chuckufarlie: gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: Are you saying that the German people KNEW that the Reichstag Fire was a conspiracy AT THE TIME?

And even if it hadn't been a "false flag", would that have made any difference as far as Hitler's power grab was concerned?

You need to defuddle your befuddlements and THINK for a moment.

I really don't get this. Are you saying it shouldn't matter whether or not this (Sandy Hook) was a planned false flag attack because its going to be used opportunistically? Is that what you're saying?

Because I think there are some parents of soem dead kids who would be interested to know if their kids were deliberately murdered by the US government as a part of an authoritarian gun grab.

Yes, I think that would be a piece of information they would consider highly relevant.

NO, THIS WAYS NOT A FALSE FLAG ATTACK.

Is that plain enough for anybody stupid enough to even consider the idea?

Mouldy Squid: qorkfiend: Mouldy Squid: ...

What are the penalties for failure to comply? I think a large portion of the problems us Americans have stem from the lack of interest in enforcing laws already on the books.

Well, it's situational, but can range from minor fines to losing my firearms license to confiscation of the firearms without compensation to prohibition of ownership of firearms for life to hard time. IANAL, but if this had happened in Canada and it can be shown that the mother did not store the firearms correctly, at the very least she would be banned from ever owning a firearm again and could possibly be charged with accessory to murder, manslaughter, depraved indifference to human life, criminal negligence causing death. It would be unlikely that murder charges would be filed by the Crown, but it could happen.

Except the mother is dead, so how would those laws have been a deterrent from what happened?

chuckufarlie: Geotpf: Under current Supreme Court rulings, it is unconstitutional to ban any weapon currently in common civilian use. The weapons used in the massacre were common civlian weapons.

So we change that. The idea that it cannot be banned just because it is common use is ignorant. There needs to be a more intelligent guideline than that.

I don't think the Supreme Court could be classified as "ignorant". They made the rule, not me, and they get to decide these things.

chuckufarlie: Geotpf: Under current Supreme Court rulings, it is unconstitutional to ban any weapon currently in common civilian use. The weapons used in the massacre were common civlian weapons.

So we change that. The idea that it cannot be banned just because it is common use is ignorant. There needs to be a more intelligent guideline than that.


Question to all:

If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?

Bendal: KellyX: chuckufarlie: KellyX: InmanRoshi: Benjamin Orr: Do you even know what semi-auto means? Lets start there first.

The kind that lets you blow away 20 children in under 2 minutes. There's a start.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

seriously? You do not know enough about semi-autos that you are asking for a citation? Look at the rate of fire. The other component is the shooters accuracy and you will not see any citation for that. A sustained rate of aimed fire of ten rounds a minute is well within the parameter of most, if not all, semi-auto rifles.

Heh, my objection is that it wasn't done in 2 minutes flat, that's just exaggeration.

Frankly, I still haven't heard what weapon was ACTUALLY used in the shootings and I've heard he had a rifle on him, or a rifle was in the car, or both...

Then you're deliberately avoiding the facts. The gunman used the Bushmaster to kill everyone but himself. This was reported at least as early as Monday, about the same time that one of the coroners stated that the children he examined had all been shot 5-11 times.

Not in the least bit, if there's been additional details, then I'm ignorant of them as of this morning.

Cause last I had read was the AR-15, Sig (dunno caliber) and Glock (dunno caliber) were involved, I did not know which was used as the primary weapon and I kept reading conflicting reports that a rifle was found on him, rifle was found in the car, etc. but still am not aware of WHICH was the primary weapon used in the shootings.

So sorry after 3 days of this being beamed into my head that I didn't read the farking coroners report yesterday morning to get the latest farking details

InmanRoshi: So we don't need big government to impose more gun regulations, but we need big government giving licensed health officials more ability to lock up citizens against their (and their family and caregivers') will.

Yeah, I can just see how gun fetishists are going to love being locked in a padded cell because their doomsday, fall-of-society daydreams flags them on a Paranoid Personality Disorder screening.

Ted Kaczynski's family knew something was wrong with him but honestly didnt know what to do. If they were empowered with the ability to have him checked out by a professional with a full mental eval paid for by the governement with no consent needed by Ted, do you think it might have saved a few lives? Maybe?

Theres no gun control in the world that would have slowed crazy ol Ted down. As for gun fetishist it will be a good news bad news situation. Good news is you can keep your arsenal. Bad news is, sit down on this couch and tell me how yer feeling, no, really.

/as a bonus the scientologist will ABSOLUTELY freak the fark out.

chuckufarlie: Geotpf: chuckufarlie: dittybopper: Ardilla: Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

I think all constitutional rights, including the rights enumerated in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and perhaps Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all have an ongoing cost in human lives. For example, we have decided as a society that requiring the police to get a warrant before searching a home for evidence of a crime is a protection worth having, despite the fact that untold numbers of people have died because the police couldn't gather the evidence they needed to arrest a criminal, or if they did, that evidence was tossed out of court.

Does the Second Amendment have a cost? Absolutely it does, and at times like this, that cost is especially painful. But there is a reason why it's written into the founding document of this nation, and it has nothing to do with recreation. If you think it no longer applies, feel free to try and get it repealed through the proper mechanism.

I will not fault you for that.

Don't try to side-step it, however, with the excuse "it's for the children!".

The 2nd Amendment is out of date. It serves no purpose.

Do you have children? Would you be happy to have them shot down as part of the cost for having an outdated Amendment? Yea, I didn't think so.

It is not side stepping it

The third amendment is completely obsolete, yet it is still law of the land. To ban guns at this point, you need to amend the constitution, which, IMHO, is politically impossible. If you try to do it without amending the constitution, you will be doing it illegally (and probably trigger a civil war).

A civil war? Are you out of your tiny little mind.

You did not answer my question - would you be okay with the idea if your children were part of the price we pay for the 2nd Amendment.

The fact that you wrote third when you meant second is very telling.

If you attempt to take the guns of every gun owner in the country, you will trigger a civil war. Guaranteed.

Bendal: Except the mother is dead, so how would those laws have been a deterrent from what happened?

The idea would be that she might have stored the guns in, say, a gun safe away from her son.

You do know what 'deterrent' means, right? And that it's different than 'punishment'?

sprawl15: Irrelevant to the example I gave - a captive bolt pistol's sole purpose is killing living things. Killing things is also its primary purpose. Stop sidestepping and address it.

I really don't see the point. I'm not sidestepping anything. When people start using captive bolt pistols to attack other people we can talk about it.

sprawl15: I used killing things in the example of the captive bolt pistol because it's a far narrower classification. A chainsaw's purpose is destructive, but not in the sense of killing living creatures, and neither of us would say that its destructive purpose requires it to be regulated as a firearm. So I went out of my way to actually couch your argument in terms that actually make sense. Are you really taking offense that I'm using narrower criteria that favors your argument? If you want, I can assume you're arguing that a pickaxe should be regulated like a gun. I'd rather not, though.

I don't understand why you're trying to tie two arguments together. This whole back and forth started because I called out the crap "cars kill more people" argument. Its different from the regulation/effects on society discussion.

sprawl15: Exactly. Because you're not ultimately talking about the purpose of manufacture or capability of the device like you think you are. You're actually talking about societal risk which is independent of either of those. Were you talking about the purpose or capability of a device being the determining factor of regulation, captive bolt pistols would need to be regulated just like a firearm. But you recognize that - fundamentally - as an idiotic thing to do. Which is fine, it means you're learning.

Again, the "purpose" argument pertained to the BS car argument I was calling out. I'm not trying to mix "purpose" into the regulation discussion at all. I appreciate your pedantry, though.


sprawl15: Your actual argument is about risk to society. And when you honestly admit that, your perspective shifts to one that says "Hey, how can we reduce the risk to society of the existence of firearms?" Rather than "Damn, firearms, you scary!"

I never said "Damn, firearms, you scary!" I'm not scared of them at all; I enjoy going to the range and I actually think guns are interesting. I just have the mental capacity to realize that "because they are fun" is kind of a weak ass counterweight to everything that's been going on. I fully admit that my position is to deal with firearms in a way that addresses their risk to society vs their utility. That's the point.

Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore.

The guns that are currently on the books can be changed. Maybe you are not aware of that simple fact.

Yes they can... but all you have to do is look around these threads and see people advocating for laws that already exist. Sometimes advocating for laws weaker than the ones that currently exist.

You should probably work on reading the posts you respond to before responding.

Gee, dumbass, I did read the post before I responded. I responded to your post. Now, if you had quoted some of the posts that you were "thinking" about, you would have been better served. All you did do was make a blanket statement. Or are you under the impression that we can read you mind? It would be a short read, at best, but none of us have that ability.

Then maybe you should work on your reading comprehension then.

Shouldn't you be off practicing your trigger finger? Must be hard work to be able to shoot a semi-automatic as fast a fully-automatic like you can.

so, you are sticking to your stupidity. Good for you. Why not go full retard, you seem the type.

This was your post that I responded to: "I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore."

So tell me Einstein, how do you propose that I have a reading comprehension problem based on your small post with no references? What is there in that statement that would tell anybody which posts you were referring to? Want to try another stupid excuse? I have a feeling that stupid is all you have to offer.

Oh, and I meant third. The third amendment (regarding the quarting of troops in one's home is obsolete). You think the second amendment is obsolete; I disagree. My point was that even if it was, it is still law of the land.

Summoner101: Guns don't kill people, people kill people (and monkeys do too if they have a gun).

It's just guns allow those people to kill those people so much more efficiently. 

FTFY

gilgigamesh: NEDM: guestguy:
That doesn't exactly matter if you're firing into a group of people trying to take out as many as possible now does it?

Yeah, it does. When guns recoil, they jump upwards. If you try and shoot full auto, you'll very quickly be simply shooting thin air. Which goes back to what dittybopper said: It's only military use is to keep people pinned down to avoid it. And even then, you have to shoot it from a gun that can handle the recoil with proper bracing, and still fire bursts. Even from a machine gun.

Blind rapid fire will always be inferior to aimed shots when you're trying to hit a target. That's a simple physical fact, no need for fear mongering.

/this is just discussing the act of it, not touching any laws relating to said guns

This is interesting.

But what if you are randomly firing into a crowd? Seems aim is less important if everything in front of you is a target.

The point is that you start shooting higher and higher meaning that you are shooting several feet above everyones heads pretty soon. The Rambo style shooting you see in the movies just doesn't happen in real life.

That being said.... yeah we don't need fully automatic guns out in the general population.

gilgigamesh: Amos Quito: If this crazy asshole had hijacked a school bus and slammed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, killing all of the children on board, would you be calling for a ban on buses?

Why or why not?

ANSWER:

That didn't happen, he shot a bunch of kids to death, and your hypothetical is stupid.

Hypothetical, but that's meant to cause you to think... If that had happened, they'd start talking about some kind of enclosed drivers section with a kill switch instead of mental healthcare reform in this country, cause that's a problem affecting us not just in these gun killings, but in other aspects of our lives here in America.

Different thread.... same arguments. OK, here goes.....

There are many different issues at play here. Trying to focus on a single one as a potential "fix" to the problem will not work. To name just a few, firearms, mental health, education, and public policy, are all in play. It is a complex issue with many moving parts. You address one issue, it affects another. So, when we talk about gun ownership, or the pros and cons of assault weapons, or the 2nd amendment, or arming teachers/administrators, we are missing the larger picture. Sure, each of these issues needs to be discussed, and as a nation we need to take a long hard look at where we have come and where we want to go. But, this cannot just be about guns. We have to discuss the way mental health is addressed in this nation. There has to be a discussion of how we can better identify and meet the needs of those who suffer from mental illnesses. And we cannot have that discussion unless we are willing to discuss tax rates and public health initiatives. And, of course, we can't do that unless we are are willing to set aside our knee-jerk political responses, stop thinking as Republicans and Democrats, and find some actual middle ground. Or, we could just continue with herp and derp.

sprawl15: Bendal: Except the mother is dead, so how would those laws have been a deterrent from what happened?

The idea would be that she might have stored the guns in, say, a gun safe away from her son.

You do know what 'deterrent' means, right? And that it's different than 'punishment'?

I thought that it was already determined that she had these weapons (and others) in a gun safe?

Geotpf: Oh, and I meant third. The third amendment (regarding the quarting of troops in one's home is obsolete). You think the second amendment is obsolete; I disagree. My point was that even if it was, it is still law of the land.

The third amendment has absolutely no impact on anybody. The second amendment does.

The law of the land can be changed. I guess that you are just not sharp enough to realize that we are talking about changing the laws. Did you notice that I said that the semi-autos SHOULD be banned and not that they ARE banned. To any reasonably intelligent person, that means I am suggesting a change to the current law.

Anybody who responds with "it is still the law of the land" is either a child or a moron. Or a moronic child.

gilgigamesh:
This is interesting.

But what if you are randomly firing into a crowd? Seems aim is less important if everything in front of you is a target.

As I said, recoil. You'd be effectively firing randomly into the crowd by the 4th shot, if not already spraying above their heads. You might hurt some people, yes, but you would hurt more if you took the time to aim and fired single shots. Again, that's just simple physics. It's easier to compensate for the recoil of one shot every 2 seconds than it is for 15 or more in that same span of time.

Emplaced machine guns, however, are an exception to this. They have the bracing to be able to have semi-accurate fire. They're still not going to be very accurate firing full auto, but would be infinitely moreso than trying to control a full-auto gun with your body. Most people just don't have the physical capability to control such a weapon, which is why the military doesn't bother with it on their standard infantry weapons. Even when they did, the soldiers wound up firing in bursts when they weren't giving suppressive fire.

Kentucky Fried Panda: Different thread.... same arguments. OK, here goes.....

There are many different issues at play here. Trying to focus on a single one as a potential "fix" to the problem will not work. To name just a few, firearms, mental health, education, and public policy, are all in play. It is a complex issue with many moving parts. You address one issue, it affects another. So, when we talk about gun ownership, or the pros and cons of assault weapons, or the 2nd amendment, or arming teachers/administrators, we are missing the larger picture. Sure, each of these issues needs to be discussed, and as a nation we need to take a long hard look at where we have come and where we want to go. But, this cannot just be about guns. We have to discuss the way mental health is addressed in this nation. There has to be a discussion of how we can better identify and meet the needs of those who suffer from mental illnesses. And we cannot have that discussion unless we are willing to discuss tax rates and public health initiatives. And, of course, we can't do that unless we are are willing to set aside our knee-jerk political responses, stop thinking as Republicans and Democrats, and find some actual middle ground. Or, we could just continue with herp and derp.

Kinda wasting our breath I think.

orclover: I thought that it was already determined that she had these weapons (and others) in a gun safe?

No idea, there's so many ridiculously conflicting news reports that it's going to be farking impossible to know what Actually Happened for a couple weeks.

But the operating words being 'away from her son'. I doubt he was an expert safe cracker or used explosives to blow his way in.

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore.

The guns that are currently on the books can be changed. Maybe you are not aware of that simple fact.

Yes they can... but all you have to do is look around these threads and see people advocating for laws that already exist. Sometimes advocating for laws weaker than the ones that currently exist.

You should probably work on reading the posts you respond to before responding.

Gee, dumbass, I did read the post before I responded. I responded to your post. Now, if you had quoted some of the posts that you were "thinking" about, you would have been better served. All you did do was make a blanket statement. Or are you under the impression that we can read you mind? It would be a short read, at best, but none of us have that ability.

Then maybe you should work on your reading comprehension then.

Shouldn't you be off practicing your trigger finger? Must be hard work to be able to shoot a semi-automatic as fast a fully-automatic like you can.

so, you are sticking to your stupidity. Good for you. Why not go full retard, you seem the type.

This was your post that I responded to: "I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore."

So tell me Einstein, how do you propose that I have a reading comprehension problem based on your small post with no references? What is there in that statement that would tell anybody which posts you were referring to? Want to try another stupid excuse? I have a feeling that stupid is all you have to offer.

Still not practicing your amazing trigger finger? How do you keep it so fast?

Your first thought was to post "The guns that are currently on the books can be changed. Maybe you are not aware of that simple fact."

How is that in any way a response to what I posted? Did I say we have enough laws? Did I say laws can never be changed?

Geotpf: chuckufarlie: Geotpf: chuckufarlie: dittybopper: Ardilla: Do you think your "rights" to engage in a leisure activity are more important than the rights of those 20 children and 6 adults.

I think all constitutional rights, including the rights enumerated in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and perhaps Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all have an ongoing cost in human lives. For example, we have decided as a society that requiring the police to get a warrant before searching a home for evidence of a crime is a protection worth having, despite the fact that untold numbers of people have died because the police couldn't gather the evidence they needed to arrest a criminal, or if they did, that evidence was tossed out of court.

Does the Second Amendment have a cost? Absolutely it does, and at times like this, that cost is especially painful. But there is a reason why it's written into the founding document of this nation, and it has nothing to do with recreation. If you think it no longer applies, feel free to try and get it repealed through the proper mechanism.

I will not fault you for that.

Don't try to side-step it, however, with the excuse "it's for the children!".

The 2nd Amendment is out of date. It serves no purpose.

Do you have children? Would you be happy to have them shot down as part of the cost for having an outdated Amendment? Yea, I didn't think so.

It is not side stepping it

The third amendment is completely obsolete, yet it is still law of the land. To ban guns at this point, you need to amend the constitution, which, IMHO, is politically impossible. If you try to do it without amending the constitution, you will be doing it illegally (and probably trigger a civil war).

A civil war? Are you out of your tiny little mind.

You did not answer my question - would you be okay with the idea if your children were part of the price we pay for the 2nd Amendment.

The fact that you wrote third when you meant second is very telling.

If you at ...

I did not suggest that we take all guns, just the ones who serve no purpose beyond killing people.

If you think something like that would start a civil war, you have been paying too much attention to your militia buddies. But that war would make it a lot faster to locate the rifles, the FBI could gather them up after they shoot you down.

But it is not going to happen.

NEDM: doesn't bother with it on their standard infantry weapons

And by that I mean the standard-issue infantryman weapon. The gun that most grunts have.

Dr Dreidel: So can we talk about how to make guns safer now? What's the threshhold for "number of people killed in a single handgun/rifle attack" before we can have that conversation, or is that based only on the NRA's legislative schedule?

Gun safety means that the person firing doesn't get injured or shoot somebody he didn't mean to shoot. The shooter meant to shoot everybody who he shot.

You can't ban guns because the Supreme Court says you can't-plus it wouldn't even pass either house of Congress, nor be popular amoungst the majority of Americans. We can have a convensation all we want, but it's all moot-it's not going to happen.

I think banning 30 round magazines might even be unconstitutional under current Supreme Court rulings, since thier test is whether or not they are in common civilian use and they are.

iron_city_ap: There were an estimated 42 mass shootings in the 90's and 26 in the 00's. A BIG part is the perception they are on the rise thanks to the media's non stop barrage of coverage.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/associated-press-story-believe-it-or- n ot-mass-killings-are-not-on-the-rise-they-are-on-the-decline/

IIRC, in the latest 5 (Tucson, Aurora, Milwaukee, Seattle, and CT), they all occurred in areas where its illegal to carry. Could be wrong but I thought I remember seeing that somewhere.

Wow. All the way down to a mere 26 massacres per decade. Why, that's only one every four and a half months. Time to celebrate!

Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore.

The guns that are currently on the books can be changed. Maybe you are not aware of that simple fact.

Yes they can... but all you have to do is look around these threads and see people advocating for laws that already exist. Sometimes advocating for laws weaker than the ones that currently exist.

You should probably work on reading the posts you respond to before responding.

Gee, dumbass, I did read the post before I responded. I responded to your post. Now, if you had quoted some of the posts that you were "thinking" about, you would have been better served. All you did do was make a blanket statement. Or are you under the impression that we can read you mind? It would be a short read, at best, but none of us have that ability.

Then maybe you should work on your reading comprehension then.

Shouldn't you be off practicing your trigger finger? Must be hard work to be able to shoot a semi-automatic as fast a fully-automatic like you can.

so, you are sticking to your stupidity. Good for you. Why not go full retard, you seem the type.

This was your post that I responded to: "I love how the people who want to ban/restrict guns know almost nothing about guns or the laws currently on the books. You guys are just like Nancy Reagan and Tipper Gore."

So tell me Einstein, how do you propose that I have a reading comprehension problem based on your small post with no references? What is there in that statement that would tell anybody which posts you were referring to? Want to try another stupid excuse? I have a feeling that stupid is all you have to offer.

Still not practicing your amazing trigger finger? How do you keep it so fast?

Your first thought was to post "The guns that are currently on the books ...

Your statement was vague and open to interpretation. I would suggest that you be more precise in your future statements and stop being so vague. Then maybe you could be man enough to stop blaming others for your shortcomings.

For all the people who want to limit magazine capacity... what is the appropriate limit?

Benjamin Orr: For all the people who want to limit magazine capacity... what is the appropriate limit?

I think 3 is reasonable

Oh chuckie... it didn't take long for you to bring out the penis attacks

Benjamin Orr: For all the people who want to limit magazine capacity... what is the appropriate limit?

are we including pamphlets too?

chuckufarlie: I did not suggest that we take all guns, just the ones who serve no purpose beyond killing people.

Every gun can be used for target practice, so none would qualify under your rule.

Lots of people buy semi-automatic rifles (like the Bushmaster in question) to fire them at a gun range.

They also buy them for inflated self-protection reasons ("doomsday preppers", like the gunman's mother), and sometimes even to hunt with.

CPennypacker: Benjamin Orr: For all the people who want to limit magazine capacity... what is the appropriate limit?

I think 3 is reasonable

:)

That would make reloading a lot more of an issue I grant you that much. Does that mean that revolvers would have that same limit as well?

(Not even going to get into the logistics of how we would get all of the existing guns/magazines melted down)

Kentucky Fried Panda: Different thread.... same arguments. OK, here goes.....

There are many different issues at play here. Trying to focus on a single one as a potential "fix" to the problem will not work. To name just a few, firearms, mental health, education, and public policy, are all in play. It is a complex issue with many moving parts. You address one issue, it affects another. So, when we talk about gun ownership, or the pros and cons of assault weapons, or the 2nd amendment, or arming teachers/administrators, we are missing the larger picture. Sure, each of these issues needs to be discussed, and as a nation we need to take a long hard look at where we have come and where we want to go. But, this cannot just be about guns. We have to discuss the way mental health is addressed in this nation. There has to be a discussion of how we can better identify and meet the needs of those who suffer from mental illnesses. And we cannot have that discussion unless we are willing to discuss tax rates and public health initiatives. And, of course, we can't do that unless we are are willing to set aside our knee-jerk political responses, stop thinking as Republicans and Democrats, and find some actual middle ground. Or, we could just continue with herp and derp.

Absolutely. We need to make broad, societal changes if we're going to prevent more massacres like this one. And it won't happen overnight. It might require a constitutional amendment or two. It shouldn't be done hastily; it should be done thoughtfully. I don't claim to have all the answers. But we need to address all the things you've mentioned. Given the magnitude of the problems we face, we need to at least start moving in the right direction.

Benjamin Orr: Oh chuckie... it didn't take long for you to bring out the penis attacks

shortcomings was a reference to your inability to express yourself clearly and completely. It was not a reference to your penis. You seem fixated on penises.

gilgigamesh: Benjamin Orr: The point is that you start shooting higher and higher meaning that you are shooting several feet above everyones heads pretty soon. The Rambo style shooting you see in the movies just doesn't happen in real life.

Oh ok that makes sense. I've never fired a fully automatic weapon (and I guess I never will since I am not in the military and they're illegal), but that follows logically from my experience shooting semi-autos.

Call your local gun ranges and see if they have rentals, see if they have any full auto's that they rent (wont be cheap), you might be surprised. When you fire it you will feel a bit of exhilaration and wonder, bout like taking a sports car to redline. For 3 seconds. This will soon be tempered with the knowledge that you just blew $20 bucks in 3 seconds, and that was just the price for the ammo. You can get a tax permit for a full auto weapon with a bit of paperwork and $200, I know a few people personally who collect them and they have never been visited by secret service when the president comes through town so thats a load of hooey. But yea if you ask around the gun shops or ranges where you can fire one (on the range obviously) you will probably find a place. Be ready to pay up front and sign waivers.

Ok back to the flamewar!

Every gun can be used for hunting. Every gun can be used for murder. Arguing over which ones are better than others is just arguing over which drug/drink/car/comic/movie you like better.

chuckufarlie: Benjamin Orr: Oh chuckie... it didn't take long for you to bring out the penis attacks

shortcomings was a reference to your inability to express yourself clearly and completely. It was not a reference to your penis. You seem fixated on penises.

Your mom was fixated on my penis last night