I don't worry about getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminals are able to do plenty of damage without guns.

I worry about the crime problem. That's the root of the matter.

Getting guns out of the hands of criminals is equivalent to putting a bandaid on an open femoral.

This country is heavily divided into haves and have-nots with a steadily shrinking middle-class. The more this trend increases, the worse the crime problem is going to get, guns or no guns. Enacting social and fiscal policies that create a strong middle class without such large class divisions and provide for quality education and safety nets for all citizens would do 10,000 times more for safety in this country than getting rid of guns.
 
Displayed 50 of 760 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report